Jewish Religious Leadership Image and Reality Edited by Jack Wertheimer Volume | The Jewish & Theological Seminaryties that may have enhanced his effectiveness as a leader: While par- ticipating in the larger culture, he clearly defined his values. He presented the Jews and their beliefs and practices in ways that might have broad appeal. Finally, he displayed an overriding commitment to the entire Jewish nation—a commitment strengthened by his vision of the nation’s special worth, + Hillel and the Soldiers of Herod Sage and Sovereign in Ancient Jewish Society Richard Kalmin yy all accounts, Hillel was one of the greatest Jewish sages who fever lived. Scholars disagree, however, about virtually every aspect of his life and intellectual contribution. Few scholars would claim today that we can write a biography of Hillel, and there is no consensus about all but the most basic facts about him: (1) he prob- ably existed; and (2) he was a Torah scholar who probably flour- ished during the reign of King Herod. About everything else, there is controversy. What was the content of the Torah Hillel studied and taught? Was Hillel the founder of the Gamalielite patriarchate? Did he have the title of nasi (leader, patriarch)? If so, was he a nasi like nesi’im of future centuries, or did the shared title conceal very differ- ent powers and responsibilities? Was Hillel’s rise to power an event of national significance, or of importance only to a tiny elite? Our sources regarding this period of Jewish history are so scarce that scholars have been forced to devote lengthy essays to the exege- sis of a few stray passages, but unfortunately the vividness of their aginations has often far outstripped their ability to base firm con- ig reading of the available evidence. The story of Hillel’s rise to power, which survives in three different versions {see below), is the most detailed, elaborate, and sophisticated tradi- tion about him, and not surprisingly it is the subject of an extensive scholarly literature. The story is particularly important because it purports to describe an encounter between Hillel and agents of King Herod, and numerous scholars take seriously the possibility that at least parts of the story are historically accurate. It seems to provide invaluable information about (1) the relationship between the king and the period’s most important Pharisaic sage, and (2) the role of sages in Jewish society during the Second Temple period. Close anal- 9192 Richard Kalmin: ysis of the story’s various versions will help us evaluate their theories and will have important implications for our understanding of a sig- nificant chapter in the history of the Jewish people.! We will attempt to show that most of the theories based on these narratives fail to stand up to close scrutiny, in large part because scholars have failed to make use of the techniques of modern Talmud criticism. To be specific, this paper argues that despite appearances to the contrary, the story of Hillel’s rise to power does not supply evidence of interaction between Hillel and agents of the king. There is no proof from this source that Hillel and Herod had anything to do with each other. There is a distant possibility that Josephus describes interactions between them,? but the story of Hillel’s rise to power does not. This tradition does not support the historical claim that Hillel defeated Herod’s agents in argument, or that he convinced them to step down from their positions of authority and appoint him in their place. There is less evidence than we thought previously that sages were politically powerful in second Temple Jewish society. What does it say about Jewish society of the Herodian period that its king and its greatest Pharisaic sage had (virtually?) nothing, to do with one another? Perhaps this ply a lacuna in our sources; more likely it is an indication of the marginality of sages, who for the most part were not important enough to warrant Herod's attention. A few scattered stories in Josephus, the New Tes- tament, and rabbinic literature relate the deeds of sages who are politically powerful or who act, at least in an ad hoc fashion, in the political sphere during the reign of Herod and his descendants.> These stories compel us to be cautious about drawing far-reaching conclusions based on the analysis of a cluster of rabbinic traditions 1, For a critique of some of their efforts, see Yonah Fraenkel, “Hermeneutical Questions in the Investigation of Haggadic Nareative” (Hebrew), Tarbiz 47 (1948): 149-57. See also Henry A. Fishel, “Story and History: Observations on Greco-Roman Rhetoric and Phatis West Branch, Semi-Centennial Volume, ed. Denis Sinor (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1969), 68-69, 2. Josephus Antiquities 13.3-4, 368-71; cf. 14.172, For modern scholarship on this issue, see, for example, Yisrael Ben-Shalom, The School of Shamma and the Zealots Struggle against Rome (Hebeew) (Jersualem: Yad Yituhak Ben-Zvi, 1993), 289-91, and the literature cited there. 3. See, for example, Josephus Antiquities 14.158-84 (cf. Josephus War 1.204-12, and b, Sanhedrin 19a-b); Ar fies 15.3, 368-72, 17.41-44 (cf. War 1.571- 72); Antiquities 18.12-15; Acts 5:34, 23:6- ». Baba Batra 3b-4a. | and the Soldiers of Herod 93 about a single individual. My claim is simply that as a result of the careful analysis of this cluster of traditions, there is less reason than earlier scholars thought to view Phatisaic sages as politically power- ful during Herodian times, as rivals of King Herod himself, Iam not the first to make this claim about the Pharisees; Jacob Neusner did so approximately twenty-five years ago.’ His conclusions, however, which were not based on careful scrutiny of all of the relevant rab. binic sources, have been disputed by many scholars. A fresh exami- nation of the evidence is therefore a desideratum, |. Three Versions of Hi is Rise to Power According to a theory accepted widely’ by scholars, Ziknei Beteira (henceforth “the Bathyrans”),® who figure prominently in the story of Hillel’s rise 10 power (sée below), are descendants of Zameris, a Babylonian who, with the backing of Herod, established a military colony in the city of Bathyra in southwestern Syria, ” This view, first propounded by Heinrich Graetz, is accepted and summarized by Seth Schwartz: “All in all, the coincidence of the name Bathyra, and the fact that both the ‘benei Bathyra’ and Josephus’ Bathyrans are described as active from roughly the reign of Herod until sometime shortly after the destruction, make the identity of the two a strong probability.”® 4. See Jacob Neusnes, Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70, part 3 (19715 repr, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 257-8. 5. Although not universally. See, for example, Aaron Hyman, Biographies of the Tannains and Amoraim (Hebrew) (London: Ha-Express, 1910), 365-66; Joseph Klausner, History of the Second Temple (Hebrew), 2nd ed, (Jerusalem, Ahiasaf, 1950), 4: 56-57. See also the reservations expressed by Isaiah Gafni, The Jews of Babylonia in the Talmudic Era (Hebtew) (Jerusalem: Merkaz Zal ‘man Shazar le-Toldot Yisrael, 1990), 69-70. 6. Except when greater precision is required. The Bathyrans are generally referred ‘0 as Ziknei Beteira in Palestinian compilations, and as Benei Beteira in the Bavli. They are also referred to once, in Genesis Rabbah 33, ed. J. Theodor and H. Albeck (1903-39; corrected repr, Jerusalem: Wahtmann, 1965), a Palestin- jan text, as Beit Beteira. See the discussion below. 7. Josephus Antiquities 17.23-31. See also Life 55-61 8. Heinrich Graetz, “Die Sohne Bethyra,” Monatsschrift fir Geschichte und Wis- senschaft des Judentums 1 (1852): 115-20; Seth Schwarta, Josephus and Judaean Politics (Leiden: Brill, 1980), 202 n, 105. See also Gedalia Alon, “Theoe Richard Kalmin Many scholars have attempted to reconcile Josephus’s portrayal of the Bathyrans as soldiers with the Talmud’s portrayal of them as sages. An important factor which these scholars have not taken into account, however, is the phenomenon of rabbinization. That is, the apparent contradiction between the Bathyrans portrayed by Jose- phus and those portrayed by the rabbis may be one of many mani- festations of the rabbinic tendency to portray non-tabbis as rabbis.'° The “contradiction” may be a function of the nature of rabbinic sources rather than a serious objection to the claim that the Bathyrans of Josephus and the rabbis are closely related, if not iden- tical, to one another. The three versions of Hillel’s rise to power, found in the Tosepta, the Yerushalmi, and the Bavli, are arranged in synoptic fashion on the pages that follow.!? Patriarchate of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai” (Hebrew), in Studies in Jewish History in the Times of the Second Temple, the Mishnab, and the Talmud (Hebrew) (Tel Aviv; Ha-Kibbus ha-Me’ubad, 1957), 1: 263-67. 9. Alon, “Patriarchate”; Schuvastz, Josephus. 10. See, for example, William Scott Green, “Palestinian Holy Men: Charismatic Leadership and Rabbinic Tradition,” Aufsteig und Niedergang der Rmischen Welt 2.19.2 (1979), 619-47; Baruch Bokser, “Wonder-working and the Rab- binic Tradition: The Case of Hanina ben Dosa,” Journal for the Study of Juda- ism 16 (1983): 42-92; Richard Kalmin, “Christians and Heretics in Rabbinic ity.” Harvard Theological Review 87 (1994): 156-60; idem, “Rabbinic Portrayals of Biblical and Post-biblical Heroes,” in The Syr- ‘optic Problem in Rabbinic Literature, ed. Shaye J. D. Cohen (Providence: Brown University Press, 2000), 119-41; idem, “Holy Men, Rabbis, and Demonic Sages in Late Antiquity,” in Jewish Culture and Society in the Chris- tian Roman Enspire,e6, Richard Kalmin and Seth Schwartz (Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 234-45, 11, Throughout this study, quotations feom the Mishna are introduced by a lower- case “m."; from the Tosefta by a lower-case “1.”; from the Yerushalmi by a lowercase “y.”; and from the Bavli by a lower-case “b.” and the Soldiers of Herod 95 t Pesahim 4:13-15 | _y. Pesahim 6:1 (33a) | _. Pesahim 66a-b 1. This law" was unknown | 1 Our rabbis taught This 20 ZikneiBathyra, Jay! was unknown to Benei Barhyra ) One time the fourteenth | 2) One time the Fourteenth | a) One time the fourteenth {of Nisan] fell on Shabbat | fof Nisa fellon Shabbat | [of Nisaa] fellon Shabbat, 2.and they did nor know — | 2. They forgot and did not whether or not the Pesah | know whether or not the overrides Shabbat, Pesab overrides Shabbat i. They said, “Is ehere a man who knows whether ‘or not the Pesab overrides Shabbat?” 3. They stid, “There isa | 3. They said to [Ren Babylonian here and Hille! | Bathyral, *Theve is one Js his name. ‘man who came up from Babylonia, and Hillel the Babylonian i his name, 4.He served Shemaya and _ | 4. He served as disciple of Avtalion as disciple and | the two greats of the knows whether of not the 5. They sent and sum 5. They sent and sum ‘moned him, ‘moned bim. ‘| They suid to him, “Have | b) They said to him, “Do Ihenceforth | you heard whether or not | you know whether oF not oes itover- | the Pesab overrides Shabbat | the Pesah overrides Shab. ride Shabbat?" when the fourteenth fof | bat?” Nisan] falls on Shabbat?” | [Hillel] said to them, | c) He said to them, “Do we "Do we have only ane Pesab in year that over. | yeat that overides Shab- year that over: rides Shabbat? Do we nor | bat? Do-we not have sev- abbae? Do we not have more than 300 Pesah | eral Pesabim in a year that | have many more than 200 sacrifices [henceforth override Shabbat?” Pesahim io a year that over- Pesehim") ina year that ride Shabbat?” override Shabbat?” 