So how did it start?!

Was the Great Rebellion inevitable?

It is customary to examine historical events from a very simplistic, one-dimensional, or at most two-dimensional perspective. That is, examining the background of the event and its factors, its course, its results and its effects. It is indeed a normal and appropriate course of action, but over time, both in the popular aspect (Mila) and in the academic aspect (terrible and terrible), the analysis of the events and their analysis develops. Benalization has various factors, and the most significant of them is the harnessing of historical events for the benefit of establishment policies through the various education systems. This is how the sharpness and complexity of various historical events such as the Great Revolt was eroded.

It is common to see the Great Revolt (73-66 CE) as the result of causes, factors and promoters, sort of modular, of a strained relationship between the Jews and the Romans, when the latter commissioners abused the feelings of the Jews, and then the people rose up, incited and led by zealous elements and called for a revolt in the Romans.
Moreover, just before the outbreak of the rebellion, the good people invite the Romans to intervene militarily in Jerusalem, which is seen by all opinions as treason, as "stabbing a knife in the nation's back".

is that so? Was it so simplistic and banal?

According to me, the rebels prepared the rebellion a long time before its outbreak and were just waiting for an opportunity. Which brings to mind quite a few wars that broke out throughout history, and even recently, and not-so-far from here, and maybe even here, when everything was ready to break out and what was missing was the casus belli, that is, the reason for the war.

It is therefore appropriate to examine the last moves, on the eve of the outbreak of the great rebellion, in order to stand up to its nature.

Before we do this, an important and leading note is required here: the main, if not the only, and very detailed source available to us to build the basis of the historical reference in general is Josephus, who with all the criticism leveled against him is still considered, in the sense of ancient, classical historians, to be a moral Reliable stuff. In any case, not only that God is trustworthy, but from the handful of information in the literature of the Sages concerning the Great Rebellion, which mainly criticize the rebellion, the rebels, and even God (as amazing as this is considering the extent of faith in the ancient period) it is possible to extract support for the position presented by Yosef ben Matthew regarding the atmosphere that preceded the outbreak of the rebellion and the very conduct of it.

Well, the last commissioner of Rome in Judea was Gesius Florus, whose policies and actions are accepted as having provoked the outbreak of the rebellion among the Romans? is that so?

The coming of Florus to Judea to inherit the throne of the commission from his predecessor, Malvinus, is described by Yosef ben Mattathias as follows: "Although Albinus was a man of Hamas who was like that, Gesius Florus came after him and showed that before him Albinus would also be considered a great righteous person" (Wars of the Jews, book XNUMX And so do the rest of the sources that will be cited later). And Yosef ben Matatiyo elaborates as follows: "Because (Florus) spared entire cities and corrupted many communities and almost spread the word throughout the land, that the authority is given to everyone to plunder as he pleases, if he (Florus) receives part of the hams. In his greed, God destroyed entire districts and many left the land of their ancestors and fled to foreign countries."

No one complained about his actions before the commissioner in Syria Castius Gloss, to whom the commission in Judea was subordinate. But when Gloss arrived in Jerusalem for Passover, crowds cried out in front of him about the situation. In response, Gloss promised to talk about this matter with Floros.

A problematic focus that turned into a lever for rebellion was the political-legal conflict between the Jewish residents of Caesarea and its Hellenistic residents regarding the civil rights of the Jews, and when Emperor Nero ruled in favor of the Hellenists, Josephus noted this in his words: "And this thing was the beginning of the war (=the rebellion), in the year 12 For the reign of Nero, it is the 17th year of the reign of Agrippa" and he qualifies his words by saying "... if the cause of the war does not come to the great troubles that came out of it", which is more than a hint as to the justification of the miracle of the rebellion. And the issue was a synagogue that the Jews asked to buy from its Greek masters, but the Greeks refused. Hella left the Jews only a narrow passage to pass through to the synagogue, and hotheads from them attacked the works of the Greek. The Jews gave Florus a lot of money to stop the work but Florus, although he promised it, did not keep his word. "And left the owners of the quarrel to do as they see fit".
In the meantime, a Greek provocateur from Caesarea provoked a visitor to the Church when he sacrificed birds in front of his door. And when they came to complain before Florus, he imprisoned the complainants on the charge that they had taken the Torah books from the synagogue and the Abirum to Narbatha, which is far from Caesarea 60 ris.

The atmosphere did heat up, but its dimensions were spotty and allowed in any case to cool down and mediate.

