|
Updated: 2021.02.05
 |
 Empires: •kiꞋ•mᵊn•id c BCE 516 encompassing later (c BCE 200) Seleucid & Ptolemaic Empires |
From the completion of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ ha-Shein•iꞋ (c. B.C.E. 516) under beneficent •kiꞋ•mᵊn•id King KōꞋrësh Jr., the Great, until B.C.E. 168, YᵊhūdꞋâh was a sātrapy under foreign rule.
King KōꞋrësh the Great was known for having Macedonian (Greek, ergo Hellenist) friends. Thus, before the building of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ ha-Shein•iꞋ even began, his sātrapy of YᵊhūdꞋâh was Macedonian-Greek aware, with the specter of Hellenism already looming.
In B.C.E. 323, Alexander the Great exerted his Hellenist rule over the region, preserving the sātrapy of YᵊhūdꞋâh. Upon his death, the Hellenist sātrapy of YᵊhūdꞋâh was inherited by one of his generals—Seleucus, founder of the Hellenist Seleucid Empire ruling the Hellenist sātrapy of YᵊhūdꞋâh.
Sātrap An•tiꞋ•ŏkh•ŏs ŏ Ëp•i•phan•eisꞋ Deposes Ōs•inꞋ Splinters Into 3 Min•imꞋ:In B.C.E. 168, the Hellenist sātrapy of YᵊhūdꞋâh came, for a second time, under the rule of (Hellenist Seleucid) sātrap An•tiꞋ•ŏkh•ŏs ŏ Ëp•i•phan•eisꞋ
Caught between the Hellenist sātrap and heavy Hellenist assimilation of his brothers, the priestly religious strictures of the Ōs•inꞋ Kō•hanꞋic Sacerdocy, in their Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ ha-Shein•iꞋ, chafed under the aggressive idolatrous and hedonist assimilative pressures of the Hellenist Seleucid sātrap—and the sātrap's
Beit Din hâ-Gâ•dōlꞋ was adjudicated by the Scriptural Kō•heinꞋ ha-Jâ•dōlꞋ, at the head of the kō•han•imꞋ contingent along with a subordinate society of wealthy aristocrats and intellectuals ("sages") from the lay population. These precipitated in 3 main groups: the ruling Kō•hanꞋic Sacerdocy, a wealthy Hellenist Hierocracy, and a Davidic-Rabbinic oriented Laity. These tended toward a 3-way splintering that would eventually produce Ōs•inꞋ, Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ and Pᵊrush•imꞋ, respectively.
In BCE 175, Hellenist Seleucid Sātrap An•tiꞋ•ŏkh•ŏs ŏ Ëp•i•phan•eisꞋ authorized Hellenist Yәhō•shuꞋa Bën-Shim•ōnꞋ Jr. Bën-Tzâ•dōq′ ha-Kō•hein′ to oust his own Ōs•inꞋ brother, Yәkhōn•yâh′ Bën-Shim•ōn′ Jr. Bën-Tzâ•dōq′, Kō•heinꞋ ha-Jâ•dōlꞋ, thereby Hellenizing the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ ha-Shein•iꞋ and the Kᵊhūn•âhꞋ.
As a result, Hellenist Yәhō•shuꞋa Bën-Shim•ōnꞋ Jr. Bën-Tzâ•dōq′ ha-Kō•hein′ soon became known as hâ-Kō•heinꞋ hâ-RëshꞋa הַכֹּהֵן הָרֶשַׁע dysphemism for רֹאשׁ בֵּית דִּין; ousting his own brother—the last Ōs•inꞋ Kō•heinꞋ ha-Jâ•dōlꞋ, famously called the MōrꞋëh ha-TzëdꞋëq of DSS 4Q MMT.
When the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ ousted the Ōs•inꞋ c. BCE 175, the Hellenist, Roman-marionette aristocracy of YᵊhūdꞋâh went with the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ, leaving the Ōs•inꞋ bereft of religious, political or financial support—and made homeless, witnessing ha-Shi•qūtzꞋ Mᵊshō•meimꞋ Hellenizing of Herod's "Second Temple".
qqq
Having been plus the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ ha-Shein•iꞋ, upon which the were inextricably dependent, Hellenized into were left plummeting into extinction.
