Daf Ditty Taanis 28: Zatu and Bikkurim Smugglers

1
They said in explanation: Once, the evil kingdom of Greece issued a decree of apostasy against
the Jews, that they may not bring wood for the arrangement of the altar and that they may
not bring first fruits to Jerusalem. And they placed guards [prozda’ot] on the roads, in the
manner that Jeroboam, son of Nevat, placed guards, so that the Jews could not ascend for the
pilgrim Festival.

What did the worthy and sin-fearing individuals of that generation do? They brought baskets
of first fruits, and covered them with dried figs, and took them with a pestle on their
shoulders.

And when they reached the guards, the guards said to them: Where are you going? They said
to them: We are going to prepare two round cakes of pressed figs with the mortar that is
down the road before us and with the pestle that we are carrying on our shoulders. As soon as
they passed the guards, they decorated the baskets of first fruits and brought them to
Jerusalem.

2
A Sage taught: This was something that was performed in a similar manner by the descendants
of Salmai of Netophat. The Gemara explains this comment by quoting a baraita. The Sages
taught: Who are the descendants of Salmai of Netophat? They said in explanation: Once, the
evil kingdom of Greece issued a decree of apostasy against the Jews, that they may not bring
wood for the arrangement of the altar. And they placed guards on the roads, in the manner that
Jeroboam, son of Nevat, placed guards, so that the Jews could not ascend for the pilgrim
Festival.

RASHI

JASTROW

3
What did the sin-fearing individuals of that generation do? They brought their pieces of wood
and prepared ladders [sulamot], and they placed the ladders on their shoulders and went off
to Jerusalem. When they reached the guards, the guards said to them: Where are you going?
They said to them: We are going to bring down doves from the dovecote that is located down
the road before us and with these ladders that are on our shoulders. As soon as they had
passed the guards, they dismantled the ladders and took them up to Jerusalem. The name
Salmai alludes to the Hebrew word for ladder, sulam.

4
And about these families who provided these donations and others like them, the verse says:

‫ְוֵשׁם‬ ;‫ ִלְב ָרָכה‬,‫ז ֵזֶכר ַצִדּיק‬ 7 The memory of the righteous shall be for a blessing; but
.‫ְרָשִׁﬠים ִי ְרָקב‬ the name of the wicked shall rot.
Prov 10:7

“The memory of the righteous shall be for a blessing” as they are remembered for the good
throughout the generations. And about Jeroboam, son of Nevat, and his ilk, it is stated: “But
the name of the wicked shall rot”

Metaphysical meaning of Salmai (mbd)

Salmai (A. V., Shalmai), sal'-mai (Heb.)--Jah is recompenser; my recompense; my thanks;

my garment.1

One of the Nethinim whose descendants returned from the Babylonian captivity (Neh. 7:48). He
is called Shamlai in Ezra 2:46.

Meta. The serving thought in consciousness that rejoices greatly,

gives praise and thanksgiving to God, because it perceives that all good comes from or
through Jehovah. It is learning that all service should be done as to the Lord and that He is the
compensator, not man. (Jah is recompenser, my thanks,

my garment, the garment here being the praise and thanksgiving with which one clothes himself.
"Put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem." "All thy garments smell of myrrh, and
aloes, end cassia.")

Summary

How to Shorten the Service: Hallel, the New Moon, and the 17th of Tammuz2

On certain days, morning and afternoon and evening prayers are recited and the priestly and non-
priestly watches are enacted and hallel (a set of prayers of gratitude said only on fast days,
Festivals, or days commemorating a miracle) is recited. This makes for a very long day of

1
https://www.truthunity.net/mbd/salmai
2
http://dafyomibeginner.blogspot.com/2014/07/

5
prayer. The rabbis debate about possible changes on those days, including omissions of
prayer, and individual recitations of Torah verses by heart, etc.

Still today, in my own synagogue there are many views about whether or not any part of the service
should be shortened on a given day. To see that our Sages were also concerned about the length
of their services is inspiring! Though perhaps it should be deflating, as we continue to struggle
with the same issues for 2000 years.

As they begin to explain which families had the responsibility of bringing different offerings, the
Gemara shares some stories of ingenuity. In Greece, Jews were first stopped from bringing first
fruits to Jerusalem. Generations later, another family was unable to bring wood for the fire of
offering. The rulers of Greece at those times were actively preventing Jews from our worship.

Regarding the blocking of the first fruits, Jews put dried figs over their fruits and carried large
pestles. "We are using those large mortars to preserve our figs," they said, and they were allowed
to pass and thus deliver their fruits. In the second scenario, people used the wood to build ladders,
and told guards that they were going to collect doves from the dovecoats. They dismantled the
wood on arrival and left it to fuel the flames for offering.

The Gemara then lists the genealogy of those who contributed to offerings on the twentieth of Av,
the twentieth of Elul and the first of Tevet.

The rabbis argue over whether or not there is a non-priestly watch at all on days when hallel is
recited. Further, they debate whether or not hallel is recited on New Moon holidays. We learn
again that customs are respected almost as much as rabbinical and even Torah law.

Finally, the Gemara begins a discussion about the five calamitous matters that occurred on the
17th of Tammuz. The first is when Moses smashes the two tablets after witnessing the Israelites
dancing before the golden calf. The rabbis deduce that this happened on the 17th of Tammuz
because Moses ascended the mountain on either the 6th or 7th day, hearing from G-d on the
7th. He then was there for 40 days and nights - with 16 days remaining in Sivan, we are brought
to the 17th of Tammuz.

On the 17th of Tammuz, we are told that the walls of Jerusalem were breached, Apostemos burned
a Torah scroll, and Manasseh placed an idol in the Temple. The rabbis use their strategic logic to
explain that all of these matters occurred on the17th of Tammuz. They are wise to do so; a day of
mourning carries much more meaning if we ascribe to it many losses.

6
 RECITING A BLESSING FOR A CUSTOM

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:3

The Gemara relates that when Rav visited Bavel, he saw that the community recited Hallel on
Rosh Chodesh. He wanted to stop them, until he noticed that they skipped parts of Hallel. He
understood from their omissions that their recitation of Hallel was merely a Minhag from their
forebears.

RABEINU TAM (cited by Tosfos) infers from this incident that a blessing is recited upon the
performance of a Minhag. If the people in Bavel did not recite a blessing for their Minhag of saying
Hallel on Rosh Chodesh, it would have been obvious to Rav that their practice was merely a
Minhag and he would not have had any reason to stop them.

Rabeinu Tam (cited by Tosfos in Sukah 44b) adds that the requirement to recite a blessing for a
Minhag is also evident from the fact that blessings are recited upon the performance of the Mitzvos
of Yom Tov Sheni (such as Arba'as ha'Minim on Sukos, and Matzah on Pesach), even though the
second day of Yom Tov outside of Eretz Yisrael is only a Minhag, as the Gemara says in Beitzah
(4b).

The HAGAHOS MAIMONIYOS (Hilchos Chanukah 3:7, #5) cites further proof that a blessing
is recited for a Minhag from Maseches Sofrim, which states that a blessing ("... Asher Kideshanu
b'Mitzvosav v'Tzivanu...") is recited when each of the Megilos is read. The obligation to read the
Megilos (Eichah, Koheles, Ruth, Shir ha'Shirim) at certain times of the year is not mentioned
anywhere in the Gemara and is only a Minhag, but a blessing is still recited.

Rabeinu Tam asks, however, that the Gemara here seems to contradict the Gemara in Sukah (44b).
The Gemara there quotes Aivo who relates that Rebbi Elazar was given an Aravah branch and he
waved it ("Chibut") but did not recite a blessing. Rebbi Elazar maintained that the waving of the
Aravah branch is "Minhag Nevi'im," a custom initiated by the prophets.

Rabeinu Tam answers that the Gemara in Sukah does not contradict the Gemara here because the
Minhag to say Hallel on Rosh Chodesh differs from the Minhag of Chibut Aravah. What is the
difference between the Minhag of Chibut Aravah (for which no blessing is recited) and the other
Minhagim (for which a blessing is recited)? Rabeinu Tam says that the Minhag of Chibut Aravah
involves nothing more than a simple act of waving the Aravah. The reading of Hallel, however, is
a more significant act, "because it is like reading verses from the Torah."

What does Rabeinu Tam mean? How can one say a blessing with the words, "... Asher Kideshanu
b'Mitzvosav v'Tzivanu...," simply because the Minhag is "like reading verses from the Torah"?
Neither the Torah nor the Chachamim command that Hallel be recited on Rosh Chodesh, just as
they do not command that the Aravah be waved on Sukos. Moreover, how does Rabeinu Tam's
answer explain why blessings are recited for the Mitzvos performed on Yom Tov Sheni?

3
https://dafyomi.co.il/taanis/insites/tn-dt-028.htm

7
The BRISKER RAV (end of Chidushim to Maseches Sukah) explains as follows. RASHI in
Sukah (44a, DH Minhag) writes that the reason why a blessing is not recited for a Minhag is
because the requirement to observe a Minhag is not included in the Mitzvah of "Lo Sasur" -- "Do
not turn away from what they (the Chachamim) instruct you" (Devarim 17:11).

However, according to the RAMBAM, "Lo Sasur" includes the obligation to obey any Mitzvah
d'Rabanan and any Minhag that the Chachamim instructed us to observe (introduction to Mishneh
Torah; see Sefer ha'Mitzvos, Shoresh Rishon; Lo Sa'aseh #312, Mitzvas Aseh #174). Why,
according to the Rambam, is no blessing recited for the Minhag of Chibut Aravah?

The Brisker Rav explains that it must be that the blessing recited upon the performance of the act
is not related to whether the act is a Minhag or a Mitzvah. Rather, when the Chachamim instructed
that a certain Minhag be observed but did not enact it as a Mitzvah, their intent was to give it a
status different from the status of a Mitzvah. They wanted it to have the status of an obligation of
a Minhag, and not an obligation of a Mitzvah. This means that they wanted a certain practice to be
observed but they did not want to define the practice as a Mitzvah (a "Shem Mitzvah"). For
example, when the Chachamim enacted the Minhag of Chibut Aravah, they did not want the nature
of the act to be considered any more than an act of picking up an Aravah and hitting the floor with
it ("Einah Ela Tiltul," in the words of Rabeinu Tam). It is not a new category of Mitzvah called
"Chibut Aravah" which one can "fulfill" or "not fulfill."

No blessing is recited for such a Minhag. Other Minhagim are different and require that a blessing
be recited before they are performed. The Mitzvos performed on Yom Tov Sheni (Lulav, Sukah,
Matzah) are defined as acts of Mitzvah, since the Torah commands them as Mitzvos for the first
day of Yom Tov. The act of holding a Lulav on Yom Tov Sheni is defined as an act of Mitzvah of
"Netilas Lulav" and not merely a motion of bending down and picking up a palm branch. The same
applies to reading the Megilos and reciting Hallel. When Rabeinu Tam says that the recitation of
Hallel is no different from the reading of the Torah, he means that the act of reading the Torah is
a Mitzvah for which the Chachamim instituted a blessing, and thus any act of reading a portion of
the Torah is included in the definition of the "Shem Mitzvah" of "Keri'as ha'Torah."

The RAMBAM (Hilchos Chanukah 3:7), in contrast, rules that a blessing is not recited for Hallel
on Rosh Chodesh "because it is a Minhag, and we do not recite a blessing for a Minhag." However,
he seems to contradict this ruling when he writes (in Hilchos Yom Tov 6:14) that Yom Tov Sheni
is also a Minhag, and yet he agrees that the Mitzvos of Yom Tov Sheni do require blessings. Why
is Hallel different from the Mitzvos of Yom Tov Sheni, according to the Rambam? Both should
require a blessing.
The Brisker Rav explains that the Rambam agrees that there is a difference between a Minhag
which the Chachamim defined as an act of "Mitzvah" and a Minhag which they did not designate
as a Mitzvah, but for which they merely prescribed the motions of a certain act. Accordingly, the
Rambam agrees that blessings are recited for the Mitzvos of the Minhag of Yom Tov Sheni. The
reading of Hallel, though, is different.

The Brisker Rav quotes his father, Rabeinu Chaim ha'Levi, who explains that the blessing recited
for reading the Torah is not clearly a Birkas ha'Mitzvos, a blessing recited upon the performance

8
of a Mitzvah. There is reason to say that the blessing recited upon reading the Torah is not recited
for the fulfillment of the Mitzvah, but rather it is recited as an expression of reverence for the
Torah. (Indeed, the Gemara in Berachos (21a) derives this blessing from the verse (Devarim 32:3),
"Ki Shem Hash-m Ekra Havu Godel l'Elokeinu.")

Accordingly, it is possible that the Chachamim did not define the reading of the Torah as an act of
Mitzvah for which a blessing of a Mitzvah must be recited (perhaps they established that a blessing
is not recited on this type of Mitzvah). Therefore, the recitation of half-Hallel does not warrant a
Birkas ha'Mitzvos ("li'Kro Es ha'Hallel") because it is compared to the Mitzvah of reading from
the Torah, which does not have a Birkas ha'Mitzvos.

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:4

What additions does your local synagogue make to the morning service on Rosh Hodesh? What
do you do if you are not praying in a synagogue? Today it is common practice to recite what is
referred to as “half-Hallel” immediately after the amidah prayer. “Half-Hallel” consists of the
normal recitation of psalms of thanksgiving (Tehillim 113–118), but skipping the first half
of mizmorim 115 and 116. Generally speaking, the Ashekenazi community recites a blessing
before this prayer, while the Sefardi community does not (see Shulhan Arukh, Orah
Hayyim 422:2). In Chabad synagogues the tradition usually is for the hazzan to recite the blessing,
and congregants respond to that berakhah without saying it themselves (see the Siddur ha-Rav).

