B"H

Thanks, Yehonaton!

If we might return to Josephus (Yoseph Mathiah - יוסף בן מתתיה), he is indispensable when it comes to helping us understand the chronological order of events mentioned in our Talmud, and in resolving certain disputes by Amorayim in the Talmud. For example, in Berakhot 29a of our Babylonian Talmud, we find a dispute between Abaye and Rabba. "Abaye says [King] Yannai and [King] Yochanan Hyrcanus are the same person. Rabba says [King] Yannai is a person by himself, and [King] Yochanan Hyrcanus is a person by himself."

Now anyone who might peruse through the writings of Josephus will quickly discover that King Janneus (Heb. Yannai) and King John Hyrcanus (Heb. Yochanan Hyrcanus) are named by him as being two distinct persons; John Hyrcanus being the progenitor of King Janneus. Both were from the Hasmonaean Dynasty of priests.

One of the fine points arising from this distinction is where Abaye (in Kiddushin 66a) names Yannai as being the king who waged war against "Kohelith in the wilderness," and against whom came the calumnious reports about his mother being a captive, and therefore the king, himself, being of doubtful lineage, since we suspect that his mother had been forced by a gentile and that the king was actually a "profaned priest" (Heb. challal). Since Abaye reported this in the name of a Boraitta, we can be assured that the king that he mentioned (and whose name was libelled) was, indeed, Yannai, and not Yochanan Hyrcanus, although Abaye believed them to be one and the same person. The slander, notwithstanding, had earlier been levelled against Yannai's father, Yochanan Hyrcanus. This, according to Josephus in his "Antiquities" (Book XIII, ch. X, vss. 5-6). This would lead us to think that it may not have been Yannai's mother who was allegedly taken captive, but rather his grandmother. At any rate, the Boraitta quoted by Abaye (ibid.) affirms that it was only a malicious report, designed to discredit the king. Nothing bad had actually happened to his mother (or grandmother). Nevertheless, the Pharisees at the time believed the report, and caused no small discomfort to the king, until at length he (King Yannai) made away with them by death. Rabba (see: Berakhot 29a and Sanhedrin 19a-b) had also believed their slander. So much for these histories.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Yoseph Mathiah, among other things, reveals to us proper place names that have long since been disputed by geographical-historians. When describing the place known as "Solomon's Pools," a place so-called by us today, and which is situate westward of Beth-Lehem, he says that it was formerly known by the name of "Ain 'Eitam" (Heb. עין עיטם) See: Antiquities, Book VIII, ch. VII, vs. 3.

RASHI, on the other hand, in Yoma 31a (s.v., עין עיטם) thought "Ain 'Eitam" to be the spring of Nephtoach (today: Wadi Lifta) near Jerusalem. A critical look at the description of "the waters of Nephtoach" (מי נפתוח) in the book of Joshua will have one conclude, without any reasonable doubt, that this place was within proximity to that border between Judah and Benjamin, whereas "Beth-Lehem, 'Eitam and Tekoa" are places mentioned together in II Chronicles 11:6. Yoseph Mathiah has a strong case against RASHI.

B"H

For the benefit of all historical geographers, Josephus (ibid.) puts the distance between Jerusalem and 'Eitam at fifty furlongs. A furlong was called by the Greeks, "stadia," and was equivalent to about 500 cubits, or four furlongs to each biblical mile. The distances mentioned by Josephus were not necessarily crow-miles, but rather the distances measured in walking, with its meandering paths, bends, depressions, etc. This great distance would rule out Nephtoach (Wadi Lifta), since its place is relatively close to Jerusalem. Moreover, the remains of a Roman aqueduct stretching from Solomon's Pools to Jerusalem can still be seen, whereas no such aqueduct brought water from Nephtoach to Jerusalem. This fits the description of Abaye in Yoma 31a that the waters of 'Eitam (Solomon's Pools) were 23 cubits higher than the mikveh (ablution) used by the High Priest in Jerusalem, which allowed its waters to flow gradually towards Jerusalem.

