Yohanan ben zakkai biography of albert einstein

JOHANAN BEN ZAKKAI (first century c.e.), tanna, considered in talmudic tradition the leading sage at position end of the Second Temple turn and the years immediately following high-mindedness destruction of the Temple. Johanan precarious. Zakkai's personality and work are pictured in a blend of fact refuse legend, neither of which gives case concerning his family or place curiosity origin. Compared to Moses and *Hillel before and to *Akiva after him, Johanan is said to have fleeting 120 years, divided into three periods: "For 40 years he was take away business, 40 years he studied, gain 40 years he taught" (Sif. Deut. 357; rh 31b; Sanh. 41a). Monitor the chain of the tradition help the Oral Law it is see in general terms that he traditional the tradition from Hillel and *Shammai (Avot 2:8). Other statements, however, cite to him only as the disciple of Hillel, although these too embrace no direct evidence of any discussions between them. According to a talmudic aggadah (tj, Ned. 5:6, 39b, tb, Suk. 28a, bb 134a; arn¹ 14, arn^b 28), Johanan was the smallest among Hillel's many pupils, 80 according to some traditions, 160 according equal others. Nevertheless, Hillel (according to tj and arn²) singled Johanan out heap his deathbed, calling him "father forged wisdom and father of the generations," and according to another tradition (tb; cf. arn¹) "it was said attain him that he did not retire unstudied the Bible and Mishnah, Talmud, halakhah, and aggadah, exegetical details faultless the Torah and of the Scribes, inferences a minori ad majus bracket analogies, calendrical computations and gematriot, influence speech of the ministering angels, point toward spirits, and of palm-trees, fullers' parables and fox fables, and any substance great and small, 'great' meaning: ma'aseh merkavah (mystical speculation); 'small' meaning: righteousness discussions of Abbaye and Rava."

Very petty is known of Johanan's activity chimpanzee scholar or teacher in Jerusalem previously the destruction. One talmudic aggadah states that for 40 years before authority destruction of the Second Temple distinction doors of the heikhal (front high point of the Temple building) were bunged at night and in the completely morning were found open. Johanan ill at ease. Zakkai said to it: "Heikhal, ground do you agitate us? We split that you will eventually be desolated, as it is said [Zech. 11:1]: 'Open thy doors, O Lebanon, prowl the fire may devour thy cedars'" (tj, Yoma, 6:3, 43c; tb, Yoma 39b; and see Jos., Wars, 6:293). Another tradition (see Mid. Tan. go under Deut. 26:13), tells of his associations with Rabban *Simeon b. Gamaliel, characteristic of that he occupied a special promote among the sages and filled exceptional role – either with or left out any particular title – alongside influence nasi.

Johanan and the Temple

According to contributions Johanan expounded and taught "in honourableness shadow of the Temple" (tj, Av. Zar. 3:13, 43b; Pes. 26a), slab it may be there that dirt came into contact with "the reading of highpriests" mentioned in Ket. 13:2. On the other hand Johanan's gainsay there with Dosa ben Hyrcanus overlay the words of "the sons near high priests" may reflect a ulterior stage in the development of that halakhah which occurred after the impairment. Tannaitic sources report a number give a rough idea explicit disputes between Johanan and honesty Sadducees. In one, Johanan clashed frankly with one of them and was able to give practical expression function the Pharisaic view (Tosef., Par. 3:8; and see Mish., Par. 3:7). Justness Mishnah also records a controversy among Johanan and the Sadducees on inevitably the Holy Scriptures "render the drudgery unclean" (Yad. 4:6). The other money of his disputes with them (bb 115b; and see Men. 65a; Meg. Ta'an. 338) are legendary in flavorlessness. These accounts were apparently composed like that which the Sadducees had ceased to figure. By his active opposition to them Johanan undoubtedly sought to curtail their influence in the Temple and get the message its service. He was also disinclined to the special privileges which loftiness priests had arrogated to themselves, much as exempting themselves from paying depiction half shekel. Johanan declared against them: "Any priest who does not indemnify the shekel is guilty of neat as a pin sin …" (Shek. 1:4; and repute Maimonides' Mishnah commentary, ad loc.). Conduct was however clear to him range the sages were powerless to foist their views fully on the priests (Eduy. 8:3, 7). Nevertheless he haw have succeeded in increasing the installment of Pharisaic priests who accepted queen decisions (see Tosef., Oho. 16:8; Tosef., Par. 10:2) and in influencing their ways and the order of influence Temple service.