4) The entire coureyard <) They aid to him, “Hove gathered against him, {do you know this?” 6. He began to expound 10 ‘them by means of an anal (0g), a0 3 fortor argament, and a Scriptural esem- blanc — mn ‘The phrase sranslated as “this law" in both the Yerushalrl and the Davll bs without an antecedent. This anomaly will gure inthe ensuing discussion of these texts.Richard Kaimin B. Pesahim 66a-b ing a commu and overrides regarding the daly of overrides Shabbat, s0 %00 regarding the daily offering {means that} overrides sides Shabbar.” le! and the Soldiers of Herod & Pesahimn 1315 “Temple?” a person does ‘pot make an argument from Scriptural resem- ‘lance on his own [without expounded to them a did noe accept from him until he said to them, “Thus Ihave heardRichard Kaimin y. Pesahim 6:1 (33a) Bb. Pesahim 66a-b Hille! and the Soldiers of Herod 99 © Pesahim 4: ¥: Pesahim 6:1 (33a) are not prophers chey are descendants of prophets.” ke) What did Israel do at that time? 1) He whose Pesah was a Keife}berween its horns ‘m) And they brought knives and Pesahim tothe Temple and slaughtered thei Pesshim. 1) On that very day they appointed Hillel nasi (0) and he taughe them the laws of Pesa. 1) When they heard that rom him, they stood and 12. When they appointed him nasi over them he ‘began zo scold them, say- ing, "Whar caused you to require this Babylonian? Is, it not because you did not serve as disciples tothe two areas ofthe world, She- among you?” 413. When he scolded them, be forgot the law. They ssid to im, “What wwe do forthe people, who did nor bring their kenives2" 14, He said to them “I beard this law but forgot 5) Bur leave Israel alone; if they are ot prophets are the descendants of prophess.” 2) Immediately they sat him athe head and appointed him nasi over them and he expounded the laws of Pesab al da: 12, He began to rebuke them. He said to them, “Whar brought it about that I came up from Baby- lonia and became nasi over you? Was itnot your lazi= ness, that you did not serve a8 disciples ofthe vo greats of the generation, Shemaya and Avtaion?” i) They said to him, “If he foxgot and did not bring a knife befoce Shabbat, what [isthe law} 14. He said to them, “1 heard this law but forgot it i) Bur leave lac alone if ‘hey ace not prophets they are the descendants of prophes.” B. Pesahim 66a-b TD Tamediately everyone hose Pesab was a sheep stuck [the kn lube knife) A goat, he ted it between | whose Pes its horns stuek [the kn horns The nexe day, he whose Pesah was a sheep stuck its wool, He sm) Ie turned out that thie Pesahim broughe their kenves with them. 15. When he sw what hap- | 15. Hillel] saw what hap- pened he remembered the | pened and remembered the law law 16.Me said, “Thos Lheard | 16, and said, “Thus, 1 from Shemaya and Avtal- | received from Shemaya jon.” and Avtalion.” Il. The Bathyrans Elsewhere in Rabbinic Literature, and Scholarly Theories about Their Role in Jewish Society Scholars who take seriously Talmudic claims that Hillel! succeeded the Bathyrans as nasi (see below) are puzzled by their obscurity else- where in rabbinic literature, What are we to make of nesi’im (patri- archs, leaders) who left no evidence of achievement and are not named in rabbinic lists of authoritative teachers?!> Numerous schol. arly responses to this question have been attempted. Isaac Hirsch Weiss, for example, claims that the Bathyrans were deliberately slighted by rabbinic tradition because they were appointees, and therefore lackeys, of Herod. Louis Finkelstein points our that too much has been made of this Problem because none of the versions of the Hillel story actually refer to the Bathyrans as patriarchs. Finkelstein observes that while 12. According to the printed editions of the Bavl Bathyra once address Hillel as “Rabbi.” This is an obvious anachronism, how. res since the ttm is applied to sages only after the destruction ofthe Temple, See Vario lectiones in Mischnam et in Talmud babylonicmn (Hebrew), ed, Raphael Rabinowiex (1868-97; repr, Jerusalem: Ma'ayan.ha-Hokhmeh, 1960), 13, 1m, Hagiga 2:2, m,“Abot 1. 14, Isaac Hirsch Weis, The History of the Jewish Tradition (Hebsew) (1871-91; rept Jerusalem: Deyo, 1964), 1: 145, version of the stor100 Richard Kalmin several traditions scattered throughout rabbinic literature state explicitly chat the Bathyrans stepped down in favor of Hillel, only one of these traditions mentions their having been nesi’im.'> The ensuing discussion briefly surmmarizes his arguments. One of the relevant sources is found in parallel versions." 1 will translate one of the versions, making note of important variants found in the parallels. The text in Genesis Rabbah is as follows: Our Rabbi [Rabbi Yehuda Ha-Nasi] was very humble. He said, “Whatever anyone says to me I will do except for what Beit [“Ziknei” in both parallels in the Yerushalmi] Bathyra did for my ancestor. For they descended from their high posi- tion’? and elevated him. And if Rav Huna the exilarch comes up to here [from Babylonia to Israel], I will rise before him, for he is from the tribe of] Judah and I am from Ben- jamin; he is [descended from King David] from the male [side] and I from the female [side]. Bavli Baba Mesi‘a 84b-85a records another statement which mentions the Bathyrans’ appointment of Hillel as patriarch (but see below), but likewise makes no reference to their having surrendered the patriarchate in his favor: And this is [the meaning of] what Rabbi said: There are three who are truly humble, and these are they: Father,!8 Benei Bathyra, and Jonathan son of Saul. 15. Genesis Rabbab 33, ed. Theodor-Albeck, pp. 305-6; 5. Ketubot 12:3 (35 >: Kil'ayim 9:3 (32); b. Baba Mesi'a 84b-85a. Only »: Pesabin 6:1 (33a) (see below) states that Hillel became nasi in place of the Bathyrans. 16. See the previous note. 17. Asnoted by Louis Finkelstin, The Pharisees and the Men of the Great Assem- bly (Hebrew) (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1950), 13, the printed edition of . Kifayim reads “from the patriarchate,” a reading attested in none of the parallel versions. See also Shamma Friedman, “The Historical Aggadah in the Babylonian Talmud” (Hebrew), in The R. Saul Lieberman Memorial Volume (Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Saul Lieberman Institute for Talmudic Research, 1989), 134, for versions of y. Kilayim com the patriarchate.” Both Finkelstein and Friedman argue convincingly thatthe correct reading makes no tention of the patriarchate. 