Other place names mentioned by Josephus:
1) Kadesh, also known by the name of Reccem, is a place described by Josephus as being Petra, in trans-Jordan eastward (Antiquities, Book IV, ch. VII, vs. 1).
2) Bezek, according to Josephus, is the name of a city, where Samuel the Prophet once numbered the people. (Antiquities, Book VI, ch. V. vs.3) It is located to the east of Shechem (Nablus), according to Eusebius' "Onomasticon." This view seemed to have differed from that of "Pesikta de Rav Kahana," section Shekalim, who said Bezek meant "the stones" with which they were numbered.

quote:

Originally posted by David Ben-Abraham:



[QUOTE] Both, Rashi and Maimonides, say that it was "scarlet wool." Rabbi Saadia Gaon, in his Arabic translation of the Torah known as "Tifsir," says that it was "crimson-coloured silk," made from the silk worm.

No Maimonides says it came from a plant as he could not accept using an unclean animal in the temple.
see Torah Temimah ad locum

Yoseph Mathiah, of all persons, has shed invaluable light upon this important question. In "Antiquities," Book IV, ch. VIII, vs. 28, he writes:
"If any one be sold to one of his own nation, let him serve him six years, and on the seventh let him go free. But if he have a son by a woman-servant in his purchaser's house, and if, on account of his good-will towards his Master, and his natural affection to his wife and children, he will be his servant still, let him be set free only at the coming of the year of Jubilee, which is the fiftieth year, and let him then take away with him his children and wife, and let them be free also."

Note that Josephus has a tradition of freeing slaves in the seventh year, smittah, which is not found in any other source.
Yesher Kochecheh, I have been asking for years as to where the Ramban on Gitten 36 say that Josephus says that Yovel was practiced during the second temple. I think this is it.

quote:

Originally posted by David Ben-Abraham:
B"H

For your information:

It was recently pointed out to me that a certain Professor David Goldenberg (addresss: 113 Edgehill Road, Bala Cynwyd, PA. 19004, U.S.A.) has written a doctoral dissertation in 1978 at Dropsie University in Philadelphia, on the comparison of Josephus and Halakhah.

Actually Dr. Louis Feldman has written several articles on the Mishnat of Josephus. You can find them in Journals like Torah U'Madah. There was a lot of interest in these things like Josephus and Philo in the 1960's and 70's.

quote:

Originally posted by David Ben-Abraham:
B"H

Someone had asked me in a private message about the writings of Josephus. His question was:

“If it’s outside of SHAS, what authority does it have? There are rules of pesaq in SHAS, so where does Josephus fit in? Shall we rely on him & not SHAS? Josephus was NOT an acharon. He was BEFORE a pesaq was ever issued! The power of a bathroi is seeing the Amoraic discussions & Josephus did not see them. Can we, then, ever say the halacha is like Josephus? What does it all mean?"

Since both the Ramban and Rashi (as in the ms used by Steinholtz) cite Josephus, I presume it is alright for the rest of us. However, no one ever suggested poskining like Josephus, e.g. not burying suicides till after 24 hrs.

Now Yosephon is a different story. It is a mixture of various sources and legends. In the final paragraph he cites Josephus which lead to the book being called Josephoon.

I guess we should mention why Josephus is not quoted in the Talmud or Mishneh. He was considered a traitor and an ally of the Romans, which he was. His books were meant to be propaganda for the Flavians who the Rabbis didn't exactly appreciate. However, by the middle ages, the hostility was forgotten and the Rishonim rediscovered Josephus. A similar thing happened with the first two books of the Maccabees which are excellent historical sources.

quote:

Originally posted by laurence shore:

quote:

Originally posted by David Ben-Abraham:



[QUOTE] Both, Rashi and Maimonides, say that it was "scarlet wool." Rabbi Saadia Gaon, in his Arabic translation of the Torah known as "Tifsir," says that it was "crimson-coloured silk," made from the silk worm.

No Maimonides says it came from a plant as he could not accept using an unclean animal in the temple.
see Torah Temimah ad locum

Aryeh,

When I wrote about Maimonides, I meant only that he said "Tola'as Sheni," was wool, and not silk. I did not refer to the dyeing method used, athough its colour was scarlet. So, you have enhanced our understanding about the method applied in the wool's dying.

David

quote:

Originally posted by laurence shore:
I guess we should mention why Josephus is not quoted in the Talmud or Mishneh. He was considered a traitor and an ally of the Romans, which he was. His books were meant to be propaganda for the Flavians who the Rabbis didn't exactly appreciate. However, by the middle ages, the hostility was forgotten and the Rishonim rediscovered Josephus. A similar thing happened with the first two books of the Maccabees which are excellent historical sources.