From the initial formation of the Zūg•ōtꞋ, even the titles of the two leaders flaunt the core schism that divided ancient YᵊhūdꞋâh: the senior officer of the Hellenist-Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ dominated Συνέδριον—Sanhedrin (Hellenist Greek/Roman term & institution)—the Nâ•siꞋ, with the junior officer representing the Scriptural Beit Din hâ-Gâ•dōlꞋ—the Av Beit Din.
The schism between unquestioned Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ kō•han•icꞋ Religious-Rulership and Scripture was always at the very top of the post-BCE 175 Judean religious/power pyramid.
Hellenist-Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ dominated the Συνέδριον until c. 10 C.E., the time of Hi•leilꞋ Sr. "the Babylonian". Thus, it is clear that from the first Zūg, emerging from the Hellenization of the Second "Temple" & Kᵊhūn•âhꞋ in B.C.E. 175, the Hellenist priests ("kō•han•imꞋ") Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ maintained their control over both their Hellenized "Temple" and the Συνέδριον, which was controlled by their Tzᵊdoq•iꞋ leader as the Nâ•siꞋ. It widely agreed that the minority (Pᵊrush•imꞋ) voice in the Συνέδριον was represented in the position of the Av Beit Din.
To date, however, there seems to be no unequivocal historical document informing whether, from Sātrap An•tiꞋ•ŏkh•ŏs' "ha-Shi•qūtzꞋ Mᵊshō•meimꞋ" Hellenizing the "Temple" in BCE 175, this secondary position in the Συνέδριον may, at first, also have been held by a Tzᵊdoq•iꞋ. And if so, history hasn't yet informed us when the junior (minority) position may first have shifted to the leader of the new (post-BCE 175), Pᵊrush•imꞋ, sect.
According to the sparse material preserved in the Talmudic record, the 8 זִקְנֵי־בְּתֵירָא were the 4 Zūg•ōtꞋ, culminating with Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Nâ•siꞋ Shᵊma•yâhꞋ and Pᵊrush•imꞋ Av Beit Din AvᵊtalᵊyōnꞋ; the penultimate Zūg in the late B.C.E. 1st century. Shᵊma•yâhꞋ and AvᵊtalᵊyōnꞋ are mostly famous for being unable to remember the Tōr•âhꞋ prioritizing the zᵊvâkh•imꞋ when PësꞋakh coincides with Sha•bâtꞋ.
Sole consideration is Tradition! Azarah [temple court] gone "The change of protagonists focuses the conflict on the tension between two competing rabbinic-based groups. The Elders of Batyra are local, based in the Land of Israel, and aligned with the priests, while Hillel comes from Babylonia. The Yerushalmi" "logical proofs are refuted and dismissed" because adversaries are Tzedoqim kohanim [Y. Pesachim 39a/6.1 c 400 CE]
The transmission of the Interpretive Tradition of Ta•na"khꞋ (i.e. "Oral Law") has been obscured by rabbinic zeal to blot-out pre-rabbinic sources; rewriting history to appear as if it has always been rabbis who have transmitted "Oral Law" to us from Mōsh•ëhꞋ at Har Sin•aiꞋ. This, of course, is intractably incompatible with documented history. Prior to the splintering of the Ōs•inꞋ in the wake of the Hellenization imposed by Hellenist Yәhō•shuꞋa Bën-Shim•onꞋ Jr. Bën-Tzâ•doq′ ha-Ko•hein′ (Hellenized to Jason) and Seleucid Sātrap An•tiꞋ•ŏkh•ŏs ŏ Ëp•i•phan•eisꞋ in BCE 175, the Pᵊrush•imꞋ never before existed; hence, neither did rabbis.
It wouldn't be until c. 500 C.E. that the compiler of the Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ Bâ•vᵊl•iꞋ, YᵊhūdꞋâh ha-Nâ•siꞋ, would morph the זִקְנֵי־בְּתֵירָא of c. 400 C.E. Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ Yᵊrū•sha•lᵊm•iꞋ into בְּנֵי־בְּתֵירָא of Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ Bâ•vᵊl•iꞋ. Regardless which title, these remained the same contingent that advocated their Interpretive Tradition: the Χειρόγραφον τοῖς Δόγμασιν; namely the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ of The Last Zūg•ōtꞋ, under Sha•maiꞋ Sr. the Nâ•siꞋ of the Last Zūg—the group better known as Beit Sha•maiꞋ!!!