These varying traditions stem from the discussion of this topic in our Gemara and the lack of
clarity in its conclusion.

The Gemara lists the days on which a full Hallel is said – eight days of Sukkot, eight days
of Hanukkah, the first day of Pesach and on Shavu’ot (three days are added
in Diaspora communities) – with no mention made of Hallel on Rosh Hodesh. The Gemara relates
that when Rav went to visit the Jewish community in Bavel he was surprised to hear them
reciting Hallel on Rosh Hodesh and considered making them stop. When he saw, however, that
they skipped parts of Hallel, he concluded that it was apparently a long-standing – and acceptable
– tradition. The Gemara concludes by quoting a baraita which teaches that an individual should
not begin saying Hallel, but if he begins then he should finish it.

Some understand that this story indicates that Hallel was not recited in Israel on Rosh Hodesh,
perhaps because the closeness to the mikdash, where special sacrifices were brought to celebrate
the day, was enough of an observance; in Bavel, on the other hand, they had a sense that there was
a greater need to recognize and publicize the day.

The Ge’onim understood the concluding line of the Gemara as suggesting that individuals do not
say Hallel at all on Rosh Hodesh. The Ri”f understands it to mean that an individual should not
begin Hallel with a berakhah, but if he did so, he should conclude with the appropriate blessing,
as well.

4
https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_taanit2531/

9
Our Gemara notes that the reading of Hallel on Rosh Chodesh is not a fulfillment of a Torah
statute.5

The Rishonim infer from this statement that the reading of Hallel on
the eighteen days listed in the Mishnah (Arachin 11a) is a Torah legislated law.

Rambam (in Sefer Hamitzvos, and Hilchos Chanukah 3:6), however, writes that the reading of
Hallel is simply ‫מדברי‬ as is evidenced by its being comprised of chapters from Tehillim
which was authored by Dovid HaMelech. As far as the inference from our Gemara that only the
Hallel for Rosh Chodesh is not from the Torah, but the reading on the festivals apparently is from
the Torah, Rambam would have to interpret our Gemara a bit differently.

Rambam would say that, in fact, it was the prophets who established that Hallel be read on these
eighteen days, as opposed to Hallel on Rosh Chodesh, and the ruling of the prophets is as if the
Torah made this ruling.

In his comments to Sefer Hamitzvos, Ramban questions the very basis of the opinion of Rambam.
The fact that Hallel is comprised of chapters of Tehillim should not indicate that it cannot be a
Torah law. Rambam himself writes that although the fundamental obligation to daven is from the
Torah, the text of the davening and the fact that we daven three times each day are details which
are Rabbinic.

Similarly, according to the opinion that ‫ עיקר בפה שירה‬,it is the Torah that legislates that the Levi’im
sing songs which accompanied the offerings. Yet the Gemara (Tamid 9b) lists the songs as being
various chapters in Tehillim. From these as well as other places we see that there is no problem
saying that Hallel is a Torah law, although the text itself is from Tehillim. Therefore, Ramban
explains that reading Hallel on the festivals is a Torah law, and it is either a Halacha from Moshe
at Sinai, or perhaps it is part of the celebration of the joy of the festival itself.

Notwithstanding, Sha’agas Aryeh (#69) concludes that Hallel is only a rabbinic enactment, while
Chasam Sofer writes that it is a Torah precept when said on a day commemorating our having
being saved from a threat of death.

And the Nevi’im amongst them stipulated that even if the chamber is filled with wood, these
[families] will donate [wood] of their own.

5
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Taanis%20028.pdf

10
There is a well-known and accepted principle in halacha that relates to establishing a chazakah to
perform a mitzvah (1). For example, a person may be chosen by the community to be the one who
donates oil for the Beis HaKnesses, and once that chazakah is established it may not be rescinded.

A point of dispute is whether a person can establish a chazakah to perform a mitzvah simply by
performing a mitzvah without being appointed. Teshuvas Mishpatei Shmuel (2) addressed the
issue regarding a group of people in town who started a Chevra Kadisha. This Chevra Kadisha
claimed that they established a chazakah to perform the mitzvah of burying the deceased, and they
then attempted to prevent other groups from performing this mitzvah. Mishpatei Shmuel answered
that if a group or person was not chosen by the community to do the mitzvah, a chazakah cannot
be established to prevent others from performing the mitzvah.

Radvaz (3), on the other hand, wrote concerning a woman who donated oil on particular days of
the year to the Beis HaKnesses that once she established a chazakah, even if she was not chosen
to do the mitzvah by the community, the community leaders may not take the mitzvah away from
her.

Kerem Shlomo (4) addressed a case of a man who had donated oil to the Beis HaKnesses for many
years and the gabbai went ahead and sold the mitzvah to another. Kerem Shlomo ruled in favor of
the individual and cited our Gemara as proof to his position. Our Gemara relates that when the
people ascended to Eretz Yisroel for the second Beis HaMikdash there were certain families that
stepped forward to donate wood for the Beis HaMikdash. The Nevi’im therefore stipulated that
even if the storehouse is filled with wood these families would have the right to donate wood to
the Beis HaMikdash. This demonstrates that one can establish a chazakah even if it was not granted
by the community.

Maharsham (5), however, rejects this proof. The reason these families were granted the privilege
is the enactment of the Nevi’im, but it was not because they had established any chazakah on the
mitzvah through their voluntary donation.

Once, the Chok Yaakov, zt”l, was presented with an interesting question. “In Taanis 28, we find
that it was once decreed that the Jewish people could no longer bring their new fruits to
Yerushalayim. Guards were stationed along the roads leading to the holy city just as they had been
during the days of Yeravam ben Nevat.

Certain righteous people, however, would smuggle in their bikkurim by covering the new fruits
with a layer of dried figs. When the guards asked what they were doing with the basket of figs,
they would respond that they were bringing in figs for processing. It is clear that those who were
not especially righteous did not bring their bikkurim during that period of prohibition. This appears
to be very problematic.

11
Doesn’t the Gemara in Sanhedrin state that if the non-Jews decree that we change even a public
practice, like the traditional color of one’s shoelace, we must be willing to sacrifice our lives rather
than alter our custom? I don’t understand why they were not obligated to bring their first fruits or
die in the attempt?”

The Chok Yaakov answered, “You have made a fundamental error. The Gemara you mention is
discussing when the non-Jews decree that we must do something differently. However, the
Nimukei Yosef there and the Ran in Masseches Shabbos rule that if the decree merely involves
refraining from carrying out a positive commandment, one is not obligated to lay down one’s life.
Rema rules in accordance with this opinion “ Even so, one is permitted to die as
a martyr if the times and circumstances seem to warrant such an extreme measure.”

The Chok Yaakov concluded, “Now you see that the Gemara in Taanis makes perfect sense. Only
the people who had especially strong fear of heaven, were willing to risk their lives to
bring their bikkurim to Yerushalayim by subterfuge. They were prepared to sacrifice their lives
for the privilege of performing the mitzvah with joy!

The Siege and Destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans by David Roberts

Mark Kerzner writes:

On the seventeenth of the month of Tamuz, five bad things happened in Jewish history, and five
other things happened on Tisha B'Av. Both days are commemorated by fasting. These days are

12
three weeks apart; Lamentations hints at this by saying, "All her pursuers overtook her within the
straits." What are the five bad things?

Moses broke the Tablets of the Covenant. The Talmud makes the calculation: Moses went up the
Mount Sinai and got the Tablets, spent forty days learning the Torah, and came down when he
heard the Jews worshiping the Golden Calf. This day was the seventeenth of Tamuz.

Other events were: the invading Roman army breached the walls of Jerusalem; a Greek general,
Apostumos, burned the Torah scroll written by Ezrah the Prophet and put idols in the Temple.

Sara Ronis writes:6

The mishnah on our daf elliptically mentions, with praise, “those who deceived with a
pestle” and “those who packed dried figs.” Today’s daf offers us a story to explain who these
people are:

Once, the evil kingdom issued a decree of apostasy against the Jews, that they may not bring
wood for the arrangement of the altar and that they may not bring first fruits to Jerusalem. And
they placed guards on the roads … so that the Jews could not ascend (to Jerusalem) for Sukkot.

For context, in his farewell speech in Deuteronomy , Moses tells the Israelites that when they enter
the land of Israel, “You shall take some of every first fruit of the soil, which you harvest from the
land that the Lord your God is giving you, put it in a basket and go to the place where the Lord
your God will choose to establish his name,” and present it to the priests ( Deuteronomy 26:2–3).
This mitzvah is called bikkurim (literally first fruits), and there’s a whole tractate of the Mishnah
all about how to do it right. So it’s a big deal if a hostile imperial government bans the ritual
outright.

What did the worthy and sin-fearing individuals of that generation do? They brought baskets of
first fruits, and covered them with dried figs, and took them with a pestle on their shoulders.
And when they reached the guards, the guards said to them: Where are you going? They said
to them: “to prepare two round cakes of pressed figs with the mortar that is down the road before
us and with the pestle that on our shoulders.” As soon as they passed, they decorated the baskets
and brought them to Jerusalem.

The righteous people pretend that they just want to press some figs, in order to slip past the guards
and offer their first fruits in Jerusalem. They successfully circumvent the oppressive laws and
fulfill the mitzvah.

6
Myjewishlearning.com

13
If we read the story carefully, we can see that the righteous people are lying outright.
They could have pressed some figs into cakes on their way to offer their first fruits in Jerusalem
so that their claim would be true, but they didn’t. In fact, the pressed figs and the pestles disappear
from the story once they pass the guards. And while we might expect the Gemara to be surprised
that people who are called righteous lie explicitly, it takes their lying as a matter of course. What
matters to the story teller is why this particular group of righteous people did it — because of their
profound commitment to fulfilling the commandment of bikkurim in the face of an unjust attempt
to ban it.

But it’s worth lingering a moment on the lies. After all, we have too many examples from history
of unjust laws. Today’s daf acknowledges that sometimes being righteous and being law-abiding
aren’t the same thing at all. Sometimes you can even lie to the authorities to break an unjust law.
That’s a big idea which opens all kinds of cans of worms. After all, sometimes the injustice of a
law is obvious (such as banning bikkurim), while other times, it’s less clear.

Today’s daf is a helpful reminder that we have to at least ask the question about whether laws are
just and on the side of righteousness. And if we determine that they aren’t, what are we going to
do about it?

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:

Our daf (Ta’anit 28b) explores the teaching found in an earlier Mishna (Ta’anit 4:6) which lists
the five events that occurred on the 17th of Tammuz – the first of which being the fact that, on this
date, Moshe broke the luchot (tablets) upon seeing Bnei Yisrael worship the Egel HaZahav
(Golden Calf).

However, the Mishna does not say ‘Moshe broke the luchot’ which Moshe was – in fact - later
praised for (see Shabbat 87a in explaining Shemot 34:1). Nor does it explicitly reference the Egel
by saying ‘because the people worshipped the Egel HaZahav’. Instead, it simply says ‘the luchot
were broken’ as if, somehow, this occurred without Moshe’s actions and not directly in response
to any specific event.

Of course, there are various ways to explain the Mishna such as by referencing the teaching that
the luchot partially self-destructed when their letters supernaturally flew away (see Shemot Rabbah
46:1 in explaining Devarim 9:16). Nevertheless, I believe that there is something quite deliberate
about the words of the Mishna which mention neither the person (Moshe) nor the event (the Egel
HaZahav), as if Chazal wished to remind us that we are sad and we fast because ‘the luchot were
broken’ - notwithstanding the legitimacy of Moshe doing so.

When relationships sadly experience fractures - especially when one member of the relationship
has been disloyal through their actions – it is easy to forget that while blame may well be rightly
justified, the real sadness which is felt by the party who has been wronged is less about the specific
actions that the other person did, and more about the fracture itself and the trust that has been
broken. And why is this so important to point out? Because just like the body whose healing

14
requires that we know where the pain is coming from, so too, in order to heal we need to know the
location of our pain.

Thus our Mishna states that among the events that occurred on the 17th of Tammuz is that ‘the
luchot were broken’ – to teach us that the task of healing on the 17th of Tammuz is to focus on
repairing the fracture and not just on not repeating the actions that led to it. Baruch Hashem I
dearly hope that the Jewish people are not going to build another Egel HaZahav. Nevertheless, this
does not negate the message of that day. As such, both on the 17th of Tammuz and throughout the
rest of the year, our task is to strengthen our faith and trust in God - precisely because there were
times in the past when this faith and trust was weakened and broken. And by doing so, please God,
we will prevent further fractures in the present or in the future.

NETOPHAH

E. W. G. Masterman writes:7

7
https://bibleatlas.org/netophah.htm

15
ne-to'-fa (neTophah; Septuagint Netopha, Nephota, and other variants): The birthplace of
two of David's heroes, Maharai and Heleb (2 Samuel 23:28, 29), also of Seraiah the son of
Tanhumeth the Netophathite, one of the captains who came to offer allegiance to Gedaliah
(2 Kings 25:23 Jeremiah 40:8). "The villages of the Netophathites" are mentioned (1
Chronicles 9:16) as the dwellings of certain Levites and (Nehemiah 12:28, the King James
Version "Netophathi") of certain "sons of the singers."

‫ ְבֵּני‬,‫ֲחָגָבא‬-‫ְלָבָנה ְבֵני‬-‫מח ְבֵּני‬ 48 the children of Lebanah, the children of Hagaba, the
.‫ַשְׁלָמי‬ children of Salmai;

Neh 8:48

The first mention of the place itself is in Ezra 2:22 Nehemiah 7:26; 1Es 5:18 (the Revised
Version (British and American) "Netophas"), where we have parallel lists of the exiles
returning from Babylon under Zerubbabel; the place is mentioned between Bethlehem and
Anathoth and in literary association with other cities in the mountains of Judah, e.g. Gibeon,
Kiriath-jearim, Chephereh and Beeroth.

