The Rise of Heresy - The Hellenistic Jews and the Sadducees

The following material, which was originally written for a Jewish history class in a yeshiva high school, is basically a direct continuation of my post on Shimon HaTzadik.

---

The Influence of the Greeks

The period that began after the death of Shimon HaTzadik was one of great turmoil for the Jewish people. The Greek presence in Eretz Yisrael increased, especially through the various Greek towns that were founded surrounding the Jewish population. One of the standard Greek strategies, begun by Alexander the Great, for solidifying their rule was the founding of cities that were settled by Greeks and by non-Greeks who had adopted Greek ways. In Eretz Yisrael, many such cities were founded, in most cases by changing an existing town into a Greek style government and society. Among the most important of these cities were Gaza, Ashkelon, Acco (Ptolemais), Jaffa, and Dor.

The establishment of these Greek colonies required large amounts of construction and generated tremendous profits for those who were connected to it. Thus, those Jews who had connections with the Greeks were able to use those connections to become wealthy. The increase in wealth and economic activity caused many people to admire the Greek society.^[1] Personal contact between Greeks and Jews, especially Jews from the wealthier and politically powerful segments of society, became more common. Over time, the Jewish people were increasingly influenced by the materialism and secularism of the Greeks and some even began to see the Greek way of life as superior. The word for this belief is Hellenism, and those who followed it are called Hellenists, or, in Hebrew Misyavnim.

The following material will discuss how the Misyavnim­ – the Hellenistic Jews – began and grew into a powerful political party that eventually succeeded in turning the Greek government against the Jewish people and led to the Greek oppression that eventually brought about the successful uprising of the Chashmonaim (Hasmoneans) which we commemorate on Chanukah.

The Generation of Antigonos Ish Socho

Antigonos Ish Socho, the disciple of Shimon HaTzadik who succeeded him as the head of the Sanhedrin, did his best to counter the harmful influence of the Greeks, and to teach the people to serve God without materialistic motives. As the Mishna (Avos 1:3) states:

אנטיגנוס איש סוכו קבל משמעון הצדיק. הוא היה אומר, אל תהיו כעבדים המשמשין את הרב על מנת לקבל פרס, אלא הוו כעבדים המשמשין את הרב שלא על מנת לקבל פרס, ויהי מורא שמים עליכם. (אבות א:ג)

Antigonos Ish Socho received from Shimon HaTzadik. He used to say, do not be like slaves who serve the master in order to receive a reward, but be as slaves who serve the master without expecting to receive a reward, and the fear of Heaven should be upon you.

This was a call to the Jewish people to abandon a mentality of materialism in their service of God. Rav Shlomo Brevda explains:^[2]

... לאחר תקופת שמעון הצדיק הצליחו היוונים להתחיל להשפיע על אחינו בני ישראל מיסודות חכמת הטבע. וידוע, כי איש הטבע דואג תמיד על קיומו ופרנסתו בעולם הזה. ועל כן מעשיו בדרך כלל נעשים על מנת לקבל פרס. כי תורה ועבודה, כולה לשם שמים, אין נמצאים אלא באלו השתולים על מימי התורה והיראה על טהרת הקודש. וזה פשוט. על כן בא אנטיגנוס איש סוכו בדורו להחזיק את העם בדבריו – אל תהיו כעבדים המשמשין את הרב על מנת לקבל פרס וכו'. ... אמנם חכמת הטבע השפיע על בני עמנו, לאחר תקופת שמעון הצדיק, לעשות חשבונות טבעיים במעשיהם בגדר על מנת לקבל פרס. ולכן במקדש נשתנה מצבם ממצב למעלה מהטבע למצב טבעי, פעמים דולק פעמים אינו דולק וכו'

After the time of Shimon HaTzadik the Greeks began to successfully influence our brethren, the children of Israel, with the wisdom of nature (secular materialism). It is clear that a materialist is always worried about his survival and livelihood in this world, and therefore, as a general rule, his actions [even his ‘spiritual’ activities] are all done with expectation of benefit. For Torah and service [of God] done purely for the sake of Heaven is only found among those who are “planted by the waters” of Torah and fear [of Heaven] in holy purity. This is clear. Therefore Antigonos Ish Socho came forth in his generation to strengthen the people with his words, “Do not be like slaves who serve the master in order to receive a reward…”

Nevertheless, after the time of Shimon HaTzadik, the wisdom of science influenced the people of our nation to make materialistic calculations in their actions, in the category of “in order to receive a reward.” Therefore, in the Temple their circumstances changed from one that was above nature to one that was natural, “sometimes it would remain lit and sometimes it would go out.”^[3]

Nevertheless, although the Greek attitudes did influence the Jews, in most cases this influence was limited to subtle changes in attitude, such as the attitude towards serving God for ulterior motives. Although this influence was certainly harmful, it did not mean that the general Jewish population was turning away from their basic belief in God and His Torah. Unfortunately, however, there was a small but powerful element in the Jewish nation that was influenced to a much greater degree.

The Beginnings of Heresy

Chazal tell us that around the time of Antigonos Ish Socho another development occurred which contributed to the rise of the Misyavnim:

אנטיגנוס איש סוכו היו לו שני תלמידים שהיו שונין בדבריו והיו שונין לתלמידים ותלמידים לתלמידיהם, עמדו ודקדקו אחריהן ואמרו מה ראו רבותינו לומר דבר זה, אפשר שיעשה פועל מלאכה כל היום ולא יטול שכרו ערבית? אלא אילו היו יודעין רבותינו שיש עולם אחר ויש תחיית המתים לא היו אומרים כך. עמדו ופרשו מן התורה ונפרצו מהם שתי פרצות צדוקים וביתוסים, צדוקים על שום צדוק ביתוסים על שום ביתוס. והיו משתמשין בכלי כסף וכלי זהב כל ימיהם שהיתה דעתן גסה עליהן. היו צדוקים אומרים מסורת היא ביד פרושים שהן מצערין עצמן בעוה"ז ובעוה"ב אין להם כלום. (אבות דרבי נתן ה:ב ע"פ נוסחת הגר"א)

Antigonos Ish Socho had two disciples [named Tzadok and Baisos] who studied his words (quoted above, "Be as slaves who serve the master without expecting to receive a reward.") and taught them to their students and the students taught them to their students. They rose up and examined these words closely and said, “What caused our teachers to say this thing? Is it possible that a laborer can perform his work for the entire day and not receive his payment in the evening? Rather, if our teachers had known that there was a world after this and a resurrection they would not have said this!” They rose up and separated from the Torah ^[4] and two sects separated from them, the Tzedukim (Sadducees) and the Baisusim. The Tzedukim were named after Tzadok, and the Baisusim were named after Baisos. ^[5] They used golden and silver vessels all their days for they were gluttonous. The Tzedukim said, “It is a tradition amongst the Prushim (Pharisees) ^[6] to afflict themselves in this world, and in the world to come they have nothing.” (Avos D’Rebi Noson 5:2) ^[7]

Thus, through the misinterpretation of the teachings of Antigonos Ish Socho, a heretical movement began which, because it denied the belief in reward in the afterlife and the resurrection of the dead, denied the Torah. There is some question, however, as to what degree they abandoned the Torah. Rav Yakov Emden, in his notes on Avos D’Rebi Noson states:

עמדו ופירשו מן התורה. נ"ב לפי הטעם משמע סתמו כפירושו שמכללות התורה פרשו, אבל בכ"מ בתלמוד נראה שהיו מחזיקים בתורה שבכתב, א"כ לא פירשו אלא מתורה שבע"פ. אפ"ה קרי לה תורה סתם שהרי הוא כפורש מכולה שא"א לקיימה אם לא ע"פ מסורת חכמים.

“They rose up and separated from the Torah” – This implies that they separated from the entire Torah, but throughout the Talmud we see that they adhered to the Written Torah, and they only separated themselves from the Oral Torah. Nevertheless, this is referred to simply as Torah for abandoning the Oral Torah is considered as abandoning the entire Torah because the Torah can only be fulfilled according to the tradition of the Sages.

Rav Yakov Emden was apparently of the opinion that the Sadducees truly believed in the authority of the Written Torah, and "only" rejected the teachings of the Sages. This also appears to be the position of the Rashbam (Bava Basra 115b):

צדוק ובייתוס תלמידי אנטיגנוס איש סוכו היו והיו שונין לתלמידיהן מה שקבלו מאנטיגנוס אל תהיו כעבדים המשמשין כו' וטעו התלמידים בכך שהיו סבורים דהכי קאמר עבדו למקום ואל תקבלו שכר ואמרו כמו שאין בו ממש בדבר זה כן כל דברי חכמים וטעו ופקרו בדברי חכמים ונקראו צדוקים על שם צדוק ובייתוסין על שם בייתוס באבות דרבי נתן:

Tzadok and Baisos were disciples of Antigonos Ish Socho, and they taught their students what they had received from Antigonos, “Do not be servants who serve etc.” The students erred in this and thought that he was saying, “Serve God and do not receive a reward.” They said, “Just as this makes no sense, so too all the words of the Sages.” They erred and they abandoned all the words of the Sages and they were called Sadducees after Tzadok and Baisusim after Baisus – [as is stated] in Avos D’Rebi Noson.

Thus, according to the Rashbam as well, it seems that the Sadducees only abandoned the Oral Torah (because they rejected the teachings of the Sages), but they genuinely maintained their belief in the Written Torah. ^[8]

Maimonides, however, maintains that the founders of the Sadducees actually abandoned the Torah entirely, but they recognized that the general Jewish community would never accept such teachings, and they therefore claimed to believe in the Written Torah and only openly denied the Oral Torah. Maimonides explains (commentary on Avos 1:3):

והיו לזה החכם שני תלמידים: שם האחד צדוק ושם השני ביתוס. וכאשר שמעו שאמר זה המאמר יצאו מלפניו ואמר האחד לרעהו, הנה הרב אמר בבאור שאין לאדם לא גמול ולא עונש ואין תקוה כלל! כי לא הבינו כונתו. וסמך האחד מהם ידי חבירו ויצאו מן הכלל והניחו התורה. התחברה לאחד כת אחת ולחברו כת אחרת וקראום החכמים צדוקים וביתוסים. וכאשר לא היו יכולים לקבץ הקהילות לפי מה שהגיע להם מן האמונה, שזאת האמונה הרעה תפריד הנקבצים כל שכן שלא תקבץ הנפרדים, נטו להאמין הדבר שלא יכלו לכזבו אצל ההמון שאלו היו מוציאים אותו מפיהם היו הורגים אותם, רצוני לומר, דברי תורה. ואמר כל אחד לסיעתו שהוא מאמין בתורה וחולק על הקבלה שאינה אמיתית. וזה לפטור עצמם מן המצוות המקבלות והגזרות והתקנות אחר שלא יכלו לדחות הכל – הכתוב והמקובל. ועוד, שהתרחב להם הדרך לפרוש. כי אחר ששב הפרוש בבחירתם היה יכול להקל במה שירצה ולהכביד במה שירצה כפי כונתו אחר שאינו מאמין בעקר כלו. ואמנם בקשו דברים המקבלים אצל קצת בני אדם לבד. ומאז יצאו אלו הכתות הרעות ויקראו באלו הארצות, ר"ל מצרים, קראים ושמותם אצל החכמים צדוקים וביתוסים. והם אשר התחילו להשיב על הקבלה ולפרש הפסוקים כפי מה שיראה להם מבלתי שישמעו לחכם כלל, הפך אמרו יתברך, "על פי התורה אשר יורוך ועל המשפט אשר יאמרו לך תעשה לא תסור מן הדבר אשר יגידו לך ימין ושמאל" (דברים יז:יא)