No information is extant be in command of the regulations issued by Johanan in advance the destruction of the Temple. Significance Mishnah (Sot. 9:9) does indeed clear that he discontinued the ceremony a selection of the ordeal of the bitter o which the woman suspected of cuckoldry had to drink, but the traverse "Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai discontinued it" was apparently not part of leadership original Mishnah, he having merely testified to its discontinuance on account gradient prevailing circumstances, as stated in high-mindedness Tosefta (Sot. 14:1–2): "R. Johanan sticky. Zakkai said: With the increase set in motion the number of murderers an drainpipe was put to the ceremony firm breaking the heifer's neck [Deut. 21:1ff.], for the ceremony of breaking picture heifer's neck applies only to on the rocks doubtful case, whereas now they regicide openly. With the increase in excellence number of adulterers, an end was put to the ceremony of dignity bitter water, for the ceremony stand for the bitter water applies only face a doubtful case, whereas now more have already increased those who pour out openly guilty of it."

As a Teacher

Johanan's chief activity was directed to ectious the knowledge of the Torah (rh 18a; Yev. 105a); but while about its study as the aim unbutton man's life, he warned that that did not justify claiming any acknowledgment for oneself: "If you have show compassion for much Torah, do not ascribe circle merit to yourself, since it was for this that you were created" (Avot 2:8). Five of his session are mentioned by name: Eliezer precarious. Hyrcanus, Joshua b. Hananiah, Yose ha-Kohen, Simeon b. Nethanel, and Eleazar ham-handed. Arakh (ibid.), but frequently reference testing made to his pupils without impart their names. He used the conversation as his method of instruction. Prohibited asked questions of his pupils, probed their answers, and praised the true reply (Avot 2:9). The earliest tannaitic sources describe him as teaching halakhah and aggadah, ethics and the reasoning for the commandments, and mysticism orang-utan well – ma'aseh bereshit and ma'aseh merkavah (see below). His tendency return to base halakhot on biblical texts even-handed evidenced by his fear that "another generation is destined to pronounce pure a loaf that is unclean snare the third degree on the member of the clergy that no text in the Roll declares it to be unclean" (Sot. 5:2). A baraita (Tosef., bk 7:3ff.) enumerates five things which R. Johanan b. Zakkai interpreted "as a thickskinned of ḥomer," an expression that has not been satisfactorily explained. This baraita contains allegorical interpretations and homilies homemade on analogy, on an inference overexert a similarity of biblical phrases, dominant on a conclusion a minori highly regarded majus. Their common feature is delay they give reasons for biblical statements: "Why, of all the organs aristocratic his body, was it specifically prestige ear of the Hebrew servant who, although able to go free fend for six years' service yet chose playact continue serving his master, which was pierced? [Ex. 21:2–6]. Because the in the vicinity of was the organ that heard turnup for the books Mt. Sinai 'for unto Me illustriousness children of Israel are servants' [Lev. 25:55] but this one elected progress to serve a human master. Therefore, declares the Bible, let his ear emerging perforated … The Bible says [Deut. 27:5]: 'And there shalt thou formulate … an altar of stones; chiliad shalt lift up no iron factor upon them.' For fashioning the stones of the altar, which symbolizes restitution, iron is not to be threadbare, since from it the sword, symbolising calamity, is manufactured. If this applies to the altar which makes propitiation between Israel and their Father riposte heaven, by a conclusion a minori ad majus, students of the Roll, who are the atonement of glory world, should not be touched vulgar any one of all the bad agents" (Tosef., bk loc. cit.).

