Daf Ditty Yoma 69: Alexander Macedon

Alexander on a mosaic from Pompeii, an alleged imitation of a Philoxenus of

Eretria or Apelles' painting, 4th century BC.

1
2
Since the mishna’s intention is uncertain, it cannot provide a clear proof for the dilemma of
whether it is permitted to derive benefit from priestly vestments. The Gemara therefore suggests
another proof: Come and hear an explicit baraita concerning this issue: With regard to priestly
vestments, it is prohibited to go out to the country, i.e., outside the Temple, while wearing
them, but in the Temple it is permitted for the priests to wear them, whether during the Temple
service or not during the service, due to the fact that it is permitted to derive benefit from
priestly vestments. Learn from this that it is indeed permitted.

§ The baraita taught that the priestly vestments may not be worn outside the Temple. The Gemara
challenges this: Is it really not permitted to wear priestly vestments in the country? Wasn’t it
taught in another baraita, in Megillat Ta’anit: The twenty-fifth of Tevet is known as the day of
Mount Gerizim, which was established as a joyful day, and therefore eulogizing is not permitted.

3
What occurred on that date? It was on that day that the Samaritans [kutim] requested the House
of our Lord from Alexander the Macedonian in order to destroy it, and he gave it to them,
i.e., he gave them permission to destroy it. People came and informed the High Priest, Shimon
HaTzaddik, of what had transpired. What did he do? He donned the priestly vestments and
wrapped himself in the priestly vestments. And the nobles of the Jewish People were with
him, with torches of fire in their hands. And all that night, these, the representatives of the
Jewish people, approached from this side, and those, the armies of Alexander and the
Samaritans, approached from that side, until dawn, when they finally saw one another.

4
When dawn arrived, Alexander said to the Samaritans: Who are these people coming to meet
us? They said to him: These are the Jews who rebelled against you.

When he reached Antipatris, the sun shone and the two camps met each other. When
Alexander saw Shimon HaTzaddik, he descended from his chariot and bowed before him.
His escorts said to him: Should an important king such as you bow to this Jew?

He said to them: I do so because the image of this man’s face is victorious before me on my
battlefields, i.e., when I fight I see his image going before me as a sign of victory, and therefore I
know that he has supreme sanctity.

5
6
He said to the representatives of the Jewish people: Why have you come? They said to him: Is
it possible that the Temple, the house in which we pray for you and for your kingdom not to
be destroyed, gentiles will try to mislead you into destroying it, and we would remain silent and
not tell you? He said to them: Who are these people who want to destroy it? The Jews said to
him: They are these Samaritans who stand before you. He said to them: If so, they are
delivered into your hands to deal with them as you please.

Immediately, they stabbed the Samaritans in their heels and hung them from their horses’
tails and continued to drag them over the thorns and thistles until they reached Mount
Gerizim. When they arrived at Mount Gerizim, where the Samaritans had their temple, they
plowed it over and seeded the area with leeks, a symbol of total destruction. This was just as
they had sought to do to the House of our Lord. And they made that day a festival to celebrate
the salvation of the Temple and the defeat of the Samaritans.

It is apparent from the baraita that Shimon HaTzaddik wore the priestly vestments even outside
the Temple. This would seem to be in contravention of the ruling of the other baraita prohibiting
this. The Gemara resolves the contradiction: If you wish, say Shimon HaTzaddik did not wear a
set of genuine, sanctified priestly vestments; rather, he wore garments that were fitting to be
priestly vestments in that they were made of the same material and design. And if you wish, say
instead that he indeed wore a set of genuine priestly vestments, but in times of great need, such as
when one seeks to prevent the destruction of the Temple, it is permitted to violate the halakha, as
indicated by the verse:

7
 ,‫ֵהֵפרוּ‬ --‫ ַלֲﬠשׂוֹת ַליהָוה‬,‫קכו ֵﬠת‬ 126 It is time for the LORD to work; they have made void
.]‫תּוָֹרֶת‬ Thy law.
Ps 119:126

“It is time to act for the Lord, they have nullified your Torah”

Summary

The rabbis cover a lot of ground today. Some highlights:1

• a discussion of whether the priestly vestments, in particular the belt, can be used
outside of religious ceremony to benefit the priest. Some questions include whether the
belt is soft or hard, whether it might touch one's skin, whether and how it might be different
from the belts of the other priests, whether a priest can leave the Temple in his priestly
vestments, and of course, whether it is composed of diverse kinds (ie. wool and cotton or
wool and linen).
• Megilat Ta'anit, the book of dates, notes that Tevet 25 (the day of Mount Gezirim)
is a day of celebration and thus no fasting or eulogizing can be done on that day (in times
of the second Temple)
• On that date, King Alexander of Macedonia intended to destroy the Jewish people
under the advisement of the Sameritans/Kutim (a non-rabbinic group of Jews who follow
Torah instructions carefully).
• King Alexander was then convinced by Shimon HaTzaddik - wearing his priestly
clothing - to instead allow the Jews to stab the Kutim in their ankles, drag them through
the thorns tied to the tails of their horses, and plough their idol-site with leeks (a sign of
ravaging). All of this to teach us that the priestly clothing can be worn in non-sacred
contexts
• flexibility around whether a student can be honoured by his teacher
• was the High Priest sitting during part of the service?
• The rabbis discuss a fascinating tangential idea following a commentary on the
High Priest's reading from a Torah scroll
• Why did Nechamia state that G-d is "Great"? or in many places that G-d is "mighty"
or "awesome"? In fact, some rabbis refused to use these adjectives to describe G-d. Is not
this the same G-d who watched and allowed the Temple to be destroyed? Did he not allow
groups of Gentiles to murder righteous Jews?
• Complicated answers will follow; the simple answer is that G-d demonstrates G-
d's greatness, might and awesomeness when He restrains Himself from destroying those

1
https://dafyomibeginner.blogspot.com/search?q=yoma+69

8
 Gentiles who kill His chosen people. Proof that G-d loves us is that we still exist even after
these efforts to wipe us out (written 2000 years ago)
• We are told Zachariah's bizarre tale of a fiery lion cub representing the evil
inclination. I know that I am not learned enough to understand the many-layered meanings
of this tale
• We end with a discussion about reading the Torah. Should it be translated? If so,
in what way? We are allowed to skip passages in the Prophets because of the ongoing
themes of "rebuke and consolation", and so we can skip within the 12 books which are
functionally one book
• we are not allowed to skip passages in the Torah because of the detail regarding
mitzvot that might be missed. But we are allowed to skip passages in the Torah as long as
we stay within one topic and we always move forward, in the intended 'order'
What stands out for me in today's daf is the fascination with cruelty and the questions about G-d's
current 'absence' that could have been written today. Why do we need the gruesome details of the
Kutim's treatement? Was it necessary to torture these people and then keep the memory of torture
alive? What purposes are served by this recounting?

At the same time, we continue to wonder how G-d could just watch his people without
intervening. Whether we are being slaughtered in the Holocaust or whether we are behaving badly
ourselves, how can G-d be called great or mighty or awesome when G-d does not intervene? Our
rabbis discuss these issues noting that some leaders refused to glorify G-d with these words. We
will continue to ask these questions. We will continue to search for G-d's intervention and grasp
at understandings when G-d does not end the violence.