In this respect it is most plausible to identify it with NEPHTOAH (which see), although the
disappearance of the terminal guttural in the latter creates a difficulty. Conder has suggested
a site known as Khirbet UmmToba, Northeast of Bethlehem, an ancient site, but not
apparently of great importance. Beit Nettif, an important village on a lofty site in the
Shephelah near the "Vale of Elah," also appears to have an echo of the name, and indeed
may well be the Beth Netophah of the Mishna (Shebhu`oth, ix0.5; Neubauer, Geogr., 128),
but the position does not seem to agree at all with that of the Old Testament Netophah. For
Khirbet Umm-Toba see Palestine Exploration Fund, III, 128; for Beit Nettif, Palestine
Exploration Fund, III, 24; RBR, II, 17 f; both Sh XVII.

16
 The Wood Offering Celebration – "As Written in the Torah"

Bringing wood for the altar was an important celebration in Second Temple
times. To ground this practice in the Torah, Nehemiah (10:35) describes it as a

Torah law, while the Temple Scroll (11Q19) and the Reworked Pentateuch
(4Q365) include it in their biblical festival calendar.

Dr. Alex P. Jassen writes:8

8
https://www.thetorah.com/article/the-wood-offering-celebration-as-written-in-the-torah

17
Early Sources for the Wood Offering Festival

During the Second Temple period, a ritual or festival of bringing wood to the Temple was
observed.[1] Josephus describes the practice (War 2.425):

On the next day (=14th of Av),[2] which was the Feast (ἑορτῆς) of Wood-carrying, on which it was
a custom for everyone to bring chopped wood to the altar so that fuel for the fire might never fail
(it continues always without being extinguished).
Josephus implicitly connects the practice of donating wood to Leviticus 6:5-6.

Josephus places this wood donation and its accompanying feast on the 14th of Av, one day earlier
than the date in Megillat Ta‘anit,[3] the Hasmonean-era calendar of commemorative days on which
fasting is prohibited:

The earliest source for the ritual of bringing wood to the Temple appears in Nehemiah 10:35,
presented as part of a list of Torah laws that the people promise to observe:

18
These three sources disagree on several details. First, while Nehemiah simply refers to a ritual,
Josephus identifies the bringing of wood as a festival. This status is also implicit in Megillat
Ta‘anit’s inclusion of it in its list of commemorative days. Second, unlike Josephus and Megillat
Taʿanit, Nehemiah provides no one date for this offering. Instead, the text states that it is to be
performed at set times throughout the year, as presumed in later rabbinic sources (see
m. Ta‘anit 4:5; t. Ta‘anit 3:5).

The Mishnah, which lists nine different days throughout the year for bringing wood to the Temple,
five of which occur in the month of Av, may even reflect a midpoint between the vision of periodic
wood bringing in Nehemiah and a festival of wood bringing in Josephus. Each day is designated
to a given family group, but out of these nine days of wood-bringing, the 15th of Av, assigned to
the family of Zatu ben Judah, is unique (m. Taʿanit 4:5; Neusner trans.):

Wood Offering as a Torah Law?

The passage in Nehemiah ends by saying that this wood-bringing requirement is done “As it is
written in the Torah” (‫)ַכָּכּתוּב ַבּתּוָֹרה‬. Possibly, Nehemiah’s version of the Pentateuch contained a
reference to a required wood offering. More likely, however, this passage offers an example of

19
pseudo-citation of the Torah employed to claim authority for innovation.[4] In so doing, Nehemiah
engenders its own authoritative status and presents later readers with a festival that is linked to
Pentateuchal authority, though nowhere explicit there.

Temple Scroll (11Q19)

Another way of connecting this practice to the Torah’s authority is to include it in a new text
comprised of Torah laws and phrases. For example, the Temple Scroll (11Q19), a legal text that
rewrites scriptural material in order to craft a model for an ideal Jewish society, includes the Wood
Offering Festival in its rewritten version of the festival list.[5]

11Q19 13:10–30:2 comprises an extensive festival calendar that harmonizes the disparate
Pentateuchal festival calendars and modifies their content to cohere with the ritual and cultic
vision of its author.[6] In its rewriting of the festival calendar, the Temple Scroll adds several
additional festivals:

The Wine Festival occurs fifty days after Bikkurim/Shavuot, the biblical wheat festival. The Oil
Festival occurs fifty days after that,[7] and is immediately followed by the Wood Offering Festival
which lasts six days. The calendrical text 4Q327 locates the Oil Festival on the 22nd of the sixth
month, presumably the same date as envisioned in the Temple Scroll.[8]

Unlike the passages about ordination, wine, and oil, the passage about the wood offering in the
Temple Scroll is very fragmentary, and we do not know if it ever refers to the Wood Offering as a

20
“festival” the way it does, for instance, with the New Oil festival (‫)מועד היצהר‬. But the Temple
Scroll does introduce the wood offering into the festival calendar alongside the New Oil festival.

The Reworked Torah (4Q365)

The Dead Sea Scrolls manuscript known as 4Q365 is related to a broader collection of manuscripts
that scholars first labeled “Reworked Pentateuch” (4Q158, 4Q364–367).[9] In light of the growing
awareness of the diversity of biblical texts in the Second Temple period and the role that exegesis
played in this textual fluidity, most scholars now call these texts 4QPentateuch(?)—in other words,
they view it as one of many diverse Torah texts that circulated then.

4Q365 consists primarily of textual material that matches the text of the Pentateuch as known in
its various attestations. Scholars have demonstrated that all five manuscripts share features that
marks them as part of a particular group of ancient Pentateuch texts that Sidnie White Crawford
characterizes as “harmonistic/expansive.”[10]

What Is an Expansive Text?

The scribes who transmitted these Pentateuch texts did not copy their texts verbatim, but engaged
in the editorial practices of harmonization and expansion. The most famous example from this
group is the pre-Samaritan Pentateuch – the Second Temple period textual version of the
Pentateuch that would later be adopted by the Samaritan community as its Pentateuch.[11]

The “Reworked Pentateuch” manuscripts contain several features commonly found in exegetical
literature, such as harmonization, paraphrase, omission, and addition. For example, they

• Combine the textually disconnected story of the daughters of Zelophehad in Numbers 27

and 36 into a single seamless narrative (4Q365 36);

• Introduce seven new lines into its transcript of Miriam’s song after the crossing of the Red
Sea (4Q365 6a ii + 6c 1-7).

21
These harmonizations and expansions, however, are few in number. 4Q365 on the whole matches
the text of the Pentateuch as known from the various ancient versions (e.g., the LXX, the pre-
Samaritan, the proto-MT). In this sense, 4Q365 looks much like what we know of
as the Pentateuch and what Jews in the Second Temple period would have recognized
as aPentateuch.

The Festival Calendar of Leviticus 23 in 4Q365

4Q365 23 preserves material that parallels the festival calendar from Leviticus 23 and expands it.
Thus, lines 1–4 are essentially the same as Leviticus 23:42–24:2a. First comes the final law of
Leviticus 23 about building Sukkot:

Unlike all known ancient texts of the Pentateuch, however, which continue by describing the
requirement to light the eternal flame with olive oil, 4Q365 here adds to the Pentateuchal festival
calendar both a requirement to bring wood and a New Oil Festival (4Q365 23 1–11). As in the
Temple Scroll, the New Oil is explicitly identified as a festival, while the wood offering is not
(unless it is lost in the unpreserved portion of the manuscript). As in the Temple Scroll, both are
included alongside one another as part of an expanded festival calendar:

22
At this point the fragment ends entirely. The expansion in these lines is motivated by the dilemma
of why a festival clearly quite common in the Second Temple period – and moreover identified as
having a Torah source in Nehemiah – seemingly has no Pentateuchal basis.

23
4Q365’s Technique: How the Festivals Were Added

Why was this supplement added here? On a simple level, the scribe clearly chose to include the
new festivals at the very end of the Pentateuchal list, just as the Holiness scribe did with the
supplementary commandments about the Festival of Sukkot (vv. 39-43) that appear after the
original ending of the chapter (vv. 37-38).[13] But the scribe’s technique is subtler than this.

Leviticus 24:1-2a contains a divine command formula to Moses followed by a set of commands to
be directed at the Israelites, in this case requesting oil for the lampstand in the Tabernacle.

.‫ ֶשֶׁמן ַז ִית ָז• ָכִּתית ַלָמּאוֹר ְלַהֲﬠ¡ת ֵנר ָתִּמיד‬š‫ב ַצו ֶאת ְבֵּני ִיְשָׂרֵאל ְו ִיְקחוּ ֵאֶלי‬:‫כד‬.‫הָוה ֶאל ֹמֶשׁה ֵלּאֹמר‬-‫א ַו ְיַדֵבּר ְי‬:‫ויקרא כד‬

Lev 24:1
YHWH spoke to Moses, saying: 24:2 Command the children of Israel to bring you clear oil
of beaten olives for lighting, for kindling lamps regularly.

A Repurposed Opening

4Q365 23 4 preserves the exact same twofold formulation (i.e., God commands Moses to tell the
Israelites), though it notably adds a second “saying” (‫ )לאמר‬at the end of the clause:

Leviticus 24

‫הוה אל מושה לאמור צו את בני ישראל לאמור‬-‫וידבר י‬

YHWH spoke to Moses, saying, “Command the children of Israel, saying

4Q365

‫הָוה ֶאל ֹמֶשׁה ֵלּאֹמר ַצו ֶאת ְבֵּני ִיְשָׂרֵאל‬-‫ַו ְיַדֵבּר ְי‬

YHWH spoke to Moses, saying: Command the children of Israel

24
Tailoring the Opening to be Like Other Festival Openings

A twofold command formulation (‫ )ַו ְיַדֵבּר … ַדֵּבּר‬appears throughout Leviticus 23 to introduce

several of the festiva[14] 4Q365 diverges from this formula by using the word “speak” (‫)דבר‬
followed by “command” (‫ )צוה‬because it is revising the opening in Lev 24, which was not about
another holiday but about the lampstand oil. The repurposed opening, now introducing the wood
offering and the oil festival, reinforces its connection to the holiday calendar by its use of the
second “saying” (‫ – )לאמר‬absent in Leviticus 24:2a but present in the last two festival openings
(Teruah and Sukkot).[15]

Replacing the Oil for Fire with Oil and Wood Festivals

The suitability of an expansive unit on the Wood and Oil Festivals as the replacement of the literary
unit regarding the lampstand in Leviticus 24:1-4 is tied to the prominent role of oil in both.
Leviticus 24:2 implores the Israelites to bring oil (‫ )שמן‬to the Tabernacle for kindling lamps, which
provides the exegetical cue for the expansion in 4Q365.[16] The details of the Oil Festival are not
delineated in 4Q365, but the festival likewise involved the bringing of oil to the Temple, as known
from the Temple Scroll.

4Q365 does not state the exact dates for the wood offering and Oil Festival. If 4Q365 presumes
the same dating system as the Temple Scroll, it is notable that 4Q365 does not introduce these
festivals in their appropriate location during the festival calendar (presumably before the day of
Teruah). The placement of these two festivals at the end of the calendar is likely guided by the
exegetical link provided the imperative in Lev 24:2 to bring provisions of oil for the lampstand.[17]

“When You Come to the Land”

Immediately following the twofold introductory formula, 4Q365 23 4–5 introduces the Wood
offering:

25
Introducing a law by stating that it takes effect when the Israelites enter the land appears in a
number of places in the Pentateuch (the use of the final ‫ ה‬in the words ‫ בבואכמה‬and ‫ לכמה‬is uniquely
Qumran spelling).

A Composite Verse

The verse combines phrases found elsewhere in the Pentateuch:

Thus, the new verse uses classic biblical style and phraseology while introducing an entirely new
passage.

Appearance of Antiquity

The Wood and Oil Festivals are presumably tied to the enjoyment of the land’s bounty, and thus
only take effect upon entrance into the land. At the same time, literary and exegetical motivations
explain this particular framing of the Oil and Wood Festivals.

26
Appearance of Antiquity (Literary)

Highlighting that the Wood and Oil Festivals only take effect “when you come into the land”
reinforces the antiquity of this command, as stemming from the wilderness period. This would
help the author obscure the festivals’ late origins in the Second Temple period.

This technique matches Deuteronomy’s well-known tactic of referring to the location of the future
central sanctuary as “in the place where YHWH will choose” (‫הוה‬-‫ ;המקום אשר יבחר י‬e.g.,
Deuteronomy 12:5 in the Masoretic Text). While Deuteronomy clearly has Jerusalem in mind, it
nuances its insistence on a central shrine to comport with the narrative fiction of Mosaic origins.[22]

4Q365 makes use of a variation on this Deuteronomic concept, i.e., “the future Temple,” and states
that the purpose of bringing this wood is to use for a burnt offering:

‫ו‬

As in Deuteronomy, this phrasing locates such a command in the time before the Temple was
chosen, again reinforcing its antiquity.

Follow Up to Sukkot (Literary)

Another possible reason for the place of this law is to present the wood offering and oil festival as
a foil or culmination to Sukkot. The previous section ended with the explanation for dwelling
in sukkot as reminding the Israelites of when God had them dwell in sukkot(booths) when he
brought them out of Egypt. When this is followed immediately by the wood offering and oil
festival as occurring when Israel enters the land, these celebrations mark the next phase of Israelite
history. In other words, these are not exodus or wilderness themed festivals, but entrance into the
land festivals.