Aryeh,

It is not so clear that Josephus was never quoted or mentioned in the Talmud. In Kiddushin 66a, we find an ancient Jewish teaching conveyed by Abaye, with the introduction "Tanya," where he proceeds to bring down a story about Yannai (Alexander Janneus) who was libelled by a certain El'azar Puri'ah. The same story has been conveyed in the writings of Josephus.

Perhaps they did not wish to make mention of Josephus' name, Yoseph Mathiah (Matithiya), for the reasons you've mentioned. We find that Rabbi Meir's name was also omitted from rabbinic sources because of a dispute that he and Rabbi Nosson had with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, the president of the Court. (see: end of Tractate Horayos).

Moreover, you wrote: "No one ever suggested poskining like Josephus, e.g. not burying suicides till after 24 hrs."

I do not remember Josephus ever saying this. Could you please cite for me the source? I do recall, however, where Josephus said that a man who commits suicide is buried at night. This is not saying that 24 hours had passed since his suicide.


David

quote:

Originally posted by laurence shore:
I have been asking for years as to where the Ramban on Gitten 36 say that Josephus says that Yovel was practiced during the second temple. I think this is it.

Aryeh,

This is a long discussion in itself. The brunt of the matter is this:

The Talmud says that the Jubilees (Heb. Yovel) were no longer in use at the time of the second Temple period, having come to an end with the Babylonian captivity. Altogether, they had counted only 17 Jubilees before being carried away into exile.

Maimonides says in one of his Questions & Responsa that all throughout the second Temple period they continued to count the Jubilees (i.e. 7 x 7 = 49 years, and the 50th year being the Jubilee), although it no longer had the force to release enslaved persons, or to return lands to their original owners, etc. The counting was done simply in order to keep the seven year cycle (Sabbatical years) in their proper order, for the sake of knowing when persons were to be acquited of their loans, or when work in the fields were to come to a cessation, etc., since the 50th year is a year in itself (i.e. the Jubilee), and it was never counted among the seven-year cycles. Had they not taken into account the Jubilee, they would have counted the 50th year as the 1st year in a seven-year cycle, causing confusion to the Sabbatical years. Therefore, the 50th year is a Jubilee, and the 51st year is the beginning of a new seven-year cycle, or what is called "the 1st year."

It is precisely for this reason that Josephus mentions, in his "Antiquities," certain dates that are marked in the Seleucid Era (year of Alexander) and which some were noted as being Sabbatical years. (This year, 5766 anno mundi, marks the 2317th of the Seleucid Era.) Today, we practice counting seven years, which are repeated again and again, with no place accounted for the Jubilee. Maimonides says that this has been the practice ever since the destruction of the Temple. If we were to divide by seven (based upon the seven-year cycle used by us today) all those years accumulated from the date marked by Josephus as being a Sabbatical year, we would not come up with an even number. This is because we do not make account for the Jubilee. Now they (in Josephus' time) knew and kept an accurate record of the Jubilees, which, in every 50 years, delayed the seven-year cycle by one year.

Maimonides mentions that this accurate record of when a Jubilee is supposed to occur was known by the Geonim. Rabbi Yoseph Karo, in his Questions & Responsa "Avkas Rochel," mentions a dispute whether or not we are still required to count Sabbatical years by taking into account the Jubilees. In practice, that is, ever since the Temple's destruction, it ceased to be observed.

If you are interested in seeing precise dates and examples of this, I can bring them for you.

David

Is there any opinion that the 2 shemita years surrounding a yovel year were 7 years apart - that the yovel year was also the first year of the next shemita cycle?

B"H

Rob,

Yes, there is a dispute by the rishonim (early exponents of our laws) about the Jubilee, and whether or not the year known as the Jubilee "oleh baminyan" (i.e. is supposed to be counted in the overall number of 7 x 7, therefore making the 49th year the actual Jubilee), or perhaps, it does not count in the overall number of 7 x 7, and the 50th year is the actual year of the Jubilee.

The latter opinion is the accepted opinion, according to Maimonides. This can also be proven by the following:

Today's Hebrew calendar year of 5766 anno mundi corresponds with 2005-2006 C.E., but in the old Seleucid Era counting (or what is also known as the "Year of Alexander" and by others as the "Era of Contracts") would have been calculated as the 2317th year.