[Antigonos Ish Socho] had two disciples, the name of one was Tzadok and the name of the second was Baisos. When they heard him make this statement [that one should not serve God for the sake of reward], they went out from before him and one said to his fellow, “Behold, the teacher has clearly said that a person has no reward and no punishment, and there is nothing to look forward [in the afterlife] to at all!” For they did not understand his intent. And one lent support to the other and they left the community and abandoned the Torah. A sect gathered around one, and another around his fellow, and the Sages called them Sadducees and Baisusim. As they were unable to gather communities based on what they actually believed – for this wicked belief separates the gathered, it certainly cannot gather the separated – they pretended to believe in that which they could not deny before the populace, namely, the [written] words of the Torah – for if they had expressed [their disbelief in the Torah, the populace] would have killed them. Each one said to his followers that he believes in the Torah but he disputes the [rabbinic] tradition for it is not authentic. They said this to exempt themselves from the traditional laws, decrees, and ordinances, as they could not [openly] reject everything – both Written and Received. Furthermore, [rejecting the rabbinic tradition] broadened the path of interpretation, for now that they were free to interpret as they wished, one could be lenient where he wished to be lenient and strict where he wished to be strict, according to his own purposes, since he did not actually believe at all. However, they only sought changes that appealed to at least some people.^[9] This was the beginning of these evil sects, who are called Karaites ^[10] in these lands, i.e. Egypt, and who were known to the Sages as Sadducees and Baisusim. They were the first to challenge tradition and to interpret the verses in any manner they saw fit without listening to a sage at all. This is the opposite of what He Who is to be Blessed (i.e. God) said, “According to the teaching which they will teach you and the judgment they will tell you, so shall you do, you shall not veer from the thing they say to you right or left.” ^[11] (Deuteronomy 17:11)

According to Maimonides, the leaders of the Sadducees were completely irreligious, and their claims to religious belief were only intended to attract ordinary Jews to their false teachings. The Sefer HaKabala of the Raavad adds that Tzadok and Baisos actually became leaders amongst the Kussim (Samaritans) at Mount Gerizim.

Like many aspects of ancient history, it is probably impossible to know the precise nature of the relationship between the Hellenistic Jews and the Sadducees. However, it is clear that both movements appealed to the same basic population of wealthy and politically Jews with minimal commitment to traditional Judaism. In political terms, both movements served the same basic function of undermining the authority of tradition and of the Sages. The popularity of each movement seems to have risen and fallen depending on the political conditions of the time. When the Jews were under Greek rule, Hellenism was dominant. When the Jews were independent, Hellenism fell out of favor and the Sadducee movement rose in its place.

Thus, the group that was known as the Sadducees did not actually rise up as a significant sect until after the Greeks had been defeated by the Hasmoneans and an independent Jewish commonwealth had been established. Rav Yitzchak Isaac HaLevi explains (Doros HaRishonim Vol. 1, p.170):

בתחילה בשעה שמלכו היוונים בארץ פרצו כל גדר וגבול ויהיו לפושעים ומורדים ביד רמה והולכים בכל דרכי היוונים. ואחר זה, כאשר נצחו החשמונאים הגבורים ויגרשו היוונים מן הארץ ויעמידו את הדת על תילה, שבו גם אלו בהכרח מהיות עוד פושעים ומורדים בעמם והולכים בדרכי היוונים ויהיו רק למקילים בדברי סופרים.

In the beginning, when the Greeks were ruling the land, the heretics violated every boundary and they sinned and rebelled [against the Torah] publicly, and they followed the ways of the Greeks entirely. Afterwards, when the mighty Chashmonaim were victorious and they drove the Greeks out of the land and properly reestablished the religion, the heretics were also forced to cease their open sinfulness and rebellion and their mimicking of the Greeks, and they resorted to just being “lenient” in the words of the Scribes.

---

[1] Based on M’Nechemia Ad Atah, ch. 26, by R' Chaim Dov Rabinowitz.

[2] In his Kuntres L’Hodos U’l’Hallel b’inyanei Chanuka, p. 17.

[3] A reference to the Ner HaMaaravi and other miraculous aspects of the Temple service which lost some of their supernatural qualities after the death of Shimon HaTzadik.

[4] Some authorities maintain that Tzadok and Baisos themselves became heretics. Others believe that it was their disciples who eventually abandoned the Torah because Tzadok and Baisos failed to properly convey the teachings of their rebbe, Antigonos Ish Socho.

[5] Although originally there were two groups, they were so similar that they were generally seen as one. It would seem that the Baisusim were eventually absorbed into the general group of Tzedukim and they are not mentioned in other sources (such as Josephus and Philo).

[6] "Pharisees" (Perushim) is a term used to refer to the Sages. The term comes from the word “Parush” – separated. Maimonides explains (Pirush HaMishnayos, Sotah 3:4):

זה שהחכמים קוראין עצמן פרושין להיותם מופרשין מבני אדם שיש להם חסרונות והמדות הפחותיות והרדיפה אחר תאות העולם והם מיחלים לשכר העולם הבא ולמדות המעלות

The Sages called themselves Perushim because they are separated from people with deficient character and lowly traits who pursue the desires of this world, whereas they [the Perushim] look forward to the reward of the world to come and to virtuous traits.

[7] It should be noted that this statement in Avos D’Rebi Noson is the only reference in ancient literature to the origin of the Sadducees. The theories promulgated by secular historians have no basis in anything except their imaginations and ideological biases.

[8] One difficulty with the position of the Rashbam is that he implies that the Sadducees continued to believe in the afterlife and the resurrection. Yet, both the Talmud and Josephus indicate that the Sadducees denied this principle.

[9] The interpretation of this phrase is somewhat difficult. I have understood it to mean that the Sadducees did not make such radical changes that would have offended the entire population. Rather, they only made changes that had at least some popular appeal.

[10] The Karaites were a heretical movement that began in the 8^th century, whereas the Tzedukim seem to have disappeared after the destruction of the Second Temple, in the 1^st century. However, Maimonides (together with Rav Saadia Gaon and a number of other authorities) apparently believed that the Karaite movement was a resurgence of a remnant of the original Sadducees. Some of the early Karaites also appear to have held this opinion to some degree.

[11] This verse is speaking of the Sanhedrin and its decrees and the great Torah scholars of every generation.

---

Shimon HaTzadik

שמעון הצדיק היה משירי כנסת הגדולה, הוא היה אומר, על שלשה דברים העולם עומד: על התורה ועל העבודה ועל גמילות חסדים.

Shimon the Tzadik was from the remnants of the Great Assembly. He used to say; “The world stands on three things, on Torah [study], on the service [of HaShem], and on bestowing kindnesses.”

Unfortunately, despite the great stature of Shimon HaTzadik, our historical knowledge of him is very poor. We know that he was the primary Torah leader of his time and that he was the kohen gadol (high priest) for forty years. We also know that he was descended from Yehoshua ben Yehotzedek HaKohen,^[1] the first kohen gadol of the second Temple. Some authorities^[2] say that he was the son of Yehoshua ben Yehotzedek and refer to Shimon HaTzadik as “Shimon ben Yehoshua ben Yehotzedek.”^[3] Most, however, say that Shimon was the seventh generation from Yehoshua ben Yehotzedek, thus making Shimon HaTzadik, “Shimon ben Chonio ben Yadua ben Yonasan ben Yo’yada ben Elyashiv ben Yo’yakim ben Yehoshua.”^[4]

There is also some disagreement on the meaning of the Talmud’s statement that Shimon HaTzadik was “from the remnants of the Great Assembly.” Some authorities^[5] maintain that he was one of the one hundred and twenty original members of the Anshei Knesses HaGedolah, but that he, as one of the youngest members, outlived the rest of the group. Others^[6], however, maintain that he was not an actual member of the Anshei Knesses HaGedolah but that he received the mesorah (tradition) from them. Regardless of his actual relationship with the Anshei Knesses HaGedolah, there is no question regarding his immense importance in conveying the mesorah to later generations. The Meiri (Pesicha L’Mesechta Avos) writes:

כאשר תמו הדורות ההם ונאסף עזרא הסופר אל עמיו, הגענו לזמן אנשי חכמי התלמוד, וראשון שבהם היה שמעון הצדיק, שהיה אחרון לאנשי כנה"ג וראשון לחכמים, כמו שכתבנו [לעיל, "והוא [שמעון הצדיק] היה ממוצע בין זמן אנשי כנסת הגדולה לזמן חכמי התלמוד, דהיה אחרון לאנשי כנה"ג וראשון לחכמים"].

When these generations [of the Knesses HaGedolah] ended and Ezra HaSofer was “gathered unto his people”, we come to the period of the Sages of the Talmud. The first of these was Shimon HaTzadik, who was the last of the Anshei Knesses HaGedolah and the first of the Sages, as we have written [earlier, “He [Shimon HaTzadik] is the intermediary between the period of the Anshei Knesses HaGedolah and the Sages of the Talmud, for he was the last of the Anshei Knesses HaGedolah and the first of the Sages”].

The Meeting with Alexander

Aside from the mishna in Pirkei Avos, Shimon HaTzadik is probably best known for his famous meeting with Alexander the Great. The story is recorded in numerous sources with minor variations. The Talmud (Yoma 69a) tells us:

בחמשה ועשרים בטבת יום הר גריזים הוא דלא למספד ביה יום שבקשו כותיים את בית אלקינו מאלכסנדרוס מוקדון להחריבו ונתן להם רשות באו והודיעו לשמעון הצדיק מה עשה שמעון הצדיק לבש בגדי כהונה ונתעטף בבגדי כהונה ומיקירי ירושלים עמו ואבוקות של אור בידיהם והיו מהלכין כל הלילה כולה הללו מהלכין  מצד זה והללו מהלכין מצד זה עד שעלה עמוד השחר כיון שעלה עמוד השחר אמר להם מי הם הללו אמרו לו הללו יהודים שמרדו בך כיון שהגיע לאנטיפרס זרחה חמה פגעו זה בזה כיון שראה את שמעון הצדיק ירד ממרכבתו והשתחוה לו. אמרו לו מלך שכמותך משתחוה ליהודי הזה אמר להם דמות דיוקנו של זה היא מנצחת לפני בבית מלחמתי. אמר להם למה באתם אמרו לו בית שאנו מתפללין עליך אעל מלכותך שלא תחרב יתעוך כותיים הללו להחריבו ותתן להם רשות. אמר להם מי הם הללו. אמרו לו הללו כותים  שעומדים לפניך. אמר להם הרי הם מסורין בידכם מיד נקבום בעקביהם ותלאום בזנבי סוסיהם והיו מגררים אותם על הקוצים ועל הברקנים עד שהגיאו להר גריזים כיון שהגיאו להר גריזים חרשוהו וזרעוהו כרשינין כדרך שבקשו לעשות את בית אלקינו ואותו היום עשאוהו יו"ט.