"KIL'AYIM" IN THE VESTMENTS OF THE KOHEN

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:2

The Gemara discusses whether a Kohen is permitted to derive benefit from the Bigdei Kehunah while
he is not performing an Avodah. Does deriving benefit from the Bigdei Kehunah constitute Me'ilah or
not? The Gemara suggests various proofs to permit a Kohen to derive benefit from the Bigdei Kehunah.
The first proof is from the Mishnah (68b) which states that the Kohen Gadol may wear the Bigdei
Kehunah when he reads from the Torah (which is not an Avodah) on Yom Kippur. The second proof
is from a Beraisa which says that the Kohanim are permitted to sleep in the Bigdei Kehunah and to
walk around while wearing the Bigdei Kehunah. Finally, the Gemara cites a Beraisa which says that
the Kohanim are permitted to place the Bigdei Kehunah beneath their heads when they sleep.

The Gemara rejects its final proof and says that the Beraisa does not mean that the Kohanim are
permitted to place the Bigdei Kehunah underneath their heads, but rather beside their heads. The
Gemara supports this interpretation of the Beraisa by pointing out that the Beraisa cannot mean that

2
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/yoma/insites/yo-dt-069.htm

9
the Kohanim may place the Bigdei Kehunah literally underneath their heads, because if they place the
Bigdei Kehunah there they will transgress the prohibition against deriving benefit from Kil'ayim (the
Avnet was made of wool and linen).

Why does the Gemara address the problem of Kil'ayim only at this point? If wearing the Bigdei
Kehunah (when not performing an Avodah) poses a problem of Kil'ayim, why does the Gemara earlier
suggest that the Kohen may wear the Bigdei Kehunah even when he is not performing an Avodah?
Even if he transgresses no prohibition of Me'ilah, he still transgresses the prohibition of Kil'ayim! Why
does the Gemara address the problem of Kil'ayim only now, when it discusses placing the Bigdei
Kehunah underneath one's head?

TOSFOS in Menachos (40b-41a, DH Techeles) and the TOSFOS YESHANIM here write that the
Gemara here provides strong support for the opinion of RABEINU TAM. Rabeinu Tam asserts that
since one is permitted to wear a garment which contains Kil'ayim in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of
Tzitzis, he may wear that garment even at a time when he fulfills no Mitzvah (such as the nighttime).
(Rabeinu Tam maintains that the reason why one may wear a garment with Kil'ayim in order to fulfill
the Mitzvah of Tzitzis is not merely because of the principle, "Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh," but because
the Torah completely permits the prohibition of Kil'ayim on a garment with Tzitzis.) Similarly, with
regard to Kil'ayim in the Bigdei Kehunah, since the Kohen is permitted to wear the Bigdei Kehunah
with Kil'ayim when he performs the Avodah he may also wear the Bigdei Kehunah with Kil'ayim when
he does not perform the Avodah. The prohibition against benefiting from Kil'ayim applies only when
the Kohen does not wear the Bigdei Kehunah but merely warms himself with them in some other way.
The Torah permits Kil'ayim only when the Kohen wears the Bigdei Kehunah, but not when he sits on
top of them or rests his head on them.3

The MEFARESH in Tamid (27a) says that the Gemara's question here with regard to Kil'ayim refers
back to the beginning of the Sugya. The Gemara indeed could have asked this question earlier, but it
knew that the answer to the question would apply to the entire Sugya (to all of the cases of Kohanim
who wear the Bigdei Kehunah with Kil'ayim). The Gemara answers that the garment with Kil'ayim is
made of a very hard material, to which the prohibition of Kil'ayim does not apply.

The Mefaresh understands that not only is one permitted to lie on Kil'ayim when the garment is made
of a hard material, but the prohibition does not apply even when one wears a garment made of a hard
material. Since such a garment does not warm the person while he wears it, it does not constitute
forbidden benefit from Kil'ayim. (See following Insights.)

THE PROHIBITION OF LAYING ON "KIL'AYIM"

The Gemara cites a Beraisa which states that although the Torah forbids one only from wearing
Kil'ayim upon his body, the Rabanan prohibited even lying or sitting on Kil'ayim out of concern that
perhaps a thread of Kil'ayim will become wrapped upon the person in such a way that he will benefit
from wearing it. The Gemara asks that perhaps the Isur d'Rabanan applies only when the Kil'ayim is

3
See also RA'AVAD, Hilchos Kil'ayim 10:32 and Hilchos Klei ha'Mikdash 8:10, who rules like Rabeinu Tam and argues with the
Rambam on this point.

10
directly underneath the person, but if another object separates between him and the Kil'ayim he may
lie or sit on it. The Gemara responds with a statement of the Tana'im that even when ten sheets are
spread over the Kil'ayim, one sheet on top of the other, one may not lie on the uppermost sheet.

Why does the Beraisa say that the reason for the Isur d'Rabanan against lying on Kil'ayim is because
of the concern that a thread of Kil'ayim will wrap up onto the person's body? If one is forbidden to lie
even on top of sheets which cover the Kil'ayim, the prohibition obviously is not due to the concern that
a thread might wrap up onto one's body, because many sheets separate his body from the Kil'ayim!
Rather, the Isur is merely a Gezeirah to prevent one from taking the Kil'ayim from underneath him and
wearing it. Why, then, does the Beraisa say that the reason is because a thread of Kil'ayim might
become wrapped around part of his body?

RITVA in Beitzah (14b) says that the Gezeirah which prohibits lying on top of ten sheets which are
on top of Kil'ayim is actually a "Gezeirah l'Gezeirah," a rabbinical decree made to safeguard another
decree. The original Gezeirah of the Rabanan prohibited lying directly on a garment of Kil'ayim lest a
thread of Kil'ayim wrap up onto his skin. The Gezeirah which prohibits lying on the uppermost of ten
sheets which are on top of Kil'ayim was enacted in order to prevent one from lying or sitting directly
on Kil'ayim, which in turn is prohibited lest a thread wrap onto his skin. (The two Gezeiros are
considered to be one Gezeirah -- "Kula Chada Gezeirah" -- since they were enacted at one time.)

RAMBAM (Hilchos Kil'ayim 10:12) appears to understand that even if a garment of Kil'ayim is
underneath ten sheets, there still is a concern that a thread from the Kil'ayim might reach the top of the
sheets and wrap around one's skin. Accordingly, only one Gezeirah was enacted. This also appears to
be the opinion of TOSFOS (DH Kashin).

The Rambam and Tosfos are consistent with their own opinion as expressed elsewhere. They maintain
that one is prohibited from lying directly on top of a garment of Kil'ayim even if it is very hard. One is
permitted to sit on top of it only when another object separates between his skin and the hard garment
of Kil'ayim. They consider sitting on Kil'ayim a form of "Ha'ala'ah," placing the garment on one's
body, because there is no logical reason to differentiate between a garment on top of one's body and
one's body on top of a garment. As long as one's flesh touches the garment, it is considered "Ha'ala'ah."
According to this opinion, no Gezeirah is necessary to prohibit one from sitting on Kil'ayim because
of the reason that a thread might wrap up onto one's body, since the prohibition of Kil'ayim itself
prohibits one from sitting on Kil'ayim. Why, then, was such a Gezeirah enacted? It must be that the
Gezeirah that a thread might wrap up onto one's body was enacted in order to prohibit one from lying
on a garment of Kil'ayim when it is underneath several sheets.