Maimonides, in his Questions & Responsa, responsum # 389 (in other editions, responsum # 234), has written that the year in which we traditionally mark the first year of the new seven-year cycle started by Ezra (i.e. the beginning of Sabbatical Years and Jubilees) was in anno mundi 3415 (or the equivalent of 345 B.C.E.), which happened to fall in the seventh year after the Temple's re-building.

According to the Tanna of "Seder Olam," the date which marks the beginning of the counting of the Seleucid Era (Year of Alexander) was in the year 3449 anno mundi (or the equivalent of 311 B.C.E.), which was 41 years after the re-building of the 2nd Temple. This year was actually the 6th year of Alexander the Great's reign, and is known as the 1st year of the Seleucid Era. (see: Rabbeinu Hananel's Commentary on Avodah Zarah 10a)

According to I Maccabees 6: 20-ff. (I Macc. VI. 49, 53), the 150th year of the Seleucid Era was a seventh year. This fact is also confirmed by Josephus in his "Antiquities" (Book XII, ch. IX, vss. 3 & 5), where we find:

"At this time it was that the garrison in the citadel at Jerusalem [under Antiochus Eupater], with the Jewish runagates, did a great deal of harm to the Jews... This was in the hundred and fifth year of the dominion of the Seleucidae... So [Judas Maccabeus] made engines of war... and very zealously pressed on to take the citadel."

But when, on that same year, the enemy had mustered its forces to fight against Judas, some of the people under the command of Judas Maccabeus had retired to the temple mount in Jerusalem where they were besieged by Antiochus Eupater. "But then their provisions failed them; what fruits of the ground they had laid up were spent, and the land being not ploughed that year, continued unsowed, because it was the seventh year, on which, by our laws, we are obliged to let ot lie uncultivated."

Now Maimonides says in his Questions & Responsa, responsum # 389, that during the Second Temple period it was not necessary to take into account the 50th year known as the Jubilee except in order to keep the Sabbatical years in their proper order. That is, since the Jubilee is not counted in the overall number of years 7 x 7, it was necessary to count the 50th year as a Jubilee in order to make the 51st year the 1st year of the seven-year cycle.

Taking this premise, we could never have had the 150th year of the Seleucid Era fall on a seventh year, had it not been that they observed the 50th year as a Jubilee - although it no longer had the power to release slaves, or to cause property to return unto its original owners. The counting of the Jubilee was only made necessary in order to keep the Sabbatical years in their proper order.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

By the way, the Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 3828 anno mundi, which time corresponds with the month of Av in the year 379 of the Seleucid Era, or 68 C.E. According to the Tanna of "Seder Olam," and Tosefta Zevachim 13:6, it stood 420 years.

There is also an oral teaching which says the 1st Temple was destroyed in the 1st year of the Seven-Year cycle (במוצאי שביעית). In order to pin-point that time, we must remember that the old system of counting Sabbatical years and Jubilees had been changed by Ezra. According to Maimonides (Questions & Responsa, responsum # 389), the people whose fathers left Egypt began counting their first Jubilee in 2552 anno mundi. Rabbeinu Hananel (in Avodah Zarah 9b) says it was in 2551 anno mundi. Since the 1st Temple stood only 410 years, by taking Maimonides' calculations, it so happens that the 1st Temple's destruction fell out during the 1st year of the Seven-Year cycle! This could never have happened without observing the 50th year as a Jubilee.

Maimonides further explains in his Questions & Responsa (ibid.) that the 17 Jubilees allegedly observed by the people during the period of the 1st Temple were, in actuality, only 16 complete Jubilees, and 36 years. That is, 14 years short of the 17th Jubilee.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Finally, the teaching to count only seven years, repeated by seven years, and again seven years - all throughout the spectrum (without making account for the 50th year), just as we do today ever since the Temple's destruction, is a teaching that was taught by Rav Huna, the son of Rav Yehoshua, in Avodah Zarah 9b.

The teaching that requires us to continue with the counting instituted by Ezra, and which takes account for the Jubilee (the 50th year), is a teaching that was taught by Rav Yehudah, in Arakhin 12b. This was also the practice of Hai Gaon, according to Maimonides.

Quote "Is there any opinion that the 2 shemita years surrounding a yovel year were 7 years apart - that the yovel year was also the first year of the next shemita cycle?"

