a modular approach - SSRN

5 downloads 0 Views 140KB Size Report
Second Temple and Jerusalem in 70 C.E. The author provides several classic stories describing ... Religious extremism destroyed the core values of Judaism.
Destruction of the Second Temple: Lessons for Today’s Leaders

Hershey H. Friedman, Ph.D. Professor of Business and Marketing Department of Business Management Brooklyn College of the City University of New York E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract The rebellion of the Jews against Rome started in 66 C.E. and ended with the destruction of the Second Temple and Jerusalem in 70 C.E. The author provides several classic stories describing what the situation was like back then. One thing is apparent: the atmosphere that existed in ancient Judea, then a Roman province, was marked by discord, divisiveness, and corruption. Religious extremism destroyed the core values of Judaism. What enabled Judaism to survive was the ascendancy of the Hillel School which stressed peace, justice, and human dignity. Keywords: Romans, Zealots, Sicarri, Hillel, Shammai, Kamtza and Bar Kamtza, Eliezer ben Hyrkanos, oven of Aknai, destruction of Second Temple.

The author wishes to thank Professor Barbara Jo Lewis for her invaluable help and insights.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2642495

Introduction

Roman control of ancient Israel began when Pompey conquered Jerusalem in 63 B.C.E. This led to great turmoil, both politically and religiously. For much of that time, Roman procurators ruled the country. Religiously, there were four key groups: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and an emerging sect, the Hebrew Christians. Divine providence was a key belief that separated the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. The Sadducees totally rejected the concept of divine providence; man had free choice but could use the Torah which was divine to choose good rather than evil. There was no reward and punishment in the afterlife. The Essenes believed in divine predestination and that everything was determined by God. The Pharisees also believed in divine providence but man did have control over his deeds when it came to selecting a virtuous or evil path (Flusser, 2009: 224-227). According to Kohler (2002), the Essenes were: A branch of the Pharisees who conformed to the most rigid rules of Levitical purity while aspiring to the highest degree of holiness. They lived solely by the work of their hands and in a state of communism, devoted their time to study and devotion and to the practise of benevolence, and refrained as far as feasible from conjugal intercourse and sensual pleasures, in order to be initiated into the highest mysteries of heaven and cause the expected Messianic time to come.

Flusser (2009: 8 - 11) observes that ritual purity became of great importance during the Second Temple period. The Essenes were very strict in this area, much more so than the Pharisees. The Sadducees were not concerned with ritual purity, did not believe in the oral Torah, and did not 1

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2642495

believe in physical resurrection and the immortality of the soul.

The Pharisees were not a monolithic group and there were various factions. Hillel and Shammai were Pharisees who founded two important academies: Beit Hillel (literally the house of Hillel) and Beit Shammai. Hillel and Shammai had different philosophies which influenced their students. The Talmud records 316 disputes regarding Jewish law between the two schools. The opinions expressed by the Shammai school tended to be considerably more rigid and severe than that of the Hillel school (Jastrow and Medelsohn, 2002). The Talmud states that when the disciples of Shammai and Hillel who had not served their teachers sufficiently grew numerous, disputes increased in Israel, and the Torah became like two Torahs. In other words, there were many conflicting rulings which caused much confusion (Babylonian Talmud, Sotah 47b).

Hillel and Shammai

Hillel was born in Babylonia and moved to Israel. He was appointed as a Nasi (President of the Sanhedrin or patriarch) on about 31 B.C.E. and he and his descendants served as heads of the Sanhedrin for the next fifteen generations. Hillel was known for his exceptional patience, great modesty, and love of people. The Talmud tells a story of a man who made a 400 zuz bet that he could make Hillel lose his temper. One Friday afternoon, when Hillel was busy preparing for the Sabbath, the man kept pestering Hillel with inane questions. He asked him, e.g., “Why are the heads of the Babylonians round?” (Hillel was originally from Babylonia.) Hillel answered his question. The man kept returning to ask additional irrelevant questions and Hillel continued to 2

answer him with great respect. Finally, when the man realized that there was no way Hillel would ever lose his temper, the man cursed him and said: “may there not be more like you amongst Israel.” After telling Hillel about the bet, Hillel said: “It is far better that you should lose 400 zuz, and 400 zuz more, than that Hillel should lose his temper” (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbos 30b-31a).

