The great rebellion ended as we know in 73 CE. Three years earlier Jerusalem fell and with it the temple. In no temple there are no sacrifices and no ritual work, and as a result, the priesthood, the senior and the junior are supposed to disappear little by little from the political-social-economic and certainly the religious landscape of Jewish society. Was it so?
On the eve of the destruction, the state of the priesthood in Jerusalem was bad - its leaders were killed and sometimes brutally and after severe physical humiliation, junior priests were injured and killed during the fraternal war between the Zealots, others fell off guard during the Roman attack on the Zealots who fortified themselves in the Temple of His Body and not a few escaped during the Roman invasion and scattered everywhere .
In the last moves of the rebellion in Jerusalem and the heavy Roman siege, one of the Pharisee leaders, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakhai, was rewarded by his soul to do something - to save himself and his friends, associates and students and continue the embers elsewhere, and perhaps even bring about a real revolution in the traditional presidential dynasty.
The episode of the mysterious departure, shrouded in mystery, of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakai (hereafter - Ribaz) from Jerusalem Livna, is evidenced by several stories, drawn from legend, that are immersed in the Talmudic literature and not beyond it, not even in the writings of Yosef ben Matthiyehu, if we gather them together we will get, less or more the following picture: during the "exchange of fire" between the besiegers and the straits and vice versa, a kind of "flying correspondence" took place between Rivaz and the commanders of the Roman camp ("Vespesianus" according to Chazal sources, this is Vespesianus, who claims the crown of the Roman Empire, who in any case had already abandoned the command of the rebellion and entrusted it to his son Titus) in this way that Ribaz made sure to wrap arrows in a roll of papyrus, so to speak, and shoot them in the direction of the Romans. In these edicts it is said that "... that Ribaz is in love with Caesar", meaning that Ribaz planned his departure from Jerusalem well and lined up his rescue by announcing his support for the Romans. This move, which was launched in the seminary of one of the leaders of the Pharisees at the time, is certainly surprising in light of the support of the Pharisees, led by their leader - Rabbi Shimon ben Gamaliel in Merida.
The use of the expression "lovers of Caesar" is not casual and marginal. It appears many times in Roman terminology regarding persons who supported the Romans and the phrase is mentioned more than once, as Terminus Technicus, in Josephus.
When the connection between Ribaz and the Romans was severed, this is how it is in the Sage sources anyway, Ribaz decided to do something - to resemble a dead man, to be taken from Jerusalem on a stretcher for the deceased and to arrive somehow at the Roman camp. However, here a problem awaited the Ribaz - the zealots, especially the Sikris, guarded the city gates - "the gates of Dabba" in the language of the Sages, and would stab any corpse that was taken out of Jerusalem (by the way, where is the value of the honor of the deceased?!) to ensure a killing and even prevent attempts of Jews who are despairing of their fate and their fate will seek to escape from the Jerusalem hell and save what little of their money they have. Josephus tells of zealots who used to tear open bellies and bowels in order to extract gold coins, which the fugitives, disguised as the dead, sought to smuggle away. creepy!
In any case, Rabbi Z made sure that his "corpse" would not be stabbed as he relied on his family ties with one of the Sikri commanders - "Aba Sikra - Rish Brioni Diroshlem" (as it appears in the Sage literature - Gitin Nu p. XNUMX), who was his sister's son , and when this escape operation was being carried out, Ribaz hurried to meet with "Vespasianus" (as mentioned, one of the Roman commanders, and not the famous Vespasianus), prophesied to him that he would soon be Caesar and asked in exchange for the "prophecy" to move to Birch and establish a renewed spiritual center there.
This episode, which dates back to the year 70 CE, and is shrouded in legend, is strikingly similar to another event, a few years earlier, and refers to the personal surrender of Joseph ben Matthieu to the Romans at the end of the siege of Jodephat (67 CE). And more than that - the prophecy of Vespasian's exorcism is also embedded in the Yosef Beyodefet case. Did sage literature take Joseph's narrative as a model for the salvation of Rabbi Z? Were the two stories drawn from another source? Did neither this nor that really happen? There is no telling. In any case, one is seen as a traitor and the other as a savior and redeemer (pornography is a question of geography).