Florus, as if disconnected from the electrified tensions that flowed in the air, reached into the temple funds and took out 17 square meters, claiming that they were needed by the emperor. The reaction of rebellious young people and provocateurs to the latest move by Floros was folded into what is known as "Floros funds". That is to collect public donations for Florus "the beggar". Florus demanded that those who insulted and insulted him be handed over to him, and when the leaders of the people and the priests refused, he sent his army through the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Many were tortured and crucified.

Was it possible to prevent the outbreak of the rebellion following this move? Maybe, "very maybe", but apparently the thought of the rebels was fixed and locked - to rebel at any cost. And what they lacked was enough rage and anger to gain a kind of public legitimacy.

Apparently the Jewish leadership, the priests and the "good people" - the aristocrats, and certainly the traditional royal house - Agrippa and his sister Bernice - felt that the zealous young people yearned to rebel, and they sought to cool their enthusiasm and take as much air out of the balloon of rebellion as possible. Which is why a delegation of Jewish dignitaries was organized to welcome two Roman cohorts (battalions) that came to Jerusalem from Caesarea. She gathered the people on the Temple Mount and urged them to advance the Romans with a blessing of peace "before a terrible evil comes upon them". "However, the rebels refused to listen to their voices", and they were joined by all those who were harmed by the Romans.
The priests and servants of the temple took the holy vessels out of the tabernacle and simply begged the people not to lose hope and not to lose their heads "and without opening a mouth for the Romans to despise the treasures of the House of God. How terrible was the appearance of the high priests with dirt on their heads and tearing their clothes and exposing their closed hearts. They called out to the people known for their reputation, each one of them, and also begged the whole nation, lest this small thing be easy in their eyes and they would not betray their holy city into the hands of those who want to destroy it."

And so the priests turned to the people and said: "However, if you respectfully greet those who come as a trial, you will not thereby shut the mouth of Florus who is asking him for an excuse to dedicate a war against you, and that way you will have your city as a spoil and you will not add to the week of pain. It will be a terrible act, when such a large people will hear in a snoring voice a quarrel when they tell, under forcing them to admit the words of the many." (Mal. XNUMX:XNUMX).

These words, which came from the heart and common sense, calmed the people. The inhabitants of Jerusalem had to go out together with the priests to promote the arrival of the Roman legions. But when the battalions approached and the inhabitants greeted them with peace, the Roman soldiers did not respond with a blessing of thanks and approval. This incident was used by the instigators of the quarrel, the extremist elements, to raise a shout and create a loud anarchy. In response, the soldiers surrounded the instigators who were hiding among the residents and a great commotion broke out. Many were injured by the Roman soldiers and more were trampled by the feet of the fleeing, "and the death of those who failed in their flight was also terrible, because they were suffocated and trampled by the feet of the runners after them, until their faces were no longer cut out and there was not a single space left in which his relatives knew that this was him, to his grave with his ancestors."
The Roman army wanted to score a way to the Temple Mount and the "capital", which is Antonia Citadel, to the northwest of the Temple, and then the inhabitants came to their senses and stood up against the Roman forces. The Roman legions retreated and prepared for the next confrontation. The insurgents, led by the leaders of the rebellion, feared that the next Roman step would be successful and Florus would succeed in getting what he wanted - the looting of the temple's treasures, and therefore the rebels destroyed the halls that connected the bridge between the "capital" and the Temple Mount.

Florus realized that his political and personal situation was deteriorating and therefore summoned the chief priests and the leaders of the Sanhedrin and solemnly promised them that he would leave the city of Jerusalem, but would leave very few Roman forces there. The priests promised that they would do everything in their power to "establish rest and violate the council of rebellion" if only one cohort remained in the city, and not the one that fought the Jews.
Florus followed their advice and demand and left Hyr as he headed for Caesarea.

Florus sent a letter to the commissioner Castius Glos in Syria in which he detailed the provocations of the Jews towards him. At the same time, the Jerusalem leadership sent a letter to the Commissioner, emphasizing all Floros' exploits towards the Jewish public. It should be noted that Berniki, Agrippa's sister, also signed the letter.

Gloss sent one of his friends, Neapolitanus the commander, to Jerusalem to investigate the situation and was done there. Neapolitanus was convinced, after examining and examining the results of the destruction caused by Florus' soldiers in Jerusalem together with King Agrippa, who had returned from Alexandria, "that the Jews really love peace", and impressed by this, he returned to the governor of Glos in Syria.