27
Solving the Nehemiah Problem (Exegetical)

4Q365 is motivated in part by the glaring exegetical problem presented by the observance of the
Wood Offering Festival in Nehemiah 10:35, but he transforms this dilemma into an opportunity.
By casting the origins of the Wood Festival into the Pentateuchal, Mosaic, past, 4Q365 makes
Nehemiah 10:35 the realization of the ancient Pentateuchal command, not its inspiration. The
Wood Festival in Nehemiah is first celebrated by the post-exilic community upon their return to
the land of Israel and the reconstitution of Jewish life – exactly as prescribed in this version of the
Pentateuch.

Giving the Wood Festival Mosaic Authority – Three Strategies

The Wood Offering and Oil Festivals presented Second Temple period Jews with a clear tension
between the received authoritative text, in this case the Pentateuch, in which this festival is absent,
and the real-life setting of Jewish ritual activity, in which the festival plays a prominent role.

In contrast to Chanukah and Purim, which are missing in the Torah since they commemorate post-
Mosaic events, the absence of the Wood-festival in the Pentateuch could not be explained with
ease. For this reason, Second Temple Jews looked for a way to connect these practices to the
Pentateuchal festival calendars.

The texts I have examined represent distinct strategies for responding to this tension in order to
craft a scriptural origin story for the Wood Offering Festival:

• Nehemiah simply states the Wood Offering Festival is in the Torah.

• The Temple Scroll introduces it alongside other additional festivals in its expanded festival
calendar.

• 4Q365 carefully interjects it into its exegetical rewriting of the festival calendar in
Leviticus 23.

28
Each of these strategies reflects how each writer regarded the status of his composition:

Quoting the Pentateuch – Nehemiah grounds its authority in an explicit (pseudo)citation, thereby
marking its exegetical process as taking place outside of the presumed scriptural source.

Supplementing the Pentateuch – The Temple Scroll engages in a wholesale rewriting of

Pentateuchal law. In so doing, however, the Temple Scroll does not seek to replace the Pentateuch,
but rather to supplement it.

Reworking the Pentateuch – 4Q365 fashions itself as a bona fide Pentateuch manuscript. As
such, it seeks to conceal any traces of its exegetical rewriting in the pursuit of ritual innovation. In
4Q365, creative reinterpretation of sacred texts responds to the tension between seemingly rigid
authoritative Scripture and the need for Scripture and ritual practice to be perpetually evolving
entities.

Footnotes

1. On these texts, see more fully Cana Werman, “The Wood-Offering: The Convoluted Evolution of a Halakhah in Qumran

and Rabbinic Law,” in New Perspectives on Old Texts(ed. Esther G. Chazon, Betsy Halpern Amaru, and Ruth Clements;

Leiden: Brill, 2010), 151–82.

2. He does not give a date here, but begins the next section with “on the next day, which was the fifteenth of the month

Lous [Av].”

3. For more on this source, see Vered Noam, “Megillat Ta’anit and its Scholion,”TheTorah.com (2015).

4. See Hindy Najman, “Torah of Moses: Pseudonymous Attribution in Second Temple Writings,” in Past Renewals:

Interpretative Authority, Renewed Revelation and the Quest for Perfection in Jewish Antiquity (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 73–

86.

5. For more on the Temple Scroll, including a transcript of the text, with English translation and commentary, see Yigael

Yadin, The Temple Scroll (3 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, the Hebrew University, and the Shrine of the

Book, 1983); James H. Charlesworth, et al. (eds.), Temple Scroll and Related Documents (The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew,

29
 Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations 7; The Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project;

Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2011).

6. See Yadin, The Temple Scroll, 1.89-142.

7. For more on the wine and oil festivals, see, Marvin A. Sweeney, “Celebrating Grain, Wine, and Oil: Qumran’s Bikkurim

Festivals,” TheTorah.com (2018).

8. The Temple Scroll’s expanded calendar likely imagines these two festivals in succession because both are additional first

fruit festivals that involve bringing provisions to the Temple. The connection between the wood offering and first fruits

can be traced back to Nehemiah 10:35-36, where they appear alongside one another (cf. Werman, “Wood-Offering,”

152-53).

9. For general overview of these manuscripts, see Sidnie White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple

Times (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 39-59.

10. Sidnie White Crawford, “The Pentateuch as Found in the Pre-Samaritan Texts and 4QReworked Pentateuch,” in Changes

in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period (ed. H. von Weissenberg,

J. Pukkala, and M. Martilla; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 123–36.

11. Editor’s note: for some examples of harmonistic expansions in the SP, see, Zev Farber,“The Missing Speeches in the

Plague Narrative and the Samaritan Pentateuch,”TheTorah.com (2016); “Whose Idea Was It to Send

Scouts?” TheTorah.com (2014).

12. The scribe seems to have accidently written a sin and then marked this mistake by adding dots above and below. He then

added the tzade supralinear. For more on dots as erasure marks, see the discussion of puncta extraordinaria in Emanuel

Tov,“(Proto-)Masoretic Text Part 6: Scribal Marks,” TheTorah.com (2017).

13. Editor’s note: For more on this, see “The First Sukkah,” TheTorah.com (2013).

14. Opening of the festival calendar (vv. 1–2), The Omer offering (vv. 9–10), The Teruah festival (vv. 23–24), Sukkot (vv.

33–34).

15. The first two have ‫ואמרת אליהם‬, “and say to them,” which is only a stronger version of ‫“( לאמר‬saying”).

16. We do not know if 4Q365 continued with the lampstand oil command, because we don’t have the rest of the fragment.

But the technique identified here would seem to suggest that the lampstand was not taken up.

17. This is suggested by Molly M. Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture: Composition and Exegesis in the 4QReworked

Pentateuch Manuscripts (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 108.

18.

‫טווית‬
.‫הָוה‬-‫ְוָהָיה ַבֲּאָכְלֶכם ִמֶלֶּחם ָהָאֶרץ ָתּ ִרימוּ ְתרוָּמה ַלי‬ .‫יח …ְבֹּבֲאֶכם ֶאל ָהָא ֶרץ ֲאֶשׁר ֲא ִני ֵמִביא ֶאְתֶכם ָשָׁמּה‬:‫במדבר טו‬

30
 Num 15:18
…When you come to the land to which I am taking you 15:19 and you eat of the bread of the land, you shall set

some aside as a gift to YHWH.

19. Deut 17:14 (spelled defective) and Deut 26:1 (spelled plene).

20. Exod 12:25; Lev 19:23, 23:10, 25:2 (always spelled defective).

21. Exod 12:25; Lev 23:10, 25:2; Deut 17:14, 26:1.

22. For Deuteronomy, it is not merely about being historically consistent; there is a powerful payoff to this type of

formulation: When the historical books actually do locate the central shrine in Jerusalem, these later iterations are

regarded as the realization of the ancient divine command in Deuteronomy.

Bikkurim Smugglers:

Jacob Neusner writes:

31
 9

Mishnah Taanit 4:4

9
University Press of America 2004

32
33
Bringing Bikkurim to Jerusalem, 1730

34
 SERVICE TREE IN THE BIBLE AND TALMUD AND
IN MODERN PALESTINE

SAMUEL KRAUSS writes:10

10
Hebrew Union College Annual , 1924, Vol. 1 (1924), p

35
36
37
38
39
 The Jewish identity of Jerusalem in Greek and Roman sources.
Rivkah Fishman-Duker writes:11

The Jewish identity of Jerusalem as recorded in the writings of Greek and Roman authors of
classical antiquity is a subject worthy of study in its own right. This article draws on references to
Jerusalem in nearly twenty different sources dating from the third century BCE to the third century
CE, roughly six centuries.

An examination of the sources indicates their authors' complete and unanimous agreement that
Jerusalem was Jewish by virtue of the fact that it was founded by Jews, its inhabitants were Jews
and that the Temple, located in Jerusalem, was the center of the Jewish religion. Despite the fact
that some of these authors had distinctly negative views about Jews and Judaism, they were all in
agreement about the Jewish identity of the city. These texts possess an importance which
transcends their purely academic and cultural content. Newcomers to the historical stage and their
apologists have based their political claims upon historical accounts which they have fabricated.
For example, in his lengthy account of the Camp David Summit of July 2000, chief American
negotiator Dennis Ross attributes much of its failure to the late Chairman Yasir Arafat of
the Palestinian Authority who not only repeated "old mythologies" but invented "a new one ...
[that] the Temple did not exist in Jerusalem but in Nablus."[2]

The references to Jerusalem in these classical texts demonstrate the historical

attachment of the Jewish people to Jerusalem.
11
https://www.aish.com/h/9av/j/48966346.html

40
While one may dismiss Arafat's outrageous statement as a fabrication invented to promote his
political agenda, this lie and similar assertions make up part of ongoing Muslim efforts to negate
Israel's claim to Jerusalem, challenge an essential element of the Jewish faith, and attack historical
truth.[3] Scholarly refutations of such false historical claims have usually drawn upon ancient and
medieval Jewish and Christian sources, modern scholarship and archeological excavations.[4]
Despite the fact that the ancient pagan Greek and Roman sources have been known for centuries,
they have not received a level of attention commensurate with their importance. The references to
Jerusalem in these classical texts not only demonstrate the historical attachment of the Jewish
people to Jerusalem, but also contribute to our knowledge of Jews and Judaism in the ancient
world. It should be noted that such information, particularly of the negative variety regarding
Jewish history, society and religion influenced later Christian and Western views of the Jews.[5]

The Sources

The major source for most of the Greek views of the Jews is the treatise Against Apion written by
the Jewish historian Josephus some time after 93CE in Rome.[6] Apion, a Greek grammarian and
intellectual in Alexandria, was active in the mid-first century CE in the struggle against the civic
rights of Jews in his city, and a notorious defamer of Jews and Judaism. In Against Apion, Josephus
presents lengthy citations from the works of numerous Greek writers and intellectuals from the
third century BCE through the first century CE. In several instances, such writings are extant only
in Josephus' work.

While several sources are neutral or even positive toward Jews, many accounts portray the Jews
and the Jewish religion negatively and are replete with outrageous lies and calumnies. Josephus
meticulously and successfully debunks these anti-Jewish tracts and provides a vigorous defense of
Judaism, pointing out its strength and greatness in contrast to Greek and Roman pagan beliefs and
life style.[7]

Selections from other Greek and Latin works which are no longer extant may be found in other
pagan anthologies, in the writings of Church Fathers, such as Origen or Eusebius of Caesarea, and
in later Byzantine texts. In addition, the writings of major authors, such as the Roman orator Cicero
and the historian Tacitus exist independently and provide information on the Jews.[8]

The entire corpus of texts in their original languages and English translation, with learned
introductions, commentaries and explanations is available to the public in the form of the excellent
comprehensive three volume collection of Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and
Judaism.[9] The texts used in this article, quoted in English translation, come from Professor
Stern's magnum opus, which includes 554 selections of varying length and content, dating from
the fifth century BCE to the sixth century CE.

General Background

41
The Greeks probably were the first to record information about the customs, life styles and
societies of the different peoples whom they encountered or heard about during their travels in
various parts of the world. Jews were one of the many peoples whom they met and observed.[10]
The "father of history", Herodotus, who visited Egypt under Persian rule in the 450s BCE, wrote
extensively about the Egyptians and referred to the "Syrians of Palestine" who were circumcised
and were assumed to be the Jews.[11] In fact, it is likely that it was Herodotus who coined the
name "Palestine," namely, the area of the Land of Israel, as his encounter was with the descendants
of the Philistines who inhabited the coastal towns of Gaza, Ashdod, and Ashkelon. The Jews
inhabited the landlocked region of Jerusalem and its surrounding hills, known as Judea.[12]

During the decades and centuries following the conquest of the Near East by Alexander the Great
in the 330s and 320s BCE, Greek soldiers and civilians populated and colonized the entire area,
established major cities, such as Alexandria in Egypt, and spread their system of local government,
language, culture, art, religion, and way of life throughout the region. The Greeks promoted and
advocated the adoption of their life style and mores; namely, Hellenization, which in contemporary
parlance may be termed the first manifestation of "globalization." All the peoples whom they ruled
and amongst whom they lived, including the Jews in the Land of Israel and the Diaspora (a Greek
term), had to contend with the challenge of Hellenization through assimilation, adaptation or
resistance.[13]

In the late fourth century BCE, several texts portray Jews in a complimentary fashion, as
philosophers.[14] Throughout the third century BCE, however, less favorable comments about the
Jews circulated throughout Ptolemaic Egypt, which had undergone rapid Hellenization.
Outstanding among the anti-Jewish accusations was an alternative to the Biblical narrative of
the Exodus.[15] One of the anti-Exodus tales, presented by the Egyptian priest Manetho (mid-third
century BCE) portrayed the Jews as foreigners, descendants of shepherd-kings who had taken over
Egypt and had joined with others who were ridden with disease and killed the animals which the
Egyptians venerated as gods.[16] Subsequently, they were expelled from Egypt and established
their own polity under their leader Moses who gave them a way of life which differed from that of
the rest of mankind. Hence, the Jews were accused of xenophobia and disrespect for the gods of
other nations and were viewed as practitioners of a strange way of life.[17]

Some writers recall distinctive Jewish customs, such as the absence of representations of the deity,
male circumcision, dietary laws and the observance of the weekly day of rest, the Sabbath. Indeed,
in 167 BCE, the Greek Seleucid King Antiochus IV ordered Jews to place an idol of Zeus in the
Temple, outlawed circumcision, demanded the sacrifice of swine and forbade Sabbath observance
(I Maccabees 1:41-50). He thus desired to eliminate those unique features of the Jewish religion
which had been noted by pagan writers.

Anti-Exodus narratives and accusations of Jewish sacrilege against other nations' gods emerged in
times of political and cultural crises and may have been a reaction to the fact that Judaism was
attractive to many Greeks and Romans.[18] By the middle to late first century BCE, the Romans
dominated much of the known world west of the Euphrates, with its large Greek and Jewish
populations. The Romans adopted many of the Greek charges against the Jews, to which they
added accusations of insubordination to Roman rule.