Famously, the question arose c. 10 C.E. regarding the coincidence of PësꞋakh and Sha•bâtꞋ: whether the qâ•rᵊb•ânꞋ PësꞋakh supersedes the qâ•rᵊb•ânꞋ Sha•bâtꞋ. The זִקְנֵי־בְּתֵירָא—Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Complement of the Last Zūg, led by Sha•maiꞋ Sr. the Nâ•siꞋ—failed to develop a satisfying solution, whereas Hi•leilꞋ Sr. "the Babylonian" and Av Beit Din argued such a logically compelling set of interpretations from Tōr•âhꞋ that Beit Sha•maiꞋ was forced to concede the position of Nâ•siꞋ to Beit Hi•leilꞋ—marking the change of power from the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ domination of the Συνέδριον under Beit Sha•maiꞋ to the first Rabbinic Pᵊrush•imꞋ domination of the restored Beit Din hâ-Gâ•dōlꞋ: Beit Hi•leilꞋ.
In any case, by the time of the last Zūg, the Av Beit Din was held by Hi•leilꞋ
Sr. "the Babylonian", a maternal scion of Beit-Dâ•widꞋ—and a Pᵊrush•iꞋ!
"His activity of forty years is perhaps historical; and since it began, according to a trustworthy tradition ([Ma•sëkꞋët Sha•bâtꞋ] 15a), one hundred years before the destruction of Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim, it must have covered the period [BCE 30 ] - 10 CE."
It was the Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ who were dependent upon their patron Roman occupiers for their own authority. There was no disagreement between Romans and Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ regarding Hellenism: both were Hellenists!!!
History also tells us that, despite the position of Av Beit Din being held by a Pᵊrush•iꞋ at some point before the turn of the C.E., the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ, with the support of the Hellenist Romans, maintained their control over the Συνέδριον until c. 5-10 CE when, for the first time ever, Hi•leilꞋ Sr. "the Babylonian" Pᵊrush•iꞋ (who died c 10 CE) wrested the position of Nâ•siꞋ—control of the Συνέδριον—from the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ.
Ergo, the Nâ•siꞋ of the Συνέδριον, the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Complement in The Last Zūg, who preceded Hi•leilꞋ Sr. as Nâ•siꞋ, could not have been himself! A priori, it could only have been his Zūg Complement, namely Sha•maiꞋ Sr.!
Thus, the Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ-controlled ha-ZūgꞋōt. the "Complementary Pairs", administered the Συνέδριον from B.C.E. 175 until Hi•leilꞋ Sr. "the Babylonian" wrested the title of Nâ•siꞋ (Chief Justice), i.e. Pᵊrush•imꞋ control of the Συνέδριον, for the first time c BCE 28.
Practically everyone has routinely assumed that, in the wake of having been ousted by the Pᵊrush•imꞋ in the Συνέδριον, plus the Roman destruction of their "Temple" upon which they were dependent, the Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ simply faded into oblivion, leaving only the Pᵊrush•imꞋ—seemingly a priori (but actually ex falso quodlibet), Poof! Beit Sha•maiꞋ sages, magically, had always been "Rabbis" (i.e. Pᵊrush•imꞋ)! 
It is also documented that "זִקְנֵי־בְּתֵירָא" exercised influence even after the destruction of the Temple, when the Beit Din hâ-Gâ•dōlꞋ (no longer a Hellenist Roman Provincial Συνέδριον) was in YaꞋvᵊn•ëh. Yōkhâ•nânꞋ Bën-Za•kaiꞋ was said to have conferred with the זִקְנֵי־בְּתֵירָא in regard to certain legal rulings.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/bathyra-sons -->
| (Beit) Sha•maiꞋ Sr. | V | (Beit) Hi•leilꞋ Sr. "the Babylonian" |
|---|---|---|
| ) | ||
| (Hebrew: סֵפֶר גְזֵירוֹת ). Excerpted in 18 גְּזִירוֹת. | ||
By the 1st C.E. the Hellenist-Greek Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ had codified their Hellenist-Greek Interpretive Tradition in their Hellenist-Greek Χειρόγραφον τοῖς Δόγμασιν (Book of Dogma). Thus, all of the 3 major min•imꞋ of the 1st century C.E. maintained and respected their own Tradition of interpreting Ta•na"khꞋ (Scripture, Bible)!