When Hillel died (9 C.E.), they eulogized him thus (Babylonian Talmud, Sotah 48b): “Alas, the pious man (chasid)! Alas, the modest man (anav)!” Falk (1985: 44) states that the term “chasid and anav” were used to describe Essenes and concludes that Hillel was a secret Essene. It is much more likely that Hillel was claimed by both the Pharisees and Essenes. He may have accepted many Essene beliefs but was not the kind of person who would have accepted the view of isolating one’s self from the world. Moreover, as we shall see, the Hillelites (and Shammaites) did not believe in celibacy; on the contrary, they extolled marriage.

Hillel’s most famous statements include: “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I care only for myself, what am I? If not now, when? (Avot 1:14); and “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow-human, that is the whole Torah, the rest is commentary” (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbos 31a). Some other famous sayings: “Do not separate yourself from the community”; “Do not judge your fellow human being until you have been in his place. Do not make a statement that cannot be easily understood on the hope that it will be understood eventually” (Avot 2:4); and “In a place where there are no men, strive to be a man” (Avot 2:5). Hillel was opposed to the view that one should be aloof and distant from the public. Living apart from people the way many of the Essenes did in their own isolated communities would not have been 3

acceptable to Hillel. After all, he clearly stated: “Do not separate yourself from the community.”

The Talmud relates three different stories of how Shammai refused to teach potential converts from paganism who made absurd requests ("Make me a convert on condition that you only teach me the written Torah," "Make me a convert on condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot," "Make me a convert on condition that you will appoint me High Priest") and threw them out. They subsequently went to Hillel who accepted them and they converted to Judaism. One day the three met and said: “The sternness of Shammai sought to drive us from this world [and the world to come]; Hillel's humility and gentleness brought us under the wings of the Divine Presence” (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbos 31a).

The following argument regarding what is sung before a bride also sheds light on a key difference between the academies of Hillel and Shammai. The Talmud (Babylonian Talmud, Kethuboth 16b-17a) asks: What does one recite while dancing before a bride? The School of Shammai does not permit any exaggerating or lying in praising the bride. Thus, their opinion is “the bride as she is.” The School of Hillel was more concerned with being pleasant with people and said: “beautiful and graceful bride.” The Shammaites actually asked the Hillelites: “If the bride is lame or blind can one say ‘beautiful and graceful bride’? The Torah (Exodus 23:7) states: “Distance yourself from a false matter.”

Urbach (1994: 589) observes that Shammai’s severity is “evidenced not necessarily by lack of politeness and impatience, but by his insistence on the scrupulous observance of commandments without considering the consequences, to the point of endangering the life 4

of a child.” Shammai wanted his son to fast on Yom Kippur despite the fact that he was very young; the obligation to fast on Yom Kippur begins at the age of 13 for a boy and 12 for a girl. The sages forced Shammai to feed the young child (Tosefta Yuma 4:2).

Politically, there were Jews that were friendly with Rome, those that were anti-Roman but did not feel that the Jews were strong enough to defeat the Romans, and those that opposed Rome. The Zealots were extremists, who wanted total independence from Rome and were quite willing to go to war; they became active around 6 C.E. The Sicarii, used terrorist tactics and killed anyone who sympathized with Rome. The word sicarri means short dagger in Latin; the Sicarii’s favorite weapon was a short dagger which they concealed in their clothing and used to murder their victims in public places. The Zealots and the Sicarii joined forces to fight the Romans. The rebellion against Rome started in 66 C.E. and ended with the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E. The Shammaites supported the Zealots and did not want to yield to a foreign power (Jastrow and Mendelsohn, 2002). According to Zeitlin (1961), the Sicarii were an offshoot of the Pharisees. Another offshoot, Apocalyptic Pharisees, firmly believed that only God could rule over people. They were opposed to violence and preached love and, according to Zeitlin, were the “forerunners of Christianity” (Zeitlin, 1961).

To make matters worse, the Office of High Priest was totally corrupt. The position of High Priest often went to the individual willing to pay the largest bribe to the Roman Procurator. For example, Yehoshua ben Gamla married the extremely wealthy widow, Martha from the Boethos family, a family of High Priests. She bribed the king and was able to secure the position of High Priest for her husband in the year 64 C.E. or so (Babylonian Talmud, Yuma 5

18a, Yebamot 61a). The aristocracy, the wealthy, and the Temple priests tended to be Sadducees (Wein, 1995: 144).

Important Stories

The Second Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by Titus in the year 70 C.E. and a large part of the Jewish population was either killed or sold into slavery. The problems that led to the destruction of the Temple started years before. The following stories shed a great deal of light on the amount of religious turmoil that existed before the destruction of the Temple.