RAN in Beitzah (14b) infers from the words of RASHI there (DH Shema Tikarev) that the prohibition
against lying on Kil'ayim lest a thread wrap up onto one's body is d'Oraisa and not merely d'Rabanan.
When the Beraisa teaches that "the Chachamim said that it is forbidden [to lie on Kil'ayim]," it means
that it is forbidden because it is a doubt in a case of an Isur d'Oraisa. In the case of Kil'ayim underneath
ten sheets, there is no Isur d'Oraisa but only a Gezeirah that one not come to sit on the garment of
Kil'ayim itself.

RAN himself, however, suggests that the Gezeirah against lying on top of sheets which are on top of
a garment of Kil'ayim is a Gezeirah to prevent "Ha'ala'ah" -- to ensure that one does not pick up the
garment and wear it. It is unrelated to the concern that a thread will wrap onto one's body. There is no
concern for a thread in this case because the Kil'ayim is separated from his body by other sheets.

11
The concern that one might pick up and wear the Kil'ayim, however, applies only to a type of garment
that is normally worn, but not to sheets. If the Kil'ayim underneath the sheets is itself a sheet, one is
prohibited only to sit directly on top of it. There is no concern that one might pick it up and wear it,
but rather there is a concern that since he is sitting directly on the Kil'ayim a thread might wrap up onto
him. In contrast, one may not sit on an item of clothing of Kil'ayim even when it is underneath ten
sheets, because in such a case the Gezeirah that he might wear it applies.

This explanation is supported by the text of the Beraisa which says, "Even ten sheets, one on top of the
other, and Kil'ayim beneath them [is prohibited]." This implies that the prohibited item itself is not a
sheet but a different type of garment (a wearable one) made of Kil'ayim.

"KIL'AYIM" MADE FROM A HARD MATERIAL

The Gemara explains that a Kohen does not transgress the prohibition of Kil'ayim when he lies on the
Avnet, because the Avnet is made from a hard material.

When is one permitted to benefit from Kil'ayim made from a hard material?

RA'AVAD (on the Rif, Beitzah 15a) explains that, mid'Oraisa, there is no prohibition of Kil'ayim made
from a hard material. Mid'Oraisa, one is permitted even to wear such Kil'ayim. The Rabanan, however,
prohibited one from wearing it, but they did not prohibit one from lying or sitting on it. Mid'Oraisa,
one is prohibited from wearing a soft material of Kil'ayim, and the Rabanan prohibited one from lying
or sitting on it. If the material is a bit soft and a bit hard, one is prohibited to wear such a garment
mid'Oraisa, but one is permitted to sit on it even mid'Rabanan. The Rabanan did not prohibit sitting on
such material because it is uncommon ("Lo Shachi'ach").

RASHI (DH Shari) here writes that one is permitted to place Kil'ayim of a hard material on one's body
("Ha'ala'ah") even though one normally is prohibited mid'Oraisa from placing Kil'ayim on one's body.
"Ha'ala'ah" is forbidden only when it is done in a manner similar to the way a garment is worn, for
only in such a way does it give a person some form of pleasure (it provides warmth).
Rashi implies that wearing Kil'ayim ("Levishah") is always forbidden, even when the material is hard,
because (as the TOSFOS RID in Beitzah writes) when one wears an item he derives benefit not only
from the warmth that it provides but from the protection that it affords or from the honor that it brings
him. In the case of "Ha'ala'ah," however, the only benefit one derives from the cloth is the warmth.

TOSFOS in Beitzah (15a) and the TOSFOS YESHANIM here explain in the name of RABEINU
TAM that whenever an Isur d'Rabanan of Kil'ayim applies (such as in the case of lying down on a
normal garment of Kil'ayim), the Rabanan permitted one to use the Kil'ayim if it is made of a hard
material. In contrast, any form of Kil'ayim which is Asur mid'Oraisa remains Asur mid'Oraisa even
when it is a hard material. Therefore, the Rabanan permitted one to sit on Kil'ayim (an act which
normally is prohibited mid'Rabanan) or to wear a garment made from threads of wool and linen which
were pressed but not woven (which is prohibited mid'Rabanan), if it is a hard material.

RA'AVAD in Tamid (27b) permits one only to lie on or sit on Kil'ayim of a hard material. He maintains
that only "Hatza'ah" is permitted when the material is hard. Any other form of the prohibition of
Kil'ayim d'Rabanan remains prohibited even when the material is hard (such as wearing a garment of
pressed threads which were not woven). He says in the name of Rabeinu Efraim that the threads of a

12
hard cloth do not have a tendency to wrap up around the person's body, and therefore the Gezeirah
against lying on Kil'ayim does not apply to hard material.

RAMBAM (Hilchos Kil'ayim 10:13) rules that wearing Kil'ayim of a hard material is forbidden
mid'Oraisa. One is permitted only to lie on or sit on hard Kil'ayim ("Hatza'ah") but not to wear it
("Levishah") or place it on top of his body ("Ha'ala'ah"), as the Ra'avad in Tamid rules.
Moreover, the allowance to lie on or sit on hard Kil'ayim applies only when the material does not touch
the person's skin. According to the Rambam, one may not sit directly on top of the Kil'ayim (with no
intervening material).4

Wearing the Priestly Clothes Outside the Temple

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:5

Our daf includes one of the most famous stories in the Gemara, when the kohen gadol, Shimon
HaTzaddik met Alexander Mokdon (the Macedonian). The story is taken from Megillat
Ta’anit (where the baraita explains why during the second Temple period the 25th day of Tevet
was celebrated as a minor holiday, which was called “the day of Mount Gerizim.”

Our Gemara introduces it in the context of the halakha that the kohen gadol was not permitted to
wear the special bigdei kehuna – the clothing worn by a priest – outside the Temple. Yet, in the
following story we find that Shimon HaTzaddik did so.

Megillat Ta’anit records how the Samaritans approached Alexander Mokdon and requested
permission from him to be permitted to destroy the Temple in Jerusalem. Alexander agreed. When
word of this got to Jerusalem, the kohen gadol, Shimon HaTzaddik dressed in his priestly garments
and headed north together with an entourage to greet Alexander. Upon reaching Antipatris, the
city that was considered the northern border of second Temple period Judea, which stood
apparently in the vicinity of today’s Rosh ha-Ayin, the two groups met.

When Alexander saw Shimon HaTzaddik, he descended from his chariot and bowed before
him. His escorts said to him: Should an important king such as you bow to this Jew? He said to
them: I do so because the image of this man’s face is victorious before me on my battlefields, i.e.,
when I fight I see his image going before me as a sign of victory, and therefore I know that he has
supreme sanctity.