However, the Pᵊrush•imꞋ continued to transmit their Interpretive Tradition by oral repetition and memory.
Thus, it is inaccurate and false to generalize from the Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Literalists' anthropomorphic & mystic supernaturalist rejection of Pᵊrush•imꞋ rational/logical reality Interpretive Tradition that they rejected Interpretive Tradition wholly, simply because their rival Pᵊrush•imꞋ Interpretive Tradition happened to still be transmitted via "oral" repetition (enabling continuing interpretation) instead of codified (fixed) in a book.
Centuries later, the Pᵊrush•imꞋ codified their "Oral Law" as well: c. 200 CE Mi•shᵊn•âhꞋ, c. 400 CE Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ Yᵊrū•sha•lᵊm•iꞋ, and c. 500 CE Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ Bâ•vᵊl•iꞋ. Yet, no one claims, based on this, that the Pᵊrush•imꞋ rejected Oral Law!!!
of Beit Sha•maiꞋ Sr.Some have cited the 18 גְּזִירוֹת the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ of Beit Sha•maiꞋ, Sr. with tunnel-vision; viewing them as an anti-Roman manifesto to pursue an agenda of distancing themselves from the Romans. However, this flies in the face of overwhelming documentation of fact. First, the 18 גְּזִירוֹת merely stipulate the literalist interpretive tradition of the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ of Beit Sha•maiꞋ, Sr. relative to punishments; e.g. an eye for an eye literally (rather than metaphorically as the Pᵊrush•imꞋ interpreted it); i.e. which criminals should be stoned, which burned, which beheaded and which hung from a tree, etc. A fortiori, the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ rule depended upon their collaboration with their Hellenist Roman-patron occupiers, who backed the aristocratic kō•han•imꞋ-priesthood religious hierocracy cum hagiocracy of Beit Sha•maiꞋ, Sr. over Pᵊrush•imꞋ Am Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ only so long as they kept the Roman Province of YᵊhūdꞋâh in line with Roman requirements.
The Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ were a paternally-racist, Hellenist-assimilated, Roman-sycophant, hierocracy of priests (and wealthy Hellenist aristocrats) ruling over the Pᵊrush•imꞋ (Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ) in the Roman Province of YᵊhūdꞋâh.
The advocacy of Beit Sha•maiꞋ Sr. for imposing kᵊhūn•âhꞋ ritual purity on all of Am Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ has occasionally been misrepresented as measures to distance all Jews from Romans. But the Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ dependence on the patronization of their Roman overlords for their own dominance in the Συνέδριον over the Pᵊrush•imꞋ betrays the fallacy of the misrepresentation.
On the other hand, the insatiable drive of Beit Sha•maiꞋ, Sr. for absolute rule over Pᵊrush•imꞋ Am Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ—which we still witness today among the advocates of Beit Sha•maiꞋ, Sr.—was intractably incompatible with Roman rule. This inherent conflict inexorably exploded in 70 CE, and again in 135 CE… and must inevitably and repeatedly explode for as long as advocacy for Beit Sha•maiꞋ, Sr. is tolerated by Pᵊrush•imꞋ Beit Hi•leilꞋ Am Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ.
The great problem today is that "Orthodox Judaism" (and especially Ultra-Orthodoxy and particularly Kha•reid•imꞋ) don't recognize even the existence, today, of the inexorably explosive internal schism between these two intractably conflicted views.
Kᵊhūn•âhꞋ (& Lᵊwiy•imꞋ) ritual purity codes, continuing relevancy?
Why would they be imposed on all of Am Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ in any event?
Whether they even remained appropriate for a Hellenized (i.e. defiled, non-kosher) "Temple" or Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ at all?
Still later, after the destruction of the (defiled) Hellenized-"Temple", how could "Temple"-dependent purity codes have any relevancy at all, even to Hellenist (i.e. non-kosher) Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ "kō•han•imꞋ"?