Disagreements between Shammaites and Hillelites The Talmud describes an incident that occurred before the destruction of the Temple. The students were asked to go up to the upper chamber of the house of Channaniah b. Chizkiyah b. Garon. Unfortunately, the students from the School of Shammai took out spears and swords and killed (most commentaries cannot accept that Shammaites killed Hillelites and interpret this passage to mean threatened to kill) any Hillelite that was about to climb the steps and vote. Lau (2007: 223-224), cites evidence from the Cairo Geniza that there was an actual civil war between the two schools. It appears that the Shammaites did kill the Hillelites. Needless to say, the Shammaites were in the majority and passed religiously stringent laws known as “The Eighteen Articles” (Jastrow and Mendelsoh, 2002). The Talmud (Jerusalem Talmud Shabbos 1:4) notes that “this day was as grievous for the Jewish people as the day on which the Golden Calf was made.” These measures erected a ritualistic barrier between Jew and Gentile making it difficult for the two groups to socialize (Schmidt, 2001: 140-141). 6

A different story is told in the Babylonian Talmud (Shabbos 17a) involving Shammai and Hillel personally. There was a disagreement between the two regarding when grapes become susceptible to ritual impurity (tumah). Hillel presented some compelling arguments supporting his more lenient position. Shammai then told him: “If you continue to provoke me, I shall also decree ritual impurity with respect to the harvesting of olives.” The Talmud then describes how Hillel was humiliated and made to sit submissively “bent over like one of Shammai’s students.” The Talmud notes that this day was “as grievous for the Jewish people as the day on which the Golden Calf was made.

Murder on the Altar The story told in the Talmud (Babylonian Talmud, Yuma 23a) regarding an incident that happened during the period of the Second Temple is a good illustration of what happens when priorities get mixed up. It was considered a mitzvah (good deed) to clear the ashes (terumas ha’deshen) from the altar; the one who was first to come within four cubits of the altar was given the privilege. The priests would run up the ramp – its length was 32 cubits -- to be first. Once, two priests were running up the ramp and one saw that the other priest would get to the altar first so he stabbed him in the heart. The father of the boy found his son in convulsions but not dead and declared: “My son is still in convulsions so the knife has not become tamei (ritually impure).” He wanted the knife to be removed quickly before the victim, his son, died. The Talmud observes “that the ritual purity of the Temple’s vessels was taken more seriously than murder.” Even the boy’s father was more concerned with the ritual purity of the knife than the life of his son.

Corruption of Jerusalem The third story is from the Midrash (Lamentations Rabbah 2:4). The Midrash states that the town of Bethar was so happy over the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem that they lit candles. Apparently, when a person from Bethar came to visit Jerusalem the Jerusalemite would get friendly with him and find out about the property he owned in Bethar. The Jerusalemite 7

would then write out a false deed and steal the property. The people of Bethar who were swindled out of their land would say they would have better off had they broken their legs so they would not have gone to Jerusalem. Apparently the city of Jerusalem had become completely corrupt and there was no justice for victims.

Story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza: Destruction of Jerusalem This story is known as “Kamtza and Bar Kamtza” and the Talmud (Babylonian Talmud, Gittin 55b-56a) attributes the destruction of the Second Temple to what happened in this incident. There was a person whose friend’s name was Kamtza and his enemy’s name was Bar Kamtza. He made a big feast and told his servant to invite Kamtza; the servant inadvertently invited Bar Kamtza. When the host saw Bar Kamtza at the party, he told him to leave. Bar Kamtza was ready to pay for the entire party if the host would allow him to stay; the host refused. Bar Kamtza suffered great humiliation and was angry at the sages feeling that they should have protested at his public humiliation. According to the Talmud, Bar Kamtza made the observation that since the sages did not say anything, they apparently felt there was nothing wrong with the host’s action. His embarrassment turned into anger and he decided to make trouble for the Jewish people with the Roman emperor. According to the Midrash (Lamentations Rabbah 4:3), Rabbi Zechariah b. Avkulas was one of the sages present at the party when Bar Kamtza was publicly humiliated by being ejected.