Rivaz therefore escapes himself from Jerusalem on the eve of the Holocaust, and with whom did he leave? He left with his senior students and companions, they are Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkanos, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hananiah, Rabbi Yossi the priest, Rabbi Shimon ben Nathaniel and Rabbi Eleazar ben Aruch.
Well, with the exception of Rabbi Yossi the priest and Rabbi Yehoshua who was from the Levi family, none of Ribaz's group was a priest, and this is not surprising, as we will immediately see later.
There are those who claim that Ribaz was a priest at all, basing himself on the interpretation of a single statement embedded in the Sage literature in Tosfa Pera. Most scholars agree that this is a person without attribution and certainly without any priestly connection.
It is impossible to know clearly and absolutely whether Ribaz's move from the besieged Jerusalem to Livna was his initiative or if it was an open Roman detention camp and that Ribaz was forced to move there by Roman order. In any case, Yavneh becomes the center of the Sanhedrin after the destruction, a sort of successor to Jerusalem. In these circumstances, when Rivaz is deprived of a title and affiliation, he is not a member of the High Priesthood and certainly not a scion of the presidential family, and he is interested in leading and leading the people as a leader, he cannot surround himself with the remnants of the High Priesthood in particular and the junior in general, such as would make it difficult for him to lead the people.
And here is a "cheeky" hypothesis, and it is based on the writings of Joseph ben Matthew. Hella says that the Romans prepared two sites outside of Jerusalem, a sort of open prison camps, for those who agreed to surrender and hand themselves over willingly to the Romans. One site was Yavneh - where Ribaz moved, or rather was transferred, and from there he began to cultivate his leadership. The second site was Gofna north of Jerusalem, and there they were taken... indeed... priests who had fled Jerusalem themselves. The Romans therefore used the "divide and rule" method to establish their control in Judah, and in the meantime two processes were going on at the same time: Ribaz was getting stronger in Yavne and the priests wanted to get stronger in Gofna, but the absence of the temple and its lack of renewal was too high an obstacle for the priests who wanted to beat Riv in the leadership race "G.
In light of this, it is possible to understand the following passage, which served as a bone of contention among researchers. The passage is a statement by Hanina the Deputy of the Priests in the Mishnah in this language: "I pray for the peace of the kingdom, that if no man feared his neighbor, he would be swallowed up alive." This statement seeks to reconcile with the Romans and come to terms with the suppression of the rebellion as well as to pacify and silence tensions that arose in Judea after the great rebellion. Until the Holocaust, the Jews used to sacrifice every day for the peace of the Roman Empire, and the cessation of the sacrifice symbolized the beginning of the rebellion against the Romans. There is no longer a temple and therefore no more sacrifices, but what remains, in the opinion of the deputy priests, is to continue the pre-destructive line and pray for the peace and security of the Roman Empire, when cracks that may form within it will surely affect the rise of rebellious spirits in Judea.
It seems to me that this anti-rebellious sentence is intended to weld the bridge of understanding between the priests and the Romans after the rebellion, also to overcome the attempts of the leadership of Ribaz.
A struggle of this kind resulted in the relegation of priests from the Rebbez's environment. Moreover, Ribaz belongs to the Pharisee school, which defined itself as a popular and conciliatory group, well removed from the conservative Sadducean line, and here is another reason, ideological this time, for the distance of the priests from the leadership mantle established by Ribaz.
In one case, Ribaz forces the Sadducee high priest to act according to the Pharisaic law regarding inheritance, for example. And this considering another course of power struggle between the Pharisee Rivaz and the Sadducean group.
Another matter, the fall of the temple was seen by extremist groups as a punishment from heaven for the sins of the people and the restoration of the temple seems very far away. Therefore, under these circumstances, it only seems logical to keep priests away from the environment of the Rebbez.
The struggle between the two sides was apparently fierce. The priests, those whose senior status during the Second Temple period was undermined, sought to take advantage of the complex situation after the destruction, when the Beit Gamliel dynasty (the official presidency) had almost disappeared (the president of the Beit Gamliel, the old Rabbi Shimon ben Gamaliel, was killed in the rebellion, and his son Hinoka was persecuted by the Romans), and take the leadership position. These sought to undermine Ribaz's status and to discredit his leadership, mainly against the background of the fact that he is not a priest and does not belong to the House of David (the Hillel family, and later the House of Gamaliel).