18, R. Shimon bea Gamaliel Hillel and the Soldiers of Herod An anonymous commentator elaborates: R, Shimon ben Gamaliel, this is what we said above; ive, a story illustrated his humility). “Benei Bathyra,” for the mas. ter said, “[Benei Bathyra] sat [Hillel] at the head and appointed him nasi over them.” “Jonathan son of Saul,” for he said to David, “You shall rule over Israel and 1 will be your second” (I Sam. 23:17). From what fi.e., what in t Passage proves Jonathan's humility?) Pechaps Jonathan son of Saul [deferred to David] because he saw that the world had gone over to David. Benei Bathyra also, perhaps they saw that Hillel was preferable to them. Rather, R. Shimon ben Gamaliel was certainly humble. Finkelstein has established, therefore, that there is very little evi- dence that the Bathyrans were patriarchs prior to Hillel. The one tal. mmudic reference to Hillel assuming the office of patriarch in place of the Bathyrans isthe following, apparently Tannaitic source, together with its Amoraic and apparently post-Amoraic commentary, found in y. Pesabim 6:1 (33a): Three abandoned their crown in this world and inherited the World to come, and they are: Jonathan son of Saul, Elazar ben Azariah, and Ziknei Bathyra, “Jonathan son of Saul Said R. La, “Even women behind the loom! knew that David would rule in the future.” “Elazar ben Azariah.” He was second-in-command [ie, even after he gave up sole possession of the patriarchate, he retained partial hold on it]. You only have [i.e we are only left with] “Ziknei Bathyra,” who left the patriarchate and appointed him patriarch. Finkelstein suggests that the reference to the crown of the Bathyrans and to their leaving the patriarchate might be later addi tions to this discussion. And even if these references are original, he claims, we cannot be sure when the statements were composed and what their source was. We cannot rely on this discussion for histort- 1% See Saul Lieberman, The Plain Meaning of the Yerushalmi (Hebrew) (Jerusa- em: Darom, 1934), 467-68.102 Richard Kalmin cal purposes, maintains Finkelstein, and view the Bathyrans as patri- archs in the face of the eloquent silence of the rest of rabbinic literature.2° Gedalia Alon argues, in contrast, that the Bathyrans were not obscure, According to Alon, they not only held the patriarchate prior to Hillel, they also challenged R. Yohanan ben Zakkai for the office of patriarch during the interregnum following the failed revole against Rome in 70 c.t, The Bathyrans were a great family with strong Herodian connections, having served Agrippa I and Il as well as Herod. When the Gamalielite dynasty surrendered the patriarch- ate after the destruction, claims Alon, the Bathyrans had every rea- son to expect that they would resume their former role governing the nation.7 Alon bases his claim that the Bathyrans and Yohanan ben Zak- kai competed for the office of patriarch on a story found in b. Rosh Hashana 29b, which features the following dialogue: Our rabbis taught [in a Baraita]: One time [shortly after the destruction of the second Temple] the new year fell on Shab- bat and all the witnesses [to the new moon] were gathered {in the city of Yavneh}. R. Yohanan ben Zakkai said to Benei Bathyra, “Let us sound the shofar [which while the Temple still stood was done only in Jerusalem.” {Benei Bathyra] said to R. Yohanan ben Zakkai, “Let us dis- cus it.” He said to them, “Let us sound the shofar and later we wi discuss it.” After they sounded the shofar, [Benei Bathyra] said to [R. Yohanan ben Zakkai}, “Let us discuss it.” He said to them, “The horn has already been heard in ‘Yavneh, and we do not bring arguments after the fact.”22 This story is also in part the basis for Yisrael Ben-Shalom’s claim that the Bathyrans were Pharisaic sages whom Herod vested with 20. Finkelstein, Pharisees, 14, 21. Alon, “Patriarchate,” 264-67. 22. For further discussion of this story, se Ephraim E. Urbach, “The Jews in Their Land in the Period of the Tannaim,” Bebinot be-vikoret ha-sifrut 4 (1952-53): 65-66. Hillel and the Soldiers of Herod 103 authority to decide Temple laws.?3 Ben-Shalom’s other proof, of Course, is the story of Hillel’s rise to power. The Temple was criti- cally important to the Jewish people, so Herod’s decision to place them in charge had significant political ramifications, claims Ben. Shalom. Herod chose them (1) because they were from Babylonia and therefore were mote likely to be trustworthy than home-bora Pharisees; and (2) because they were members of the family of Herod's agents, Ben-Shalom believes that the Bathyrans were head of a Pharisaic school and court, which was not, however, a central- ized high court with jurisdiction over the entire country. His proof is the fact that the talmudic versions of the story of Hillel’s se to power state that the Bathyrans appointed Hillel “nasi ‘aleihem,” “leader over them,” as opposed to “leader of the entire countr Jacob Neusner was the first to argue that the story of Hillel’s rise fo power does not derive from the Second Temple period and does Rot accurately describe an event in the life of Hillel. Rather, claims Neusner, the story was composed close to the time of Rabbi Yehude Fa-Nasi (henceforth “Rabbi”), a late second and early third century Patriarch. Neusner dates the story to this period because (1) it is found in the Tosefta, the final editing of which is generally dated to the latter part of the third century c-., not long after Rabbi's death, and (2) Rabbi explicitly mentions the story on several occasions (but see below).6 Neusner claims that the story is part of a patriarchal 25: See also Finkelstein, Pharisees, 6; Ephraim Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (Hebrew), 2nd ed. pe. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986), 513, 24. Urbach, ibid, 517, likewise thinks that Benei Bathyra aver nem ina limited ‘sense. They were not heads of a national legislative and judicial body but were authoritative teachers whose area of ‘expertise was Temple law. According to LUrbach, the appointment that Hillel received from them was limited in he same way, although was nasi in the wider sense as well. See also idem, “Status and Leadership in the World of the Sages of the Land of leracl? (Hebrew), Proceedings of the Israeli National Academy of Sciences 2 (1968— 69): 38. Finkelstein, Pharisees, 9-10, agree, 25. Ben-Shalom, School of Shanimai, 64-75. See also Hyman, Biographies, 368- 69; Alexander Guttman, “Foundations of Rabbinic Judaism,” Hebrew Union College Annual 23, pact 1 (1950-51): 454-56, Regarding Herod’. icy of relying on foreigners, see Menahem Stern, “Herod's Policy and Jewish Society xt the End of the Second Temple Petiod” (Hebrew), Tabie 38 (1966): 251-55 Hanokh Albeck, "The Sanhedtin and Its Patriarch” (Hebrew), Zion 8 no. (1943): 165-67, 26, Neusner, Rabbinic Tradition, 257-58,104 Richard Kaimin attempt to de-emphasize its Gamalielite roots and trace its ancestry back to Hillel. David Goodblatt observes that R. Shimon ben Gam- aliel Il, Rabbi's father, became patriarch following the Bar Kokhba war, a war which Shimon ben Gamaliel apparently supported. Per- haps, observes Goodblatt, this fact helps explain why Shimon sought to bypass his Gamalielite roots and seek a less politically charged progenitor; it also may have motivated him to name his son “Yehuda” instead of the traditional “Gamaliel.”*” l. Evaluation of the Scholarly Theories: A Close Reading of the Story of Hillels Rise to Power It should be clear from the above survey of earlier scholarship that the story of Hillel and the Bathyrans has served as the basis for some rather elaborate theories about their role in ancient Jewish society and about the relationship between Herod and Hillel, between offi- cials of the king and the intellectual elite, The following discussion reexamines these and other relevant stories in an effort to determine whether or not these theories stand up to closer scrutiny. What do these stories tell us about the extent and nature of Torah scholarship ent Jewish society? Do we have evidence that in Jewish soci ety, as in other ancient societies, a military colony served as the breeding ground for a group of sages??® Were these sages Pharisees? The name by which the Bathyrans are designated in the various rabbinic compilations provides the beginning of an answer to these questions, Palestinian compilations?? generally refer to them as Zik- nei Bathyra, “the elders of Bathyra.” The Bavli, in contrast, consis- tently refers to them as Benei Bathyra, which means “the Bathyrans,” “the sons of Bathyra,” or “the descendants of Bathyra.” 27, David Goodblatt, The Monarchic Principle: Studies in Jewish Self-Government in Antiquity (Tabingen: Moke, 1994), 173-75. 28. See also Schuvaeez, Josephus, 202 n. 105. 29, As noted above, Genesis Rabbah 33 isthe one exception referring to them as Beit Bathyra, “the house of Bathyra.” See also t. Sanhedrin 7:11, ed. Moshe Zuckermandel (1882; repr Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1963), 427, notes to line 7 Avot de-R. Natan, version A, chap. 37, ed. Solomon Schechter (1887; cor- rected repr, Hildesheim: Olms, 1979), 110 and a. 12. Avot de-R. Naten con: tains mach later material and has been substantially tampered with on the basis of the Bav and the Soldiers of Herod 105 ‘The designation “the elders of X” is found only infrequently in rab- binic literature, bur it refers exclusively, in both Palestinian and Babylonian texts, to people who derive from a particular geographi- cal location. In Josephus and in Palestinian rabbinic compilations, therefore, the name “Bathyra” is a geographic designation rather than a proper name. The Babylonians, on the other hand, apparently missed the geographical allusion and assumed that “Bathyra” was a proper name, as is the case with R. Yehoshua ben Bathyra, R. Shi- mon ben Bathyra, and as many as three sages named R. Yehuda ben Bathyra, We also find several rabbinic statements attributed to a “Ben Bathyra,” ie, with the patronymic specified but no indication of the identity of the “son.” Icis unlikely, therefore, that the rabbinic “sons of Bathyra” men- tioned above—R. Yehuda, R. Yehoshua, and R. Shimon ben Bathyra—are descended from Ziknei Bathyra, since in the latter case Bathyra is a geographic designation while in the former cases it is a person's name. The fact that during rabbinic times, therefore, there were several “sons of Bathyra” who were sages is not a proof that Ziknei Bathyra, “the elders of Bathyra,” were also sages. A stronger argument against viewing Ziknei Bathyra as sages will be possible once we identify the earliest extant version of the story of Hillel’s rise to power. I will argue below that the Tosefta’s version is prior, and the Tosefta, significantly, makes no mention of the Bathyrans, The earliest extant version of the story, therefore, does not depict an encounter between a sage (Hillel) and the agents of the king (the Bathyrans), nor does it depict Hillel’s interlocurors as sages. In this version, Hillel’s interlocutors, who are nameless, (1) have an interest in knowing the law and are convinced by Hillel’s arguments in favor of his halachic position; and (2) listen all day while Hillel instructs them in the laws of Pesah. Neither of these details, however, nor the narrative detail that the discussion took place in the “[Temple] courtyard,” allows us to conclude anything about their purported identity. They might be priests, sages, or com- mon people, or some combination of the three.>! 