Because of this incident, Bar Kamtza denounced the Jewish people with the Roman emperor and stated that the Jewish people were rebellious. The proof was that they would not sacrifice anything offered by him in the Temple. The emperor sent a calf to Jerusalem to be 8

offered as a sacrifice. Bar Kamtza made a minor blemish on the calf so that it would be disqualified as a sacrifice. The blemish was so minor that it would not be an issue for pagan sacrifices but would be a problem for a sacrifice in the Temple. The rabbis were ready to sacrifice it in order not to cause problems with the Roman government (Jewish law allows most laws to be superseded in cases where human life is at risk). Rabbi Zechariah b. Avkulas, however, asserted that people would say that blemished animals are permitted as sacrifices and told the rabbis that they were not permitted to sacrifice the calf. The rabbis then considered killing Bar Kamtza so that he would not go back to the emperor and denounce them (Jewish law allows this even in a case where one person is at risk, e.g., when an individual is pursuing another with intent to kill and there is no other way to prevent the murder). Rabbi Zechariah remarked that people would then think that one who makes a blemish on animal that is consecrated for the altar is punished with death. They let Bar Kamtza go and he informed on the Jewish people to the emperor who then sent an army against them. One of the sages of the Talmud remarks about this incident: “The meekness of Rabbi Zechariah b. Avkulas destroyed our house, burnt our temple, and caused us to be exiled from our land” (Gittin 56a). According to the Midrash (Lamentations Rabbah 4:3), the criticism is about Rabbi Zechariah’s meekness at the party where he did not complain when Bar Kamtza was thrown out.

This story points out a distorted value system. Rabbi Zechariah was extremely scrupulous when it came to offering sacrifices. As noted, Jewish law allows many laws to be set aside in cases where life is at stake. Thus, the Sabbath may be desecrated to save someone even if the probability of success is infinitesimal. Jewish law would obligate that the sacrifice be 9

made in order to preserve the peace. There are those who claim Rabbi Zechariah b. Avkulas was the extremist Zealot, Zacharias son of Phalek, described by Josephus in Wars 4.4.1 (Urbach, 1994: 595). This would explain why he would be quite happy to offend the Roman emperor.

After the Destruction: The Divine Voice Deciding on Which School to Follow It was not only Hillel who was modest. The Talmud notes that the Hillelites (students in the School of Hillel) were kindly, pleasing, and modest. They studied the opposing opinions of the Shammaites and took them seriously. They were so humble that they would mention the views of the School of Shammai before mentioning their own opinions. This, according to the Talmud, is why they merited that a bath kol (literally, daughter of a voice, i.e., a Divine Voice) declared that “both opinions are the words of the living God but the law is in accordance with the views of the School of Hillel” (Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin 13b). This bath kol occurred in Jabneh. The Talmud (Jerusalem Talmud, Sotah 3:4; Babylonian Talmud, Berachos 11a) avers that once the bath kol declared that the law is in accordance with the School of Hillel, anyone who follows the view of the School of Shammai deserves death. This is an unusually harsh and uncharacteristic statement given that the Talmud records numerous arguments and debates when it comes to Jewish law. Once the Temple was destroyed, it was necessary to follow the views of the School of Hillel and not allow the people to follow the rigid and harsh Shammai approach. Judaism would have to become more people-oriented since there was no longer a Temple.

As an aside, Rabbi Gamliel I (Gamliel the Elder), was a grandson of Hillel; Paul (Saul of Tarsus) was one of his students (see Acts 22:3). Paul was proud of being a Hillelite. In Acts (23:6), Paul 10

declares: “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. It is with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial.” According to Falk, the early Christians were Pharisees who followed Hillel. The statements in the New Testament attacking the Pharisees was directed to the Shammaites who were in control until the destruction of the Temple.

Oven of Aknai: Rejecting the Shammaite Approach After the Temple’s destruction, it was important to have unity. The only way the religion could survive the destruction would be as an inclusive religion. The Shammaites could be included but they would have to accept the majority opinion. The Talmud had a great deal of respect for Eliezer ben Hyrkanos; he was one of the five pre-eminent disciples of Yochanan ben Zakkai, a Hillelite. However, unlike his renowned teacher, Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanos followed the opinion of Shammai (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbos 130b; Niddah 7b). Rabbi Yochanan said regarding Rabbi Eliezer: “He is a cemented cistern that loses not a drop” and “If all the sages were on one side of the scale, and Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanos on the other, he would outweigh them all [in knowledge]” (Avos 2: 8). Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanos was extremely conservative and made some very caustic statements. Some of his harsh statements include: “Whoever teaches his daughter Torah is like one who teaches her lewdness” (Babylonian Talmud, Sotah 20a); “The wisdom of a woman is solely in her spindle” (Jerusalem Talmud, Sotah 3:4); “Let the words of the Torah be burned rather than entrusted to a woman” (Jerusalem Talmud, Sotah 3:4).