A firm struggle was thus created between the Pharisee Rabbi and the Sadducee priests - a real struggle for leadership. A struggle that ended up being won by Rivaz.
As an integral part of the struggle, Rivaz was interested in becoming the president of the Sanhedrin, and as evidenced by the fact that his practical title was "Rabbi" - a title reserved only for the traditional presidential family, probably under the patronage of the Romans, as was common here and there throughout the Roman Empire, in the possession of the separate-and-rule, and when he takes advantage of the The younger brother of the Hinuka president, Raban Gamliel, who was associated with his father's house that rebelled against the Romans and was therefore persecuted by them, actually led the Sanhedrin.
This is about rebellion, about a course of sophisticated usurpation, and no matter how we reverse the affair, we will not be able to cleanse Ribaz of the course of rebellion. Ribaz is running himself for the presidency in a rather rough way. This move was probably also convenient for the Romans and reflected the "separate-and-rule" method on their behalf, since the traditional, mythological presidency was tainted with anti-Roman rebellion on the one hand, and on the other hand, confirming Ribaz's presidency would present the Romans as collaborators with collaborators towards them, in terms of hand-washing-hand
Furthermore, Ribaz's regulations were cardinal, comprehensive regulations, usually attributed to and handed over to the Presidency, which have the potential to continue to tarnish him as a rebel, but no person like Ribaz would be afraid of this, as he surrounds himself with supportive factors and rejects dangerous factors. Rivaz's face was therefore married to greatness and dominance, and in such circumstances there is no place for a priesthood that could "spoil the party for him".
Ribaz also made sure to bring about a revolution in the composition of the Sanhedrin, where until the destruction we find Pharisees and Sadducees in it, and in Ribaz's structure the Sanhedrin was composed mostly of Pharisees. This is an organizational, somewhat political move, which allowed RIBZ to conduct its policy almost without interruption. Those who paid the price for this were, as mentioned, the priests.
The destruction of the Temple brought many people to total despair and a sense of suicide and helplessness, physically and mentally. In the Talmud (Avot Derbi Nathan 6:XNUMX) it is narrated as follows: "Once Rabbi Z was leaving Jerusalem and Rabbi Yehoshua was following him and saw a sword temple. Rabbi Yehoshua said: Woe to us because it is a sword, a place where the sins of Israel are atoned for. He (Rabbi XNUMX) said to him: My son, don't let it harm you, we have one atonement that is like it (we were equal to the work of the temple, to the offering of the sacrifices and from that to create the atonement lever), and which one is it? Rewarding kindnesses, as it is said (Hosea XNUMX:XNUMX): For kindness I desired and not sacrifice."
In the light of the above text, Ribaz is portrayed as someone who reconciles with the destruction of the house and offers pragmatic alternatives under its virtues. Ribaz therefore seeks to return Jewish society to some kind of normal state even in the absence of a temple, and in these circumstances he does not need the priesthood and in these circumstances he strengthens his position as a popular leader. Furthermore, the Ribaz's famous regulations regarding blowing the shofar on Rosh Hashanah, taking the Lulav in Sukkot, witnessing the month and more, were intended on the one hand to accustom society to life without a temple and on the other hand to remember and remind the destruction of the temple in order to hope that it will be rebuilt soon. The mention is of course symbolic and life without a temple is a completely practical prospectus.
These kinds of regulations are intended, on the one hand, to establish the leadership of Ribaz and, on the other hand, to reduce as much as possible the position of the priesthood, as someone who may endanger his leadership. It sounds apparently improper, but the destruction of the house was actually very convenient for Ribaz.
No wonder, then, that important priests are missing from Rabbi Z's seminary, those who served in important positions before the destruction, such as Rabbi Zadok and his son Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Shimon ben Hasegan and others.
Moreover, an examination of Sage sources reveals that there were few discussions in the Sanhedrin of the days of the Rabbis that referred to the priesthood, its status and especially the various practices that were involved in the priesthood of the House period. This phenomenon reflects the Rabbi's position, which somewhat ignores the priesthood, which could endanger his status, and especially an usurpative status after the destruction.