42
So embedded were the Greek libels, that even several decades after the brutal suppression of the
Jewish revolt against Rome (66-70 CE) and the destruction of the Temple and of Jerusalem (70
CE), the Roman historian Tacitus repeated the standard anti-Exodus canard and expressed himself
as though the Jews were still a major threat to Imperial world domination, as follows: "... Moses
introduced new religious practices, quite opposed to those of all other religions. The Jews regard
as profane all that we hold sacred; on the other hand, they permit all that we abhor."[19]

Jerusalem in Context

Most Greek and Roman items on Jerusalem, therefore, must be viewed within the context of the
general background described above. This applies to the texts quoted in Josephus' Against
Apion and in later works and to the books which survived as independent works, such as
the Histories of Tacitus.

Josephus devotes much attention to presenting and refuting the foundation

narratives and the calumnies against Judaism and Temple practices.

Mention of Jerusalem occurs in several contexts. First, it is the climax of the largely pejorative
foundation narratives of Judea and of the Jewish people, which begin with the expulsion from
Egypt. Second, Jerusalem is associated with the construction and the existence of the Jewish
Temple and the Temple cult and practices, which Greeks and Romans viewed with fascination,
despite the fact that they may have found them highly distasteful and offensive. Josephus devotes
much attention to presenting and refuting the foundation narratives and the calumnies against
Judaism and Temple practices.

Third, depending on the date of their works, several authors record historical events, namely
invasions of Jerusalem by Greeks or Romans. The major captures of the city were the seizure of
the Temple by the Seleucid monarch Antiochus IV in 167 BCE; the invasion of Jerusalem and
entry into the Temple by the Roman general Pompey the Great in 63 BCE, and the destruction of
Jerusalem and the Temple by Titus during the Great Revolt against Rome in 70 CE.

Fourth, physical descriptions of Jerusalem appear in geographical and ethnographical works, with
or without the occasional historical fact. Finally, in several Roman sources the term "Solyma"
(Jerusalem) appears as part of an insult. Some authors combine several of the features listed above:
foundation narratives, focus on the Temple, historical events, physical descriptions and use of
name of the city in an demeaning manner.

Jerusalem in Foundation Narratives

Greeks and Romans explored their own origins and the beginnings of the peoples, countries and
cities which they conquered and ruled. Furthermore, they attempted to explain to their readers how
existing locations, shrines and customs came into being and to answer possible queries as to when
and under what circumstances contemporary events and customs began. Therefore, they presented
and repeated foundation narratives. The earliest Greek material on the construction of Jerusalem
appears as part of the conclusion of the anti-Exodus narratives mentioned above.

43
According to Manetho, for example, after Pharaoh expelled the sacrilegious Jews, a tribe of the
usurper shepherd-kings called "Hyksos" dominated the land. They were joined by others who were
afflicted with leprosy and diseases. "They journeyed over the desert ... they built in the land now
called Judaea a city large enough to hold all those thousands of people and gave it the name of
Jerusalem." In a subsequent section, Josephus again quotes Manetho as stating that after the Jews
"were driven out of the country, [they] occupied what is now Judea, founded Jerusalem, and built
the temple." While Josephus wrongly cites Manetho's history as attributing to Moses the building
of the Temple, he mentions that Manetho notes that Moses "who framed their [the Jews']
constitution and their laws" was a native Egyptian.[20]

In an account by Hecataeus of Abdera (c. 300 BCE), Jerusalem appears toward the conclusion of
his counter-Exodus account and before his description of Jewish society and practices. He
attributes the expulsion of the Jews to the pestilence which the Egyptians blamed upon the presence
of foreigners, not only Jews, who caused the natives to falter in religious observance. "Therefore,
the aliens were driven from the country." While some went to Greece, most "were driven into what
is now called Judaea ... at that time utterly uninhabited ... on taking possession of the land, he
[Moses] founded, besides other cities, one that is the most renowned of all, called Jerusalem. In
addition, he established the temple that they hold in chief veneration, instituted their forms of
worship and ritual, drew up their laws and ordered their political institutions."[21]

Hecataeus and other writers designate Moses as founder of Jerusalem, builder of the Temple, and
architect of the Jewish religion. This point differs substantially from the Hebrew Bible which
names King David as the conqueror and builder of the city and his son King Solomon as the builder
of the Temple (II Samuel 5:6-12; I Chronicles 11:4-9; I Kings 6:1-38; 7:15-51; II Chronicles 2:1-
5:2). For a Greek, however, it would make sense that Moses built the Temple. Logically speaking,
the first major leader of people, conqueror of its land and creator of its laws and social norms had
to be regarded as the founder of its most important city and shrine. It is noteworthy that Moses
"the Lawgiver" figures prominently as the founder of Judaism both in Greek and Roman writings
and in Josephus' defense of Judaism in the second half of his Against Apion.[22]

The link between the expulsion from Egypt and the building of Jerusalem appears in later sources
which have a more negative view of the Jews and Judaism. This change took place after the
invasion of Jerusalem and desecration of the Temple by Antiochus IV and his subsequent defeat
by the Jews. For example, in his Bibliotheca Historica, the compiler Diodorus Siculus (first
century BCE) recycles the essential anti-Exodus plot of Manetho. Here, the Jews were driven out
of Egypt because they "were impious and detested by the gods." They were joined by others "with
leprous marks on their bodies... The refugees occupied the territory round about Jerusalem, and
having organized the nation of the Jews had made their hatred of mankind into a tradition, and on
this account, had introduced utterly outlandish laws..." Later on, Diodorus refers to "Moses, the
founder of Jerusalem."[23]

In a similar vein, Josephus includes an excerpt from Lysimachus (possibly first century BCE),
whose work exhibits an anti-Jewish bias close to that of Apion. Lysimachus relates that the after
the leprous Jews were expelled from the Egyptian temples, where they took refuge, "a certain
Moses" taught them "to show goodwill to no man" and "to overthrow any temples and altars of the
gods..." They eventually "came to the country now called Judaea where they built a city in which

44
they settled. This town was called Hierosyla because of their sacrilegious propensities. At a later
date ... they altered the name to avoid the disgraceful imputation and called the city Hierosolyma
and themselves Hierosolymites."[24]

In circa 110 CE, several decades after the defeat of the Jews by the Romans in 70 CE, the Roman
historian Tacitus included a brief excursus on the Jews in his Histories. The Great Revolt against
Rome and the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, which make up the major part of this
section of Tacitus' work, appear in the context of his extensive treatment of the Flavian dynasty,
the theme of his work. Tacitus openly declares that Jerusalem is "the capital of the Jews." Before
his description of its devastation, he gives a terse account of its origins and some of its history.
Tacitus refers to the origin of the Jews as either from "Ida" in Crete or from Ethiopia, or Assyria
and their leaders as "Hierosolymus and Iuda." He adds that "others say that the Jews are of
illustrious origin, being the Solymi, a people celebrated in Homer's poems, who founded a city and
gave it the name Hierosolyma."[25]

A version of the Greek anti-Exodus story follows in which Tacitus notes that Moses, with his
fellow exiles, seized a country, expelled the former inhabitants, founded a city and dedicated a
temple. Afterwards, he launches a vicious attack against Moses' xenophobic laws and way of life
which persist even to his own times.[26] A brief geographical description of the country and of
Jerusalem precedes a terse summary of the history of Judea, its domination by Rome and the events
leading up to the Great Revolt, the defeat of the Jews and the destruction of Jerusalem.[27]

Jerusalem clearly is the major city of the Jews, founded by a people expelled
from Egypt under inauspicious circumstances.

In conclusion, Jerusalem clearly is the major city of the Jews, founded by a people expelled from
Egypt under inauspicious circumstances. The Jews were either oppressive foreigners or carriers of
a plague or leprosy or both. Their leader Moses turned them against humanity with strange customs
and laws, founded a city, Jerusalem, and built a Temple. Its interior and cultic practices will be
discussed below. By the early second century CE, when Tacitus wrote his history, it is clear that
this narrative of the circumstances of Jerusalem's foundation had become a standard depiction
among Greeks and Roman writers.

The Centrality of the Temple

The Temple of the Jews was a famous building, although it was not one of the Seven Wonders of
the ancient world. According to Greek and Roman sources, it definitely was located in Jerusalem,
a city founded and inhabited by Jews. While the narratives noted above feature Moses as the
founder of the Temple, three relatively obscure sources of the second century BCE link the Temple
to King Solomon and point out his association with King Hiram of Tyre, who assisted in its
construction. These sources are brief and contain no historical background or material on the
Jews.[28]

Several of the selections in Against Apion which include the anti-Exodus narrative also provide
descriptions of the interior and exterior of the Temple and some of its rituals. For example,
Hecataeus states that in the center of the city is an enclosure where there is "a square altar built of

45
heaped up stones, unhewn and unwrought." The Temple itself is "a great edifice containing and
altar and a lamp stand, both made of gold ... upon these is a light which is never extinguished ...
there is not a single statue or votive offering, no trace of a plant in the form of a sacred grove, or
the like."[29] And in his account of Titus' siege of Jerusalem, Tacitus describes the Temple as "...
built like a citadel, with walls of its own ... the very colonnades made a splendid defense. Within
the enclosure is an ever-flowing spring."[30]

The Jews do not state "to which deity pertains the temple at Jerusalem, nor is
any image found there, since they do not think the God partakes of any figure."

In addition to physical descriptions, the authors mention the religious aspect of the Temple which
differed radically from Greek and Roman paganism. In the text preserved by Diodorus, Hecataeus
mentions the priests and their duties in the Temple and even describes a worship service and
sacrifice.[31] Similarly, the first century Roman historian Livy remarks that the Jews do not state
"to which deity pertains the temple at Jerusalem, nor is any image found there, since they do not
think the God partakes of any figure."

In the same vein, Tacitus reports that "there were no representations of the gods within, but ... the
place was empty and the secret shrine contained nothing" and "only a Jew may approach its doors,
and that all save the priests were forbidden to cross its threshold."[32] Cassius Dio (c.200 CE)
recalls that the Jews "never had any statue of him [the deity] even in Jerusalem itself." The latter
states that their temple "was extremely large and beautiful, except in so far as it was open and
roofless."[33]

Hecataeus, Livy, and Cassius Dio explain the absence of representation as part of Jewish
"otherness" in a factual manner. Several Greek writers, however, interpret the fact that there were
no statues of the gods in the Temple not only as unusual, but also as barbaric and indicative of
Jewish misanthropy. In their view, it would be inconceivable that a sacred shrine would be empty.
Therefore, several authors offered their versions of what exactly stood in the Temple. Diodorus
(first century BCE) writes that when "Antiochus, called Epiphanes, on defeating the Jews had
entered the innermost sanctuary of the god's temple, where it was lawful for the priest alone to
enter. Finding there a marble statue of a heavily bearded man seated on an ass, with a book in his
hands, he supposed it to be an image of Moses, founder of Jerusalem ... who had ordained for the
Jews their misanthropic and lawless customs. ... Antiochus ... sacrificed before the image of the
founder and the open-air altar of the god a great sow."[34] Diodorus asserts that what stood in
Judaism's holiest place was ridiculous and revolting; namely, the presence of a statue of an ass, a
lowly beast of burden, whose rider had established Jewish xenophobia, and that Antiochus
sacrificed an animal known by all to be forbidden to the Jews in their holiest shrine.[35]

Apion (mid-first century CE) conveys a malicious and defamatory description of the contents of
the sanctuary in Jerusalem. In order to give his anti-Jewish arguments greater authority, Apion
attributes this account to the well known Greek philosopher and ethnographer Posidonius (c.135-
51 BCE) and the rhetorician Apollonius Molon (first century BCE).[36] As in the case of Diodorus,
the invasion of Antiochus Epiphanes serves as the point of departure for the description, as follows:
"Within the sanctuary ... the Jews kept an ass's head [made of gold], worshipping that animal and
deeming it of deepest reverence."[37]

46
The narrative continues with an astonishing calumny. Apion relates that when Antiochus entered
the sanctuary, he discovered a Greek imprisoned inside, on a couch next to a table laden with
excellent food. The Greek hailed Antiochus as his savior. For, according to Apion, the Jews
kidnapped a Greek annually, brought him to the sanctuary, fattened him up with sumptuous meals,
sacrificed him, ate his flesh and then swore an oath of hostility to the Greeks.[38] While Josephus
dismisses this canard as malicious rubbish and baseless lies, it is clear that the fact that Jews had
no statues in their Temple in Jerusalem served as the background for the fabrication of accusations
of kidnapping, human sacrifice, cannibalism and misanthropy on the part of the Jews.[39] This
libel provided a basis for the attempts to deprive them of their civic rights which were contested
in Alexandria in the first century CE by figures such as Apion. Hence, the Temple appears as a
salient feature of pagan anti-Judaism.

In addition, the fact that Jews contributed annually to the Temple thereby filling it with silver and
gold objects and monies was considered as a point of contention. In 59 BCE, the great Roman
orator Cicero defended Flaccus, when the latter sought to prevent the Jews of the Empire from
sending large sums of money to Jerusalem. Cicero describes the collection of vast amounts of gold
and calls Judaism a "barbaric superstition."[40]

Tacitus also adds a financial dimension to his critique of Judaism and the Temple, complaining
that other peoples join the Jews, "renouncing their ancestral religions ... sending tribute and
contributing to Jerusalem, thereby increasing the wealth of the Jews."[41] While both Cicero and
Tacitus mention Jerusalem as the destination for the contributions of the Jews, it is clear from the
context that their intention is the Temple, which the latter describes as "possessing enormous
riches."[42]

In conclusion, descriptions of the Temple form part of the accounts on Jerusalem and on Judaism.
They range from the factual to the libelous and bizarre. For the Greeks and Romans, Jerusalem
was famous for its Temple which served as the focal point of the xenophobic, strange and possibly
menacing rites of the Jews whose contributions brought much gold into the city. The latter may
have encouraged a certain amount of envy among Gentiles. After its destruction in 70 CE, the
memory of the Temple persisted in the retrospective histories by Tacitus and by Cassius Dio.