We see this Machlokes on the top of Rosh Hashana 9a (and paraphrased by Kollel Iyun Hadaf)

(f) The Rabbanan use "It is Yovel" to teach that the fiftieth year is counted as Yovel alone, and not as both Yovel and as the first year of the next cycle.

(g) This excludes the view of R. Yehudah, who holds that it is also counted as the first year of the next 50- year cycle.

So R' Yehudah holds of that Shita

B"H

Thank-you, Rav Chaim, for clarifying this matter. You are the Rabbi, and we are your students.

I stand corrected that it was the 50th year that was thought by some to be, both, the Jubilee and the 1st year in the new Seven-Year cycle. (Rosh Hashana 9a). Whereas, others held the view that the 50th year was the Jubilee, and the 51st year was the 1st year in the Seven-Year cycle. For the sake of our readers, my previous post should have read as follows:

"There is a dispute by the early exponents of our laws concerning the Jubilee, and whether or not the year known as the Jubilee "oleh baminyan" (i.e. is supposed to be counted in the overall number of 7 x 7, therefore making the 1st year in the next 49 year period the actual Jubilee, or perhaps, it does not count in the overall number of 7 x 7, and the 50th year is the actual year of the Jubilee, while the 51st year is the 1st year in the Seven-Year cycle."

At any rate, the opinion which stands as halacha is that which purports the Jubilee to be a year of its own, and that it does not count in the overall number of 7 x 7, but rather the 50th year, being the Jubilee, the following year is reckoned as the beginning of a new Seven-Year cycle. (Questions & Responsa of Maimonides, responsum # 389)

It was my intention to show in my previous post that the 50th year is the Jubilee, and that it can be proven by history that the 50th year stood alone, while the 51st year was the beginning of a new count. In order for there to be a Sabbatical year during the 150th year of the Seleucid Era, this could only have happened if the people counted the 51st year as the 1st year of the Seven-Year cycle.

In order to simplify matters, these are the dates that were recognised as Jubilees during the Second Temple period (based upon Maimonides):

3415 anno mundi (or the equivalent of 345 B.C.E.) = 1st year of Seven-Year cycle started by Ezra.

3464 anno mundi (296 B.C.E.) = the 1st Jubilee (i.e. the 50th year)

3514 anno mundi (246 B.C.E.) = the 2nd Jubilee ( ditto )

3564 anno mundi (196 B.C.E.) = the 3rd Jubilee ( ditto )

3614 anno mundi (146 B.C.E.) = the 4th Jubilee ( ditto )

3664 anno mundi (96 B.C.E.) = the 5th Jubilee ( ditto )

3714 anno mundi (46 B.C.E.) = the 6th Jubilee ( ditto )

3764 anno mundi (4 C.E.) = the 7th Jubilee ( ditto )

3814 anno mundi (54 C.E.) = the 8th Jubilee ( ditto )

By using these figures, everything falls into place. Where Josephus writes (Antiquities, Book XII, ch. IX, vss. 3 & 5) that in the 150th year of the Seleucid Era (3599 anno mundi) the people observed a Sabbatical Year, this could only have happened by reckoning the 50th year as a Jubilee, and the 51st year as the 1st year of the Seven-Year cycle.

Sincerely,
David

This thread has is running parallel on another thread as Rashi Commentary so I don't know where I am.

Dr. Louis Feldman informs that although it does the Ramban and Rashi quote Josephus ben Mattiyahu, it is very unlikely that they saw Josephus and they are referring to Josephon.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by laurence shore:
This thread has is running parallel on another thread as Rashi Commentary so I don't know where I am.

My fault... I brought up something that crossed over in the Rashi comments... slicha for any confusion i brought... this is the josephus thread. the ref to josephus in the Rashi thread is a finished idea, as I said because i made a comment in that thread....

I see my weekly parsha bulletin says that the Gra said that if you don't read Josephus, you can't understand Jewish history. Anyone know where he says this??
I also see the Artscroll talmud quotes Josephus Chap and verse. The Chapter is correct but the verse is off by one. Are there more than one numbering in Josephus and it is just another one of their typos.
(my favorate is the hadran for shekalim. It is written beiza.)