In the Mishnat Aedyot it is narrated as follows: "Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Yehuda ben Batira testified about the widow of Eisa (the widow of a person not from a privileged family, with whom priests from mothers not kosher for the priesthood mixed), that she is kosher for the priesthood... Rabbi Shimon ben Gamaliel said (and in another version - Rabbi Gamaliel) ... that Rabbi XNUMX decreed not to convene a court of law for this" (Adiots XNUMX:XNUMX). This case shows tensions between the Rabbis and the priesthood.
In another case, it is told about a priest from Beit Ramah who practiced persul himself (he maintained the purity of his lineage and the purity of his food) and Ribaz sent one of his students to him to test him.
In the first generation after the Holocaust, Ribaz therefore made sure to neutralize anyone who might have endangered and harmed his status. For this reason, we do not find senior or junior priests near the Rabbi's table, or function in the Sanhedrin. This was the second blow to the status of the priesthood since the beginning of the rebellion and destruction.
The series of articles "The Priesthood You Didn't Know" by Dr. Yehiam 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 XNUMX - The priesthood in Mim 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?
23 תגובות
Finny: Are you married??? Beautiful!" Peace and love" are made from home.
Regards.
I have read all the articles (until XNUMX) I hope there are more articles on the subject. A perusal of the articles reinforces the theory that Jesus (pbuh) was born, lived, died and was buried as a Jew. He was closer to the Pharisees than to the Sadducees, his death the result of a Sadducee-Roman intrigue.
Transferring these messages to the "masses" of both Christians and Jews (mainly Orthodox who continue the theological path of the Pharisees) may contribute to "peace and love"
between the Christians and the Jews even though the theological polemic will continue to exist.
Dr. Yachiam!
Thank you very much for all the efforts you put into writing and publishing.
I have an idea how to transfer the messages to larger masses
my mail pinyamar@walla.com
Best regards
Finny Amar
Hello to Dr. Sorek
The fact that Rabbi Z's seminary in Yavneh did not deal much with the laws of the priesthood and temple - (in parentheses it is not so clear that this is a fact and proof is still required, but for our purposes we will assume it is a fact) - there are additional explanations such as - immediately after the destruction, the Romans forbade any involvement with the temple issues for fear of another uprising.
Also, the assumption that Ribaz kept the priests away does not stand up to the test of percentages: 20% Levies and 20% priests sounds to me like a much higher percentage than the percentage of the population, especially since many priests were killed in the rebellion.
Why is it necessary to look for hidden motives in understanding the path of Rivaz? Why is it not possible to accept what is written in the Talmud literally or at least present the opinion of the Talmud as a thesis of equal value?
In particular, it is not clear to me how you come to the conclusion that Ribaz tried to enthrone himself instead of the presidential dynasty? During the years of Ribaz in Yavne, Rabbi Gamhiel was small and indeed when he grew up - the presidency was transferred to him. Where is the source of the opinion that Ribaz was not interested or opposed to this?
Best regards
my father
To Dr. Yachiam Shalom:
Indeed, the subject is complex, and the possibilities of response are relatively small, but in short, I will try to clarify somewhat the manner in which I relate to the historical subject in general and to the people of Israel in particular.
According to my understanding, there are two possibilities for some kind of historical reference.
The narrative one, which has no end.
And the scientific second that came to identify legality in everything that happened in the historical past, with the fundamental question: why did a historical event occur at a certain time.
If so, we are obliged to draw lessons (unlike other nations that generally remain on their land; the people of Israel cannot afford the destruction of another home) and the history of the people of Israel is characterized in the historical past by two exceptional cases of empowerment based on a sense of justice.
One of King David, at the beginning of his leadership, mainly the military.
and the second during the period of Judah the Maccabee (the Maccabee?)
In the two cases of the above-mentioned insurgencies, a generation later, the deterioration began when heirs and others began to enslave the people, without the appropriate legal ability to curb their trends.
And the consequences: during the period of the First Temple, the loss of ten tribes (we almost forgot), the destruction of the First and Second Temples, history knows how to tell about thousands of Hebrew slaves who built a prestigious building in Rome and its empire.
