Ben Zakkai

[Kris]

Hello-- I would like some clarification regarding Rabbi Ben Zakkai and the nine?edicts that he established after the destruction of the temple. These are addressed in Rosh Hosanna 13 in the Talmud. The 9th edict seems to be in dispute-- where one rabbi states that it has to do with the second tithe, while another said that it had to do with the red string being tied to the scapegoat during it's sacrifice.

I was really confused by the second Rabbi's argument as I thought that all sacrifices, including the Yom Kippur was suspended after the temple was destroyed-- if so, why would this even be an edict? I also thought that Ben Zakkai was the one who abolished the sacrifices and stated prayer was sufficient.

Can you clarify? I know that the red string story in also in Yoma and it seems like the tying of the ribbon to the scapegoat, and the gate, and then later the rock came much earlier than Ben Zakkai's time? Can you clarify this also?

Any help you can provide will be greatly appreciated!

[Stephan Huller]

But evidence to the contrary:

Once, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai was walking with his disciple, Rabbi Y'hoshua, near Jerusalem after the destruction of the Temple. Rabbi Y'hoshua looked at the Temple ruins and said "Alas for us!! The place that atoned for the sins of the people Israel lies in ruins!" Then Rabbi Yohannan ben Zakkai spoke to him these words of comfort: 'Be not grieved, my son. There is another equally meritorious way of gaining ritual atonement, even though the Temple is destroyed. We can still gain ritual atonement through deeds of loving-kindness. For it is written "Lovingkindness I desire, not sacrifice." (Hosea 6:6)Midrash Avot D'Rabbi Nathan 4:5

[Kris]

Yes-- you are correct-- I guess I meant to say that he provided direction for Jews in a post temple world, and that was much needed. My confusion is simply around the 9 edicts that he made after the destruction of the temple, and the 9th one in particular. It seems like one rabbi thought it was one thing, while another thought it had to do with the red string. My only question on that is why would any red strings be tied anywhere after the destruction of the temple, since sacrifices ceased-- and when I read about the Yom Kippur sacrifices in Yoma, it seemed like the tying of the red string to the rock/goat happened for many years prior to the destruction of the temple, so it would seem unlikely that this edict was made post temple. That is the crux of my issue/question.

[Stephan Huller]

You realize of course that there is no justification from the Pentateuch why the destruction of the temple = end of sacrifices right? The Pentateuch describes a portable tabernacle which could have been reconstructed IF the contemporary Jewry really wanted to live according to the Law. Something else was at work which prevented the continuation of sacrifices. The reality is that sacrifices COULD HAVE CONTINUED - at least theoretically. Maybe they did and then were subsequently abandoned. Perhaps by a single group, perhaps by multiple groups. Who knows. The Samaritans continue to offer the Paschal sacrifice. The justification for ending the sacrifices has nothing to do with the Pentateuch requiring a building for sacrifices like a temple.

[Kris]

This is going off topic to me. I was simply trying to ascertain why Zakkai would even have this edict, and why a few rabbis would dispute it. I found a bit more explanation in Tractate Rosh Hosanna as this is where the discussion regarding the 9 edicts took place. I am not even trying to address sacrifice-- other than to say that I didn't think that the red string tying took place after the destruction of the temple, but rather the decision to change the red string tying at the gate to the rock/sacrifice happened prior to the temple destruction as per what I read in the Yoma Tractrate-- some of the explanation appears to be that Zakkai came up with this idea when he was a student-- while the temple was still standing and then this rule got added in to the others that were made after the temple was destroyed by some rabbis. Anyway, that is all I was trying to address. Not the semantics of sacrifice and all that.

[DCHindley]

Kris,

Rabbi Jacob Neusner, an accredited scholar, is of the opinion that the Mishnah represents idealized practice, including potential practice, once the temple is rebuilt.

It was probably an option for a while, but unfortunately, there was the uprising in Egypt around 111-115 CE, which spurred the establishment of Aelia at the former Jerusalem, and of course the revolution of Bar Kosiba.