The twenty-fifth day of Teves^[7] is Yom Har Grizim^[8] on which you may not eulogize, [for it was] the day that the Samaritans sought [permission] from Alexander the Macedonian to destroy the Temple of God and he gave them permission.^[9] They came and made this known to Shimon HaTzadik.^[10] What did Shimon HaTzadik do? He donned the priestly garments and wrapped himself in the priestly garments and went with the nobility of Jerusalem with lit torches in their hands and they walked the entire night, some walking on one side and some walking on the other side, until morning. When morning rose, [Alexander] said to [the Samaritans], “Who are these?” They said to him, “These are the Jews who rebelled against you.” When they reached Antipras the sun shone forth and the groups met. When [Alexander] saw Shimon HaTzadik he got down from his chariot and bowed before him. [The Samaritans or his servants] said to him, “A king like you bows before this Jew?!” He said to them, “The image of this man is victorious for me in battle.”^[11] [Alexander] said to [the Jews], “Why have you come?” They said to him, “The Temple where we pray for you and your kingdom that it should not be destroyed, these Kussim (Samaritans) have deceived you to destroy it and you have given them permission.” He said to them, “Who are these?”^[12] They said to him, “These Kussim standing before you.” He said to them, “Behold, they are given into your hands.” Immediately they punctured their ankles and hung them from the tails of their horses and they dragged them upon thorns and thistles until they reached Har Grizim. When they came to Har Grizim, they plowed it under and they planted karshinim^[13], as [the Samaritans] wanted to do to the Temple of God, and that day they made into a yom tov (festival).^[14]

This story raises a problem with the opinion that Shimon was several generations after Yehoshua ben Yehotzedek because, according to Chazal (the Sages) (Avodah Zara 9a, Seder Olam Raba 30), Alexander came to Eretz Yisrael only thirty-four years after the building of the Second Temple. At first glance it would seem difficult to say that eight generations of kohanim gedolim served during a period of only thirty-four years. However, if we assume that each generation fathered the next at a young age, and that Yehoshua ben Yehotzedek became kohein gadol at a very old age, it is indeed possible that each generation served during this period. The Malbim (Nechemiah 12:10) explains:

הנה בפסוק זה לא מצאו כל אנשי חיל ידיהם, אחר שאמרו חז"ל ל"ד שנה פשטה מלכות פרס בפני הבית – ר"ל, מבנין הבית עד אלכסנדר מוקדון היו ל"ד שנה – והם אמרו כי שמעון הצדיק יצא לקראת אלכסנדר בשובו ממלחמת דריוש, והיה א"כ שמעון הצדיק דור שני לעזרא ונחמיה, כמ"ש הרמב"ם בהקדמתו לסדר זרעים וכן כתבו רבים וכן שלמים, ואיך בזמן הקצר ששה דורות? בפרט לרש"י שכתב שכלם היו כהנים גדולים....

בכ"ז לא ידעתי מה הרעש הזה. מי יאמר להם שנולדו באותם ל"ד שנים? אם נאמר שיהושע בן יהוצדק ששב מגלות בבל ובנה הבית היה אז בן ק"ה שנה, והוא ובניו הולידו כל אחד לט"ו שנה, א"כ בעת שהיה יהושע בן יהוצדק בן תשעים שנה כבר נולד שמעון הצדיק ובעת שבנה הבית היה שמעון הצדיק בן ט"ו שנה. ובעת אלכסנדר כבר היה בן מ"ה שנה וכו' ע"ש.

Behold! Regarding this verse [Nechemiah 12:10-11, which discusses the descendants of Yehoshua ben Yehotzedek] “none of the warriors can find their hands!”^[15] Chazal state that “For thirty-four years the Persian Empire was spread before the Temple,” meaning that from the building of the [Second] Temple until Alexander the Macedonian was thirty-four years. And [Chazal also] say that Shimon HaTzadik went out to greet Alexander on his return from the war with Darius. If this is so, then Shimon HaTzadik was the second generation from Ezra and Nechemiah [i.e. Ezra and Nechemiah were one generation and Shimon was the second], as the Rambam writes in his introduction to Seder Zeraim and is also written by many great authorities. If so, how could there be six generations in such a short time? Especially according to Rashi who writes that all of them were kohanim gedolim.

Despite all this, I don’t know what all the noise is about. Who says that they were all born within thirty-four years? If we say that Yehoshua ben Yehotzedek was 105 years old when he returned from Bavel and built the Temple, and that he and his sons all had children at the age of fifteen, if so then when Yehoshua ben Yehotzedek was ninety years old, Shimon HaTzadik was already born, and when the Temple was built he was fifteen years old, and at the time of Alexander he was already forty-five years old….

Moreover, as mentioned earlier (in a footnote), Rav Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy writes in his Doros HaRishonim (Vol. 1, pp. 196-7) that Shimon HaTzadik was not yet the kohein gadol when Alexander came to Eretz Yisrael:

... הכהן גדול המשמש בשם כהן גדול היה אז ידוע, אבל בהיות ידוע אז כבר זקן גדול, ושמעון הצדיק נכדו כבר היה אז לאיש, וכדברי המשנה המפורשים עליו שהיה משירי כנסת הגדולה. ובהיות שמעון הצדיק – לבד גדלו בתורה ובמעשים אשר בטחו בו הכהנים והעם בעזר ה' על יראיו – הנה היה גם מראהו כמלאך ה' בהוד נורא... כי על כן נבחר הוא ללכת במלאכות עמו בראש הכהנים והעם לקראת אלכסנדר.

The kohein gadol that served in the office of kohein gadol at that time was Yadua. But Yadua was a very old man and his grandson, Shimon HaTzadik, was already a [respected] man, as the clear words of the Mishna say that he was “from the remnants of the Great Assembly.” And because – in addition to his greatness in Torah and deeds, which the kohanim and the nation trusted in for HaShem helps those who fear Him – Shimon HaTzadik also had the appearance of an angel of HaShem with his awesome glory…. Therefore he was chosen to go on the mission for his nation at the head of the kohanim and the people to greet Alexander.

Several sources extend the story of the meeting with Alexander further. Yossipon (ch. 5) states:

ויהי אחרי כן, ויבא הכהן ואלכסנדרוס המלך אל ירושלים. ויביאהו הכהן אל מקדש אלקינו, ויראהו הכהן את היכל ה' ואת חצרות המקדש ואת גנזיו ואולמיו. ויראהו את מקום קדשי הקדשים, ואת מקום המזבח ואת מקום העולה, ויאמר המלך: "ברוך ה' אלקי ישראל אלקי הבית הזה! ואשריכם אתם עבדיו המשרתים לפניו במקום הזה. ועתה אעשה לי זכר הנה ואתן זהב לרוב לאומנין ויבנו את צלמי ויקימו אותו בין הבית ובין קדש הקדשים ויהי צלמי לזכרון לי בבית הזה, בית אלוק הגדול." ויאמר הכהן אל המלך: "הזהב אשר נדבו שפתיך, תנהו למחית כהני ה' ולמחית עמו הבאים להשתחות בבית הזה. ואני אעשה לך זכר פה, טוב מאשר שאלת אתה." ויאמר המלך: "ומה יהיה הזכר ההוא?" ויען הכהן ויאמר: "זכרך יהיה זה, כי כל ילדי הכהנים אשר יולדו בשנה הזאת בכל יהודה וירושלים, יקראו על שמך אלכסנדרוס, ויהיה לך זה לזכרון, כאשר יבאו לעבוד את עבודת ה' בבית הזה. כי אין לנו רשיון מאת אלקי הבית הזה, הוא ה' אלקינו, לקבל פסל וכל תמונה." ויתמה המלך את דברי הכהן ויכשרו בעיניו ויעש כן. ויתן המלך זהב לרוב לבדק הבית וישתחו לה' אלקינו ויצא.

And after this, the kohein and Alexander came to Jerusalem, and the kohein brought him to the Temple of God, and the kohein showed him the Heichal of God and the courtyards of the Temple and its treasuries and halls. And he showed the place of the Holy of Holies and the place of the altar and the place of the offering. And the king said, “Blessed is HaShem, God of Israel, God of this House! Fortunate are you, His servants, who serve before Him in this place. And now, I shall make a memorial for myself here and I shall give abundant gold to the craftsmen and they will construct [a statue of] my image and they will erect it between the Temple and the Holy of Holies, and my image will be a memorial for me in this Temple, the Temple of the Great God.” And the kohein said to the king, “The gold which your lips have donated, give it for the sustenance of the kohanim of God and for the sustenance of His people who come to bow [to God] in this House, and I will make a memorial for you here that is better than what you have asked for.” And the king said, “What will this memorial be?” The kohein answered and said, “Your memorial will be this, that all the children of the kohanim that are born this year in all Judea and Jerusalem will be called by your name, Alexander. And this will be your memorial, when they come to serve God in this House. For we do not have permission from the God of this House – He is HaShem our God – to accept sculpture or any image.” The king wondered at the words of the kohein and it was proper in his eyes and he did so. The king gave abundant gold to the bedek habayis (fund for upkeep of the Temple), he bowed to HaShem our God, and he went out [of the Temple].^[16]

Several sources^[17] add that Shimon HaTzadik also offered to commemorate Alexander’s arrival by having all documents dated from that period on. This was the system called minyan shtaros, which was used in all Jewish legal documents until the late Geonic period. However, not all sources agree that this was the reason for the adoption of the minyan shtaros dating system.^[18]

Josephus and Yossipon also both record that Alexander was shown the verses in the book of Daniel that predicted his rise to power.

Leader of the Jewish Nation

Shimon HaTzadik served as kohein gadol for forty years. During his tenure as kohein gadol, several special blessings were granted to the Jewish people. The Talmud states (Yoma 39a):

תנו רבנן, מ' שנה ששימש שמעון הצדיק היה גורל עולה בימין, מכאן ואילך פעמים עולה בימין פעמים עולה בשמאל, והיה לשון של זהורית מלבין, מכאן ואילך פעמים מלבין פעמים אינו מלבין, והיה נר מערבי דולק, מכאן ואילך פעמים דולק פעמים כבה, והיתה אש של מערכה מתגברת ולא היו כהנים צריכין להביא עצים למערכה חוץ משני גזירי עצים כדי לקיים מצות עצים, מכאן ואילך תשש כחה של מערכה, פעמים מתגברת פעמים אינה מתגברת ולא היו כהנים נמנעים להביא עצים למערכה כל היום כולו, ונשתלחה ברכה בעומר ובשתי הלחם ובלחם הפנים וכל כהן מגיעו כזית יש אוכל ושבע יש שבע ומותיר, מכאן ואילך נשתלחה מארה בעומר ובשתי הלחם ובלחם הפנים וכל כהן מגיעו כפול מצרי הצנועין מושכין את ידיהם והגרגרנין נוטלין ואוכלין

The Rabbis taught, [during the] forty years that Shimon HaTzadik served [as kohein gadol] the lot [cast for the Yom Kippur sacrifice] always came up in the right hand, from then on it sometimes came in the right and sometimes in the left; the tongue of scarlet wool [tied to the head of the scapegoat] would turn white, from then on sometimes it would turn white and sometimes it would not turn white; the western lamp [of the menorah] would remain lit, from then on sometimes it would remain lit and sometimes it would go out; the fire of the ma’aracha (the pile of wood on the altar) would stay strong and the kohanim only needed to bring two pieces of wood [a day] for the ma’aracha to fulfill the mitzvah of wood, from then on the power of the ma’aracha was weakened, sometimes it would stay strong and sometimes it would not stay strong and the kohanim did not cease from bringing wood all day long; and a blessing was sent into the omer, the two loaves [of Shavuos], and the lechem hapanim, and every kohein received a k’zayis – some ate and were satisfied and some were satisfied and [even] left over, from then on a curse was sent into the the omer, the two loaves, and the lechem hapanim, and every kohein received the amount of an Egyptian bean (i.e. a very small amount), the modest [kohanim] withdrew their hands and the gluttons took and ate.