Dissimilar Systems Of Interpretation, Polemics & Apologetics:
Pᵊrush•iꞋ Hi•leilꞋ Sr. "the Babylonian" — big-picture semiotic logic applied to principles of jurisprudence, versus
Syrian-Hellenist "Temple" Tzᵊdoq•iꞋ Sha•maiꞋ Sr. — insisted on a literal interpretation of the Written Law; consequently, they did not believe in an after life, since it is not mentioned in the Torah.
"take away Fate entirely, and suppose that God is not concerned in our doing or not doing what is evil; and they say, that to act what is good, or what is evil, is at men's own choice, and that the one or the other belongs so to every one, that they may act as they please. They also take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishments and rewards in the Underworld." Flavius Josephus, Jewish War 2.162-166 [https://www.livius.org/articles/people/sadducees/].
simplistic mechanical-literal, Hellenist "Temple"-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ kō•han•icꞋ Unquestioned, Religious-Rulership Tradition! (which Hellenist "Temple" Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ perverted from their Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ Ōs•inꞋ kō•han•imꞋ forbears documented in the DSS).
Philosophical Orientation:
Pᵊrush•iꞋ Hi•leilꞋ Sr. "the Babylonian" — respecting persons as equals and motivating best in human individuals, versus
Syrian-Hellenist "Temple" Tzᵊdoq•iꞋ Sha•maiꞋ Sr. — priestly-patronizing assumed arrogance of rulership over inferiors, increasingly limiting ("fencing") people collectively, geared to worst in humankind
Expanding Fences Around Tōr•âhꞋ:
Hi•leilꞋ v Sha•maiꞋ ≡ Pᵊrush•imꞋ v Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ, exactly matching the contention in each of the 5 categories!
In the wake of the Pᵊrush•imꞋ wresting dominance over the Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ in the Συνέδριον by Hi•leilꞋ Sr. "the Babylonian" as Nâ•siꞋ c. 10 CE, the Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ of 25-30 CE were increasingly required by their Roman patrons to demonstrate their wished-for continued, but long-gone, indispensableness to the Roman occupiers. Despite numerous attempts of entrapment by the Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ to quash the growing wave of Pᵊrush•imꞋ dominance, the Pᵊrush•imꞋ preferred to "return to Caesar things that are for Caesar… and to ël•ōh•imꞋ things that are for ël•ōh•imꞋ"; as famously enunciated by the firebrand ta•lᵊmidꞋ granted sᵊmikh•âhꞋ by Hi•leilꞋ Sr. and Tan•âꞋ Rab•ânꞋ Ga•mᵊl•i•eilꞋ Sr.—RibꞋi Yᵊhō•shūꞋa.
The Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ desperation soon culminated in an all-Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ (Beit Sha•maiꞋ) kangaroo court, unprecedentedly convened at night and on a holy day, relying on the perjuries of false witnesses, to convict RibꞋi Yᵊhō•shūꞋa of sedition against Roman rule (not any Scriptural trespass) and then, with the allowance of the Roman Provincial Governor of YᵊhūdꞋâh, Pontius Pilate, at the behest of the Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ (Beit Sha•maiꞋ), the Roman soldiers crucified him.
In the face of growing Roman suppression leading up to the destruction of the Hellenist-Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Hellenized "Temple", the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ had lost the confidence of the Israelis due to their complicity with their increasingly harsh Hellenist Roman patron-occupiers. This was exacerbated by their having cooperated with the Romans in railroading RibꞋi Yᵊhō•shūꞋa (Pᵊrush•imꞋ never held Beit Din at night nor on a holy day), who had been a wildly popular Pᵊrush•iꞋ firebrand among the Pᵊrush•imꞋ citizenry, into a Roman crucifixion based on false charges).
After the destructions of 70 CE and 135 CE, the Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ, who had ruled the Συνέδριον from the first Zūg•ōtꞋ, the names of the Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Nᵊsiy•imꞋ, although they are known and documented, were replaced by a reference to their Χειρόγραφον τοῖς Δόγμασιν—The סְפַר גְזֵירָתָא (Hebrew: סֵפֶר גְזֵירוֹת ), excerpted in The 18 גְּזִירוֹת, which happens to be a Hebrew synonym of בְּתֵירָא!!! Thus, the phrase "sons of Bathyra" merely means "group members" of the Χειρόγραφον τοῖς Δόγμασιν—in other words, the Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ; and "Elders of Bathyra" are the same!