Shimon HaTzaddik appealed to Alexander to save the Temple, explaining that prayers on his
behalf were recited there on a regular basis. Alexander acceded to the request and permitted the
Jews to destroy the Samaritan Temple on Mount Gerizim instead.

4
The Ra'avad in Tamid suggests that the reason why the Rambam prohibits sitting directly on hard Kil'ayim is because he maintains
that "Ha'ala'ah" applies whenever the Kil'ayim is in direct contact with the person's skin, whether the garment is on the person or
the person is on the garment. "Ha'ala'ah" is forbidden mid'Oraisa, and therefore it remains forbidden even when the Kil'ayim is a
hard material.
5
https://steinsaltz.org/daf/yoma69/

13
 • The Gemara offers two explanations to Shimon HaTzaddik’s behavior in wearing bigdei
kehuna to this meeting. One is that they were not true bigdei kehuna, they were replicas
that were similar to the priestly garments. The other explanation is that this was a case
where an exception was made, since the fate of the Temple and the Jewish people was at
stake (the passage from Tehillim 119:126 is invoked as a source for that idea).

It should be noted that other sources support the veracity of this story, as it appears in Josephus
with minor variations.

Mark Kerzner writes:6

While waiting for the goat to arrive to the desert, the High Priest sits in the part of the Temple
called "Women's Courtyard," where one is permitted to sit. They bring him the Torah, he stands
up, receives it, and reads passages about Yom Kippur. If he wants to do this in the linen white
garments, in which he was performing the service, he is allowed to, or else he can use his own
garments. In general, can Kohanim wear the service garments outside the Temple? Let us consider
the following story.

In the time of Shimon the Righteous, the Karaites convinced Alexander of Macedonia that the
Jews organized a rebellion, and he moved to destroy Jerusalem. Shimon the High Priest donned
his garments and went to meet him. Both parties walked all night and met at sunrise when
Alexander descended from his chariot and bowed down to Shimon. He explained that every time
he went to battle, he saw this man in a vision, praying for him. Alexander then gave the Karaites
into the hands of the Jews, who dragged them tied to horses to the Karaite Temple on Mount
Gerizim and destroyed it.

From this story we see that a Kohen is allowed to wear his garments outside! - Maybe these were
not the real garments but only similar to them.

In proving that one can indeed sit in the Women's Courtyard, the Talmud quotes a phrase from
Nehemiah. It then continues with the events of that time. The Sages saw that the Evil Inclination
has already succeeded in convincing people to be worship idols, which led to the destruction of
the First Temple, and fasted and prayed for three days for God to remove it. They were given this,
and it came out of the Holy of Holies in the form of the roaring lion made of fire. They hid it away
in a special magical vessel made of lead, and the desire to worship idols was much weakened.

Seeing that they had favor with God, they asked to destroy the desire for illicit relations, but the
world stopped functioning, and they could not even find a fresh egg for a sick person. Some say,
the "fresh egg" is a prayer on Shabbat, and it was not special like it always is. Understanding that
they would not be granted to remove the desire only for illicit relations, they were at least able to
abolish the urge for one's relatives.

6
http://talmudilluminated.com/yoma/yoma69.html

14
Alexander the Great testified that as he set out to battle, there was an image of a person which
always led him to victory.7

When he met Shimon HaTzaddik, he recognized that the image was that of Shimon HaTzaddik,
the Kohen Gadol, who served in the Beis Hamikdash of the Jews. Sfas Emes explains the
significance of this imagery.

Actually, before he went to battle, Alexander the Great was empowered to see his own heavenly
angel. At this moment, as he encountered Shimon HaTzaddik, a miracle occurred, and the
appearance of Shimon HaTzaddik changed so he appeared as this angel. Alexander was
understandably impressed when he met him.

Alternatively, Shimon HaTzaddik fulfilled the dictum of our sages (Avos 3:2): “Rabbi Chanina,
Sgan Hakohanim, used to say, ‘Pray for the welfare of the government.’” In fact, Shimon
HaTzaddik informed Alexander that the Beis Hamikdash was the place in which prayers were
offered on his behalf.

The comment of Alexander was an acknowledgement of this fact, as he declared, “It is the merit
of the prayers offered and led by this man, the Kohen Gadol, that have brought me victory.” As
the Gemara concludes, due to this meeting, Alexander halted his march to Yerushalayim and
instead authorized an attack against the Cutheans, who had tried to malign the Jewish nation in the
eyes of Alexander.

As indicated in our Gemara, it is only in the merit of Shimon HaTzaddik and his appearing before
Alexander the Great in the priestly garments that the Jews were saved. Shimon HaTzaddik put on
these special garments and went to greet Alexander the Great, and in this merit his conquering
advance against Yerushalayim was stopped.

Later authorities question why it was permitted for the kohanim to sleep with their garments folded
under their heads. The basis for the question is that the Gemara in Horayos (1) states that one who

7
https://dafdigest.org/masechtos/Yoma%20069.pdf

15
puts his garments beneath his head when he goes to sleep forgets his learning, therefore it should
be prohibited.

A number of different resolutions are suggested to resolve this difficulty. Some authorities (2)
explain that the only restriction against sleeping with garments under one’s head is when there is
nothing separating between the person’s head and the clothing. If, however, something is placed
between the person’s head and the clothing there is no violation.

Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld (3) answered that the restriction applies only if a person sleeps with
his clothing beneath his head on a regular basis. If one sleeps in this fashion only occasionally, he
need not be concerned that it will be damaging. The kohanim slept with their garments beneath
their heads only during the week in which they served in the Beis HaMikdash. Therefore, over the
course of the year that they served the couple of weeks does not qualify as a regular practice, and
it was permitted.

A third resolution (4) to this question is that sacred priestly garments will not cause the negative
consequence of causing a person to forget, and as a result there was no restriction against this
practice. In a similar ruling,

Rav Chaim Falagi (5) writes that if one who has the custom to place the clothing that an infant will
wear for the bris under his head, he does not have to be concerned with any negative consequence
of the practice. Since these garments will be worn during the bris they are considered sacred and
no harm will result.

Sefer Zicharon (6) notes that there is no issue for a person to put his head on his sleeve and go to
sleep. This is not considered to be sleeping on one’s garments since while he is wearing the
garments they are nullified to his body and it is considered as if he is sleeping on his arm.

16
 The pivotal scene that you won't see in any movie sets the stage for the story of
Chanukah.

Alexander and the Jews

Rabbi Ken Spiro writes:8

With a star-studded motion picture featuring Colin Farrel, Alexander the Great seems to be
suddenly all the rage. In keeping with the spirit of Hollywood, the movies will probably focus on
Alexander's impressive military career, his colossal battles with the Persian Empire and his sordid
personal life. What will be overlooked are the fascinating interactions Alexander had with the
Jewish people and the complex relationship that developed between the Greeks and the Jews that
set the stage for the story of Chanukah.

A Little Background

Alexander, born in 356 BCE, was the son of Phillip II (382-336 BCE), the King of Macedonia in
northern Greece (and considered a barbarian by the southern Greek city states). Phillip created a
powerful, professional army which forcibly united the fractious Greek city-states into one empire.