B"H

By some deviation from the norm, the following discussion on Josephus appeared in a different thread. For the benefit of our members, we are carrying it again here. Where a discussion was raised elsewhere about the validity of "a Conservative-made Conversion to Judaism," we have sought to shed light on this subject by comparing them (the Conservative movement) to another community that once lived in Israel years ago.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

We all know that the Tzaddukim (Sadducees) had ill-founded beliefs, insomuch that the Talmud strongly libels Yohanan, the high priest (Kohen Gadol), who "served as high priest for eighty years, but in the end, became a Sadducee." (Berakhot 29a)

יוחנן כהן גדול שמש בכהונה גדולה שמנים שנה
ולבסוף נעשה צדוקי

Josephus clarifies this teaching and says that Yohanan the High Priest, who is John Hyrcanus, actually served as high priest for "thirty-one years." (Antiquities, Book XIII, ch. X, vs. 7)Meaning, after having lived for 80 years as a Pharisee, he then became a Sadducee. (The enactments made by Yohanan the high priest are mentioned in Mishnah, Ma'aser Sheni 5:15)

The belief of the Sadducees was this: They only held sacred the written law of Moses. They did not believe in life after death, but rather held the opinion that all souls died with their bodies. They did not believe in angels, neither in demons or in evil spirits. Nor was there anything with them called הלכה למשה מסיני - an oral teaching passed down by Moses from Sinai. (see: Antiq., Book XIII, ch. X, vs. 6 and Antiq., Book VIII, ch. I, vs. 4). Obviously, their deviation from mainstream orthodox Judaism was greater than that of our Conservative brothers today!

Yet, despite their unconformity to mainstream Judaism, there were others of this sect who served as high priest, and headed the Sanhedrin. One such person was Ananus b. Ananus (Chanan b. Chanan) who, according to Josephus, was also a Sadducee, and the eldest of the high priests at the time of the temple's destruction in 68 C.E. (Antiquities, Book XX, ch. IX, vs. 1)
Not only do we find him, but unnamed others as well - many of whom serving as judges in the "Batei Din." Thus, writes Josephus about the Sadducees: "...when they become magistrates (דיינים), as they are unwillingly and by force sometimes obliged to be, they addict themselves to the notions of the Pharisees, because the multitude would not otherwise bear them." (Antiquities, Book XVIII, ch. I, vs. 4)

So, it is the same with the Conservative Rabbis, although they might bear warped and unconventional views of tradition and halacha, yet if they conform just enough to conduct a conversion after the prescribed manner of halacha, their conversion would hold up as valid. Therefore it was that I said in one of my earlier posts, "if there were three Jewish men who immersed the woman in a mikveh, and she had agreed in mind to accept all the tenets of Judaism, her conversion might be viewed as valid."

David,

There are several issues you ignore in your treatise.

1. John Hyrcanus was high priest and also king. That alone was anomalous enough in Israel. My point is that during the Helenic and later the Roman times, Israel and its institutions became Greek and Roman, respectively. By the time Ananus became High Priest the Beit Din Hagadol wasn't even a Jewish institution anymore, although there were Jews sitting on it.

2. When Queen Shlomzion [Queen Salome](who succeeded King John) became the monarch, she changed the politics around and the Prushim (Pharisees) became the dominant force again. But, after Queen Shlomzion, Rome came in and the tide swung the other way to Sadducees again. So your treatise ignores the underlying political changes that influenced the Sanhedrin. It wasn't constant. (Don't forget that the Shammai and Hillel camps were spawned after this period). After Queen Shlomzion's death (about 64BCE), her two sons were at each other's throats and were used as pawns by the Romans. Thereafter Judea became a vasal state of Rome and it's leaders were basically Jewish (or not- so-Jewish) Roman proxies. The idea of "mainstream" on the Sandhedrin fluctuated drastically during the period 100BCE and 70CE.

So when you say, "Obviously, their deviation from mainstream orthodox Judaism was greater than that of our Conservative brothers today!" you need to qualify it because during their day it wasn't a deviation from the prevailing mainstream.

3. The issue is not so much whether today's Conservative conversions would not be "valid" but whether they would be accepted. Even the most machmir conversion, by every standard, will find some group that does not recognize it in Yiddishkeit. There are groups who don't recognize any conversions at all. Who believe that only one born of a Jewish woman is a Jew. The idea is to maximize the acceptability of one's conversion by the broadest possible community.

For anyone who follows halacha, the conversion is valid. But will it be accepted? It depends on the community.