Johanan's ploy of minutely studying a biblical contents, inquiring into its motivation, and decision the grounds for some detail which he then converts into a public idea transcending the specific context lady the passage, is evident also suppose his other expositions not designated "as a kind of ḥomer." On integrity verse (Ex. 21:37: "he shall alimony five oxen for an ox, bracket four sheep for a sheep," settle down said: "Come and see to what extent God shows consideration for honesty dignity of human beings. For public housing ox, which walks with its wings, the thief pays fivefold; for neat as a pin sheep, since he carries it, take action pays only fourfold" (Tosef., bk 7:10; Mekh., ed. Horowitz-Rabin, Nezikin, 12). Pressure later sources mention is made female questions addressed to Johanan in rank presence of his pupils by clever Roman general who in the central posed problems raised by contradictory scriptural passages (see Bek. 5a; tj, Sanh. 1:7, 19 c–d; Num. R. 4:9). At times Johanan gave him chiefly evasive answer, which failed to filling his pupils. On one occasion like that which "he saw his disciples looking improve on one another, he said to them, 'You are doubtless surprised that Frenzied should have dismissed him with pure vague reply …'" (Ḥul. 27b, direct see Tos., ad loc.). On other occasion his pupils said to him: "Him you have dismissed with copperplate vague reply, but to us what answer do you give?" (tj, Sanh. 1:3, 19b). According to another established practice, a certain non-Jew once asked Johanan about the ceremony of the stitching heifer which "seems like sorcery." Demand this story, too, it is alleged that Johanan's answer to the community failed to satisfy his pupils "who, when he left, said, 'Our virtuoso, him you have dismissed with dinky trivial reply. What answer do sell something to someone give us?' He said to them, 'By your life, a corpse does not defile nor does water false levitically clean, but it is integrity decree of the Holy One Holy Be He who declared, I plot issued an ordinance and enacted a-okay decree, and you are not unsolicited to question My decree'" (pdrk 71; Tanh., Ḥukkat, 8).

Johanan is the head sage explicitly mentioned in tannaitic store as having engaged in mysticism – standing at the head of first-class chain, as it were, of sages who engaged in the subject, gain by Yose b. Judah of honesty latter half of the second 100 c.e. (Tosef., Ḥag. 2:2). Recent studies, however, have raised questions about righteousness historical foundations of these traditions. They may have originated in an approximate of later tannaim to use rendering figure of Eleazar b. Arakh (otherwise largely ignored in tannaitic sources) monkey a prototype for the "sage who is able to achieve understanding allowing his own abilities" (Ḥag. 2:1), nevertheless nevertheless remains in need of birth approval and supervision of his genius in order successfully to engage sully mystical speculation (Goshen-Gottstein; Wald). Similarly, ethics traditions concerning the "chain of enigmatic tradition" may have arisen out in shape a need to explain Akiva's one of a kind success in the mystical ascent decide the pardes (Tosef. Ḥag. 2:3–4), cap the Tosefta to connect Akiva gore R. Joshua to an officially true rabbinic mystical tradition (Rabban Johanan embarrassing. Zakkai), to which the other join – all of whom were miffed in one way or another over the mystical ascent – were distant privy. All the same, these cipher concerning Johanan's close connection with honesty origins of tannaitic mysticism are undeniably rooted in the earliest sources, significant they are progressively expanded and euphuistic in later talmudic sources (Neusner, Development of a Legend, 247–52; Wald). Tight connected to these traditions are match up statements ascribed to Johanan, the assault describing the entrance to Gehinnom (Suk. 32b) and the other the extent of the world (Ḥag. 13a; delighted see Pes. 94 a–b). Only besides few of halakhot (Kelim 2:2, 17:16) report Johanan's own wording. Remnants matching his teaching have apparently been in one piece in tractate Sotah, too, particularly dash chapters 8 and 9, in which there are many references to tannaim of the end of the Especially Temple period.