The following story explains why his colleagues in the Sanhedrin had to excommunicate him. It was a dispute regarding an oven of Aknai (an oven made of several parts with layers of sand placed between the parts) and whether it was susceptible to ritual impurity. 11

On that day, Rabbi Eliezer brought all the proofs in the world, but they were not accepted. He said to them: “If the law is as I say, let this carob tree prove it.” Whereupon, the carob tree was uprooted a hundred cubits from its place; some say 400 cubits. They said to him: “We do not bring proof from a carob tree.” He then said to them: “If the law is as I say, let the stream of water prove it.” Whereupon, the stream flowed backwards.” They said to him: “We do not bring proof from a stream.” He then said to them: “If the law is as I say, let the walls of the house of study prove it.” Whereupon, the walls of the house of study began to bend and fall. Rabbi Yehoshua rebuked the walls and said: “If scholars are debating a point of Jewish law, why are you interfering?” The walls did not fall, out of respect to Rabbi Yehoshua and they did not straighten out of respect to Rabbi Eliezer; they are still standing there at a slant. Rabbi Eliezer said: “If the law is as I say, let it be proven from Heaven.” Whereupon, a Heavenly voice then rang out and exclaimed: “What do you want with Rabbi Eliezer, since the law is in agreement with him in all areas.” Rabbi Yehoshua then got up on his feet and declared: ‘It [the Torah] is not in Heaven’ (Deuteronomy 30:12). What does ‘It is not in Heaven’ mean? Rabbi Yirmiyah said: Since the Torah was already given at Sinai, we therefore pay no attention to Heavenly voices. After all, it is written in the Torah itself: ‘After the majority one must follow’ (Exodus 23:2). Rabbi Nathan met Elijah the Prophet and asked him: What was God doing at that time [when His Heavenly voice was disregarded]? Elijah answered: He laughed and said: My children have triumphed over me. My children have triumphed over me (Babylonian Talmud, Baba Metzia 59b). On that day, they voted and excommunicated him. Rabbi Gamliel, the President of the Sanhedrin, was on a ship after this incident and huge waves appeared ready to drown him. He knew that this was because of Rabbi Eliezer and declared: “Creator of the Universe! It is clear to you that I have not acted for my honor or for the honor of my father’s family. I did this for Your honor ― so that strife would not multiply in Israel!” The sea then calmed down. It is apparent that Rabbi Eliezer, being a strict follower of Shammai, did not accept the opinion of the majority. This was not simply a debate about a minor Jewish law; it was 12

about whether majority rule should prevail in deciding Jewish law (Herford, 1962: 57). Rabbi Eliezer’s use of miracles is not the way Jewish law works and is almost as bad as pulling out swords and spears to obtain a majority. He was probably excommunicated around 96 C.E (Herford, 1962: 56).

Discussion Let us examine the above stories to see if they have any relevance to modern times.

(1) Religious extremism is a destructive force. The Talmud itself notes that the Temple was destroyed because of baseless hatred (Babylonian Talmud, Yuma 9b). There was not only a great deal of strife between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, even the Hillelites and the Shammaites did not get along. The Shammaites actually butchered the Hillelites to ensure that they would be the majority. This, of course, led to the rebellion against Rome that resulted in the destruction of the Temple. The story of Rabbi Zechariah b. Avkulas also shows how religious zealotry results in poor decision making. It is quite possible that anyone pointing out to Rabbi Zechariah that religious law allows sacrificing a blemished animal when human lives are at risk would have been killed. Religion can be a powerful force for good or evil. At the time of the Temple’s destruction it was out of control. (2) Religious extremism destroys the core values of a religion. When a father is more concerned with the ritual purity of the knife than the life of his son, the religion has degenerated. The Hillelites would have to overhaul this approach to religion after the Temple’s destruction and preserve the core values that include human dignity, the way of peace, etc. (Friedman, 2015). As noted above, Hillel believed that the whole Torah could be summarized by: “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow-human, that is the whole Torah, the rest is commentary.” (3) God had to intervene personally to establish a legal system that was based on justice, 13