The Jerusalem public appealed to the king and the high priests to send messengers to Emperor Nero and complain to him about the actions of Florus. Agrippa assumed that this move was inappropriate and would be interpreted by the emperor as a subversive-interventionist act, and therefore he preferred to convince the multitude of residents of the magnitude of the damage that a rebellion would bring in a dramatic speech he delivered before them. Not only does the rebellion have no chance of succeeding, but it carries with it heavy disasters for its perpetrators and the entire nation.

The people's answer was that they did not intend to fight the Romans, but only Florus, and Agrippa took pains to explain to them that Florus should not be distinguished from the Romans. The people were inclined to agree for a moment and then Agrippa demanded from them, in order to restore relations with the Romans, to rebuild the destroyed halls from their ruins and raise the tax payments to the Romans. "Only in this" - Agrippa emphasized to them - "will remove from you the guilt of the rebellion".

The people listened to his words and began to restore the halls and even raised the taxes. However, Agrippa's pleas to suspend the rebellious action until another commissioner was sent under Florus fell on deaf ears.

At the same time, extreme sicari went towards Masada fortress, quickly captured it and slaughtered the Roman garrison there.
Eleazar, the son of the high priest, canceled the sacrifice for the emperor's peace in the temple, and this was the beginning of the signal for the rebellion.
The priests tried to speak to the heart of the people but it was ripe. The high priests gave an emotional speech expressing the danger to the temple following the expected rebellion, but in vain. The zealous rebels, the instigators, made sure to inflame the spirits and push the hesitant ones.

The good people understood that there was nothing to convince the masses and that if a rebellion broke out the responsibility would fall on their heads, they hurried to send a delegation of envoys to Florus and even to King Agrippa and asked them to hurry with their armies to Jerusalem in order to subdue the rebels.

Agrippa sent a military force to Jerusalem, a brigade of 3000 horsemen from the land of Horan, Bashan and the Argov region under the command of Darius the commander of the cavalry and Philip ben Yakim the commander of the army.

When Agrippa's force came, the good men of the city and the high priests and all the peace-loving among the people immediately joined him and occupied the upper city, while in the lower city and on the Temple Mount (thereby desecrating the Holy of Holies) the rebels strengthened and fortified themselves, and difficult contacts took place between the two forces.

At the same time, the fanatic Menachem ben Yehuda the Galilean broke into Herod's armory in Masada and distributed "Machal-Tov" to the rebels.

The high priest Hananiah who was hiding in the water pipe around the king's court was killed along with his brother by the rebels, and this after the rebels in their enthusiasm set fire to the house of Hananiah and the palaces of Agrippa and Berniki as well as the archive houses where the debt notes of the borrowers and creditors were kept.

Menachem considered himself king and was therefore murdered by his rivals, the people of Elazar ben Yair the Sikri. First they tried to eliminate him and where? Inside the temple itself, but Hela fled to the Opal and was captured there, severely tortured and killed.

The people's resistance to the rebellion will be proven by the article of Yosef ben Matthew, that the people believed and hoped that Menachem's death would put an end to the rebellion and normalcy would come to Jerusalem, but "Elazar's men did not kill Menachem in the beginning to put an end to the war, but so that they could fight more fiercely, even though it increased All the people ask the rebels to stop the siege. The Roman army men pressed their hand even harder on them."

Even the Romans believed that this would bring the rebellion to an end, even though they sent a mission to Eleazar's men with a request for a cease-fire, in exchange for their weapons and the equipment in their possession not to be harmed by the rebels. The rebels responded in the affirmative, but as soon as they handed over their weapons to the rebels, the rebels attacked them and killed them. This act of murder was committed on Shabbat, and everyone who heard it was shocked.

The sequel was almost predictable, and it was fierce confrontations that resulted in a lot of bloodshed between the Hellenistic population in Caesarea and the Jews. Jews attacked Rabat Ammon (Philadelphia), Chashon, Gersh (Karsha), Pahal (Pela), Beit Shean (Scythopolis), Gedar (Gedera), Susita (Hippus) and more. They destroyed some of them, set their remains on fire. Then they attacked Samaria (Sabasti), Ashkelon, Gaza and its surroundings, set them on fire and massacred all the men who were there.

The last section is actually the crux of my article. Apparently, this is a kind of natural process of resistance increasing and weakening until the rage turned into a bloodbath. In the general, almost strategic, attack on the polis cities in the territories of the province, two dramatic questions stand out: one - how did the rebels manage to hit so many cities, almost at the same time, and we are talking about cities that are well formed and equipped with military force? The second - what is the connection between the actions of the Roman Florus and the attack on the Hellenistic cities of Polis?