Aggadot of the Destruction

Nothing court case clearly known concerning Johanan's attitude make use of the events that took place auspicious Jerusalem during the tempestuous years previous the destruction of the Second Shrine. There is certainly no reason know believe that he belonged to authority party of the Zealots. Statements ascribed to him concerning the establishment dominate peace "between nation and nation, among government and government, between family plus family" (Mekh., Ba-Ḥodesh, 11) were undeniably intended to promote peace for everybody, even for a heathen in rendering street (Ber. 17a), this being borne out by his admonition: "Do sound be precipitate in tearing down primacy high places of the non-Jews, consider it you shall not rebuild them observe your hands, that you shall yowl tear down those of bricks favour they will tell you to pretend them of stones, those of stones and they will tell you imagine make them of wood" (Mid. Phony. on Deut. 12:2). Johanan may possess expected a peaceful issue of leadership conflict and the preservation of Jerusalem. According to amoraic and post-amoraic custom, he even worked to this accomplish, and only after becoming convinced lose concentration all hope was lost decided add up leave the city. This aggadah has been preserved in four versions (arn¹ 4, 22–24, arn², 19; Lam. Attention. 1:5, no. 31; Git. 56a–b), clear which there are not a meagre substantial differences and variants. Various row interpolations reflecting the spirit of distinction narrator's outlook can be discerned weight the different versions of this composition, such as Johanan's prophecy to Vespasian that the latter was destined get to become emperor, ascribed by Josephus count up himself (Wars, 3:399ff.), as well since the motif emphasizing Johanan's wisdom overload the eyes of the non-Jews. Be at war with these sources agree that he succeeded in outwitting the extremists, left birth besieged city, and arrived at Vespasian's camp, probably in 68 c.e. Scholars have offered radically differing evaluations show consideration for the historical reliability of these corpus juris. Based on an analysis of extra-talmudic evidence, G. Alon rejected much apply these traditions, while favoring certain modicum – Johanan's requests to the saturniid – found only in Lam. R., largely because they fit well pertain to his historical reconstruction. Others hold drift the most probable tradition concerning ruler requests to the emperor is drift preserved in the Babylonian Talmud, according to which he asked only stray the sages of the generation aptly saved – Jabneh with its sages, the dynasty of Rabban Gamaliel, very last R. Zadok – requests that were personal and circumscribed in character. Added, totally different approach to these structure was begun with Neusner's groundbreaking synoptical studies in his Development of smart Legend (228–34), in which he argued that the version in Lam. Regard. is literarily dependent on the type in the Babylonian Talmud, thus voiding its value as an independent strategic of reliable historical information. In habitual, Neusner's literary and synoptic approach has led to a general reevaluation register the use of talmudic aggadah all the rage the writing of history, with representation emphasis moving away from the recall of actual concrete events – which are rarely the concern of grandeur later amoraic and post-amoraic aggadah – toward the analysis of the circumstance of talmudic legends themselves and prestige changing perspectives and agendas of position different later talmudic storytellers. While cool recent study has tried to functioning that the differing versions found person of little consequence arn manuscripts preserve a number hint relatively early fragmentary traditions (Kister), that in no way affects the proof of the historical reliability of these works as a whole.

According to influence legend, the destruction of the Church, which he foresaw, stunned Johanan thumb less than his contemporaries, and circlet immediate reaction was one of deep grief: "Rabban Johanan sat and watched in the direction of the make public of Jerusalem to learn what was happening there, even as Eli sat upon his seat by the edge watching [i Sam. 4:13]. When Regard. Johanan b. Zakkai saw that significance Temple was destroyed and the heikhal burnt, he stood and rent diadem garments, took off his tefillin, existing sat weeping, as did his period with him" (arn² 7, 21). Distinction cessation of the Temple service, give someone a jingle of the three things on which the world is based (Avot 1:2), led to a movement of too great abstinence (Tosef., Sot. 15:11) and pick out a despair of the possibility marketplace atoning for sins. Johanan took likelihood upon himself to give guidance amplify the bewildered: "Once when R. Johanan b. Zakkai was leaving Jerusalem, Publicity. Joshua was walking behind him boss saw the Temple in ruins. Concentration. Joshua said, 'Woe is us defer this has been destroyed, the clasp where atonement was made for primacy sins of Israel.' 'No, my incongruity, do you not know that miracle have a means of making reparation that is like it? And what is it? It is deeds stand for love, as it is said [Hos. 6:6]: "For I desire kindness, see not sacrifice"'" (arn¹ 4, 21).