Avi

quote:

Originally posted by Avi d'Israeli:
By the time Ananus became High Priest the Beit Din Hagadol wasn't even a Jewish institution anymore, although there were Jews sitting on it.

Avi,

How can you say this? Rabban Yochanan Ben-Zakkai was a contemporary with the high priest Chanan b. Chanan! Of course they had "Batei Din" that followed strict Jewish law! This is without question! They were not subordinate to either Greek or Roman law, except in only one thing. Capital punishment by the Sanhedrin was taken away forty years before the temple's destruction, and could only be carried out by the approbation of the Roman governor.

You wrote: "When Queen Shlomzion [Queen Salome] (who succeeded King John) became the monarch, she changed the politics around and the Prushim (Pharisees) became the dominant force again. But, after Queen Shlomzion, Rome came in and the tide swung the other way to Sadducees again. So your treatise ignores the underlying political changes that influenced the Sanhedrin. It wasn't constant. (Don't forget that the Shammai and Hillel camps were spawned after this period)."

This is not true. Queen Shlomzion was married to King Yannai (Alexander Janneus). Her brother was Shimon b. Shetah. He was a Pharisee and the greatest religious leader at that time who headed the Sanhedrin. Although there were always Sadducees who jointly held positions of authority (e.g. judges within the courts), they were forced to conform to the "notions of the Pharisees," as Josephus puts it. The Pharisees (orthodox Jewry) always had the final say in matters of law.

Hillel came to Israel 100 years prior to the temple's destruction. (Tractate Shabbat). The following of, both, Hillel and Shammai continued all throughout that time, including well after the temple's destruction.

As for conservative conversions, I would be wary about rejecting a man's "Jewishness" simply because he had been converted by Conservative Rabbis. He may actually be a bona fide Jew, and you would be guilty of mistreating or abusing your fellow Jew by excluding him from a "minyan," etc. This has the colourings of "שנאת חינם" in my opinion.

David

David,
Perhaps my English was not very good. I mean the Romans came AFTER the reign of Queen Shlomzion who died around 79BCE

quote:

This is not true. Queen Shlomzion was married to King Yannai (Alexander Janneus). Her brother was Shimon b. Shetah. He was a Pharisee and the greatest religious leader at that time who headed the Sanhedrin. Although there were always Sadducees who jointly held positions of authority (e.g. judges within the courts), they were forced to conform to the "notions of the Pharisees," as Josephus puts it. The Pharisees (orthodox Jewry) always had the final say in matters of law.

If you have any problem with the following dates let me know.

78BCE - King Yannai dies
78BCE - Queen Salome ascends to the throne. Puts Prushim in power.
77BCE - Sages return from Egypt
69BCE - Queen Salome dies
69BCE - Hyrcanus II is made king and high priest but brother Aristobulus II seizes the throne…there is civil war.
64BCE -Pompei conquers Judea and Marcus Aemilius Scaurus is made the general in charge.
64BCE -Hyrcanus II is reinstalled (vassal) king and Aristobulus II is taken prisoner to Rome
64BCE - Scaurus is clearing up the mess, getting rid of trouble makers and bringing some "Roman" peace to the region.

Queen Shlomzion reigned from the death of her husband until her own death in 79BCE...only 9 years. During that time she installed Prushim back into Sanhedrin leadership.

1. Who was in leadership during Yannai's time?

Then she installed her brother as the leader of the zugot and during her reign the Prushim were in power(Simeon ben Shetah & Yehudah ben Tabbai). AFTER her death in 79BCE, things changed again during the civil war and encroachment of the Romans. By the time Pompei came to occupy Judea (4-5 years later) the dominance in the Sanhedrin had swung back.

As to whether the Prushim scholars on the Sanhedrin changed their views or not, it didn't matter because it was always known that the Prushim were the definitive scholars of Jewish law and we (observant Jews) had always held according to their rulings....regardless of what the corpus of the Sanhedrin thought at any given time based on the majority. However, that's quite separate from the politics of the Sanhedrin. During those days it was not unusual for the Sadducees to have the majority opinion and the Prushim Sages to issue the minority opinion. My point is that the politics of the Sanhedrin fluctuated drastically during this period, even though the specific Prushim poskim continued to posek as they would. This is why the Prushim rulings persisted even long after the Sanhedrin was disbanded.

Avi