Recognizing that these phrases refer to previous—Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Nᵊsiy•imꞋ, of the Συνέδριον resolves all of the multiple enigmas reported by—created by—the entire gamut of Jewish and Christian historians.
"The determination of the Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ according to Beit Hi•leilꞋ was probably not accomplished in a single act but was rather a process that continued during the entire YaꞋvᵊn•ëh period, commencing with Yōkhâ•nânꞋ Bën-Za•kaiꞋ, soon after the destruction of the Temple (70 CE) and ending with the death of Rab•ânꞋ Ga•mᵊl•i•eilꞋ Sr. before the Bar-KōkhꞋvâ war (c. 135 CE).
"At [YaꞋvᵊn•ëh], in the generation after the destruction of the Temple, [Beit Hi•leilꞋ (i.e. Pᵊrush•imꞋ) cemented their] ascendancy (first–second century [CE]), whereupon the [Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ] was laid down according to [Beit Hi•leilꞋ (i.e. Pᵊrush•imꞋ)]. It was then stated that the possibility of making a choice between the two schools applied only "before a [bat kōl] went forth, but once a [bat kōl] went forth, the [Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ] was always according to [Beit Hi•leilꞋ], and whoever acted contrary to the views of [Beit Hi•leilꞋ] deserved death. It was taught: A [bat kōl] went forth and declared, 'The Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ is according to the words of [Beit Hi•leilꞋ].' Where did the [bat kōl] go forth?… At [YaꞋvᵊn•ëh]" (Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ Yᵊrū•sha•lᵊm•iꞋ, Ma•sëkꞋët Bᵊrâkh•ōtꞋ 1.7, 3b; and parallel passages)".
In the Âmor•âꞋic period the Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ of Beit Hi•leilꞋ was accepted in the schools of the Âmor•âꞋyim who declared: "The opinion of Beit Sha•maiꞋ, when it conflicts with that of Beit Hi•leilꞋ is no Mi•shᵊn•âhꞋ" (Ma•sëkꞋët Bᵊrâkh•ōtꞋ 36b, et al.)!
This includes the idolatries of anthropomorphism and irrational supernatural mysticism (e.g., Qa•bâl•âhꞋ & ZōꞋhar) that arises from the Literalist Interpretive Methodology of Beit Sha•maiꞋ (the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ).
Qa•bâl•âhꞋ's Bible, the ZōꞋhar, contradicts YaꞋvᵊn•ëh: "In the future (i.e., the world to come) the Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ will be according to Beit Sha•maiꞋ."
Contrary to the pneumati-nocti-xeno-stitious ZōꞋhar—more than a millennium later, advocacy of Beit Sha•maiꞋ has, since YaꞋvᵊn•ëh, carried a spiritual death sentence!!!
At YaꞋvᵊn•ëh, the intelligent methodology of logical interpretation of pristine Original Principles by Beit Hi•leilꞋ had irreversibly prevailed; inclusive and welcoming “big tent” logic, protective of diverse logical (scientific) explorative discussion and advancements. The pivotal advantage of the Beit Hi•leilꞋ logical (scientific) method over the Beit Sha•maiꞋ (Temple Kohanic) dead-end "Tradition!" method proclaimed by Tuvya the Milkman (Fiddler on the Roof), is that only the Beit Hi•leilꞋ logical (scientific) methodology adopts and produces advances in science and technology, remaining apace in our הָעוֹלָם הִשְׁתַּנָּה (mundus mutatus)!
The Beit Sha•maiꞋ methodology guarantees ossification, obsolescence, irrelevance, intractable internal conflict and extinction!
Recognizing that Sha•maiꞋ Sr. was the Tzᵊdōq•iꞋ Nâ•siꞋ Complement of the Last Zūg is the critical frame that enables scholars to peer through the 5 th century CE rabbinic rewrite of the debates between "Hillel & Shammai".