30. See, for example, m. Shabbat 16:1, 3; m. Pesabimn 4:3: m. Gittin 5:75. Zeva- ‘bina 1:33 m. Menabot 1:25 ». Yoma Ist (38); b. Ta‘anit 3a (see the Talmud’s full discussion there), 31. See also Goodblatt, Monarchie Principle, 185-86, Finkelstein, Pharisees, 10, argues thatthe Bachycans were not sages bus priests, who received their knowl «edge about the Temple from other priests. Hi victory over them, he claims,106 Richard Kaimin What is the basis for my claim that the Tosefta preserves the ear- liest extant version? First, according to modern scholarly consensus, the Tosefta was edited before the two Talmuds. The most likely assumption, therefore, is that unless we can prove otherwise, the Tosefta preserves the earlier version of a tradition. Second, and per- haps more importantly, only the opening statement in the Yerushalmi and the Bavli mention the Bathyrans, and in both Tal- muds the statement is out of place and awkward in its present con- text. In both Talmuds the Baraita begins, “This law was unknown to* the Bathyrans.” We expect the phrase “this law” to refer to a law stated in the Baraita immediately following. The Baraita in both Talmuds, however, goes on to say, “One time the fourteenth [of Nisan] fell on Shabbat,” making no mention of any law. It is not until the next sentence that we learn, “They forgot®? whether or not the Pesah sacrifice overrides Shabbat.” The identification of “this law,” therefore, does not follow smoothly from the opening state- ment. The identification comes only after a brief narrative aside (“One time ...”), together with the redundant information that “they forgot.”*4 As numerous scholars have observed, very often seams show when words, phrases, or sentences are added to a pre- existing text.>° Apparently, therefore, the identification of Hillel’s "was a critically importane stage in the process of che gradual transition of power in Palestinian Jewish society from priests to sages. Finkelstein appar- ently bases this claim on the Tosefta’s version of the story, according to which 'svietory took place in the Temple courtyard, This narrative fact does not imply that Hille’ interlocurors were priests any more than it implies that Hil- lel is a priest. The story takes place just before Pesah, so naturally it depicts people congregating in the Temple in preparation for the festival. In addition, a5 noted above, the Toselta does not mention the Bathyrans, so Finkelstein concludes that they are priests by combining the toseftan with the talmudie aecounts. Unfortunately, te tendency to blur distinctions between the various versions, or to combine parts of one account with parts of another, is all too common in scholarship on this issue, is the Yerushalmi’s reading. The Ba point is unaffected by this variant. 33. This isthe Yerushalm’s ceading, The Ba not know.” 34. Or: “They forgot and did not know.” See the previous note. 35. See, for example, Shamma Friedman, “Chapter ha-Ishab Rabbab in the Baby- lonian Talmud,” in Studies and Sources (Hebrew), ed. H. Z. Dimitrovsky (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1978), 302-6. reading is “forgotten by.” Our i's reading is “They forgot and did Hillel and the Soldiers of Herod 107 interlocutors as the Bathyrans in both Talmuds is a later addition to the narrative3® If lam correct, then how did the Bathyrans make their way into the talmudic versions of the story of Hillel’s rise to power? Very likely, t, Sanhedrin 7:11 (and parallel)” is the source.>® We read there that “Hillel the elder expounded seven things before Ziknei Pathyra (Sifra: Bathyra).”39 A list of seven exegetical techniques fol- lows, although this tradition provides no examples of the content of Hillel’s exegesis. Very likely, the Bathyrans were added to the story of Hillel’s rise to power based on t. Sanhedrin’s report of his use of exegetical arguments in their presence. Whoever connected these two traditions satisfied two storytelling needs, both identified by Isaak Heinemann: (1) the need to identify anonymous characters, and (2) the need to elaborate on the insufficiently explained.*? To whom is Hillel speaking in the story of Hillel’s rise to power? Tosefta Finkelstein, “More on the Argumentation between Hillel and Bene Sifa de-Vei Rav (Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1991), 5.2: 123-24 (Hebrew section). If we argue in response that the phrase “this the Baraita’s opening line refers instead to the law stated in the mish- conclusion of the Baraita, long after the introductory starement and after the lengthy discussion of the question whether or not the Pesab sacrifice overrides the Shabbat. In addi Why docs the Baraita’ that they and they alone forgot the 37. The parallel is pereq 1:7 of the scholion to the Baraita of R. Yishmael, which introduces the Sifta. 38. Compare Urbach, Sages, 513, who argues that Hillel used seven exegetical techniques to prove to Ziknei Bathyra that the Pesah sacrifice overt bat. In contrast, Louis Finkelstein, “The Exegetical Pri Argumentation with Ziknei Bathyra,” in Sifra de-Vei Raby 5.2: 120 (Hebrew section), believes that t. Sanhedrin (and parallel) reflects a tradition according to which Hillel used seven exegetical rechniques in his attempe to prove to Zik- nei Bathyra that the Pesah overrides Shabbat. The story as preserved in #. Pesabim 4:13-14, y. Pesahim 4:1 (33a), and b. Pesabim 66a, teflects a “totally different version” of what happened, according to which Hillel employed only two or three exegetical techniques. 39, Pathyra and Bathyra are variants of the same name. 2 and 8 commonly inter change in rabbinic sources. 40, Isaak Heinemann, The Nature and Methods of Aggadab (Hebrew), 3rd ed. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1970), 21-32. , Hillel also forgets the law discussed in the mishnah,108 Richard Kalmin Sanhedrin supplies the answer. What did Hillel say to Ziknei Bathyra? Tosefta Pesabim supplies the answer. Significantly, the fact that the Bathyrans listen to Hillel expound the biblical text according to t. Sanhedrin 7:11 (and parallel] is not an indication that the text wishes to portray them as scholars. In addition, as noted above, the Bathyrans were added to the story of Hillel’s rise to power not necessarily because of any desire to depict them as sages, but because of the storytelling requirements described above. There is thus no firm evidence of a talmudic attempt to rab- binize the Bathyrans, or of an attempt on the rabbis’ part to depict themselves as superior to royal officials. IV. When Were the Bathyrans Included in the Story of Hillels Rise to Power? Perhaps the Toseftas Version of the Story Is Not the Earliest At first glance, however, it seems that my conclusion that the Tosefta preserves the earliest extant version of the story of Hillel’s rise to power (i, without the Bathyrans) is rendered problematic {although by no means impossible) by the testimony of several sources"! that already Rabbi, who flourished at the end of the Tan- naitic period in the late second and early third centuries c.r., identi- fied the Bathyrans as Hillel's interlocutors in his version of the Pesahim tradition.4? ‘There are several responses to this objection. These responses will involve close reading of some of the sources cited above, and it will be helpful to reproduce the relevant translations. Bavli Baba Mezia 84b-85a reads as follows: And this is {the meaning of] what Rabbi said: There are three who are truly humble, and they are: Father, Benei Bathyra, and Jonathan son of Saul. As noted above, this is the conclusion of the statement attributed to Rabbi. An anonymous commentator elaborates: 41, Genesis Rabbah 33:9, Kil'ayim and y: Ketubot; and b. Baba Mesi‘a 84b-85a. 42, See also the discussion of these traditions by Goodblate, Monarchic Principle, 149-55, and the Soldiers of Herod 109 Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel, this is what we said [aboves i.e. a story illustrated his humility]. “Benei Bathyra,” for the master said, “[Benei Bathyra] sat [Hillel] at the head and appointed him nasi over them.” “Jonathan son of Saul,” for he said to David, “You shall rule over Israel and I will be your second” (I Sam. 23:17). From what fie., what in this passage proves Jonathan’s humility]? Perhaps Jonathan son of Saul [deferred to David} because he saw that the world had gone over to David. Benei Bathyra also, perhaps they saw that Hillel was preferable to them. Rather, R. Shimon ben Gamaliel was certainly humble. In other words, the list of humble individuals is by one author, apparently Rabbi," and the linkage of this report of the Bathyrans’ humility with the Hillel story is by another author, one of the Tal- mud’s anonymous commentators. It is important to note, further more, that all manuscripts of b, Baba Mesi‘a 84b-85a have Rabbi asserting that Ben Bathyra (rather than Benei Bathyra) was one of the three who were truly humble. According to this reading, Rabbi is not talking about Benei Bathyra at all, and the anonymous editors misidentify the subject of his statement when they cite the story of Hillel’s rise to power.*4 The next relevant tradition, in y. Pesabim 6:1 (33a), likewise provides no proof, despite appearances to the contrary, that Rabbi had Ziknei Bathyra in his version of the story of Hillel’s rise to power. This second tradition reads as follows: Three abandoned their crown in this world and inherited the world to come, and they are: Jonathan son of Saul, Elazar ben Azariah, and Ziknei Bathyra. 43. The accuracy ofthe attribution does not concern us here. 44, See Variaelectiones, ed. Rabbinowice 1.7 see also n. Ms A check of the Saul Lieberman database of Talmud manuscripts reveals this reading in ms. Esco- ial, Florence, Hamburg, Munich, and Vatican 115. Interestingly, the reading ofall of che manuscripts is also Ben Bathyra when the anonymous commenta, tors repeat the name, but when the story of Hillel's rise to power is quoted, plu: tal verbs are used to describe the actions of Benei Bathyra, with the ‘exception of the verb “sat” in mss, Florence and Vatican 115, which were undoubtedly “corrected” partially to ease the anomaly ofthe singular noun followed imme- diately by a plural verb,110 Richard Kalmin *Jonathan son of Saul. Said R. La, “Even women behind the loom. know that David would rule in the future.” “Elazar ben Azariah.” He was second-in-command. You only have fi.e., we are only left with] Ziknei Bathyra, who left the patriarchate and appointed him patriarch. Once again, however, the earliest part of the tradition, which is apparently Tannaitic in origin, consists of no more than a list of names of extraordinary individuals who “abandoned their crown.” ‘The Bathyrans are one name on the list, but we are not told precisely what they did that was so extraordinary until we turn to later layers of the discussion. In these later layers we find a statement by R. La (short for R. Ila), an Amora of the second or third generation.45 Per- haps he is the author of the statement that links the claim about the jathyrans’ humility to the story of Hillel, which would date the ear- lest attestation of this linkage in the Yerushalmi to the latter part of the third century cae. A closer look at the discussion, however, reveals the likelihood that the anonymous commentators of the Yerushalmi authored the linking starement, For according to the discussion as it presently stands, the anonymous commentators, or perhaps even post-talmu. dic glossators, requote the statement which motivates R. Ila’ state- ment: “Jonathan son of Saul.” R, Ila deals with the case of Jonathan, and what follows is anonymous commentary dealing with the other Personalities mentioned in the Baraita.46 The reference to the Bathyrans “giving up their crown” is apparently Tannaitic, there- fore, but it is the anonymous editors of the Yerushalmi, the final editing of which is conventionally dated to the early fifth century +» who explicitly link this tcadition with the Hillel story (“You only have Ziknei Bathyra, who left the patriarchate and appointed him patriarch”), According to our conclusions thus far, the Yerushalmi preserves an early reference to some act of self-sacrifice on the part of the 45, See Hyman, Biographies, 143-46. 