Historical Events

Jerusalem and the Temple also appear as the site of several major historical events, mainly
invasions of Greek monarchs and Roman generals. We have seen the significance of Antiochus
IV Ephiphanes' entry into Jerusalem and his despoliation of the Temple which served as the pretext
for anti-Jewish descriptions of the interior of the sanctuary, distortions of Judaism and slander of
the Jews. Antiochus appears favorably in the works of Diodorus and Apion, cited above. Similarly,
Tacitus presents Antiochus positively as the prototype of a leader who attempted to "abolish Jewish
superstition and to introduce Greek civilization."[43]

It is noteworthy that an earlier capture of Jerusalem by the Greek-Egyptian King Ptolemy, son of
Lagus, provided an opportunity for the obscure Agatharchides of Cnidus (second century BCE) to
remark about the fact that "the people known as Jews, who inhabited the most strongly fortified of
cities, called by the natives Jerusalem" lost their city because they would not defend it on the

47
Sabbath. Josephus includes this selection in Against Apion as one of the early pagan critiques of
the Jewish Sabbath which Agatharchides deemed as "folly," "dreams," and "traditional fancies
about the law."[44]

In this instance, the capture of Jerusalem serves as background for the author's unfavorable
comments on the Sabbath. Similarly, Cassius Dio attributes the capture of the Temple by the
Roman general Pompey the Great in 63 BCE to the fact that the Jews, given their "superstitious
awe" did not defend the city on "the day of Saturn" (the Sabbath).[45] Cassius Dio, however,
concentrates on Roman victories and accomplishments and mentions the issue of the Sabbath in
passing.

The biographer Plutarch (mid-first-early second century CE) notes the siege of Jerusalem by the
Seleucid monarch Antiochus VII Sidetes in 133-132 BCE at the time of the Jewish Feast of
Tabernacles. The author describes this festival at length in another work.[46] According to
Plutarch, Antiochus VII provided the sacrificial animals for the Temple and allowed a seven-day
truce, after which the Jews submitted to him.[47] From this passage, it is clear that the inhabitants
of Jerusalem are the Jews; that their Temple is located there; and their religious practices affect
the outcome of the invasions of Greek rulers.

Jerusalem also serves as the venue for eliciting praise of Roman figures or glorifying the victories
and history of Rome. The invasion of Jerusalem and the Temple by Pompey the Great in 63 BCE
appears in several Roman sources. Livy erroneously states that Pompey was the first to capture
Jerusalem and the Temple.[48] Other authors focus on the fact that Pompey neither damaged the
Temple nor removed any of the gold or he vessels of the Temple.[49]

While Jerusalem and the Temple are important in these sections, they serve as the background for
praise of the Roman invader. Similarly, in the works of Tacitus and Cassius Dio, the city of
Jerusalem and its destruction form part of the history of the Roman Empire, and in the case of
Tacitus, the accomplishments of the Flavian dynasty.[50] These historians assume Roman cultural
superiority and political hegemony throughout the world and the conquest and subjugation of
Jerusalem supported this world-view.

An outstanding example of the role of Jerusalem as the location for a minor event in the life of an
emperor may be found in Suetonius' The Twelve Caesars, a work replete with intimate details of
the public and private lives of the first twelve Roman emperors. In his biography of Titus, then
commander of his father Vespasian's Imperial forces and later emperor, Suetonius writes that "in
the final attack on Jerusalem he slew twelve of the defenders with as many arrows; and he took
the city on his daughter's birthday, so delighting the soldiers and winning their devotion ..."[51] In
this case, "the personal is political" and Jerusalem serves as the location for commemorating an
event in the private life of Titus.

Finally, Cassius Dio's indispensable account of the Jewish revolt against the Emperor Hadrian
(132-135 CE) designates the following as a cause of the revolt: "At Jerusalem he [Hadrian]
founded a city in place of the one which had been razed to the ground, naming it Aelia Capitolina,
and on the site of the temple of the god, he raised a new Temple to Zeus [Jupiter]."[52] Dio then
proceeds with his report of the revolt of the Jews and its methodical suppression by the Romans.

48
Although the source concentrates on the course of the revolt against Hadrian, the founding of a
pagan city on the ruins of Jerusalem and a pagan temple on the Temple Mount is presented as a
historical fact and not simply as background for the author's views on the Jewish religion or his
praise of a particular emperor. Once again, Jerusalem, the Temple and the Jews are linked together
in the major Roman historical work, written over more than a century after the destruction of the
city and its holiest place.

Physical Descriptions

Greeks and Romans displayed a keen interest in their own surroundings, distant lands, natural
phenomena, and landmarks, among them Jerusalem. Some of the descriptions of Jerusalem
precede details about the Temple and Judaism and others occur within the context of historical
events, such as the siege of Titus in 70 CE. Generally speaking, Jerusalem appears as a strongly
fortified city with a temple which is difficult to capture. A few writers note that it has sources of
water and several authors provide measurements of its area. Despite the tendency in the ancient
world to exaggerate figures, it is clear that Jerusalem was relatively large and populous.

The selection by Hecataeus, cited in Against Apion, describes the city as follows: "The Jews have
... only one fortified city, which has a circumference of about fifty stades and some hundred and
twenty thousand inhabitants; they call it Jerusalem. Nearly in the centre of the city stands a stone
wall, enclosing an area about five plethora long and a hundred cubits broad, approached by a pair
of gates."[53] He then proceeds to describe the Temple.

Agatharcides notes that Jerusalem is "the most strongly fortified of cities."[54] The obscure Greek
writer Timochares (late second century BCE) states that: "Jerusalem has a circumference of 40
stades. It is hard to capture her, as she is enclosed on all sides by abrupt ravines. The whole city
has a plenitude of running waters, so that the gardens are also irrigated by the waters streaming
from the city."[55]

In the anonymous Schoinometresis Syriae, possibly written by Xenophon of Lampsacus (c. 100
BCE), the writer notes that: "Jerusalem is situated on high and rough terrain; some parts of the
wall are built of hewn stone, but most of it consists of gravel. The city has a circumference of 27
stades and in that place there is a fount from which water spouts in abundance."[56]

Similarly, in his famous Natural History, the Roman polymath Pliny the Elder (d.79 CE) recorded
that the Dead Sea "is faced ... on the south by Machaerus, at one time, next to Jerusalem the most
important fortress in Judaea..." and that "Engeda [the oasis of Ein Gedi was] second only to
Jerusalem in the fertility of its land and in its groves of palm-trees, but now like Jerusalem, [is] a
heap of ashes."[57]

Both Tacitus and Cassius Dio provide details about Jerusalem in their accounts of Roman
conquests of the city. Despite the fact that the city had been destroyed, Tacitus uses the present
tense as if it were still standing. Prior to his lengthy section on the Great Revolt, he gives a brief
summary of the history of the city which he introduces as follows: ..."The first line of fortifications
protected the city, next the palace, and the innermost wall the temple."[58] At the time of Titus'
siege of Jerusalem, Tacitus describes its defenses: "...the city stands on an eminence;... the two

49
hills that rise to a great height had been included within walls that had been skillfully built ... The
rocks terminated in sheer cliffs and towers rose to a height of sixty feet where the hill assisted the
fortifications, and in the valleys they reached one hundred and twenty; they presented a wonderful
sight ... An inner line of walls had been built around the palace, and on a conspicuous height stands
Antony's tower ... in the hills are subterraneous excavations, with pools and cisterns for holding
rain-water."[59]

Cassius Dio briefly states that at the time of Titus' siege, some Romans thought that the city was
impregnable and went over to the other side. Its strength lay in the fact that it "had three walls,
including one that surrounded the temple" and that the Jews "had tunnels dug from inside the city
and extending out under the walls", from which they attacked the Roman water carriers.[60] Both
Tacitus and Cassius Dio emphasize the fortifications of the city and thus show the great
achievement of the Romans in capturing and devastating Jerusalem. The physical descriptions
clearly are subordinated to the aggrandizement of the Roman Empire.

The Use of the Term "Solyma" Several Roman writers after 70 CE use the term "Solyma"
(Jerusalem) in a derogatory manner. As discussed above, the explanation of the etymology of the
name of the city was part of the foundation narratives of Lysimachus, Plutarch and Tacitus. After
the destruction of Jerusalem, the term "Solyma" seems to have acquired a pejorative meaning used
in personal insults and accusations and not associated with its etymology. This use of the term
connotes both the derision of Judaism and a link with a defeated people and a destroyed city, whose
capture was difficult for the Romans.

Despite the fact that Jerusalem was in ruins and its inhabitants killed, exiled,
or sold into slavery, Judaism continued to be a source of attraction for the
Romans.

Apparently, despite the fact that Jerusalem was in ruins and its inhabitants killed, exiled, or sold
into slavery, Judaism continued to be a source of attraction for the Romans. In the late first century
CE, both Valerius Flaccus and Martial, the well-known coiner of epigrams, insult their non-Jewish
rivals and opponents by linking them with "Solyma." In his diatribe against Domitian, the brother
of Titus, the former notes that he is "foul with the dust of Solyma." The latter contemptuously
likens his rival to one who "comes from Solyma now consumed by fire and is lately condemned to
tribute."[61]

The term appears in the Satires of Juvenal (60-130 CE), who penned several barbs against Judaism,
which he viewed as superstitious nonsense and as destructive to Roman society and family life
because of its widespread popularity. He labels Jews as false prophets and beggars and ridicules
"a palsied Jewess" who is "an interpreter of the laws of Jerusalem" (Latin, legum Solymarum).[62]
In this instance, "Solyma" or "Jerusalem" means the hated religion of Judaism.

Conclusion
For ancient Greek and Roman pagan writers, Jerusalem was a Jewish city and the site of the
Temple, the holy place of the Jews. It was founded in the remote past by ancient Jews, possibly by
Moses, who led a pariah people, expelled from Egypt, and established its theology, laws, and
customs, which were and continued to be inimical to most of humanity.

50
The Temple was the religious center of the Jews where their hostility to others was reinforced.
Jerusalem was a strongly fortified and fertile city, attacked on several occasions by Greeks and
Romans. Although difficult to capture, because of its natural circumstances and its fortifications,
the Romans invaded it and later destroyed both the city and the Temple. All Jews were linked to
Jerusalem, through historical origins, financial contributions to the Temple, or religious
observances which derived from that city and its founder.

As Judaism was considered a type of xenophobic superstition, innately hostile to the pagan gods
and to the Greek and Roman way of life, and a threat to the Roman society because of its appeal
to many, the memory and term "Solyma" or "Hierosolyma" occasionally became a synonym for
all that was Jewish and abhorred by various Roman authors. Thus, the sole identity of Jerusalem
was its status as the "capital of the Jews."12

Footnotes

[1] Tacitus, Historiae V, 8:1, in Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of
Sciences and Humanities, Vol. II, No. 281,1980), 21,28. The Latin reads: "Hierosolyma genti caput." The term "gens" refers to the
people of Judea, the Jews, mentioned in the first part of the sentence. All sources in this article are from Stern's anthology, see note
9.

[2] Dennis Ross, The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux,
2004), 694, 699. It is noteworthy that the pagan town of Nablus (the Arabic pronunciation of the Greek "Neapolis") was founded
by the Roman Emperor Vespasian several years after his victory over the Jews and the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in
70 C.E. Neapolis, located in Samaria near the Biblical town of Shechem, had a pagan population. A brief popular summary of
officially supported and sanctioned rewriting and falsifying of the ancient history of Jerusalem and the region by the Palestinian
Authority, in order to negate their Jewish past, deny Jewish claims and replace them with those of Arabs, Muslims and Palestinians
may be found in Itamar Marcus & Barbara Crook, "Anti-Semitism among Palestinian Authority Academics," Post-Holocaust and
Anti-Semitism 69, 1 June 2008,.

[3] The vehement negations of the existence of a Jewish pre-Islamic past in the history of Jerusalem and numerous counter-
narratives claiming that the Temple was built by Adam or Abraham and later renovated by King Solomon and Herod have been
collected and analyzed by Yitzhak Reiter, From Jerusalem to Mecca and Back: The Muslim Rallying Around Jerusalem (Jerusalem:
Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, 2005). [Hebrew] For a summary in English see Nadav Shragai, "In the Beginning was Al-
Aqsa," Ha-Aretz, 27 November 2005. For the use of Muslim arguments in promoting plans for division of Jerusalem see Nadav
Shragai, "Jerusalem: The Danger of Division," 1-6 (Hebrew) http://www.jcpa.org/ . On Islamic appropriation of the Biblical Jewish
past see Jacob Lassner, "The Origins of Muslim Attitudes toward the Jews and Judaism," Judaism, 39, 4 (Fall, 1990), 494-507.
According to Lassner, "... the Muslim response to the Jews and Judaism stemmed from an intense competition to occupy the center
of a stage held sacred by both faiths. The story of the Jews was a history that Muslims appropriated in the Qur'an, its commentaries
and other Islamic texts," 497-98. The history of Jerusalem seems to belong to this category as well.