The earliest and most pristine accounts of the debates within The Last Zūg, and continuing debates between Beit Hi•leilꞋ and Beit Sha•maiꞋ, are documented in the Tō•sëphꞋᵊtâ, where the original debaters are manifestly and unambiguously defined as Pᵊrush•imꞋ v Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ kō•han•imꞋ (offspring of the extinct Ōs•inꞋ).
This definition is corroborated and confirmed in the Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ Yᵊrū•sha•lᵊm•iꞋ (c 400 CE) as a debate between the Pᵊrush•imꞋ and "those in the Temple Court"—the precinct of the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ kō•han•imꞋ.
Thus, when the Pᵊrush•imꞋ had consolidated sole power over the Beit Din hâ-Gâ•dōlꞋ in YaꞋvᵊn•ëh, however, the Pᵊrush•imꞋ "blotted out" the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ kō•han•imꞋ from rabbinic history in Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ Bâ•vᵊl•iꞋ (c 500 CE), rewriting subsequent rabbinic history as a strictly internal Pᵊrush•imꞋ debate between "Our Rabbis" — i.e. 2 Pᵊrush•imꞋ!!! Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ kō•han•imꞋ were thusly written-out of rabbinic history, encouraging the assumption that Beit Sha•maiꞋ were "Our Rabbis" (i.e. Pᵊrush•imꞋ)!
The most racist, intolerant and xenophobic of today's "Jews" are Ultra-Orthodox Jews who advocate "Shammai" tradition—in defiance of the written record in Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ documenting that the Tan•â•imꞋ declared unambiguously that "the Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ was always according to Beit Hi•leilꞋ, and whoever acted contrary to the views of Beit Hi•leilꞋ deserved death"! For decades I've repeatedly observed instances of today's Ultra-Orthodox claiming to be Pᵊrush•imꞋ while preaching the primacy of Sha•maiꞋ "Sadduceanism"; and behaving like the ancient arrogant, ruling, "Sadducees" who brought about the destructions of 70 CE, 135 CE—and perhaps even the 1940s CE; very much unlike the ancient "Pharisees" personified by the scions of Beit-Dâ•widꞋ: Hi•leilꞋ, RibꞋi Yᵊhō•shūꞋa and (subsequently) Rab•ânꞋ Ga•mᵊl•i•eilꞋ Sr.
Many Orthodox Jews & Judaism today, loudly proclaiming the primacy of Sha•maiꞋ (Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ) arguments blatantly contrary to Hi•leilꞋ Sr. "the Babylonian" and Pᵊrush•imꞋ history, contrary even to Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ, blindly march in lockstep, unquestioningly following the mystical (anti-education, anti-science, reality-denying = delusional = insane) Cult of Darkness of beyond-questioning, Ultra-Orthodox "great rabbis". Worship of rabbis is no less idolatry than worship of foreign gods or athletic and entertainment idols. They're labeled idols for proper reason, attracting admiration that belongs exclusively to the Existant; no human. Singing, playing pretend, playing with a ball, or a degree in art, is no indication of intellect or wisdom. While many of today's Jews secretly maintain their grip on the real universe and its Existant Creator, most "religious" Jews who view themselves as Pᵊrush•iꞋ have been duped into following Beit Sha•maiꞋ Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ; straying catastrophically from Mōsh•ëhꞋ at Har Sin•aiꞋ: Ta•na"khꞋ-centric Principles afforded the logical understanding and resulting interpretation of the modern scientific and technical world; not the Cult of Darkness mystical perversion!
Changes in the world environment have repeatedly proven terminal to large segments, or even entire species, of populations that lack some previously unappreciated DNA. Like undefined rare DNA, the same holds true for diverse opinions, which may not seem correct or acceptable presently, but ultimately could prove correct in future; providing the sole—previously uncomprehended and unappreciated—explanation that averts extinction of entire belief systems. Advances in world knowledge dooms religions dependent upon a divine-son prophet, a prophet riding a Pegasus from Mecca to Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim overnight or Bronze Age (much less Cult of Darkness) premises, which are, therefore, ex falso quodlibet.
יְהוָׂה is Immutable, but הָעוֹלָם הִשְׁתַּנָּה (mundus mutatus).
 |
|
 |