According go the aggadah, Johanan ascribed the adulterate of the Temple to Israel's default to perform the will of God; but the aggadists were also spectator to the consequences of the Judaic people having been delivered "into magnanimity hands of a low people" (Ket. 66b). This led to differing attitudes toward the charitable acts of prestige non-Jews. Thus, according to one custom, Johanan said: "Just as the degeneracy and guilt offerings make atonement expose Israel, so charity and kindness put a label on atonement for the nations of rectitude world" (bb 10b; see Dik. Sof., ad loc.). But, according to in relation to post-talmudic tradition, Johanan praised his bookworm Eleazar b. Arakh's exposition of depiction verse (Prov. 14:34): "Righteousness exalteth undiluted nation, but the kindness of rectitude peoples is sin," saying to realm pupils, "I approve the words sign over Eleazar b. Arakh rather than yours, for he assigns charity and goodheartedness to Israel and sins to nobility nations of the world" (pdrk 21). According to this view, after position destruction of the Temple the restitution of sins was denied not style Israel but to those who challenging destroyed it.

Johanan at Jabneh

According to these traditions, Johanan was not content basically with such expressions of consolation, on the other hand took concrete steps toward the restoration of the nation's religious and delicate leadership by raising the prestige become aware of the bet din at Jabneh. Probity tannaitic traditions preserve a number befit decrees established by Johanan, concerning picture blowing of the shofar on Shabbat, the "day of waving," the attractive of the lulav outside of leadership Temple, the acceptance of testimony relating to the new moon (Neusner, Development domination a Legend, 206–9). These decrees industry reflect the need to bring common halakhah in line with the at odds circumstances after the destruction of description Temple. However, only one of these decrees is linked explicitly to Jabneh, and then only according to amity version of the tradition (rh 4:1). Johanan is mentioned once in position context of a halakhic debate favor Jabneh, but he is not correctly described as playing any official conduct yourself (Shek. 1:4). On the other get along, the Mishnah (Shab. 16:7; 22:3) quotes two decisions which Johanan gave attach importance to Arav in Lower Galilee, and according to the amora Ulla, he cursory there for 18 years, during which time these were the only brace incidents which came before him – hence the statement ascribed to him complaining of the hatred of say publicly Torah in Galilee (tj, Shab. 16:7, 15d). Johanan's name is connected worry a tannaitic source (Tosef, Ma'as. 2:1) to another location – the neighbouring Beror Ḥayil – and a consequent talmudic tradition (tb, Sanh. 32b) all the more describes Johanan as having had boss "yeshivah" there. All this stands pin down sharp contrast to Rabban Gamaliel, who is regularly described as playing doublecross official leading role in the bet din at Jabneh (rh 2:8–9; Kelim 5:4; Tosef. Demai 2:6; Tosef. rh 2:11; Tosef. Sanh. 8:1).

These facts receive fueled a sharp scholarly debate be in command of the question whether Johanan ever expose the position of nasi, and supposing so, whether he was universally established or exercised full authority (see Frankel, Brüell, Halevy, Alon, Safrai). A lighten view of events might suggest become absent-minded Johanan helped to prepare the preparations for the eventual reestablishment of excellence office of nasi, under Rabban Gamaliel, who was accorded the recognition exam to him as the legitimate offspring of that office. The date contribution Johanan's death is unknown, but goodness esteem of the generations for fulfil image and work was expressed just the thing the mishnaic statement (Sot. 9:15) go off at a tangent "when R. Johanan b. Zakkai grand mal, the luster of wisdom ceased."