From an early age, Alexander displayed tremendous military talent and was appointed as a
commander in his father's army at the age of 18. Having conquered all of Greece, Phillip was about
to embark on a campaign to invade Greece's archenemy, the Persian Empire. Before he could

8
https://www.aish.com/j/as/48929692.html

17
invade Persia, Phillip was assassinated, possibly by Alexander, who then became king in 336BCE.
Two years later in 334 BCE, he crossed the Hellspont (in modern-day Turkey) with 45,000 men
and invaded the Persian Empire.

In three colossal battles – Granicus, Issus and Gaugamela – that took place between 334 and 331,
Alexander brilliantly (and often recklessly) led his army to victory against Persian armies that may
have outnumbered his own as much as ten to one. By 331 BCE, the Persian Empire was defeated,
the Persian Emperor Darius was dead, and Alexander was the undisputed ruler of the
Mediterranean. His military campaign lasted 12 years and took him and his army 10,000 miles to
the Indus River in India.

When Alexander looked at his empire, he wept, for there was nothing more to
conquer.

Only the weariness of his men and Alexander's untimely death in 323BCE at the age of 32 ended
the Greek conquest of the known world. It is said that when Alexander looked at his empire, he
wept for there was nothing more to conquer. His vast empire did not survive his death, but
fragmented into three large chunks centered in Greece, Egypt, and Syria and controlled by his
former generals.

At its largest, Alexander's empire stretched from Egypt to India. He built six Greek cities, all
named Alexandria. (Only Alexandria in Egypt still survives) These cities, and the Greeks who
settled in them, brought Greek culture to the center of the oldest civilizations of Mesopotamia.

The Greeks were not only military imperialists but also cultural imperialists. Greek soldiers and
settlers brought their way of life – their language, art, architecture, literature, and philosophy – to
Middle East. When Greek culture merged with the culture of the Middle East, it created a new
cultural hybrid – Hellenism (Hellas is the Greek word for Greece) – whose impact would be far
greater and last far longer than the brief period of Alexander's empire. Whether through the idea
of the pitched battle, art, architecture or philosophy, Hellenism's influence on the Roman Empire,
Christianity, and the West was monumental. But it is the interaction between the Jews and the
Greeks and the impact of Hellenism on Judaism that we want to take a closer look at.

Detour To Israel

During his military campaign against Persia, Alexander took a detour to the south, conquering
Tyre and then Egypt via what is today Israel. There is a fascinating story about Alexander's first
encounter with the Jews of Israel, who were subjects of the Persian Empire.

As tribute to his conquest, the Sages decreed that Jewish boys be named
Alexander.

The narrative concerning Alexander's first interaction with the Jews is recorded in both the Talmud
(Yoma 69a) and in the Jewish historian Josephus's Book of Antiquities (XI, 321-47). In both
accounts the High Priest of the Temple in Jerusalem, fearing that Alexander would destroy the
city, went out to meet him before he arrived at the city. The narrative describes how Alexander,

18
upon seeing the High Priest, dismounted and bowed to him. (Alexander rarely, if ever, bowed to
anyone). In Josephus's account, when asked by his general, Parmerio, to explain his actions,
Alexander answered, "I did not bow before him, but before that God who has honored him with
the high Priesthood; for I saw this very person in a dream, in this very apparel."

Alexander interpreted the vision of the High Priest as a good omen and thus spared Jerusalem,
peacefully absorbing the Land of Israel into his growing empire. As tribute to his benign conquest,
the Sages decreed that the Jewish firstborn of that time be named Alexander – which remains a
Jewish name to this very day. And the date of their encounter, the 25th of Tevet, was declared a
minor holiday.

Jews and Greeks

Thus began one the most interesting and complex cultural relationships in the ancient world. The
Greeks had never met anyone like the Jews, and the Jews had never met anyone like the Greeks.
The initial interaction seemed to be very positive. To the Jews, the Greeks were a new and exotic
culture from the West. They had a profound intellectual tradition that produced philosophers such
as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle (who was Alexander's tutor for two years). Their love of wisdom,
science, art, and architecture set them apart from other cultures the Jews had interacted with. The
Greek language was considered so beautiful that the Talmud called it in some ways the most
beautiful of all languages and the Rabbis decreed that a Torah scroll could even be written in
Greek.

The Greeks had never met anyone like the Jews – the world's only monotheistic nation who had a
unique concept of a loving, infinite God who cares about creation and acts in history. The Jews
had incredibly profound and complex legal and philosophical traditions. They had literacy rates
and a social welfare infrastructure unheard of in the ancient world. So fascinated were the Greeks
with the Jews that they became the first people to translate the Bible into another language when
King Ptolemy II (c. 250 BCE) forced 70 Rabbis to translate the Hebrew Bible into Greek (known
as the Septuagint, which means "70" in Greek).

Two Greek Empires emerged in the Middle East after the death of Alexander: The Ptolemies in
Egypt and the Seleucids in Syria. The Land of Israel was the border between these two warring
Empires. Initially, the Jews were under the control of the Ptolemies, but after the Battle of Panias
in 198BCE, Israel found herself in the domain of the Seleucids and their king, Antiochus.

While much of the upper crust of Jewish society, along with the rest of the population of the
Mediterranean world, readily embraced Hellenistic culture (some to the point of denouncing their
Jewish identity), the vast majority of the Jews remained loyal to Judaism. This "rejection" of the
Hellenistic lifestyle was viewed with great hostility by many Greeks and seen as a form of
rebellion. The exotic differences that had once served as the source of attraction between the two
cultures now created the flashpoint for a cultural war. To make matters worse, Israel was the border
state between these two rival Greek Empires, and the Jews, who refused to assimilate, were viewed
as a disloyal population in strategically vital part of the Seleucid Empire.

19
It would be wrong to view the conflict as purely Greece versus the Jews. Internal tension within
the Jewish community contributed significantly to the conflict. Many of the Hellenized Jews took
it upon themselves to "help" their more traditional brethren by "dragging" them away from what
they perceived was their primitive beliefs into the "modern" world of Greek culture. (This pattern
has repeated itself many times in Jewish history – in Russia in the 19th century and in Germany,
to name just a few examples.) To aid them in their endeavor, these Hellenized Jews enlisted the
help of their Greek allies, ultimately bringing the king himself, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, into the
conflict.

The Miracle of Chanukah

In the mid-2nd century BCE, Antiochus issued a decree which until that time was unheard of in
the multicultural and religiously tolerant ancient world: He outlawed another people's religion. He
banned the teaching and practice of Judaism. The book of the Maccabees (probably written by a
Jewish chronicler in the early first century BCE) describes it as follows: "Not long after this, the
king sent an Athenian senator to compel the Jews to forsake the laws of their fathers and cease to
live by the laws of God, and also to pollute the Temple in Jerusalem and call it the Temple of
Olympian Zeus." (II Maccabees 6:1-2).