Montesquieu (the father of modern sociology), in his book on "The Spirit of the Laws" (Magnes Publishing House, Hebrew University), on page 144, chapter XNUMX explains, among other things, what is happening in countries that do not exist in the full power that characterized them upon their founding, about the growing corruption to the point of non-existence of state laws , and for a people that the owner of the wealth has adapted to himself little by little, with a thousand tricks and a thousand tricks, innumerable ways of plunder - exactly what took place during the First and Second Temple periods.
As a question in the spirit of science, whether in our time, it is possible to attribute to the characteristics of a parameter, a phenomenon such as the increasing number of evasions for army recruitment; Is this phenomenon and others the product of consequences and frustration, according to Montesquieu's teaching?
To Dr. Sorek, you give beautiful answers, and you made me go and check existing facts (various findings).
It can still be interpreted one way or the other, but the answers you gave are beautiful.
Hello Boaz
The term is Hellenic-Roman and appears in inscriptions and epigraphy. This is a terminus technicalus for the synagogue, a house of worship that sometimes turns into a temple. The main work in the ancient synagogues was based on the reading of the Torah and its interpretation. Prayer, especially public, congregational prayer, is a late phenomenon.
What is the difference between a house of prayer and a synagogue? (Sorry for the ignorance, I only know the situation as it currently exists)
Hello Boaz
I forgot the main thing:
The place is called Saqdiya (the letter 221 is shrunk and not shrunk from the Hirik language) and today - Kafar al-Dawar. The word teaching in Greek is raft. An interesting dedication inscription was indeed found there, the earliest of the dedication inscriptions in Egypt. It is dedicated to the family members of Ptolemy III Evergates I (246-XNUMX BC). This is a building, a building that the Jews erected according to Ptolemy's royal license and there is a high probability that it is a Jewish military settlement similar to the one in Arsinoe-Crocodilopolis. Prof. Aryeh Kosher is convinced that it is possible that the Jewish settlement in Sakadia is related to the maintenance of security on the delta sections leading to Alexandria
Hello Boaz
Do you know that much earlier, towards the middle of the second century BC, a temple was built in Egypt by the Khanio family and I published an article about this on this website.
There is a certain problem in the comparison between a house of prayer in general and a synagogue. The temple is often called a house of prayer.
I found this on the "Deat" website, for example. I am qouting:
"...Anyway, the fact that the earliest remains of churches were discovered in the diaspora, and not in Israel, is interesting. Admittedly, these remains are also not numerous. The earliest remnant of a synagogue is an Ionic inscription from the second half of the third century BC from Schidia near Alexandria in Egypt, and this software:
"The Jews dedicated this prayer house to King Ptolemy and Queen Bernica... and their children."
By dedicating the synagogue to the king, the Schidia community placed the synagogue under the patronage of the king."
Basic peace approaches
Please explain yourself. I'm tired of getting to the bottom of your mind!
Hello Boaz
You can read about those synagogues on the Internet to your heart's content, but archeologically no evidence was found for this, except for the period after 100 years after the destruction of the Second Temple and from then on.
However, you were right about the Sadducean aspect of the priests versus the Phariseeism of Rabbi Z. But with the destruction, all Sadducees lost their status and gradually eroded over the years until they almost disappeared.
Only a solid awareness of society's values are more improved than the aspects: starting from basic decency on the personal level to continuously upgraded values of law and justice; Only in this way can the resilience of a society and a people be permanently created: characteristics of this type are proven in many nations, starting with the values of justice at the beginning of David's leadership, continuing at the beginning of the Hasmonean kingdom, and among other nations, it is enough to mention the changes made by Taglat III in Assyria, the Athenian democracy, the St. The Roman, Genghis Khan, the English Parliament and also Napoleon (Napoleon Code), whoever ignores human historical legality described above, he simply lives in a reality located in the narrow circle of his private life.
In response to question 3: Were the first synagogues (in Israel and in the Diaspora) not erected before the destruction of the house? I see a lot of sources about it online.
Regarding the priests. You mentioned that Rabbi Z distanced himself from the priests. In my opinion, the support you brought for this from the identities of his students who left Jerusalem with him is not good. You mentioned the names of five students, two of whom are priests/Leviticus. In my opinion, this is not a bad percentage at all. Regarding the other students, maybe the title "cohen" is not attached to all priests and there are other priest students?