The answer to the first question is that the rebellion was indeed prepared quite a few years before its outbreak, and it was not the actions of Floros that motivated it, but in terms of an excuse and a desire to garner public support for the rebellion. And if so the attempts of the leaders of the people to dissuade the rebels from their adventurous plans were hopeless from the beginning. The success of the rebels in the almost simultaneous attack on the cities of the polis indicates that plans were drawn up in advance, the rebels were trained, weapons were accumulated and hidden in hiding places.

The answer to the second question is perhaps rooted in the Caesarea conflict, in which Nero's decision regarding the deprivation of the Jews was adversely affected and spread to the other cities. But its likelihood, considering the primitive communication of the ancient period, is quite weak.
There is a theory that postulates the murky relationship that developed between the inhabitants of the Hellenistic cities and the rural territory of each polis area that was populated with Jewish villagers on a socio-economic basis, which is common throughout history in many places. The tension became more acute in the case discussed against the background of the religious differences between a monotheistic and a polytheistic society.
But it gives the impression that the rebels saw themselves as continuing the Hasmonean anti-Roman line of action, which actually began to operate from the beginning of the Roman occupation, since 63 BC. This line emotionally and genealogically bridged between him and the Hasmoneans of the Hellenistic period and especially between him and the ancient Maccabees. As an integral part of the revolt, the Maccabees attacked the Hellenistic population in the cities of the polis with great cruelty. Some of the cities were destroyed, others were burned, in others the men were slaughtered and in some the conversion was forced on them.
Quite similar phenomena, with the exception of the forced conversion, occur during the Great Revolt, and the question arises: what is the connection between the cities of the polis and the Roman government, since the rebellion was intended from the beginning to be conducted against Florus and the Romans? Is it because of the political, economic, social and cultural ties that prevailed between the two peoples, Roman and Hellenistic? Is it due to the fact that the Romans defined themselves as the successors of classical Greek mythology, since the destruction of Troy? Is it because of Emperor Nero's ruling in favor of the city of Caesarea? Maybe, and maybe.
It seems that the rebels were not so aware in the circumstances of the ancient time of these contexts, which are placed almost neatly on the desk of the historian who studies in the perspective of time.
So naturally we return to the same line of Maccabean-Hasmonean inheritance, when the rebellion against Florus was actually an excuse, and the whole intention of the rebels, led by the zealots, and above them the delusional group of the "Fourth Philosophy", which sought to rule the kingdom of God on earth, was to wipe out every element far from Judaism, and good for them, one hour earlier.
And it is interesting, by the way, that even after the suppression of the great rebellion, extremist, fanatical elements plan, many years after the rebellion, to create another rebellious resistance front mixed with messianic-eschatological-apocalyptic aspects, i.e. the rebellions during the time of Emperor Trianus (117-114 CE), and even there they are attacked First and foremost, central polis cities, such as Alexandria in Egypt and Kyrini in Kyrini (today's Libya).

If so, all the attempts of the good people, the aristocracy, the priesthood and even the royal house, to dissuade the rebels from the line of rebellion, even though they succeeded in consolidating the support of the people, were doomed to failure. In any case, the rebellion was planned to break out, and only the question of "when" was on the agenda, like a bullet in the mouth or even in the barrel.
And what about Sage literature?

This in itself is a decree of silence regarding the movements of the rebellion, its background and reasons, and certainly not based on the fear that a Hellenistic or Roman element will read the material and abuse the writers. The silence turns out to be an expression of protest by the post-rebellion leadership against the rebellion in general, and in this context the saying is so famous: "A second temple... why a sword? Because there was gratuitous hatred in him" (Talmud Babylon, Yoma XNUMX p. XNUMX). This gratuitous hatred is associated with the fanatical groups that fought with each other in the midst of the besieged Jerusalem and turned it into a terrible bloodbath, and they forced the rebellion, like a tub, on the entire population. So perhaps it can be argued that Agrippa's speech on the eve of the outbreak of the rebellion,
As it is formulated by Yosef ben Matatiyo immersed in sympathy for the Romans, when he claims against the rebels - "You will bring about the destruction of the Temple with your own hands". But when a statement like this is embedded in the literature of sages, it takes on a completely different dimension.
This position of Chazal, which unfolds throughout the period and disapproves of any rebellious phenomenon against the Romans, only complements the above regarding the adventurous course of the rebels, who were only waiting for a moment of fitness in order to expose the claws of the burning hatred for the Hellenists and the Romans and degenerate the Jewish society towards the Jews.