compassion and human dignity. Without the heavenly voice (bath kol), the Shammaite version of Judaism might have prevailed with disastrous consequences. All legal systems have to ensure that compassion is built into it. In fact, Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, one of Hillel’s descendants, stated: “On three things the world stands: on justice, truth, and peace, as it is said (Zechariah 8:16), ‘You shall execute truth, justice, and peace in your gates’” (Avot 1: 18). (4) Gottlieb (2007) cites the opinion of the Maharal of Prague (16th Century) who asserts that a major lesson is hidden in the pre-party description that “there was a man who was a close friend of Kamtza and an enemy of Bar Kamtza.” This describes the atmosphere that existed in Jerusalem before the destruction: “a social reality that was marked by divisiveness and exclusionary relationships.” In this kind of society, “even friendships can be less than wholesome when they serve to further create boundaries and hostility” (Gottlieb, 2007). A society with this much strife and disunity cannot survive for long. (5) The foundation of a society is justice and human dignity. Once Jerusalem became known as a corrupt city where there was no justice, it was only a matter of time before it would collapse. Many prophets warned the Israelites that this would happen before the destruction of the First Temple. For example, the prophet Zephaniah was critical of all the leaders of his time and referred to the ancient city of Jerusalem as a “city of oppression” for not taking care the weak and the helpless. Indeed, it was the princes, judges, prophets, and priests – the highest ranking members of society – who exploited the underprivileged. Zephaniah (3: 5) stated that the “Lord is righteous” and does not tolerate corruption. Woe to the rebellious and defiled one, the city of oppression…Her princes within her are roaring lions; her judges are wolves of the evening, they leave not a bone for the morning; her prophets are arrogant and treacherous persons; her priests 14

have desecrated the sanctuary; they have done violence to the law (Zepahniah 3: 1-3). Some people are calling Washington D.C. a “town without pity” (Blow, 2013); this sounds very much like a “city of oppression.” In 1992, the Soviet Union unexpectedly collapsed. The reason, as explained by Mikhail Gorbachev is as follows (Aron, 2011):

The Soviet model was defeated not only on the economic and social levels; it was defeated on a cultural level. Our society, our people, the most educated, the most intellectual, rejected that model on the cultural level because it does not respect the man, oppresses him spiritually and politically. Nikolai Ryzhkov, Gorbachev's prime minister, was most concerned about the "moral [nravstennoe] state of the society" and averred: [We] stole from ourselves, took and gave bribes, lied in the reports, in newspapers, from high podiums, wallowed in our lies, hung medals on one another. And all of this -- from top to bottom and from bottom to top. There are successful and unsuccessful economies. The above stories teach us that a country that is divided into factions that hate each other and cannot cooperate will eventually collapse. It appears that the only way the gridlock in Congress will end is with a bath kol, a Divine Voice, declaring whose views are correct.

15

REFERENCES Aron, L. (2011, June 20). Everything you think you know about the collapse of the Soviet Union is wrong. ForeignPolicy.com. Retrieved from http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/06/20/everything-you-think-you-know-about-the-collapseof-the-soviet-union-is-wrong/ Blow, C. M. (2013, August 10). ‘A town without pity.’ New York Times, A19.

Falk, H. (1985). Jesus the Pharisee. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press. Flusser, D. (2009). Judaism of the Second Temple Period. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Friedman, H. H. (2015, June 2).‘Let justice pierce the mountain’: Morality, ethics, and law in the Talmud. SSRN. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2613759 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2613759 Gottlieb, D. (2007, July 17). Kamtza and Bar Kamtza: A fresh look at a familiar story. CrossCurrents. Retrieved from http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2007/07/17/kamtzaand-bar-kamtza-a-fresh-look-at-a-familiar-story/#ixzz3hPalKfGk Herford, R. T. (1962). The Ethics of the Talmud. New York: Schocken Books. Jastrow, M. and Mendelsohn, S. (2002). Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai. In Jewish Encyclopedia.Com. Retrieved from http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/. Kohler, K. (2002). Essenes. In Jewish Encyclopedia.Com. Retrieved from http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/. Lau, B. (2007). The sages: Character, context, and creativity. Jerusalem: Maggid Books. Schmidt, F. (2001). How the temple thinks: Identity and social cohesion in ancient Judaism. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press. Urbach, E. E. (1994). The Sages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wein, B. (1995). Echoes of Glory: The Story of the Jews in the Classical Era 350 BCE – 750 CE. New York: Shaar Press. Zeitlin, S. (1961). The Pharisees: A Historical Study. Jewish Quarterly Review, 52(2), 97-129.

16