However, no more wars from 135 to 200 CE when the Mishnah was written down. In fact, despite those setbacks previously mentioned, JEWS WERE NOT SUPRESSED BY THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT. They retained all their privileges (exemption from military service, right to meet and operate independent legal systems, etc), because I think that most Diaspora Judeans were happy with the status quo (Roman rule), but would welcome the prestige that operating a temple would bring back to them. So, hope springs eternal.

By then, though, the Roman empire was starting to destabilize, and I guess the idea was too difficult to bring into fruition. There may have been serious concern about temple offerings being converted to gold and shipped to Judea. Up until then, the Romans did not have a concept of an "economic system" like we think of today when one mentions a nation's "economy." In the 3rd century and later monetary policy became more important, and this kind of mass shift of "specie" from region to region would have been looked down upon.

DCH

[semiopen]

This is an interesting discussion.

I know that Neusner thinks that ben Zakkai actually existed. If we accept that, there is the further question of what he actually did. When we start talking about specific edicts; this gets harder and harder to believe.

I get a more dubious feeling about Hillel_and_Shammai.

To move a little off topic, I was wondering when and by whom the Ana Bekoach was composed.

http://www.newthoughtkabbalah.com/anabekoachprayer.htm

The power of the hidden 42-LETTER name of God

The Ana BeKoach (Ana BeCoach or Ana B'Koach) prayer was written in the first century by a great kabalistic Rabbi - Rabbi Nehonia.

I'm not sure why the Kabbalists seem to have a problem with the vav in his name but this is Nehunya_ben_HaKanah

Nehunya ben HaKanah[pronunciation?] (Hebrew: נחוניה בן הקנה‎ was a tanna of the 1st and 2nd centuries. It appears from Bava Batra 10b that Neḥunya was a contemporary, but not a pupil, of Johanan ben Zakai.

Similarly this is a guy that possibly existed, but I think that it is highly improbable that he wrote Ana Bekoach. Anyway, the research gets complicated because of the many possibilities of writing Ana Bekoach in English and then googling. I think a key question is when it first appears in a Hebrew Seder.

[semiopen]

A Life of Yohanan Ben Zakkai, ca.1-80 C.E - Jacob Neusner

http://www.amazon.com/life-Rabban-Yohan ... ner+zakkai

The book is available on Questia.

devotes a paragraph to the "edicts"

The traditions preserved nine enactments in all, covering the following matters: (1) the Shofar; (2) the lulav; (3) the Day of Waving; (4) receiving testimony on the eve of the New Year; (5) receiving testimony even when the head of the court is absent; (6) not profaning the Sabbath to give such testimony, except for the New Year and Passover; (7) the priestly blessing; (8) the proselyte's offering; (9) the fourth-year fruits. I wonder whether these were the only such enactments, for the multiplicity of problems, even in the limited area of religious and liturgical affairs, must have necessitated many others. To suppose that his teachings and the actions of his court were limited to the handful reported by rabbinic tradition is hardly reasonable. What is preserved of his legal record clearly represents what the members of the court of Gamaliel II saw fit to recall.

Recall might be one way to say it.

In this case, if we are talking about the fourth year fruits -

23 When you enter the land and plant any tree for food, you shall regard its fruit as forbidden. Three years it shall be forbidden for you, not to be eaten.
24 In the fourth year all its fruit shall be set aside for jubilation before the LORD;
25 and only in the fifth year may you use its fruit -- that its yield to you may be increased: I the LORD am your God. (Lev 19:23-25)

I haven't looked at the actual Talmud references yet.

Regarding the loving kindness thing -

Goldin feels that the teachings of Eliezer, Joshua, and Yosi, in Avot 2.10, are based on Yoḥanan's reinterpretation. While the program of Torah, commandments, and good deeds may have been articulated before the destruction, one need not date these discussions in Yavneh. In fact, one cannot date them with any certainty at all.

Well said. reminscent of the Hillel quote

Hillel_the_Elder

The comparative response to the challenge of a Gentile who asked that the Torah be explained to him while he stood on one foot, illustrates the character differences between Shammai and Hillel. Shammai dismissed the man. Hillel accepted the question but gently chastised the man:

"What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn"[10]

Nice response, but I doubt this actually happened.

Once a gentile asked me to explain statistics to him while standing on one foot and I said -

If a coin is flipped, there is a 50% chance of heads; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.