The light of Chanukah is symbolic of the real victory – the spiritual light of
Judaism.
Brutal Greek persecutions of the Jews triggered the first religious/ideological war in history – the
Maccabean revolt. The revolt was led by the priestly family of Matithias and his five sons, the
most famous of whom was Judah. Against all odds, the outnumbered guerilla army of the
Maccabees beat the much larger, better equipped, professional Greek armies. After three years of
fighting, Jerusalem was liberated. The Temple which had been desecrated was cleaned and
rededicated to God. It was during this period of cleansing and re-dedication of the Temple that the
miracle of Chanukah happened. One small flask of oil used by the High Priest to light the menorah
in the Temple, that should have been sufficient for only one day, miraculously burned for eight.

The conflict dragged on for many more years and cost the lives of many Jews, including Judah
Maccabee and several of his brothers. Ultimately, the Greeks were defeated and Judaism survived.

Arguably, a far greater miracle than the oil lasting for eight days was the military victory of the
Jews over the Greek Empire. But the light of Chanukah is symbolic of the real victory – the
survival of the spiritual light of Judaism. Judaism's miraculous survival enabled the Jews to have
a monumental impact on the world that has far exceeded the miniscule size of the Jewish people,
giving the world the concept of one God and the values of the sanctity of life, justice, peace and
social responsibility that are the moral/spiritual foundations of Western civilization.

20
 ALEXANDER THE GREAT

Isaac Broydé, Kaufmann Kohler, Israel Lévi write:9

The celebrated conqueror of the East, 356-323 B.C. By introducing Hellenic culture into Syria and
Egypt, he had probably more influence on the development of Judaism than any one individual
not a Jew by race. Yet, curiously enough, there are no personal details which connect him with
Jewish history, save that after the siege of Tyre, 332 B.C., he marched through Palestine
unopposed, except in the case of Gaza, which was razed to the ground. He is mentioned by name
only in the Apocryphal I Macc. (i. 1-8, vi. 2). It is supposed that the Book of Daniel alludes to
Alexander when it refers to a mighty king that "shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion,"
whose kingdom shall be destroyed after his death (Dan. xi. 3). The vision of the "fourth beast,
dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly," devouring and breaking all in pieces (ibid. vii. 7),
may also be an allusion to Alexander.
The only historical event connecting Alexander the Great with the Jews is his visit to Jerusalem,
which is recorded by Josephus in a somewhat fantastic manner. According to "Ant." xi. 8, §§ 4-6,
Alexander went to Jerusalem after having taken Gaza. Jaddua, the high priest, had a warning from

9
https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1120-alexander-the-great

21
God received in a dream, in which he saw himself vested in a purple robe, with his miter—that
had the golden plate on which the name of God was engraved—on his head. Accordingly he went
to meet Alexander at Sapha ("View" [of the Temple]). Followed by the priests, all clothed in fine
linen, and by a multitude of citizens, Jaddua awaited the coming of the king. When Alexander saw
the high priest, he reverenced God (Lev. R. xiii., end), and saluted Jaddua; while the Jews with
one voice greeted Alexander. When Parmenio, the general, gave expression to the army's surprise
at Alexander's extraordinary act—that one who ought to be adored by all as king should adore the
high priest of the Jews—Alexander replied: "I did not adore him, but the God who hath honored
him with this high-priesthood; for I saw this very person in a dream, in this very habit, when I
was at Dios in Macedonia, who, when I was considering with myself how I might obtain
dominion of Asia, exhorted me to make no delay, but boldly to pass over the sea, promising that
he would conduct my army, and would give me the dominion over the Persians."
Alexander then gave the high priest his right hand and went into the Temple and "offered sacrifice
to God according to the high priest's direction," treating the whole priesthood magnificently. "And
when the Book of Daniel was shown him [see Dan. vii. 6, viii. 5-8, 20-22, xi. 3-4], wherein Daniel
declared that one of the Greeks [ ] should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed
that he was the person intended, and rejoiced thereat. The following day Alexander asked the
people what favors he should grant them; and, at the high priest's request, he accorded them the
right to live in full enjoyment of the laws of their forefathers. He, furthermore, exempted them
from the payment of tribute in the seventh year of release.
To the Jews of Babylonia and Media also he granted like privileges; and to the Jews who were
willing to enlist in his army he promised the right to live in accordance with their ancestral laws.
Afterward the Samaritans, having learned of the favors granted the Jews by Alexander, asked for
similar privileges; but Alexander declined to accede to their request.
The historical character of this account is, however, doubted by many scholars (see Pauly-
Wissowa, "Realencyklopädie," i. col. 1422). Although, according to Josephus ("Contra Ap." ii. 4,
quoting Hecatæus), Alexander permitted the Jews to hold the country of Samaria free from tribute
as a reward for their fidelity to him, it was he who Hellenized its capital (Schürer, "Gesch." ii.
108). The Sibylline Books (iii. 383) speak of Alexander—who claimed to be the son of Zeus
Amon—as "of the progeny of the Kronides, though spurious."

In Jewish Legend

All the accounts which the Talmud and Midrash give concerning Alexander MuḲdon (the
Macedonian) are of a legendary character. Some of them pretend to be historical, as the following
Baraita in Yoma, 69a (identical with Megillat Ta'anit, iii.):
"When the Samaritans had obtained permission from Alexander to destroy the Temple in
Jerusalem, the high priest Simon the Just, arrayed in his pontifical garments and followed by a
number of distinguished Jews, went out to meet the conqueror, and joined him at Antipatris, on
the northern frontier. At sight of Simon, Alexander fell prostrate at his feet, and explained to
his astonished companions that the image of the Jewish high priest was always with him in
battle, fighting for him and leading him to victory. Simon took the opportunity to justify the
attitude of his countrymen, declaring that, far from being rebels, they offered prayers in the
Temple for the welfare of the king and his dominions. So impressed was Alexander that he

22
delivered up all the Samaritans in his train into the hands of the Jews, who tied them to the tails
of horses and dragged them to the mountain of Gerizim; then the Jews plowed the mountain
[demolished the Samaritan temple]."