Shimon HaTzadik was also unique in that he was both the kohein gadol and the head of the Sanhedrin. The Doros HaRishonim (Vol. 1, p. 197) points out:

והנה, היה בימי שמעון הצדיק דבר גדול ונפלא מאד אשר לא היה בכל ימי הבית בשני כי הכהן הגדול הוא היה גם המופלא שבסנהדרין ראש כל חכמי התורה.

In the days of Shimon HaTzadik there was a very great and amazing thing that did not exist throughout the days of the Second Temple, that the kohein gadol was also the mufla (primary authority, instructor) of the Sanhedrin, the chief of all the Torah sages.

The period of time of Shimon HaTzadik’s primary activity as the leader of the Jewish people was after the death of Alexander, under the rule of the Greek king of Egypt, Ptolemy son of Lagos, also known as Ptolemy Soter.^[19] Ptolemy Soter was one of Alexander’s generals and had been appointed by Alexander as the governor of Egypt. After the death of Alexander, Ptolemy had assumed power in Egypt. A lengthy and violent series of struggles began among the various successors of Alexander^[20], and the land of Israel passed in and out of the hands of different rulers several times over the next several decades. Ptolemy conquered the land of Israel four different times, and in at least some of these conquests he inflicted great suffering on the Jewish population. Josephus (Antiquities XII:1:1) tells us:

While these princes ambitiously strove one against another, every one for his own principality, it came to pass that there were continual wars, and those lasting wars too; and the cities were sufferers, and lost a great many of their inhabitants in these times of distress, insomuch that all Syria, by the means of Ptolemy the son of Lagus, underwent the reverse of that denomination of Savior (Soter), which he then had. He also seized upon Jerusalem, and for that end made use of deceit and treachery; for as he came into the city on a Sabbath day, as if he would offer sacrifices he, without any trouble, gained the city, while the Jews did not oppose him, for they did not suspect him to be their enemy; and he gained it thus, because they were free from suspicion of him, and because on that day they were at rest and quietness; and when he had gained it, he ruled over it in a cruel manner. Nay, Agatharchides of Cnidus, who wrote the acts of Alexander’s successors, reproaches us with superstition, as if we, by it, had lost our liberty; where he says thus: “There is a nation called the nation of the Jews, who inhabit a city strong and great, named Jerusalem. These men took no care, but let it come into the hands of Ptolemy, as not willing to take arms, and thereby they submitted to be under a hard master, by reason of their unseasonable superstition.”^[21] This is what Agatharchides relates of our nation. But when Ptolemy had taken a great many captives, both from the mountainous parts of Judea, and from the places about Jerusalem and Samaria, and the places near Mount Gerizzim, he led them all into Egypt, and settled them there.^[22] And as he knew that the people of Jerusalem were most faithful in the observation of oaths and covenants; and this from the answer they made to Alexander, when he sent an embassage to them, after he had beaten Darius in battle; so he distributed many of them into garrisons, and at Alexandria gave them equal privileges of citizens with the Macedonians themselves; and required of them to take their oaths, that they would keep their fidelity to the posterity of those who committed these places to their care. Nay, there were not a few other Jews who, of their own accord, went into Egypt, as invited by the goodness of the soil, and by the liberality of Ptolemy.

As we see from this account from Josephus, during the wars Ptolemy inflicted severe sufferings upon the Jewish population of the land of Israel, especially on the Jews of Jerusalem, and many Jews were taken as slaves to Egypt. Although it appears that in peacetime he was not an excessively oppressive ruler, this does not make up for the immense harm he inflicted on the Jewish people during these wars.

Shimon HaTzadik was the leader of the Jewish people during this extremely difficult period and he succeeded in rebuilding the land and repairing the damage.

In a famous passage, the ancient writer Yeishua (or Yehoshua) ben Sira^[23] describes the greatness of Shimon HaTzadik (Ben Sira^[24] 50):^[25]

Shimon the high priest, the son of Chonio^[26], who in his life repaired the house again, and in his days fortified the temple: And by him was built from the foundation the double height, the high fortress of the wall about the temple: In his days the cistern to receive water, being in compass as the sea, was covered with plates of brass: He took care of the temple that it should not fall, and fortified the city against besieging:

How was he honored in the midst of the people in his coming out of the sanctuary! He was as the morning star in the midst of a cloud, and as the moon at the full: As the sun shining upon the temple of the most High, and as the rainbow giving light in the bright clouds: And as the flower of roses in the spring of the year, as lilies by the rivers of waters, and as the branches of the frankincense tree in the time of summer: As fire and incense in the censer, and as a vessel of beaten gold set with all manner of precious stones: And as a fair olive tree budding forth fruit, and as a cypress tree which grows up to the clouds.

When he put on the robe of honor, and was clothed with the perfection of glory, when he went up to the holy altar, he made the garment of holiness honorable. When he took the portions out of the priests' hands, he himself stood by the hearth of the altar, compassed about, as a young cedar in Lebanon; and as palm trees compassed they him round about.

So were all the sons of Aaron in their glory, and the fire offerings of HaShem in their hands, before all the congregation of Israel. And finishing the service at the altar, that he might adorn the offering of the most high Almighty, He stretched out his hand to the cup, and poured of the blood of the grape, he poured out at the foot of the altar a sweet smelling savor unto the most high King of all. Then shouted the sons of Aaron, and sounded the silver trumpets, and made a great noise to be heard, for a remembrance before the most High.

Then all the people together hasted, and fell down to the earth upon their faces. To prostrate themselves before the Most High, before the Holy One of Israel. The singers also sang praises with their voices, with great variety of sounds was there made sweet melody. And the people besought HaShem, the most High, by prayer before him that is merciful, till the solemnity of HaShem was ended, and they had finished his service.

Then he went down, and lifted up his hands over the whole congregation of the children of Israel, to give the blessing of HaShem with his lips, and to rejoice in his name. And they bowed themselves down to worship the second time, that they might receive a blessing from the most High.

Shimon has been remembered throughout history with the name Shimon HaTzadik (the Righteous). Josephus explains that “He was called Simon the Just because of both his piety towards God, and his kind disposition to those of his own nation.^[27]

Shimon HaTzadik is best known for his statement, quoted in the second mishna of Pirkei Avos, “The world stands on three things, on Torah [study], on the service [of HaShem], and on bestowing kindnesses.” As the Bartenura there tells us, this was something he always repeated and stressed; it was his primary teaching to his generation. What was the significance of this particular lesson? Rav Shlomo Brevda explains:^[28]

והנה מתחילת שלטונם בארצנו הקדושה, השתדלו היוונים להשפיע עלינו מחכמתם, חכמת הטבע (ובסוף שלטונם גזרו גזירות להשכיח מאתנו את התורה הקדושה ולהעבירנו מחוקי רצונו ית"ש). שמעון הצדיק שהיה גדול הדור וגם כהן גדול בתחילת מלכות יון, השתדל בכל כחו לחזק את העם שישארו שלמים ונאמנים אך ורק לתורתנו הקדושה, ושלא ישימו לב כלל וכלל לחכמי יון ודבריהם. על כן באו תמיד דבריו הקדושים לעם סגולה שהעולם עומד על ג' דברים, עסק התורה, עבודת הקודש, וגמילות חסדים. ודבריו הקדושים סותרים לגמרי את שיטת חכמי הטבע. כי תורה ועבודה וגמילות חסדים לא יעניקו לאדם, על פי טבע, אפילו פת לחם, ואיך יתקיים האדם. אבל אנחנו מקבלי התורה, מאמינים בני מאמינים, יודעים שמצבינו למעלה מהטבע, והקב"ה זן ומפרנס ומכלכל העוסקים בתורה ובעבודה וגמ"ח. והצליח שמעון הצדיק בזמנו להחזיק את העם בשלימות האמונה וקיום המצוות. ולכן זכו בדורו לסייעתא למעלה מדרך הטבע. וראו חבתם לפניו ית"ש כי כל מצבם בבית המקדש, יום יום ובש"ק ובימים טובים, הכל היה למעלה מהטבע.

From the beginning of their rule in our holy land, the Greeks strove to influence us with their wisdom, the wisdom of nature [i.e. science] (and towards the end of their rule they made decrees to make us forget our holy Torah and to remove us from the decrees of His Will). Shimon HaTzadik, who was the gadol hador and also the kohein gadol at the beginning of the Greek dominion [over Eretz Yisrael], strove with all his strength to strengthen the people that they should remain completely loyal only and exclusively to our holy Torah, and they should not pay any attention at all to the wise men of Greece and their words. Therefore he would always repeat his words to the treasured people that the world stands on three things, Torah study, the holy service, and bestowing kindnesses. His holy words completely contradicted the philosophy of the wise men of nature [i.e. scientists]. For, according to nature, Torah, service, and kindness do not provide a person with anything, not even bread, so how will a person survive [on these alone]?^[29] But we who have received the Torah, believers and children of believers, know that our circumstances are above nature, and the Holy One, blessed be He, feeds, supports, and provides those who involve themselves in Torah, service, and kindnesses. Shimon HaTzadik was successful in his time in strengthening the people in perfection of emunah (faith) and in fulfillment of the mitzvos (commandments). Therefore, in his generation they merited to receive supernatural help, and they saw how beloved they were before Him, for their entire situation in the Holy Temple, on ordinary days and on the Sabbath and festivals, was supernatural.^[30]

The Death of Shimon HaTzadik & the Fall of the Kehuna Gedolah

The Talmud records the following information regarding the death of Shimon HaTzadik:

דתניא אותה שנה שמת שמעון הצדיק אמר להן שנה זו הוא מת. אמרו לו מנין אתה יודע? אמר להן כל יום הכפורים נזדמן לי זקן אחד לבוש לבנים ונתעטף לבנים ונכנס עמי ויצא עמי שנה זו נזדמן לי זקן אחד לבוש שחורים ונתעטף שחורים ונכנס עמי ולא יצא עמי. לאחר הרגל חלה שבעת ימים ומת ונמנעו אחיו הכהנים מלברך בשם.

For it is taught, the year that Shimon HaTzadik died he said to them that this year he would die. They said to him, from where do you know this? He said to them, “Every Yom Kippur an old man dressed in white and wrapped in white meets me and goes in with me [to the Kodesh haKedoshim (the Holy of Holies)] and comes out with me. This year an old man dressed in black and wrapped in black met me and went in with me but did not come out with me.” After the festival he was sick for seven days and died. And his brothers, the kohanim, refrained from blessing with the Name [of God in the Birchas Kohanim - the Priestly Blessing].^[31]

Shimon HaTzadik passed away during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, the son and successor of Ptolemy Soter. After his death, the status of the kehuna gedola (high priesthood) fell dramatically. As the Bartenura records (Yoma 1:1 based on the Gemora 8b):

...הכהנים הגדולים שהיו בבית שני אחר שמעון הצדיק היו נותנים ממון כדי לשמש בכהונה גדולה, ומתוך שרשעים היו לא היו משלימין שנתן והיו מתחלפין כל שנים עשר חדש כפקידי המלך שהמלך מחליפן כל שנה...