[4] For a cogent presentation of the issues, see Dore Gold, The Fight for Jerusalem: Radical Islam, the West, and the Future of the
Holy City (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2007). An excellent integration of historical and archeological sources may be found in
Lee I. Levine, Jerusalem: Portrait of a City in the Second Temple Period (538 BCE - 70 CE) (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication
Society, 2002), which clearly demonstrates the Jewish character of Jerusalem in the Second Temple period. On the Temple Mount

12
I should like to express my gratitude to Mr. David Zwebner and Mr. Menahem Lewinsky of the Hazvi Yisrael Synagogue in
Jerusalem who invited me to address the congregation at the Jerusalem Day commemoration on 1 June 2008, where I gave a
lecture in Hebrew on this subject which served as the inspiration for this article.

51
excavations see Eilat Mazar, The Complete Guide to the Temple Mount Excavations (Jerusalem: Shoham Academic and Research
Publication, 2002).

[5] Martin Goodman emphasizes the intense anti-Judaism of the Flavian dynasty (69-96 CE) which owed its prestige to the decisive
and brutal victory against the Jews. Furthermore, after the destruction of Jerusalem, the Flavians initiated an anti-Jewish policy in
order to show that "the conquest was being celebrated not just over Judea but over Judaism." Goodman argues that this Imperial
policy was a source of Christian anti-Judaism. Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations, (London: Penguin Books,
2007), 453 ff., 582 ff. Similarly, Rene S. Bloch relates the negative statements of Tacitus to the anti-Jewish discourse of the Flavian
era and their influence on Western attitudes to Jews and Judaism. Antike Foretelling vom Judentum: Der Judenexcursus des Tacitus
im Rahmen der Griechisch-Roemischen Ethnographie (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2002), 221-223. [German]
On Greek and Roman attitudes to Jews and Judaism see E. Gabba, "The Growth of anti-Judaism or the Greek Attitude towards
Jews," in W.D. Davies and L. Finkelstein eds., The Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol. II: The Hellenistic Age (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1989), 614-656; Louis H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press, 1993), especially 123-176; Peter Schaefer, Judeophobia: Attitudes toward the Jews in the Ancient
World (Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1997). On the origins of anti-Semitism in Egypt in the third century BCE and
the circumstances of the first pogrom against Jews, which took place in Alexandria in 38 CE, and was perpetrated by its Greek
majority see Manfred Gerstenfeld, Interview with P.W. van der Horst, "The Egyptian Beginning of Anti-Semitism's Long
History," Post Holocaust and Anti-Semitism, 62, 1 November 2007.

[6] Josephus, The Life; Against Apion, translated by H. St. John Thackery (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966).
For a summary of the history, importance, and contents of Against Apion see E. Schuerer, The History of the Jewish People in the
Age of Jesus Christ, revised by Geza Vermes and Fergus Millar (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973), I, 54-60. The most recent and
thorough study of Against Apion is: Louis H. Feldman & John R. Levison, eds., Josephus' Contra Apionem: Studies in Its Character

and Context (Leiden: Brill, 1996).

[7]Josephus, Against Apion, II: 151-296.

[8] Schuerer, I, 20-43, 63-68.

[9] Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, I-III (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities,
1974-84). My teacher and master, Professor Menahem Stern, of blessed memory, was professor of Jewish History of the Second
Temple Period at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Stern, a prolific scholar, and expert in Greek and Latin texts, was murdered
by a Palestinian terrorist while on his way to the Hebrew University and National Library in Jerusalem in 1989. For an earlier,
smaller anthology of Greek and Latin texts: Theodore Reinach, Textes d'auteurs grecs et romains relatifs au Judaisme (Paris:
Ernest Leroux, 1895). [French]

[10]Arnaldo Dante Momigliano, "The Hellenistic Discovery of Judaism," in: Alien Wisdom: The Limits of
Hellenization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 74-96. Momigliano states that "by the end of the sixth century B.C.,
they were already writing books on ethnography and geography," 74.

According to Bloch, passim., 222, Greek and Roman ethnographers related to the Jews differently than they did to other ancient
peoples whose dress, habitations, climate, and weaponry were discussed at length.

[11] Herodotus, Historiae II, 104:3; Stern, I, No. 1,,2.

[12] On the twentieth-century Palestinian Arab adoption and use of the terms "Palestine" and "Palestinian" as labels of ethnic
identification, which originally and for millennia were geographical terms see Bernard Lewis, "The Palestinians and the PLO: A
Historical Approach," Commentary, 59 (January, 1975), 32-48. Lewis notes that the Roman renamed Judea "Syria-Palestina" and

52
Jerusalem as "Aelia Capitolina" in 137 CE, in order to "stamp out the embers not only of the [Bar Kokhba] revolt but of Jewish
nationhood and statehood ... with the same intention - of obliterating its historic Jewish identity," 32.

[13] For a summary of scholarly interpretations of the varied reactions of Jews to the impact of Hellenism and the significance of
Hellenization in Jewish history of the Second Temple and Talmudic periods see L. Levine, "Hellenism and the Jewish World of
Antiquity," Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1998), 3-32.

[14] Momigliano, 90-91; Johanan Hans Lewy, "Aristotle and the Jewish Sage," in: Studies in Jewish Hellenism (Hebrew: Olamot
Nifgashim) (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1969), 15-43; Josephus, Against Apion, I, 176-183; Stern, I, VII, no. 15, 47-52.
[15] On the anti-Exodus narrative as a major motif of Greco-Roman anti-Semitism: Van der Horst; Schaefer, 15-33. Momigliano,
91-95, holds that the Greek authors either did not know of the account of the Exodus in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the
Torah or refused to acknowledge its historicity. In contrast, Erich S. Gruen maintains that these tales were not part of a concerted
pagan anti-Jewish campaign and they "do not derive from Egyptian distortion of Jewish legend, but the reverse, Jewish
inventiveness expropriated Egyptian myth." ("The Use and Abuse of the Exodus Story," Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention
of Jewish Tradition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 41-73, especially 71-73. Gruen's argument, however, is
neither relevant nor convincing as it is clear that the oft-repeated anti-Exodus tales indeed formed part of the essential underpinning
for anti-Judaism and Jew-hatred in the Greco-Roman world. For a reaction to Gruen, see John J. Collins, "Reinventing Exodus:
Exegesis and Legend in Hellenistic Egypt," Jewish Cult and Hellenistic Culture (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 44-57 and 191-193.

[16] The anti-Exodus texts by Hecataeus: Aegyptiaca, in: Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica XL:3 (Photius, Cod. 244) Stern,
I, V, no. 11, 1-8; pp. 20-35; in: Against Apion I, 183-204; Stern, I, V, no.12, pp.35-44; and by Manetho, in: Against Apion I, 73-
91, 93-105, 228-252; Stern, I, X, nos.19-21, 66-86. On theories concerning the date of the texts attributed to Hecataeus, see Note
21.

[17] Van der Horst, op.cit.

[18] Daniel R. Schwartz, "Introduction," Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity (Tuebingen: Mohr, 1992), 10-15,
attributes the wide-spread phenomenon of conversion to Judaism, a way of life and set of beliefs which transcended territorial
boundaries, to the influence of the massive acculturation to Hellenism throughout the Mediterranean world, whereby one could
become Hellenized without living in Greece. On the attraction of Judaism and the success of proselytism among Greeks and
Romans see Feldman, 177-341. J.H. Lewy, "The Second Temple Period in Light of Greek and Roman Literature", op.cit., 3-14,
argues the crises which stimulated anti-Jewish writing were the influx of Jews into Ptolemaic Egypt during the third century BCE,
the triumph of the Hasmonean dynasty (mid-late second century BCE) against the Greek Seleucids, Hasmonean policies toward
Greeks, the subjugation of formerly Greek dominions to the Romans, and the crisis fomented by Roman Emperor Gaius Caligula's
insistence on worshipping his statue. Later Roman intellectuals perceived attraction to Judaism and Jewish missionary activity as
undermining their traditional way of life. Repeating the anti-Exodus material in order to support his campaign against the rights of
Jews, Apion led the Greek delegation to the Emperor Gaius Caligula (37-41CE) during the period of inter-ethnic crisis in
Alexandria, aggravated by the Imperial policies and the pogrom of 38 CE. On Alexandria, see: Van der Horst op.cit;
Schaefer, Judeophobia, 136-160; and Collins, "Anti-Semitism in Antiquity? The Case of Alexandria," op.cit., 181-201.

[19] Tacitus, Historiae V: 4:1, Stern, II, XCII, no. 281,19, 25. According to Bloch, 221-223, Tacitus' excursus on the Jews reflects
the anti-Jewish discourse of the Flavian era and beliefs in the superiority of the Roman Empire. See Goodman, 453 ff. Erich S.
Gruen, however, downplays any notion of a "long-simmering hostility" as the basis of anti-Jewish expression in the wake of the
revolt in Judea and attributes negative Roman attitudes to the shock of the challenge of a "laughable" people. Gruen, "Roman
Perspectives on the Jews in the Age of the Great Revolt," in Andrea M. Berlin & J. Andrew Overman, The First Jewish Revolt:
Archaeology, History, Ideology (London: Routledge, 2002), 27-39.

[20] Manetho's references to Jerusalem come from his Aegyptiaca, refuted by Josephus in Against Apion I, 90; I, 93; I, 228; Stern,
I, X, no.19, 68-69; no. 20, 74-75; no. 21, 78,81,83.

[21] Hecataeus, in Stern, I, V, no. 11, 26-28. According to Stern (I, 20-24), Hecataeus wrote in c. 300 BCE. His Aegyptiaca comes

53
down to us from the first century B.C.E. work of Diodorus Siculus via the tenth-century Bibliotheca of Photius. Diodorus may have
altered the original text. In Against Apion I, 183-204, Josephus includes a selection entitled "On the Jews" by Hecataeus, which
was regarded as the earliest Greek description of the Temple and Jerusalem. Several scholars have challenged the authenticity of
the passages in Josephus. Stern presents the commonly accepted opinion that "Josephus had before him a Jewish revision, however
slight" which was more pro-Jewish than the original Hecataeus (I, 23-24). However, an exhaustive study of the material which
Josephus attributes to Hecataeus, asserts that it was written by an Egyptian Jew of the late second- early first century BCE and not
by Hecataeus at all, see Bezalel Bar Kochba, Pseudo-Hecataeus' On the Jews: Legitimizing the Jewish Diaspora (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1996), especially 110-121, 249-252. This view suits Erich S. Gruen's later thesis (Note 15), although
it is not universally accepted. See also Bloch, 29-36.

[22] On Moses in pagan writing: Feldman, Jew, and Gentile, 232-287. On the Greek logic behind the identity of the founder of the
religion, conqueror of the land and builder of the shrine see Bloch, 34, Note 38. Josephus, Against Apion II: 154-178, 352-365.
Josephus argues that Moses is the oldest legislator in human history and that his laws are superior to those of other peoples, and
they are accessible to all.

[23] Diodorus, Bibliotheca Historica XXXIV, 1: 1,2, 3, in : Stern, I, XXXII, no. 63.

[24] Lysimachus, in: Against Apion I, 304-311; Stern, I, LXII, no.158, 383-386. Stern notes that Lysimachus' reference to
"Hierosyla" is an example of the etymology of a name of a nation (386, no.311).

[25] Tacitus, Historiae V, 2:1-2; Stern, II, XCII, no. 281, 17-18, 24-25. Stern points out that Tacitus' references to "Hierosolymus
"and "Iuda" resemble those of his contemporary Plutarch (33, Note 2:2). For Plutarch: Stern, I, XCI, No. 259, 563..

[26] Tacitus, Historiae V, 3: 1-5:5; Stern, II, XCII, no. 281, 18-19, 25-27.

[27] Tacitus, Historiae V, 6:1-13:4; Stern, II, XCII, no. 281, 19-23, 27-31. Bloch, 102-107, points out correctly that Tacitus devotes
hardly any attention to the political history of Judea prior to the Great Revolt, siege of Jerusalem by Titus. It simply did not interest
him. The otherness of the Jewish religion, which he knew from the Jews of Rome, however, merited his critique (Bloch, 222-223).
[28] Menander of Ephesus, in Against Apion I, 126; Stern, I, XX, no.35, 120-121; Dius, in Against Apion I, 114-115; Stern, I, XXI,
No. 36, 124-125; Laetus, in Stern, I, XXIII, No.39, 128-129. Perhaps these authors were acquainted with the Biblical account which
describes the relationship between Solomon and Hiram and the latter's role in providing materials for the Temple or obtained their
information from an unknown Phoenician source.

[29] Hecataeus "On the Jews", in Against Apion I, 198-199; Stern, I, V, No.12, 36-37, 39. See Note 21 on the problems relating to
this passage. Bar Kochba, 153-154, 160-168, states that the author, Pseudo-Hecataeus, an Egyptian Jew at the turn of the first
century BCE, based his description on Greek literary models of temples and was acquainted with pagan temples and their
surroundings. Therefore, the Temple in Jerusalem is not the structure described in the text.
[30] Tacitus, Historiae V:12:1 (Stern, II, XCII, no. 281) 22,30.

[31] Hecataeus, in Diodorus, Aegyptiaca, Bibliotheca Historica XL, 3, 4-6; Stern, I, V, No. 11, 26-28.

[32] Livy, in Stern, I, XLVI, No. 133, 330. Tacitus, Historiae V: 8:1, 9:1; Stern, II, XCII, No. 281, 21, 28. Tacitus relates that only
after Pompey's invasion of the Temple in 63BCE did the emptiness of the sanctuary become common knowledge. He does not
repeat the Greek calumnies and rumors about the sanctuary.

[33] Cassius Dio, Historia Romana XXXVII, 17:2-3; Stern, II, CXXII, No.406, 349, 351.

54
[34] Diodorus, Bibliotheca Historica, XXXIV:2-4; Stern, I, XXXII, No.63, 182-183. On the pagan accusation of Jewish ass
worship see Schaefer, 58-62.