Samaritan Intrigue

It is evident that this account wrongly assigns to the times of Alexander an event which occurred
two centuries later, in the reign of John Hyrcanus I. It must therefore have been written at a late
period, when the memory of historical incidents had become confused. The legend presents a
striking resemblance to the narrative of Josephus ("Ant." xi. 8, § 1 et seq.). The point of the fable
is the honor conferred by Alexander upon the high priest and the cause thereof; and, furthermore,
the contrast between his good-will to the Jews and his hostility to the Samaritans. Both the
narrative in the Talmud and that of Josephus are derived from an "Apology" of the Jews which
aimed at discrediting the members of the Samaritan sect. It is even possible that this apology, as
Büchler thinks ("Rev. Ét. Juives," lxxxvi. 1), had its origin in Alexandria, where the attitude of
Alexander was of decisive importance in the eyes of the Greek public:
"In Gen. R. (lxi., end) the Samaritans are accused of playing a rôle equally despicable with that
imputed to them in the above legend. When Alexander advanced toward Jerusalem, they
informed him that the Jews would forbid his entrance to the Holy of Holies. A Jew, Gebi'ah ben
Kosem [identical with Gebia ben Pesisa, a legendary character], asked the king, on the hill of
the Temple, to remove his shoes and to put on the slippers ornamented with precious stones that
he had brought for him, lest he should slip on the pavement of the Temple. Alexander complied
with the request, and thus avoided a violation of the rabbinic law. When they arrived at the Holy
of Holies, Gebi'ah said to the king, 'We are not permitted to proceed farther' (neither we nor
you). 'When I have left the Temple,' replied the king, 'I will straighten your hump' (Gebi'ah
signifies humpback). 'If you do,' answered Gebi'ah, 'you are a great physician, and deserving
of high remuneration.'"
This anecdote is one of those naive inventions of which many are found in Midrash Ekah Rabbati,
and which aim at exhibiting the ingenuity of the Jews in repartee. Alexander is made to play merely
the part of a stage-king.
The same Gebi'ah appears in a narrative of quite a different type. Alexander is here represented as
the great conqueror to whom the nations appeal for arbitration of their differences:
(Sanh. 91a, Gen. R. l.c.).
"The Arabs accuse the Jews of illegally withholding the heritage of their ancestor Ishmael; the
Canaanites complain of having been wrongly deprived of their territory; and the Egyptians
claim indemnity for the vessels that the Israelites had taken from them on leaving their country.
Gebi'ah meets all these charges with great success: against the Egyptians he proves that it is
they that are indebted to the Jews, whom they had exploited without paying them for their work,
and Alexander was fully satisfied with the refutation"

23
Coin with Aramaic Inscription.

These pretended discussions, similar to those reported to have taken

place between the Samaritans and the Jews before Ptolemy Philometor
(Josephus, "Ant." xii. 1, § 10; xiii. 4, § 4), are the echo of the
accusations against the Jews by pagan readers of the Bible at Alexandria. These imputations were
taken up later by the Gnostics, who were the pupils of the Alexandrians, and especially by the
Marcionites. Tertullian replied to Marcion, who had brought the same reproach against the Bible
for the "larceny" committed by the Jews, by repeating the words of Gebi'ah; he even mentions the
discussions between the Jews and the Egyptians ("nam et aiunt ita actum per legatos utrinque;
Ægyptiorum quidem repetentium vasa; Judeorum vero reposcentium operas suas, et tandem vasis
istis renuntiaverunt sibi Ægyptii"; "Adversus Marcionem," ii. 20).
Another group of legends is of a more popular character; they have nothing specifically Jewish
and are connected with the general legendary tales of Alexander. They may be given as follows:
The Ten Questions of Alexander to the Sages of the South (Tamid, 31b et seq.):
This account is written in certain parts in a classical Aramaic, proving that it was borrowed from
some written record; it is quite analogous to the conversations which, according to Plutarch ("Life
of Alexander"), Alexander was reported to have had with ten gymnosophists who had rebelled
against him; there the account continues with ten questions, some of which are identical with those
of the Talmud. This episode seems, therefore, to be the fragment of a non-Jewish narrative, parallel
with that of the Greek historian.

Alexander's Journey to the Regions of Darkness (Tamid, 32a):

Alexander makes a journey into the region of darkness riding on young Libyan #####. There he
stops at a fountain, which reanimates a dead fish that he has dipped into it. The same story is found

24
in Pseudo-Callisthenes, II. chaps. xxxix.-xli. (version B). The legend as reproduced in the Talmud
is the popular altered form of a later period.

The Amazons10

Alexander comes to a place which is inhabited only by women. They say to him: "If you kill us,
people will accuse you of murdering women. If we kill you, people will say: Behold a king who
was overcome by women!" This is the well-known story of the Amazons but reduced to its simplest
expression. In the Pesikta the town inhabited by the women is called ḳartagene, derived by folk-
etymology from the Aramaic Ḳarta (town) and the Greek γυνή (woman).

The Gold Bread

Alexander asked the Amazons for bread, and they brought him, on a golden table, a loaf of gold
bread. "Do you eat gold bread?" the king then said. "Well, if your desire be for ordinary bread,
could you not get it in your own country without coming hither?" answered the Amazons. This
satire on the ambition of conquerors recurs frequently in Jewish legends. It does not appear in
Pseudo-Callisthenes and in the accounts derived from it; but is found in Plutarch's essay on the
virtuous deeds of women. Pythes, a rich Greek in the times of Xerxes, who forces his fellow
citizens to work for him in a gold-mine, is served by his wife with gold bread to demonstrate the
absurdity of his greed. This moral is connected with Alexander also in another form: instead of the
Amazons it was the king Kaẓia who gave the lesson to Alexander.

King Kaẓia and His Judgment11

King Kaẓia (ruler of a country situated behind the "Dark" mountains) invited Alexander to hear a
lawsuit. The plaintiff declared that he had bought a piece of land and found in it a treasure; he
wanted to return the treasure to the original owner, since, he claimed, he had bought the field only.
The defendant replied that he had sold the field with everything that it contained. Then the king
inquired of one of them: "Have you a son?"; of the other, "Have you a daughter?" "Marry them,
and let the treasure be theirs." Alexander laughed at this judgment. "Is my decision a wrong one?"
inquired the king. "No; but in our country we would have put the two parties to death and
confiscated the treasure." "Do you have rain in your country?" "Yes." "And have you animals
also?" "Yes." "Then it is surely for their sake and not for yours that the rain falls and the sun shines
upon you."
This satirical account seems to be of Jewish origin, although it is, in part, based on a popular
theme—marriage as the solution of a lawsuit (compare a Cambodian tale in "Revue des Traditions
Populaires," xv. 133). The Jewish form of the fable was embodied in the "Dicta Philosophorum"
of Abu al Wafa Mubashshir ibn FaḲih (1053-54), a work which was translated into Spanish, Latin,
English, and French (see Knust, "Mittheilungen aus dem Eskurial," Tübingen, 1879). In other
Arabic texts the trial takes place before David and Solomon (Weil, "Biblische Legenden," p. 215).

10
Tamid, ibid.; PesiḲ. ix. 74. 74a etseq.; Lev. R. xxvii.; Tan., Emor, 6; Ḥibbur Ma'asiot
11
Yer. B. M. ii. 8c; Gen. R. xxxiii.; PesiḲ.; Lev. R.; Tan., Emor, as above

25
The anecdote seems to have been brought to Europe by a priest in 1083 ("Chronique de l'Abbaye
de St. Hubert"; Pertz, "Monumenta Germanica, Scriptores," viii. 599).

Alexander at the Gate of Paradise; the Eye:

The Talmud (Tamid, 32b) concludes with this narrative: Alexander arrived at the gate of paradise
and asked that it be opened to him. "Only the just can enter here," came the reply. "I am a renowned
king; present me with something." A little ball was given to him. He put it in a scale; and it
outweighed all the gold and silver in his possession. In his astonishment he turned to the rabbis,
who explained to him that it was an eyeball, which could never be satiated; but if covered with a
handful of dust (buried) it would weigh nothing. This satire on greed, or the ambition to acquire
wealth, seems likewise to be genuinely Jewish. This allegory, as it appears in the Talmud, is
reproduced in better shape in "Alexandri Magni Iter ad Paradisum," a little work of the twelfth
century, which has even preserved traces of its Jewish origin. In this it is an old Jew, of the name
of Papas, who lectures the king. Both forms of the legend are evidently connected with a lost
original.