The kohanim gedolim of the Second Temple after Shimon HaTzadik would give money [to the non-Jewish rulers] in order to serve in the kehuna gedolah. Because they were wicked, they would not survive the year, and they would switch every twelve months [to a new kohein gadol], like the officers of a king which the king changes every year.^[32]

In fact, this degradation of the kehuna gedolah did not take place immediately, and there were some kohanim gedolim – even in later periods – who were good men, although none of similar status to Shimon HaTzadik. Nevertheless, the process did begin almost immediately after the death of Shimon HaTzadik with the dispute that took place between Shimon’s sons on the succession. The Talmud continues (Menachos 109b)^[33]:

בשעת פטירתו אמר להם חוניו בני ישמש תחתי. ... לא קיבל עליו חוניו שהיה שמעי אחיו גדול ממנו שתי שנים ומחצה ואף על פי כן נתקנא בו חוניו בשמעי אחיו. אמר לו בא ואלמדך סדר עבודה והלבישו באונקלי וחגרו בצילצול והעמידו אצל המזבח. אמר להם לאחיו הכהנים ראו מה נדר זה וקיים לאהובתו אותו היום שאשתמש בכהונה גדולה אלבוש באונקלי שליכי ואחגור בצילצול שליכי. בקשו אחיו הכהנים להרגו. סח להם כל המאורע בקשו להרוג את חוניו. רץ מפניהם ורצו אחריו רץ לבית המלך ורצו אחריו. כל הרואה אותו אומר זה הוא זה הוא. הלך לאלכסנדריא של מצרים ובנה שם מזבח והעלה עליו לשם שמים, שנאמר "ביום ההוא יהיה מזבח לה' בתוך ארץ מצרים ומצבה אצל גבולה לה'" (ישעיה יט:יט)

At the time of [Shimon HaTzadik’s] death, he said to them, “Chonio my son shall serve in my place.”^[34] Chonio would not accept the office, for his brother Shimi was two and a half years his elder. Even so, Chonio became jealous of his brother Shimi. He said to him, “Come and I will teach you the procedure of the avodah.” He dressed him in an un’klie^[35] and girded him with a tziltzul^[36] and stood him by the altar. [Chonio] then said to his brothers, the kohanim, “Look at what this one swore to and fulfilled for his beloved^[37], ‘the day when I shall serve in the kehunah gedolah, I will wear your un’klie and I will gird myself with your tziltzul.’”^[38] His brothers, the kohanim, wanted to kill [Shimi] [for denigrating the kehuna]. [But Shimi] told them all that had happened, and they [the kohanim] wanted to kill Chonio. [Chonio] fled away from them and they pursued after him. He fled to the palace of the king and they pursued after him; all who saw him said, “This is he! This is he!” He went to Alexandria of Egypt and erected there an altar and offered upon it offerings for the sake of Heaven, as it says (Isaiah 19:19), “On that day there will be an altar to God within the land of Egypt, and a monument to God by its border.”^[39]

This incident resulted in a great fall in the prestige of the kehuna gedolah. In the end, neither Chonio nor Shimi succeeded their father. Instead, Shimon HaTzadik was succeeded by his brother, Elazar, in the position of kohein gadol. In his position as head of the Sanhedrin, Shimon HaTzadik was succeeded by his primary disciple, Antignos Ish Socho.^[40]

---

[1] Also known as Yeishua ben Yehotzedek.

[2] Sefer HaKabala, Sefer Yuchsin, Abarbanel (Nachalas Avos, hakdama and 1:2).

[3] The Toldos Am Olam maintains that the Sefer HaKabala and Yuchsin do not intend this literally, but only that he was descended from Yehoshua ben Yehotzedek.  He does not mention the Abarbanel who does appear to hold this opinion to be literally true.

[4] See Seder HaDoros (ג"א תמ"ח) for discussion.

[5] Rambam, Mishneh Torah – Hakdama

[6] Rashi, Avos 1:2, Doros HaRishonim

[7] Megillas Taanis places this event on the twenty-first of Kislev.

[8] Har Grizim was the location of the main Samaritan city and later became the location of their temple.

[9] Josephus tells us that when Alexander was besieging Tyre, an important city north of the land of Israel, the Samaritans, who were—like the Jews—subjects of the Persian Empire, approached Alexander and offered to join him and betray the Persians. The Jews, however, remained loyal to the Persian emperor. This combination of events caused Alexander to initially favor the Samaritans and to believe their false accusations against the Jews.

[10] In Yossipon the kohein that meets Alexander is named Chananya. However, some versions of Yossipon omit this and the name is probably erroneous. Similarly, Josephus (Antiquities XI:8:4-5) writes that the kohein was named – in Greek – “Iaddou”, which most translations understand as Yadua, the name of Shimon HaTzadik’s grandfather. There are a number of possible explanations for this discrepancy (asides from simple scribal error). Some authorities, most notably the Sefer HaKabala, claim that Shimon was also known by the name Iddo (עדו), which may be a different reading of the Greek name used by Josephus. (The Abarbanel, in Nachalas Avos 1:2, points out that the use of multiple names was common throughout the Second Temple period.) Other authorities, such as the Doros HaRishonim (Vol. 1, pp. 196-7), believe that at this time Yadua was still the kohen gadol but he was too old to go out to meet Alexander, so he sent his grandson Shimon in his place. Thus, Josephus may have erroneously concluded that the entire story happened with Yadua. Rabbi Avigdor Miller, however, believes that Josephus changed the story deliberately (Torah Nation 206).

[11] Megillas Taanis states slightly differently, דיוקנו של זה אני רואה כשאני יורד במלחמה ונוצח – “The image of this person I see when I go down to war and am victorious.”

[12] The implication here is that Alexander was not aware of the actual plans of the Samaritans. In fact, in the version told in Megillas Taanis, the Samaritans did not actually inform Alexander of their intentions, they simply “purchased” the location of the Temple from Alexander. Alternatively, the Ben Ish Chai explains that Alexander certainly knew that the Samaritans were guilty, but he wanted to know if any of his own officers were also included in the plot. To this the Jews responded that only the Samaritans were guilty.

[13] A kind of inferior grain used primarily as animal feed.

[14] This story is also told in Yossipon and Josephus. However there are a number of differences, some of which raise historical difficulties. According to the both of these alternate accounts, after his conquest of Gaza, Alexander marched on Jerusalem with intent to destroy it and he met the Jews just outside the gates of Jerusalem. However, according to the non-Jewish accounts of Alexander’s conquests, Alexander traveled from Gaza to Egypt in just one week, making a visit to Jerusalem (which is in the opposite direction) impossible. However, according to the Talmudic account there is no reason to believe that Alexander planned on traveling to Jerusalem himself. The Talmud also does not specify at what point in his conquests he met the Jews. Moreover, the location of the meeting, according to the Talmud, was a town called Antipras. This almost certainly refers to the town Antipatris (Kefar Saba), a town not far from the ocean shore along which Alexander traveled. The relatively brief meeting described in the Talmud took place early in the morning and would not have significantly affected the traveling time of Alexander’s army, which may explain why it is unmentioned in non-Jewish accounts. As for the accounts of Alexander’s visit to Jerusalem and the Temple, which most authorities accept as reliable, this may have taken place later, after Alexander’s conquest of Egypt, when he was traveling back towards Babylon. Josephus and Yossipon may have combined two separate stories.

[15] A phrase from Tehillim 76:6 poetically expressing the idea that the great scholars appear to have lost their skills.

[16] Josephus adds that Alexander summoned the Jews and “bid them ask what favors they pleased of him; whereupon the high priest desired that they might enjoy the laws of their forefathers, and might pay no tribute on the seventh year. He granted all they desired. And when they entreated him that he would permit the Jews in Babylon and Media to enjoy their own laws also, he willingly promised to do hereafter what they desired. And when he said to the multitude, that if any of them would enlist themselves in his army, on this condition, that they should continue under the laws of their forefathers, and live according to them, he was willing to take them with him, many were ready to accompany him in his wars.” (Antiquities XI:8:5)

Unfortunately, it appears that Alexander was not always fully consistent in fulfilling this promise. Josephus, in his Contra Apion (1:22), quotes extensively from Hecateus of Abdera, a Greek historian who was also a contemporary of Alexander, about the Jews in Alexander’s armies. He writes that, “Alexander was once at Babylon, and had an intention to rebuild the temple of Belus [an idol] that was fallen to decay, and in order thereto, he commanded all his soldiers in general to bring earth thither. But the Jews, and they only, would not comply with that command; nay, they underwent stripes and great losses of what they had on this account, till the king forgave them, and permitted them to live in quiet.”

[17] Sefer HaKabala, Yuchsin, Abarbanel Avos 1:2, Gr”a on Seder Olam Raba 30, and others.

[18] Tzemach Dovid

[19] The name “Soter” means “Savior” in Greek.

[20] The Macedonian generals who succeeded Alexander are referred to as the “Diadochi”, the Greek word meaning “successors”.

[21] This supposed incident appears to be the source of the myth that the ancient Jews would not wage war – even defensive war – on the Sabbath. In fact, as is clear from the previous statements of Josephus, Ptolemy Soter took the city by deceit, by pretending to come in peace.

[22] The Doros HaRishonim adds (presumably based on the Ben Sira passage quoted below) that Ptolemy also destroyed the walls of Jerusalem to prevent it from being used as a fortress against him. Victor Tcherikover, in his Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (p. 58), argues that the destruction of the walls was done when Ptolemy, in the course of the war, was forced to evacuate from Jerusalem and he wished to prevent its use as a fortress by his enemies.

[23] The Doros HaRishonim (Vol. 1, p. 194) writes about Ben Sira, ובן סירא אשר הלך עם חכמים ויתחמם לאור חכמי התורה וכו' – “And Ben Sira, who walked with the sages and warmed himself by the fire of the Torah sages…”

[24] The book of Ben Sira (also known as Sirach or Ecclesiasticus) was originally written in Hebrew, but the original Hebrew text was lost for a very long time, and the book only existed in its Greek translation. In modern times scholars have found parts of what they believe to be the original Hebrew version, but the full Hebrew original text is still not found and much of what has been found is of uncertain reliability. Thus there are no fully reliable editions of Ben Sira available. The primary Hebrew edition in print is the edition published by Avraham Kahana in his Seforim Chitzonim.

[25] This translation is taken, with some minor changes, from the KJV translation. It does not agree, in many details, with the Kahana version, but the basic ideas are the same. (The Catholic Church includes the book of Ben Sira in its version of the “Old Testament.” Such books are called Apocrypha.)

[26] In most English translations the name used here is Onias, which is the English equivalent of Chonio. Kahana’s Hebrew edition, and some translations, use the name Yochanan. (The name Chonio may be a diminutive for Yochanan.) The Doros HaRishonim (Vol. 1, p. 194), in quoting this passage, uses the name Chonio.