[35] This account differs from the Jewish versions of Antiochus IV invasion of Jerusalem and desecration of the Temple of I and
II Maccabees. While all stress Antiochus' attempts to abolish Jewish practices, Diodorus states that after taking tribute from the
Jews and dismantling the walls of Jerusalem, he left the Jews alone. He does not mention the Jews led by Judah the Maccabee
taking the Temple from Antiochus' soldiers and supporters and consecrating it.

[36] Posidonius, in: Against Apion II, 80, 89-96; Stern, I, XXVIII, No. 44, 145-146; Apollonius Molon, in: Against Apion II, 80,
89-96; Stern, I, XXIX, No. 48, 12-154; Apion, in: Against Apion II, 80-90-96; Stern, I, LXIII, no.170, 408-412.

[37] Ibid.

[38] Ibid.

[39] An explanation of the origins of Apion's accusation of cannibalism on the part of the Jews may be found in Stern, I, 412, Note
89. See also Schaefer, 62-67. Periodic kidnapping and killing of a Gentile, of course, occurs in the medieval blood libels, the first
of which took place in Norwich, England in 1144. There are vast differences between Apion's claims and the context of blood libels
in Europe, in which innocent Christian children appear as the victims, murdered by Jews who use their blood for Passover rituals.
[40] Cicero, Pro Flacco 28:66-69; Stern, I, XXXIV, No.68, 196-201. On Cicero's attitude to the Jews see J. Lewy, "Cicero and the
Jews in the Pro Flacco, " op.cit ., 79-114. According to Feldman, 70, the Jews were so loyal to Jerusalem and the Temple that they
were prepared to defy a Roman edict and send large sums of money to the Temple.

[41] Tacitus, Historiae V, 5:1; Stern, II, XCII, No. 281, 19, 26. Both Bloch, 93 and Feldman, 110, state that the fact that the
numerous proselytes also paid the annual half-shekel to the Temple in Jerusalem resulted in the accumulation of vast sums of
money collected throughout the Empire and sent to the Temple treasury, thus causing Gentile envy of Jewish wealth and antipathy
toward converts to Judaism.

[42] Tacitus, Historiae V, 8:1; Stern, II, XCII, no. 281, 21, 28.

[43] Tacitus, Historiae V, 8:2; Stern, ibid.

[44]Against Apion I, 209-211; Stern, I, XVII, No. 30a, 106-107.

[45] Cassius Dio, Historia Romana XXXVII, 15:2:1-4: Stern, II, XCII, No. 281, 21, 28. Josephus praises and describes at length
the fact that the Jews did not put up defenses around Jerusalem during Pompey's campaign in order not to desecrate the Sabbath
and thus facilitated his invasion of the city and the Temple (Jewish War I: 145-147; Jewish Antiquities XIV: 63-65).
[46] On the Feast of Tabernacles: Plutarch, Quaestiones Convivales IV: 6:2, in: Stern, I, XCI, No.258, .553-554, 557-558. On

[47] Plutarch, Regum et Imperatorum Apophthegmata; Stern I, XCI, No. 260, 563-564. For a similar reference to the siege of
Jerusalem by Antiochus VII Sidetes on the Feast of Tabernacles see Josephus, Jewish Antiquities XIII: 242-248. Josephus,
however, points out that Antiochus withdrew the siege, whereas Plutarch states that the Jews were amazed and placed themselves
in his hands.

[48] Livy, Periochae CII; Stern, I, XLVI, No. 131, 329.

55
[49] Cicero states that Pompey "'laid his victorious hands on nothing in that shrine,'" Pro Flacco 28:67; Stern, I, XXXIV, No. 68,
196-197; Tacitus, Historiae V, 9:1; Stern, II, XCII, No.281, 21, 28, notes that during Pompey's invasion "the walls of Jerusalem
were razed and the Temple remained standing." Cassius Dio, Historia Romana XXXVII, 15:2:1-4; Stern, II, CXXII, no. 406, 349-
350, briefly describes the difficulty of capturing the Temple, but unlike the others, writes that "its wealth was plundered." In both
the Jewish War I: 152-153 and Jewish Antiquities XIV: 72, Josephus praises Pompey's virtuous character and the fact that he
touched none of the gold and Temple vessels.

[50] Tacitus; Stern, II, XCII, Nos. 273-294,1-93; Cassius Dio; Stern, II, CXXII, Nos. 406-441, 345-407. On Tacitus' depiction of
Vespasian and Titus in light of the Jewish revolt, see Bloch, 137-142.

[51] Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, "Divus Titus" 5:2; Stern, II, XCIV, No. 317, 125-126.

[52] Cassius Dio, Historia Romana LXIX, 12:1; Stern, II, CXXII, No. 440, 391-392.

[53] Against Apion I: 197; Stern, I, V, No. 12, 36, 39. Bar Kochba, 110-113, argues that this description of a walled and fortified
city serves as part of the proof of a later date and a different author of the passage attributed to Hecataeus by Josephus.
[54] Against Apion I:209; Stern, I, XVII, No. 30a, 106-107.

[55] Timochares, in: Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica IX:35:1; Stern, I, XXV, No. 41, 135. Stern explains the source of the
exaggerated figures.

[56] Xenophon of Lampsascus, in PE IX: 36:1; Stern, I, XXVI, No. 42, 138.

[57] Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia V:71: Stern, I, LXXVIII, No. 204, 469, 471-472.

[58] Tacitus, Historiae V, 8:1; Stern, II, XCII, No. 281, 21, 28. On Tacitus' physical description of Judea and Jerusalem in
comparison with his geographical data about other locations, see Bloch, 101-102.

[59] Tacitus, Historiae V, 11:3; Stern, II, XCII, no. 281, 22, 30. The most detailed physical description of Jerusalem and the Temple
prior to the siege of Titus may be found in Josephus, The Jewish War, V, 136-247.

[60] Cassius Dio, Historia Romana LXVI, 4:1; Stern, II, CXXII, No. 430, 371, 373.

[61] Valerius Flaccus , Argonautica, I, 14; Stern, I, LXXIX, No. 226, 504-505; Martial, Epigrammata, VII,82, 7; Stern, I, LXXXIV,
No. 242, 526.

[62] Juvenal, Saturae, VI, 542-544; Stern, II, XCIII, No. 299, 100-101. On the threat of Judaism as perceived by the Romans: Stern
II, 94-95,106-107. Both Tacitus and Juvenal, displayed their contempt for proselytes (Bloch, 134-135) and their dislike of all
peoples, whether Jews, Germans or Greeks, who did not behave like Romans (Goodman, 110, 160; Bloch, 136-137).

56

What Jews call the Temple Mount rises above the remains of a Greek citadel
exposed by an archaeological dig in Jerusalem.

Jerusalem Dig Uncovers Ancient Greek Citadel

In the shadow of Jerusalem’s city walls, archaeologists have found a fortress that spawned a
bloody rebellion more than two millennia ago.

A N D R E W L A W L E R W R I T E S : 13
Israeli archaeologists have uncovered the remnants of an impressive fort built more than two
thousand years ago by Greeks in the center of old Jerusalem. The ruins are the first solid evidence
of an era in which Hellenistic culture held sway in this ancient city.

The citadel, until now known only from texts, was at the heart of a bloody rebellion that
eventually led to the expulsion of the Greeks, an event still celebrated by Jews at Hanukkah. But
the excavation in the shadow of the Temple Mount, called Haram esh-Sharif by Muslims, is
stirring controversy in this politically charged land.

“We now have massive evidence that this is part of the fortress called the Acra,” said Doron
Ben-Ami, an archaeologist with the Israeli Antiquities Authority who is leading the effort.

13
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/article/160422-israel-jerusalem-hellenistic-archaeology-passover-hanukkah

57
Situated under what had long been a parking lot between the Temple Mount to the north and the
Palestinian village of Silwan to the south, the site is now a huge rectangular hole that plunges
more than three stories below the streets. On a recent visit, workers cleared away dirt as Ben-
Ami jumped from rock to rock, enthusiastically pointing out newly excavated features.

Massive stones as well as smaller rock provided clues to the identity of the
fortress. Roman houses and a Byzantine orchard later covered the site, which
more recently was a parking lot.14

Alexander the Great conquered Judea in the 4th century B.C., and his successors quarreled over
the spoils. Jerusalem, Judea’s capital, sided with Seleucid King Antiochus III to expel an
Egyptian garrison, and a grateful Antiochus granted the Jews religious autonomy. For a century
and a half, Greek culture and language flourished here. Yet archaeologists have found few
artifacts or buildings from this important era that shaped Jewish culture.

Conflicts between traditional Jews and those influenced by Hellenism led to tensions, and Jewish
rebels took up arms in 167 B.C. The revolt was put down, and Antiochus IV Epiphanes sacked
the city, banned traditional Jewish rites, and set up Greek gods in the temple.

According to the Jewish author of 1 Maccabees, a book written shortly after the revolt, the
Seleucids built a massive fort in “the city of David with a great and strong wall, and with strong
towers.” Called the Acra—from the Greek for a high, fortified place—it was a thorn in the side
of Jews who resented Greek dominance.

14
ALL: P H O T O G R A P H Y B Y X I N H U A , J I N I , X I N H U A P R E S S , C O R B I S

58
In 164 B.C., Jewish rebels led by Judah Maccabee took Jerusalem and liberated the temple, an
event commemorated in the festival of Hanukkah. But the rebels failed to conquer the Acra. For
more than two decades, the rebels tried in vain to overwhelm the fortress. Finally in 141 B.C.,
Simon Maccabee captured the stronghold and expelled the remaining Greeks.

Towering Over the Temple?

What happened next has confused and divided scholars for more than a century. According to
historian Josephus Flavius, a Jew who served Rome in the first century A.D., Simon Maccabee
spent three years tearing down the Acra, ensuring that it no longer towered over the temple.

The temple was located to the north of the City of David, on ground more than a hundred feet
above the boundaries of early Jerusalem, so Josephus’s story explained this geographical puzzle.
But the author of 1 Maccabees insisted that Simon actually strengthened the fortifications and
even made it his residence.

This discrepancy spawned many theories in the past century, but no solid archaeological
evidence.

When an Israeli organization named the Ir David Foundation announced plans to build a museum
on top of the parking lot, Ben-Ami began a salvage excavation in 2007.

Archaeologists exposed a Roman villa close to the Greek fortress. After the
citadel’s destruction, the site became a residential area.

59
His team dug through successive layers, from an early Islamic market, through a Byzantine
orchard and a hoard of 264 coins from the seventh century, under an elaborate Roman villa, and
then beyond a first-century place for ritual Jewish bathing. Under buildings that pottery and coins
demonstrated to be from the early centuries B.C., the archaeologists found layers of what looked
like random rubble.

But the rubble turned out to be carefully placed rocks that formed a glacis, or a defensive slope
protruding from a massive wall. “The stones are in layers, at an angle of 15 degrees at the bottom
and 30 degrees at the top,” Ben-Ami said, gesturing at color-coded cards pinned into each layer.
“This wasn’t a building that collapsed; this was put here on purpose.”

The team also found coins that date from the time of Antiochus IV to the time of Antiochus VII,
who was the Seleucid king when the Acra fell. “We also have Greek arrowheads, slingshots, and
ballistic stones,” he added. “And also amphorae of imported wine.” Since observant Jews drank
only local wine, that suggests the presence of foreigners or those influenced by non-Jewish ways.

Sling stones and arrowheads found in and around the Greek fortress attest
to pitched battles fought by Greek and Jewish defenders against those Jews
opposed to Hellenistic control of Jerusalem.

Ben-Ami found no sign that the fortress was dismantled abruptly, or that the entire hill was
leveled, as Josephus claimed. Instead, the succeeding Jewish kingdom under Hasmonean rule

60
cut into the glacis during construction in later years. Hasmonean and later Roman builders reused
the cut stones for other structures, eating away at the Greek citadel.

Still a Site of Conflict

The find lays to rest theories that placed the Acra north of the temple, immediately adjacent to
it, or on the high ground to the west that is now covered by the current walled city. No one is
more delighted by the discovery than Bezalel Bar-Kochva, an emeritus historian at Tel Aviv
University. He wrote a 1980 article suggesting that the fort could be found exactly where Ben-
Ami dug—a few hundred meters south of the Temple Mount, in the midst of the old City of
David.

“By the time of Josephus,” he said, “Jerusalem had spread to the west and north, and the city of
David was a low spot.” Bar-Kochva believes that the author copied a spurious tale by a Greek
historian about Simon’s effort to level the Acra in order to account for this.

Oren Tal, an archaeologist at Tel Aviv University not associated with the dig, said that Ben-
Ami’s discovery is the “best possible candidate” for the Acra. “The find is fascinating,” added
Israeli archaeologist Yonathan Mizrachi. “This suggests that Jerusalem was for a longer time a
Hellenistic city in which foreigners were dominant, and who built more than we thought.”

Mizrachi, who heads a consortium of scholars called Emek Shaveh, opposes the museum
development because it will damage the ruins. An Israeli planning board last June ordered the Ir
David Foundation to scale back the size of the complex. Mizrachi also complains that local
residents, who are mostly Palestinian, have not been consulted or involved in the dig that is,
almost literally, on their doorsteps. He noted that Ir David supports Jewish settlement of the
occupied territories, including the Silwan neighborhood.

Meanwhile, Palestinians in Silwan said that the work has led to dangerous cracks in walls and
foundations of neighboring houses that threaten their safety.

There is a deeper concern among residents that the dig, however illuminating for scholars, is a
step toward dismantling their village. “This excavation is not searching for history,” said Jawad
Siam, director of the Madaa Community Center based in Silwan. “It’s designed to serve a
settlement project.”

Ir David officials did not respond to requests for comment. “When Jerusalem calls, you never
say no,” said Ben-Ami. “My expertise is in archaeology, not politics.”

61