Alexander's Descent into the Sea12

In the Middle Ages the Jews confined themselves to translations of the romance of Alexander from
the Arabic or the Latin, particularly in the form which it had received in the "Historia de Proeliis."
A Hebrew translation of this work, made by an unknown writer after an Arabic version, was edited
and published by Israel Lévi under the title "Toledot Alexander" (Life of Alexander), Paris, 1887.
Another translation from a Latin text, by Immanuel ben Jacob de Tarascon, exists only in
manuscript. A recension, the origin of which has not yet been clearly ascertained, was
surreptitiously included in certain manuscripts of the Josippon (perhaps by Judah Mosconi).
Another romance of Alexander, quite different from the rest, was written by a Jew in the west of
Europe before the thirteenth century; it was published by Israel Lévi in Steinschneider's
"Festschrift." Some portions of the legend were known to scholars by the Hebrew translation of
"Sod ha-Sodot" (Secret of Secrets) and of "Musare ha-Filosofim" (Dicta of the Philosophers),
containing whole chapters touching upon the legendary life of Alexander.
Bibliography:

• Rev. Ét. Juives, iii. 239 et seq., iv. 279;

• Steinschneider, Hebr. Uebers. pp. 894-898;
• Nöldeke, Beiträge zur Gesch. des Alexander-Romans, in Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
Philosophisch-Historische Classe, xxxviii. ch. iv., Vienna, 1890;
• Fränkel, in Z. D. M. G. liv. 322;
• Jew. Quart. Rev. iv. 635;
• Bacher, Nizami's Lehen und Werke und der Zweite Theil des Nizamischen Alexanderbuches, pp. 63 et seq., Leipsic,
1871.

12
(Ps. R. 103; compare Pseudo-Callisthenes, II. xxxviii.):

26
Palestine Goes Greek13

In the summer of 332 B.C.E., Palestine was conquered by Alexander the Great. The
land and people of Israel were now part of the Hellenistic world. Alexander passed
through Palestine first on his way to Gaza during his campaign to subjugate the
Phoenician coast and then on his way from Egypt to Babylonia. He may have spent
some time in Palestine dealing with a revolt in Samaria, and it is possible that he met
then with Jewish leaders. By the time Alexander died at age thirty-three in 323 B.C.E.,
he had conquered the entire area from Macedonia to India. Palestine was part of this
new empire.

Ptolemies and Seleucids

After Alexander’s death, his generals, known as Diadochi (“successors”) were unable to maintain
the unity of the empire and it soon fragmented. Individual generals were appointed, on the old
Persian pattern, to rule as satraps over particular areas. In 323 B.C.E., Ptolemy took control of
Egypt. This date is regarded as the beginning of the Ptolemaic Empire, although he was not
officially crowned until 305 B.C.E.

13
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/palestine-in-the-hellenistic-age/

27
After some difficulties, he had established himself and his empire on a sound footing by 312
B.C.E., extending his authority to the entire eastern part of Alexander’s domain. The rest went to
Cassander in Macedonia and Lysimachus in Thrace. The Ptolemaic and Seleucid kingdoms were
destined to play a profound role in the history of Hellenistic Palestine.

During the period of the Diadochi, Palestine changed hands between the Ptolemies and the
Seleucids five times. The lack of stability prevented Hellenism from making more than a modest
beginning in the country in the early years of the Hellenistic period. The unstable situation must
also have fostered some degree of local autonomy, enhancing the already significant role of the
high priest in the affairs of Judea.

The Ptolemies Establish Control

By 301 B.C. E., however, Ptolemy had finally established a firm hold on Palestine. Despite the
damage caused by their ongoing conflict with the Seleucids, the Ptolemies were able to maintain
at least de facto control over Palestine. Considerable information about this period comes from the
Zenon papyri, a collection of administrative documents from the archives of an Egyptian finance
minister some of which were sent to him by his agent in the Land of Israel.

These documents tell us of Palestine under the rule of Ptolemy 11 Philadelphus (283-246 B.C.E.).
The country was often beset by Seleucid attacks and Bedouin incursions. Ptolemaic military units
were stationed throughout Palestine, and many Greek cities were established. Many of these were
set up as cleruchies (military colonies) in which soldiers who married native women were given
homes and fields, thus fostering the intermarriage which was so much a part of the
Hellenistic world.

In addition, an extensive Ptolemaic bureaucracy managed governmental affairs and taxation.

Central to this officialdom was the goal of developing economic life and trade. Among the exports
to Egypt from Palestine and southern Syria were grain, olive oil, smoked fish, cheese, meat, dried
figs, honey, dates, and other products. Palestine also assumed importance as a crossroads for the
spice trade.

Limited Information about the Jews

In contrast with what we know about Ptolemaic affairs in Palestine, we have virtually no
information about Jewish political developments. Judea continued to be governed by the high
priest and the priestly aristocracy. One of the few incidents we know about is the quarrel about
taxation between the high priest Onias 11 and Ptolemy III Euergetes (246-221 B.C.E.), who
reportedly visited the Jerusalem Temple.

The end result of the dispute was the appointment, in 242 B.C.E., of the young Joseph, son of
Tobiah, a nephew of the high priest, as tax collector for the entire country. The rivalry between the
Tobiad family and the Oniad high priests eventually played a part in the attempted radical
Hellenization of Judea later on in the second century B. C. E.

28
The Seleucid Conquest

In 221 B.C.E. the Seleucid king Antiochus III invaded Palestine for the first time. When this
attempt failed, he persisted in seeking an opportunity to gain control of this important land bridge.
The death of King Ptolemy IV Philopator in 203 B.C.E. opened the way for him. In 201 B.C.E. he
invaded the country again and quickly conquered it.

By 198 B.C.E. the Seleucids were solidly in control, and would remain so up to the Maccabean
Revolt (168-164 B.C.E.). By the time the Ptolemaic sway over Palestine came to an end, Greek
cities had been established throughout the country, and Hellenism had sunk strong foundations,
ultimately to tear the nation apart before Judea regained its independence.

Was It Good for the Jews?

In the years of conflict between the Ptolemies and Seleucids each of the rivals was supported by a
Jewish party or faction. The Gerousia, or council of elders, mentioned for the first time in sources
from this era, backed the Seleucids. Indeed, the high priest Simeon the Just (ca. 200 B.C.E.), who
probably headed the Gerousia, is known to have supported the Seleucids. He must have regained
the power over taxation, which had been assigned to Joseph ben Tobiah and was now charged with
refurbishing the Temple and the city.

When Antiochus III (223-187 B.C.E) won control of Judea, he affirmed the right of the Jews to
live according to their ancestral laws. Yet only some 30 years later the Jewish proponents of
extreme Hellenization would see his son, the Seleucid monarch Antiochus IV Epiphianes, as the
agent who would carry out their plans to Hellenize Jerusalem and its people.

29
30