[27] Antiquities 12:2:5. The Doros HaRishonim (Vol. 1, p.194-195) points out that the description, “HaTzadik”, was not added to Shimon’s name until many years later. As proof he cites the passages from Ben Sira which praise Shimon HaTzadik. If Shimon was already popularly known as Shimon HaTzadik, then Ben Sira, who was a contemporary of Shimon’s, would certainly have referred to him by that title. Thus, the Doros HaRishonim argues that the title “HaTzadik” was added later to distinguish Shimon HaTzadik from a later kohein gadol also named Shimon ben Chonio who caused great troubles for the Jewish people.

[28] In his Kuntres L’Hodos U’l’Hallel b’inyanei Chanuka, p. 16.

[29] Shimon HaTzadik’s list implies that only these three things are truly necessary for the support of the world, yet, by normal “laws of nature”, none of a person’s basic needs are provided by these three things!

[30] Rav Brevda is referring here to the special blessings which took place in the Beis HaMikdash while Shimon HaTzadik was alive mentioned earlier.

[31] See Rabbeinu Gershom Menachos 109a, Rashi Yomah 39b, Tosafos Sotah 38a ד"ה הרי , and Rambam Hil. Nesias Kapayim 14:10, for explanations. Although most of the commentaries appear to maintain that this was a permanent change, the Ben Yehoyada (Yoma 39b) suggests that the kohanim may have ceased using the sheim hameforash only during the period immediately after Shimon HaTzadik’s death, when they felt great grief, because the sheim hameforash can only be used in a state of joy. However, after the grief lessened they returned to using the Name.

[32] To properly understand this passage one should see the context in mesechta Yoma. Here I have only quoted the portions directly relevant to our discussion.

[33] The following selection is abridged. There are actually two versions of the story of Chonio told in the Talmud in Menachos, the version told by Rabbi Meir and the version told by Rabbi Yehuda. As the commentaries clearly consider Rabbi Yehuda’s version to be the primary version, we are only including his version here.

[34] Although Chonio was younger than his brother Shimi, he was more knowledgeable in the laws of the avodah. (Rambam, Bartenura – Menachos 13:10)

[35] Rashi defines this as a “leather garment”. Rabbeinu Gershom says it was “a woman’s garment”. Bartenura describes it as “a shirt of thin linen that women wear upon their skin.”

[36] A kind of belt or girdle. This was also a feminine garment.

[37] His wife (Rashi, Rabbeinu Gershom) or his lover (Rambam, חשוקה שהוא מזנה עמה).

[38] Rambam writes that Chonio’s intent was to kill Shimi so that he could get the position of kohein gadol. Rav Yerucham Levovitz (Daas Torah, Lech Lecha p. 107) writes that this incident is a classic example of the principle from Pirkei Avos (2:4), אל תאמן בעצמך עד יום מותך – “Do not trust yourself until the day you die”, meaning that no matter how many good things you have done in your life, the yetzer hara (evil inclination) is always ready to trap you if you let down your guard. So, even after Chonio did this great kindness of surrendering the position of kohein gadol so as to give honor to his elder brother, when he let down his guard the yetzer hara of jealousy was able to trap him.

[39] The nature of this altar, and the temple that followed called Beis Chonio (which was not located in or near Alexandria, is a matter of some debate. Tosafos comments that the altar in Alexandria may have been only for non-Jews, thus avoiding the prohibition of shchutei chutz (slaughtering offerings outside of the Temple). This also explains how Chonio was permitted to become the kohein gadol at a later period. A later Chonio, during the reign of Ptolemy Philometor, erected a temple in Leontopolis, a village in the district of Heliopolis. See the discussion of this topic in Toldos Am Olam, p. 394.

[40] Another important sage of this period was Rav Elazar ben Charsom (Yuchsin, Tzemach Dovid, and Seder HaDoros). He is best known for his immense wealth, which, the Talmud (Yoma 35b) tells us, “obligates the wealthy” to study Torah. Interestingly, the Talmud (Yoma 9a) states that R’ Elazar ben Charsom served as kohein gadol for eleven years.

---

Note: This material was originally written for a course in Jewish history at a yeshiva high school. I have modified it for a general audience.

---

The Interruption of the Tamid Sacrifice

One of the tragic events of the 17^th of Tamuz was the interruption of the korban tamid (the daily offering of two sheep in the Temple). There is some disagreement in the sources as to when this happened (or, more accurately, which interruption of the Tamid service is commemorated on the 17th of Tammuz). Maimonides writes that this occurred prior to the  destruction of the first Temple, when Jerusalem was under siege and they were unable to get the necessary sheep. Others say that it occurred prior to the the destruction of the second Temple. And some say that this refers to an interruption of the Tamid service that took place at an earlier part of the second Temple period, under Hasmonean rule.

In order to understand what happened at that time, we will first need to quickly review some history. At the beginning of the second Temple period, when the Jewish people returned to the land of Israel and rebuilt the Temple, they did so under Persian rule. When the Greeks, led by Alexander the Great, conquered the Persian empire, the Jewish commonwealth also came under Greek rule. After some time, the Greeks began to oppress the Jews and attempted to outlaw the observance of Judaism. The Jewish people, under the leadership of the priestly Hasmonean family, revolted against the Greeks. After their miraculous victory (celebrated on Chanukah), the Hasmonean family became the kings of the Jewish commonwealth in the land of Israel. The Hasmonean family ruled for a little more than a century, until they were displaced by Herod (with the support of the Romans). 

Although the early Hasmonean leaders were truly righteous and great men, over time their descendants were not always so good. Towards the end of the Hasmonean period, there was a struggle between two Hasmonean brothers, Hyrcanus and Aristobulus (the sons of the previous king, Alexander Jannaeus), over who should be king which eventually led to war. Hyrcanus allied himself with a non-Jewish king and made a siege on Jerusalem. (It was during this siege that the Tamid service was interrupted.) Eventually the famous Roman general, Pompey, got involved, and when all was done, the Romans had become the ruling power in Jerusalem. Thus, the struggle between Hyrcanus and Aristobulus was what first enabled the Romans to assume control over the land of Israel, which ultimately led to the destruction of the Jewish commonwealth and the second Temple.

It is is significant that the initiating event that ultimately led to the destruction of the Temple and the exile of the Jewish people was a struggle between two jealous brothers, for the Talmud (Yoma 9b) tells us that the second Temple was destroyed because of the sin of sinas chinam - unjustified hatred.  As Jews, we believe that God directs the events of history, and nothing simply happens on its own. This event was a sign, both to the people of that time and for all generations, of the inseparable connection between our relationship with God - symbolized by the Temple - and our relationship with our fellow men.

---

On the Popularity of the Mesillas Yesharim

One of the most influential and popular seforim (Jewish religious works) ever written is the mussar (ethical) work, Mesillas Yesharim, by R' Moshe Chaim Luzzatto (d.1747) - popularly known as the "Ramchal". The Mesillas Yesharim is considered a basic text in most yeshivos today and is widely studied by Jews throughout the world (both in the original Hebrew and in translation).

The question, of course, is why - of all the great mussar works written over the generations - this work should have become so immensely popular that it has reached the point of being one of the basic religious works of the Jewish world?

Before we can address the reasons for the immense popularity of this work, we first need to address a concern that is sometimes raised. The Ramchal, who passed away at the young age of 39, had the misfortune of being a rather controversial figure in his lifetime. He was accused - and even threatened with excommunication - of improper involvement in mystical practices and even Sabbatianism (adherence to one of the heretical cults based on the false messiah, Sabbatai Zvi). At first glance it might seem surprising that a work written by such a controversial figure has become such a central text of the Jewish world.

The reality, however, is that the Jewish world has long accepted that these accusations were incorrect. The fact that major figures, most notably, the Vilna Gaon (R' Elijah of Vilna, d.1797), strongly endorsed the Ramchal and his works has served to completely clear any suspicion from his name. The conventional opinion within the Orthodox community is that, as is often the case with complex figures (and the Ramchal was certainly a complex figure), especially those deeply involved with kabbalah and mysticism, the Ramchal was simply misunderstood. (The Ramchal was not unique in this regard; R' Yonason Eibshutz (d.1764) is another example of a major figure accused of Sabbatianism, whose works are fully accepted today, and for largely the same reason.)

The accusations against the Ramchal have, therefore, not been given any credence within the religious Jewish world for well over two centuries, and have long been viewed as just another unfortunate aspect of history.

Of course, the fact that the Ramchal is not viewed as a controversial figure does not, in of itself, explain why the Mesillas Yesharim became so popular. In fact, the Ramchal himself wrote many other works, and while some are fairly popular today, none of them comes close to the extraordinary popularity that the Mesillas Yesharim has enjoyed for more than two centuries.

I don't believe there can be any definite answers to this question. The fact that the Mesillas Yesharim was enthusiastically endorsed by numerous major rabbinic figures over the years (such as the Vilna Gaon and, perhaps most significantly, R' Yisrael Salanter (d.1883), the founder of the Mussar Movement in 19th century Eastern Europe) has certainly played a large role in its popularity. However, asides from the fact that this does not explain why the book received such enthusiastic endorsements in the first place, it also fails to really explain the work's general popularity as well. There have been many works over the years that have been enthusiastically endorsed by major figures that failed to really gain general popularity. (For example, in addition to Mesillas Yesharim, R' Yisrael Salanter also sought to popularize the study of several other mussar works, yet none of these works enjoys anything resembling the popularity of the Mesillas Yesharim, and some, such as the medieval mussar work, Tikkun Middos HaNefesh, by R' Solomon ibn Gabirol (d.1058), remain virtually unknown.) The reality is that it is the popularity of the Mesillas Yesharim that explains why people are aware of the many endorsements it has received, not the other way around.

So what was it about the Mesillas Yesharim that set it apart from all the other classic mussar works?

In my opinion, the most significant factor that sets the Mesillas Yesharim apart from earlier works is that, unlike many earlier mussar works, the Mesillas Yesharim refrains entirely from harsh, condemnatory language directed at the reader.  With many earlier mussar works, it is all too easy for the reader to come away from his studies with a sense of despair and fear. (An elderly - and very religious - woman once told me that she had difficulty studying the classic mussar work Shaarei Teshuva (by Rabbeinu Yona of Gerona, d.1263) because, for her, its uncompromising style was too intimidating and, ultimately, discouraging.) Many older mussar works seem to make a special effort to describe the dreadful fate of the sinner in the afterlife (the Reishis Chochma, by R' Elijah di Vidas, d.1592, is particularly noted for this).

The Mesillas Yesharim entirely refrains from such rhetoric. On the contrary, the work continually stresses that every positive step, no matter how small, is actually a major achievement, and that even one who attains to only the lowest of the levels described in the book has done something extraordinary.

Another significant factor that, in my opinion, distinguishes the Mesillas Yesharim from most earlier works is that he largely refrains from lengthy technical discussions. Many other works are written more in the style of philosophical works than as guides to self-improvement. Perhaps the most dramatic example of this is the classic Chovos Halevovos (by Rabbeinu Bachya ibn Paquda, 11th century), with its often cumbersome lists of proof-texts from Scripture and Rabbinic literature and philosophical arguments that, for the average reader, are often unnecessary. (It should be noted that, despite this issue, the Chovos Halevovos remains quite popular, and is probably the next most popular mussar work after the Mesillas Yesharim.)