Also, is it possible that he distanced himself from the priests because a large number of them were Sadducees (and not because he wanted to rule, etc.)?
Amir Shalom
If Ribaz could have done so, he would have done so, but in the meantime there was a bilateral reconciliation between Rabbi Gamaliel's dynasty and the Roman government. The Romans were interested, as we see it in various places throughout the empire (and there are solid receipts for this) to entrust the autonomous government to traditional leadership dynasties , mythologies. I did not want to develop the point in my list so as not to slip into secondary, albeit important, districts in the main title of the series, and I will content myself with one comment - according to Sage Rabbi Gamaliel was invited to the Roman Commission in Syria to receive from them, from the Romans, the keys to the local government. It was the object of the Romans, and Ribaz found himself kicked out of his building.
I must point out that there is a collection of facts here that can be interpreted, Dr. Shurk's interpretation is one of many possible, the facts presented can be interpreted differently and additional facts can be added to them in order to strengthen the resulting picture.
History is indeed not an exact science and one must be careful not to shoot an arrow and draw a target from its surroundings, i.e. to interpret the facts according to previous opinions (or perhaps prejudices...-))
I'll give one example: after the Rebbaz, the reins returned to Rabbi Gamliel Dibna, if the Rebbaz had really wanted to rule, he would have tried to transfer the leadership and headship of the Sanhedrin to one of his distinguished students...
On the other hand, it should indeed be noted that there was "politics" in the leadership of the people, or one that is depicted as "politics"...-)
Do I have to explain?
Tears of speculation, placed side by side in rough seams of doubting facts,
and painted with cheap gouache colors to give a uniform look to the pulp,
Get the infantile paragraph from all the outpouring of fantasies spread before us -
"Regulations of this kind are intended, on the one hand, to establish the leadership of the Rebbez and, on the other hand, to reduce as much as possible the position of the priesthood, as someone who may endanger his leadership on his behalf. It sounds apparently improper, but the destruction of the house was actually very convenient for Ribaz."
Is any distortion allowed under a "scientific" guise? Is every deviant thought legitimate if the title "Dr" appears next to your name?
I understand that you have taken it upon yourself to be a "slaughterer" of "sacred cows" of any type and color (and especially if it is not your favorite color), but slaughtering a pig and saying "look at this lowly cow" is
A dangerous, ugly and disgusting thing.
By the way -
Why don't you tell the scholars of this respected site about the last moments of Ribaz's life? so it seems
According to the logic that leads your hypothesis in this "article" the description of Ribaz's last moments by Chazal came solely to establish Ribaz's "leadership".
It is too short to follow all the layers of deception scattered throughout this article and in many of the other articles in this series, so despite the displeasure caused to you - I would advise the intelligent reader to supplement his education from other sources.
Hello for making me laugh
And how will you justify the pixels of your response?
Oy vey
Show me who thinks this "article" is worth the pixels on which it is projected
- And I will show you A D I W T!
June Peace
Indeed, with the destruction of the temple, the carnal worship ends, but only apparently. The phenomenon of synagogues is very late to the days after the destruction, and since it is impossible, or rather dangerous, to create a kind of vacuum of the absence of quasi-temple activity after the destruction of the Second Temple, we find amazing phenomena, and I will write about this in one of the following articles, of a kind of revival of worship the temple, and this comes, for example, in the continuity of the pilgrimage. In one of the next chapters, which is actually the end of the series, I will refer to Ben Khosva's attempt to rebuild the temple.
The destruction of the Second Temple symbolizes the end of Gishami worship and the transition to a spiritual worship that persisted during the exile period
Unfortunately, the extremists today are also trying to revive the Gishami cult and lead Israel to the next disaster
A lesson should be learned, as described above, from the behavior of the Sikris to mutilate the bodies of those leaving the city
Dr. Sorek
I admire the series of articles on the topic of the priesthood and the power struggles in the post-Holocaust period. I'm sorry that I have to remind you that you should say 'among' and not 'among' which is conspicuously jarring to the eye, but other than that - good luck
Eli Ben David
Dr. Sorek.
One of the best posts!
I really enjoyed it and you discovered a new facet at the Rabbi's and a subject I hadn't thought about before: really, where did the priests and the entire class they represented disappear to after the Holocaust.
Very interesting. Thanks.