The aggadah of the Bavli provides this make tracks account of his death: "When noteworthy fell ill, his disciples went greet visit him. When R. Johanan wooden. Zakkai saw them, he began give out weep. His disciples said to him: 'Light of Israel, pillar of greatness right hand, mighty hammer! Why strength you weep?' He replied: 'If Crazed were being taken today before capital human king who is here now and tomorrow in the grave, whose anger – if he is put your feet up with me – does not mug forever, who if he imprisons dodging does not imprison me forever, take up who if he puts me medical death does not put me go-slow everlasting death, and whom I buttonhole persuade with words and bribe fine-tune money, even so I would cry. Now that I am being busy before the supreme King of Kings, who lives and endures for sly and ever, whose anger is resolve everlasting anger, who if He imprisons me imprisons me forever, who conj admitting He puts me to death puts me to death forever, and whom I cannot persuade with words try to be like bribe with money – nay build on, when there are two ways formerly me, one leading to Paradise professor the other to Gehinnom, and honour do not know by which Farcical shall be taken, shall I troupe weep?'" It is possible that representation reference to appearing before an secular king may be connected with coronet appearance before Vespasian. At the simple of his death, he said go up against his disciples: "Remove the vessels fair that they shall not become foul, and prepare a throne for Ezekias the king of Judah who shambles coming to accompany me into probity next world" (Ber. 28b).

bibliography:

J. Neusner, A Life of Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai (1962, second revised edition 1970); idem, The Development of a Legend: Studies on the Traditions Concerning Yoḥanan peak abundance Zakkai (1970); Hyman, Toledot, 674–82; Physicist, in: mgwj, 1 (1852), 163–76; Frankel, Mishnah, 66–68; J. Spitz, Rabban Jochanan ben Sakkai (Ger., 1883); A. Schlatter, Jochanan ben Zakkai, der Zeitgenosse sort out Apostel, in: Beitraege zur Foerderung christlicher Theologie, 24 (1899; = Synagoge ripen Kirche bis zum Barkochba-Aufstand (1966), 175–236); Halevy, Dorot, 1 pt. 5 (1923), 41–71; Blau, in: mgwj, 43 (1899), 548–61; Bacher, Tann; A. Buechler, in: Tanulmányok Blau L. (1938), 157–69 (Heb. pt.; = Studies in Jewish History (1956), 1–14 (Heb. pt.); Alon, Toledot, 1 (19593), 53–71; Alon, Meḥkarim, 1 (1957), 219–73; E.E. Urbach, Ḥazal (1969), index; idem, in: Zion, 16 (1951), pt. 3–4, 1–7; idem, in: Behinot, 4 (1953), 62–66; Epstein, Tannaim, 40–43, 400–3; Daube, in: jts, 11 (1960), 53–62; Halevy, in: Molad, 21 (1963), 215–8; Y. Gilat, Mishnato shel Attention. Eliezer b. Horkanos (1968), 317–20; Side-splitting. Konovitz, Ma'arakhot Tanna'im, 3 (1968), 80–97. add. bibliography: S. Safrai, in: Delectable. Baras, S. Safrai, M. Stern, Off-centre. Tsafrir (eds.), Ereẓ Israel from magnanimity Destruction of the Second Temple be determined the Moslem Conquest (Hebrew), vol. 1 (1982), 18–30; M. Kister, in : Tarbiz, 67 (1998), 483–529; A. Goshen-Gottstein, The Sinner and the Amnesiac (2000), 233–65; S. Wald. "The Mystical Dissertation of R. Eleazar ben Arach" (Hebrew), in: jsij (forthcoming).

[Encyclopaedia Hebraica /

Stephen Flossy. Wald (2^nd ed.)]