Both of these factors point to the single, unique quality that distinguishes the Mesillas Yesharim: The sense that the author is there for you as a supportive and understanding personal mentor. The Ramchal in Mesillas Yesharim never condemns you; he never implies that your spiritual failings mean that you are a bad person or that you just don't care. He never implies that you just need to get your act together and stop doing bad things, as if it were an easy thing to do. And he never attempts to motivate you through fear of punishment. Instead, the Ramchal guides the reader step by step, with practical and inspirational advice, on how to gradually develop oneself and work one's way upwards spiritually. (For an overview of the general structure of the Messilas Yesharim, see my previous post: Who Achieves Divine Inspiration?)

In writing the Mesillas Yesharim in this manner, the Ramchal demonstrated a deep sensitivity to the changes that were taking place in society (both in Jewish society and in society at large). While earlier generations apparently found the older style mussar works effective, in the modern world a very different approach was necessary. The Mesillas Yesharim was thus, in many ways, the first modern Hebrew work. (Indeed, the early maskilim were great admirers of the Ramchal, and the Mesillas Yesharim, for this very reason.)

Given all of the above, it is not surprising that the Mesillas Yesharim was a huge "hit" and became the most popular mussar work of all time.

There is one more issue that is often raised that needs to be addressed. Anyone who has studied the Mesillas Yesharim will quickly recognize that, of the nine levels he describes, few people ever attain much beyond the first two or three. That being so, what is the point of studying the later sections?

Not long ago, I had the opportunity to discuss this topic with my rebbi, who is himself a long-time student of the Mesillas Yesharim. In the discussion, we came to three basic reasons why the later sections of Mesillas Yesharim are relevant to every Jew.

1. "You can't begin a journey if you don't know where you are going." Even when you are still on a lower level, the knowledge of what you are working to eventually achieve on the higher levels still has a major impact.
2. Spiritual growth is usually uneven. There are always some areas in which we are stronger than in other areas. Thus, it is possible that while a person may have only achieved the first or second level in most regards, he is nevertheless on level 5 or 6 in certain specific areas. A person should not restrict his spiritual growth in stronger areas while he waits for his weakest areas to "catch up". On the contrary, it is often the case that as one improves in one area, other areas tend to be "drawn along" and improve as well.
3. It is important for us to understand what true spirituality is, so that we will be able to recognize it (or its absence) in the people around us. Even if we have not achieved the highest levels described in Mesillas Yesharim, if we study them we will at least be able to recognize such greatness when we encounter it in another person, and we will also be able to recognize its absence in those who put on false pretenses of holiness.

---

Originally written in response to a question on an on-line forum.

---

On Ambiguities in Jewish History - A Correspondence with a Concerned Reader

I recently received an e-mail from a reader, Chanie, who was legitimately concerned about an aspect of an earlier post of mine. With her permission, I am sharing our brief correspondence (slightly edited), as I believe it touches upon an important issue with regard to our understanding of history in general, and Jewish history in particular:

Hi, First of all, great blog - I always look forward to your posts and the insights they bring to light. With regard to your post on how the Chanukah revolt began - you quote a Midrash that states: "When her brothers saw this, they were ashamed, they turned their faces to the ground, tore their clothes, and they got up to kill her." What a horrific story - it sounds exactly like the honor killings we condemn the Muslims for carrying out. How could the Maccabees, whom we hold up as heroes, have been so ready to kill their sister?

I responded:

Dear Chanie, Thank you very much for contacting me. I am always grateful to hear from appreciative readers (or any readers at all, actually). The question you asked about the passage I quoted is certainly a good one. The truth is that the same thing has always bothered me, and when I originally posted it I was tempted to edit that little bit out. I don't have a ready explanation for how they could have thought that it would be proper to kill their sister under such circumstances. Of course, one of the main problems is that we are dealing here with a minor midrash, or, perhaps more accurately, a midrashic fragment (the entire midrash is at most a couple pages long), of unknown provenance. Asides from the fact that such midrashim have no commentaries whatsoever (which is a big problem), they are often simply unreliable. Even if the basic narrative is true, we have no way of knowing to what degree the story has been modified or embellished by unknown hands over the centuries. In this case, I suspect the idea that the brothers got up to - literally - kill her (assuming the midrash is, in fact, intended to be taken literally on that point, and it isn't simply an exaggeration)  was an embellishment from a later author intended to bring out the ironic point made by the female character: "You are so filled with zealous rage for my minor infraction, yet you will give me over to that uncircumcised Gentile to be raped?!" I suspect that in the original version of the story, the brothers probably didn't do much at all, beyond yelling at her to put her clothes back on. Perhaps they got up to take her away where no one could see her. (I mean, what do you do when your sister strips naked at her wedding??) In fact, after receiving your e-mail I looked into it a bit more, and there actually is an alternate version of the story where the bride doesn't strip naked, but simply dresses herself in rags, with the intent of provoking the governor to kill her (because she is supposed to show up in her wedding finery), and the bride's family expresses embarrassment that she is dressed in such a manner at her wedding, to which she responds with the same basic speech, which, in turn, inspires the revolution. This version makes the same basic point as the one I posted, but it lacks much of the drama that makes the story so memorable. Of course, it is possible that this version is also modified, perhaps in order to be more palatable to our sensibilities. It is impossible to know. So, I guess my answer is that when dealing with sources of this sort, you just have to know how to take the good and discard the bad. As someone who has a long-standing interest in material of this sort, I pretty much do this automatically, but I need to bear in mind that most people don't. I really appreciate your taking the trouble to contact me about this. A freilichen Chanukah, Lazer Abrahamson

 Chanie replied:

Thanks so much for your quick and thorough response - I really appreciate your taking the time! And thanks for your candor - it's a bit frustrating not knowing what really happened, but your explanation is one I can live with. Just to clarify another point - so the story of Yehudis probably didn't happen? Is there any basis for combining the stories as this site suggests ? Best, Chanie

I replied:

One of the most basic lessons that I have learned in my studies of, primarily Jewish, history, is that the real world is messy. It is human nature to look for patterns in history - and current events - that have structure, with a clear cast of characters, and a clear beginning, middle, and end. Basically, the kind of structure that we look for in fiction. But reality isn't really like that, at least not on a level that we are able to perceive with our very limited knowledge of events. This truth is often missed by people, especially intelligent people, who instinctively try to "make sense" out of events, both current and historical. (At its most extreme, this kind of thinking can lead to conspiracy theories, a large part of whose appeal is their apparent "explanatory" power, or to radical "revisionism", where basic historical realities are denied (as in Holocaust denial).) Even professional historians, who ought to know better, often fall prey to this kind of thinking, especially when it fits in with preexisting biases. This is true even for modern history, despite the fact that we have often have direct access to eyewitnesses and modern records.When it comes to ancient history the situation is far worse. There is so much information that has been lost over time, and so much information that has been distorted and changed, that it is usually simply impossible to reliably reconstruct the exact details of events. The story of Judith - and the other stories of female heroes associated with Chanuka - are almost certainly built upon actual historical events. In fact, it is quite possible, arguably even likely, that there were several separate stories, involving different women, that over the ages evolved into the two or three basic narratives that we have today. However, untangling the exact details is probably impossible. Strictly speaking, I have no problem with telling over these stories as part of our tradition, being that they are certainly based on reality. (As opposed to the silliness about the ancient Jewish children playing dreidle in the woods, which is up there with Haman's triangular hat as pure fiction), but I think it is important for adults to at least be aware that the exact details of such stories are far from clear. I hope this is helpful. All the best, Lazer Abrahamson

Chanie replied:

Re: stories in Jewish history and looking for completion - I never thought about it that way. I hear you, I guess we do like things nice and tidy, but I agree that intellectual honesty is preferable to fairy tales, so thanks for being straightforward. Looking forward to future posts!

---

Shimon HaTzadik's Three Pillars and the Greek Shmad

There is a famous midrashic passage that discusses the second verse of the Torah:

והארץ היתה תהו ובהו וחשך על פני תהום ורוח אלקים מרחפת על פני המים

And the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.

The midrash (Bereishis Raba 2:4) interprets the terms “unformed”, “void”, “darkness”, and “the deep”, as referring to the four exiles that the Jewish people would undergo. The third exile, “darkness”, refers to when the Jewish people would be under the rule of the Greeks. The midrash states:

"וחשך" – זה גלות יון, שהחשיכה עיניהם של ישראל בגזירותיהן שהיתה אומרת להם, כתבו על קרן השור שאין לכם חלק באלקי ישראל.

“And darkness” – This is the exile of Greece. For the Greeks darkened the eyes of Israel with their decrees, for they said to them, “Inscribe on the horn of your ox that you have no share in the God of Israel.”

The Greeks—together with their Jewish allies—pioneered the concept of shmad, the systematic eradication of Judaism. For the first time in history, a government attempted to destroy the Jewish religion in a purely ideological campaign. It may be to emphasize this point that the midrash focuses on the relatively minor decree requiring the Jews to make an inscription on the horns of their oxen. The other decrees, many of which were far more severe (such as the decrees against circumcision or the Sabbath), could be understood as serving the general goal of subduing a rebellious nation, but this decree clearly has no significance except as an ideological campaign to undermine the religious beliefs of the Jewish people.

In the various accounts of the Greek oppression of Judaism, we find that they engaged in a wide range of different decrees intended to undermine the Jewish religion. Thus, the Greeks outlawed the study of Torah and the performance of many of the commandments, as well as requiring the Jews to participate in idolatrous rituals. As wicked as these decrees were, we can easily understand how these decrees advanced the goal of eradicating the Jewish religion.

However, there is one aspect of the Greek decrees, which is stressed in many sources, that does not seem, at first glance, to really fit this pattern. This was the desecration of Jewish women. Indeed, according to many sources, it was precisely these extraordinarily harsh decrees – which were far from the norm of the period – that ultimately led to the Jewish uprising. Why did the Greeks engage such atypical behavior towards the Jews? What ideological function did these decrees serve?

To address this question we need to step a bit further back in history. The Jewish encounter with Greece began with Alexander the Great’s conquest of the Persian empire. The Talmud (Yoma 69a) tells us of the famous incident where Alexander the Great first encountered the Jewish people, and met the great sage, Shimon HaTzadik (Simeon the Just):

בחמשה ועשרים בטבת יום הר גריזים הוא דלא למספד ביה יום שבקשו כותיים את בית אלקינו מאלכסנדרוס מוקדון להחריבו ונתן להם רשות באו והודיעו לשמעון הצדיק מה עשה שמעון הצדיק לבש בגדי כהונה ונתעטף בבגדי כהונה ומיקירי ירושלים עמו ואבוקות של אור בידיהם והיו מהלכין כל הלילה כולה הללו מהלכין מצד זה והללו מהלכין מצד זה עד שעלה עמוד השחר כיון שעלה עמוד השחר אמר להם מי הם הללו אמרו לו הללו יהודים שמרדו בך כיון שהגיע לאנטיפרס זרחה חמה פגעו זה בזה כיון שראה את שמעון הצדיק ירד ממרכבתו והשתחוה לו. אמרו לו מלך שכמותך משתחוה ליהודי הזה אמר להם דמות דיוקנו של זה היא מנצחת לפני בבית מלחמתי. אמר להם למה באתם אמרו לו בית שאנו מתפללין עליך ועל מלכותך שלא תחרב יתעוך כותיים הללו להחריבו ותתן להם רשות. אמר להם מי הם הללו. אמרו לו הללו כותים שעומדים לפניך. אמר להם הרי הם מסורין בידכם מיד נקבום בעקביהם ותלאום בזנבי סוסיהם והיו מגררים אותם על הקוצים ועל הברקנים עד שהגיעו להר גריזים כיון שהגיעו להר גריזים חרשוהו וזרעוהו כרשינין כדרך שבקשו לעשות את בית אלקינו ואותו היום עשאוהו יו"ט.

The twenty-fifth day of Teves ^[1] is Yom Har Grizim^[2] on which you may not eulogize, [for it was] the day that the Samaritans sought from Alexander the Macedonian [for permission] to destroy the Temple of God and he gave them permission.^[3] They came and made this known to Shimon HaTzadik.^[4] What did Shimon HaTzadik do? He donned the priestly garments and wrapped himself in the priestly garments and went with the nobility of Jerusalem with lit torches in their hands and they walked the entire night, some walking on one side and some walking on the other side, until morning. When morning rose, [Alexander] said to [the Samaritans], “Who are these?” They said to him, “These are the Jews who rebelled against you.” When they reached Antipatris the sun shone forth and the groups met. When [Alexander] saw Shimon HaTzadik he got down from his chariot and bowed before him. [The Samaritans] said to him, “A king like you bows before this Jew?!” He said to them, “The image of this man is victorious for me in battle.”^[5] [Alexander] said to [the Jews], “Why have you come?” They said to him, “The Temple where we pray for you and your kingdom that it should not be destroyed, these Samaritans have deceived you to destroy it and you have given them permission.” He said to them, “Who are these?”^[6] They said to him, “These Samaritans standing before you.” He said to them, “Behold, they are given into your hands.” Immediately they punctured their ankles and hung them from the tails of their horses and they dragged them upon thorns and thistles until they reached Har Grizim. When they came to Har Grizim, they plowed it under and they planted karshinim^[7], as [the Samaritans] wanted to do to the Temple of God, and that day they made into a holiday.^[8]

Shimon HaTzadik, who was a young man at the time, went on to serve as the high priest for forty years. He was the primary spiritual leader of the Jewish people at this critical – and often violent – period when the Jewish people were first being brought in contact with Greek thought and culture.

Shimon HaTzadik is best known for his statement, quoted in the second mishna of Pirkei Avos, “The world stands on three things, on Torah [study], on the service [of HaShem], and on bestowing kindnesses.” As the Bartenura there tells us, this was something he always repeated and stressed; it was his primary teaching to his generation. What was the significance of this particular lesson? Rav Shlomo Brevda שליט"א explains:^[9]

והנה מתחילת שלטונם בארצנו הקדושה, השתדלו היוונים להשפיע עלינו מחכמתם, חכמת הטבע (ובסוף שלטונם גזרו גזירות להשכיח מאתנו את התורה הקדושה ולהעבירנו מחוקי רצונו ית"ש). שמעון הצדיק שהיה גדול הדור וגם כהן גדול בתחילת מלכות יון, השתדל בכל כחו לחזק את העם שישארו שלמים ונאמנים אך ורק לתורתנו הקדושה, ושלא ישימו לב כלל וכלל לחכמי יון ודבריהם. על כן באו תמיד דבריו הקדושים לעם סגולה שהעולם עומד על ג' דברים, עסק התורה, עבודת הקודש, וגמילות חסדים. ודבריו הקדושים סותרים לגמרי את שיטת חכמי הטבע. כי תורה ועבודה וגמילות חסדים לא יעניקו לאדם, על פי טבע, אפילו פת לחם, ואיך יתקיים האדם. אבל אנחנו מקבלי התורה, מאמינים בני מאמינים, יודעים שמצבינו למעלה מהטבע, והקב"ה זן ומפרנס ומכלכל העוסקים בתורה ובעבודה וגמ"ח. והצליח שמעון הצדיק בזמנו להחזיק את העם בשלימות האמונה וקיום המצוות. ולכן זכו בדורו לסייעתא למעלה מדרך הטבע. וראו חבתם לפניו ית"ש כי כל מצבם בבית המקדש, יום יום ובש"ק ובימים טובים, הכל היה למעלה מהטבע.

From the beginning of their rule in our holy land, the Greeks sought to influence us with their wisdom, the natural sciences (and towards the end of their rule they made decrees to make us forget our holy Torah and to remove us from the decrees of His Will). Shimon HaTzadik, who was the leader of the generation as well as the high priest at the beginning of the Greek rule [over the land of Israel], sought with all his strength to strengthen the people so that they should remain completely loyal only and exclusively to our holy Torah, and that they should not pay heed to the teachings of the wise men of Greece. For this reason, he would continually repeat his teaching that the world stands on three things, Torah study, the holy service, and bestowing kindnesses. This teaching completely contradicted the philosophy of the [Greek] scholars of natural science. For, according to nature, Torah, service, and kindness do not provide a person with anything, not even bread, so how will a person survive [on these alone]? But we who received the Torah, the faithful and the children of the faithful, know that our circumstances are above nature, and that the God feeds, supports, and provides for those who involve themselves in Torah, service, and kindness. Shimon HaTzadik was successful in his time in strengthening the people in perfection of faith and in fulfillment of the commandments. Therefore, in his generation they merited to receive supernatural help, and they saw how beloved they were before Him, for their entire situation in the Holy Temple, on ordinary days and on the Sabbath and festivals, was supernatural.^[10]

Thus, the teaching of Shimon HaTzadik that the world stands on three things, Torah study, the service of God, and the performance of acts of kindness, was specifically formulated to counter the influence of Greek thought on the Jewish people. It is therefore not be surprising that, many years later, when the Greek shmad began, the Greeks (with the advice of the Hellenistic Jews) focused specifically on attacking these three pillars.

Attacking the pillars of Torah and avodah (service) was fairly straightforward. They simply outlawed the study of Torah and the performance of the commandments, as well as contaminating the Temple and forcing the Jews to engage in idolatry.

But how, exactly, does one attack the pillar of gemilus chasadim – doing acts of kindness? What do you prohibit? Being nice? Lending money? Helping old ladies across the street?

The Greeks solved this problem with an insight that was as wicked as it was profound. The ultimate source of chesed – kindness – and love for one’s fellow is the home. The Sages describe a married couple as “רעים האהובים” – “loving companions” – the same language used in the verse (Leviticus 19:18), “ואהבת לרעך כמוך” – “And you shall love your fellow as you love yourself.” Charity – and all forms of kindness – truly does begin at home, for it is in the home that we first see in our parents what it means for people to truly give of themselves for another. It is with that model in our mind that we then go on to develop the underlying attitudes that are necessary for true chesed to exist in a society. Based on this recognition, the Greeks attacked the Jewish home, through decrees that were intended to undermine the relationship between husband and wife.

On Chanukah we celebrate the miraculous victory that ended the Greek shmad and freed us to once again fully observe the laws of the Torah. It is a time for us to reinforce our commitment to the three pillars of Shimon HaTzadik. It is a time for us to recommit ourselves to the study of Torah, the service of God, and to doing acts of kindness. And, just as our enemies recognized in ancient times, we too must bear in mind that chesed – kindness – begins at home, especially in the relationship between husband and wife.

---

[1] Megillas Taanis places this event on the twenty-first of Kislev.

[2] Har Grizim was the location of the main Samaritan city and later became the location of their temple.

[3] Josephus tells us that when Alexander was besieging Tyre, a city to the north of the land of Israel, the Samaritans, who were—like the Jews—subjects of the Persian Empire, approached Alexander and offered to betray the Persians and join forces with him. The Jews, however, remained loyal to the Persian emperor. This combination of events caused Alexander to initially favor the Samaritans and to believe their false accusations against the Jews.

[4] In Yossipon the kohein that meets Alexander is named Chananya. However, some versions of Yossipon omit this and the name is probably erroneous. Similarly, Josephus (Antiquities XI:8:4-5) writes that the kohein was named – in Greek – “Iaddou”, which most translations understand as Yadua, the name of Shimon HaTzadik’s grandfather. There are a number of possible explanations for this discrepancy (asides from simple scribal error). Some authorities, most notably the Sefer HaKabala, claim that Shimon was also known by the name Iddo (עדו), which may be a different reading of the Greek name used by Josephus. (The Abarbanel, in Nachalas Avos 1:2, points out that the use of multiple names was common throughout the Second Temple period.) The Doros HaRishonim (Vol. 1, pp. 196-7), argues that Yadua was still the high priest at this time but he was too elderly to go out to meet Alexander, so he sent his grandson Shimon in his place. Thus, Josephus may have erroneously concluded that the entire story happened with Yadua. R’ Miller, however, believes that Josephus changed the story deliberately (Torah Nation 206).

[5] Megillas Taanis states slightly differently, דיוקנו של זה אני רואה כשאני יורד במלחמה ונוצח – “The image of this person I see when I go down to war and am victorious.”

[6] The implication here is that Alexander was not aware of the actual plans of the Samaritans. In fact, in the version told in Megillas Taanis, the Samaritans did not actually tell Alexander what they were planning on doing, they simply “purchased” the location of the Temple from Alexander. Alternatively, the Ben Ish Chai explains that Alexander certainly knew that the Samaritans were guilty, but he wanted to know if any of his own officers were also included in the plot. To this the Jews responded that only the Samaritans were guilty.

[7] A kind of inferior grain used primarily as animal feed.

[8] This story is also told in Josephus and Yossipon. However these accounts differ in several significant ways from the Talmudic account and some of these differences are historically problematic. According to both of these alternate accounts, after his conquest of Gaza, which is south of Jerusalem, Alexander marched on Jerusalem with intent to destroy it and he met the Jews just outside the gates of Jerusalem. This is in apparent conflict with the standard accounts of Alexander’s conquests, which report that Alexander traveled from Gaza to Egypt in just one week, which would make a visit to Jerusalem (which is in the opposite direction) impossible. However, according to the Talmudic account there is no reason to believe that Alexander ever planned on traveling to Jerusalem himself. The Talmud does not specify at what point in his conquests he met the Jews, however, given the information provided, the most likely point was after the conquest of Tyre, and before the conquest of Gaza. According to the Talmud, the location of the meeting was Antipatris, a town not far from the ocean shore along which Alexander traveled. The relatively brief meeting described in the Talmud took place early in the morning and would not have significantly affected the traveling time of Alexander’s army, which may explain why it is unmentioned in non-Jewish accounts. As for the accounts of Alexander’s visit to Jerusalem and the Temple, if these events actually happened at all, they may have taken place later, when Alexander was returning from his conquest of Egypt, and traveling back towards Babylon. Josephus and Yossipon may have erroneously combined two separate events.

[9] In his Kuntres L’Hodos U’l’Hallel b’inyanei Chanuka, p. 16.

[10] Rav Brevda is referring here to the several supernatural blessings that took place in the Temple while Shimon HaTzadik was alive, as described in the Talmud (Yoma 39a).

---