46. Perhaps it will be argued that after R. Ila dealt with Jonathan, he went on to discuss Elazar ben Azaviah and Ziknei Bathysa, This understanding, however, leaves unexplained why R. Elazar ben Azariah’s name is quoted as part of R. la’s statement whereas Jonathan son of Saul’s name is. quoted prior to his state ment. Hille and the Soldiers of Herod 1 Bathyrans, and the Bavli preserves an early reference to the great humility of a certain Ben Bathyra. The anonymous editors of both Talmuds use the Hillel story in an attempt to identify these obscure carly references. The anonymous editors make these linkages despite the fact that in neither Talmud is the linkage particularly appropri. ate.*” As noted above, according to the Bavli the statemenc attrib- uted to Rabbi refers to Ben Bathyra rather than Benei Bathyra. And according to the Yerushalmi, the Baraita refers to the Bathyrans’ “abandoning their crown,” whereas nothing in the story of Hillel’s rise to power suggests that they stepped down from any position of greatness. The anonymous editors of both Talmuds did the best they could with the limited traditions at their disposal, but in both cases their attempts were unsuccessful. Those who would understand the devel, ‘opment of these traditions differently must explain what motivated (1) the anonymous editors of the Yerushalmi to interpret the story of Hillel and the Bathyrans in such a peculiar manner, and (2) the anonymous editors of the Bavli to use a tradition about Benei Bathyra to explicate a tradition about Ben Bathyra. There is very likely no proof from either tradition, therefore, that already Rabbi in the late second or early third century ce. iden tified the Bathyrans as Hille’s interlocutors in his version of the Baraita. Rather, we can only state that the anonymous editors of both Talmuds, according to most scholars a relatively late, if net the latest, layer of talmudic discourse,*® had this version of the Baraita, which most likely puts us somewhere between the fourth and fifth centuries ce. in Israel, and the fourth and seventh centuries c.e. in Babylonia, 47. The Bavli’s anonymous editors explicitly acknowledge this fact when they say, “Benei Bathyra also, perhaps they saw that Hillel was preferable to them > 48: Avraham Weiss, The Achievement of the Saboraim (Hebrew) Jerucalem: Hebrew University, 1953), 1-18; Meyer Feldblum, “The Impact ofthe ‘Anon, ‘mous Sugya’ on Halakic Concepts,” Proceedings of the American Academy. of Jewish Research 37 (1969), 19-28; Friedman, “ha-lahah Rabbah,” 293.301, David Goodblate, “The Babylonian Talmud,” in Approaches to Ancient Juda. ism Ik: The Palestinian and Babylonian Talmuds, ed. Jacob Neusner (New Forks Krav, 1981), 177-815 Louis Jacobs, Teyku (London: Cornwall Books, (281), 294; David Halivnl, Sources and Traditions: Shabbat (Hebrew) (Jevusa, lem: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1982), 5-18; Richard Kalmin, The Redac. tion of the Babylonian Talmud: Amoraic or Saboraic? (Cincinnati: Hebrevs Union College Press, 1989), xv-xvili, I-11, 151-59,2 Richard Kaimin We still confront the tradition in Genesis Rabbah (as well as in two parallel contexts in the Yerushalmi}, which seems to attribute to Rabbi the explicit claim that the Bathyrans stepped down in favor of Hillel (albeit not from the patriarchate, as Finkelstein has shown). Here it is necessary to reproduce our ¢ranslation, discussing signifi- cant differences between the various versions. The version in Gene- sis Rabbah 33 reads: Our Rabbi [Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi] was very humble. He said, “Whatever anyone says to me I will do except for what Beir? Bathyca did for my ancestor, for they descended from their high position and elevated him. And if Rav Huna the exilarch comes up to here [from Babylonia to Israel], T ill rise before him, for he is from {the tribe of] Judah and I am from Benjamin; he is [descended from King David] from the male [side] and I from the female [side].°° I is important to note that an English translation of this passage cannot help concealing two important facts. First, in all three con- texts which preserve this passage, the brief narrative introduction as well as Rabbi's statement is entirely in Aramaic, with the exception. of the Hebrew phrase “except for what Ziknei’! Bathyra did for my ancestor” in the Yerushalmi, to which Genesis Rabbah adds, still in Hebrew: “for they descended from their high position and elevated him.” The change of language from Aramaic to Hebrew is indicative 45, See p.93, exp. n. 6, and pp. 1046. 50. See Igeret Rav Sherira Gaon, ed. Benjamin Lewin (1921; repr. Jerusalem: Makor, 1972), 76-77; Alber I. Baumgarten, “Rabbi Judah 1 and his Oppo- nents,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 12 (1982): 145-49, especially the dis- cussion of manuscript variants of the Genesis Rabbah version of this story (145, 1. 17}; Offa Meir, “The Story of the Death of Rabbi: A Study of Redactional Techniques” (Hebrew), Mebkerei Yerushalayim be-Sifrut lure 12 (1990): 1485 Goodblats, Monarchic Principle, 149-54. Goodblatt, 151, observes that “this story has Judah I allude to ehe resignation ofthe elders of Baterah in favor of his ‘ancestor,’ zaken. Although that ancestor is not named, there is near univer- sal agceement that the reference is to the tradition about the appointment of 51. See the previous note. One letter of the phrase de-Veit Bathyra (the dalet intro- ducing de-Veit) is Aramaic. Complete exactitude about such minute details, siven the long centuries of imperfect transmission of late antique rabbinic texts, is more than we can expect. The fact that the texts exhibie the less than fully perfect patterns we are describing is significant. Hillel and the Soldiers of Herod 3 of a change of speaker, according to which an earlier version of the story attributes to Rabbi the statement: “Whatever anyone says to me I will do. And if Rav Huna the exilarch comes up to here, I will seat him above me ... .” That is, in this earlier version Rabbi was not credited with saying anything about Hillel and the Bathyrans, and the integrity of his statement is, if anything, improved by the removal of the clause.53 ‘Once again, therefore, a reference to the role of the Bathyrans in the story of Hillel’s rise to power appears to be relatively early, but closer examination reveals it to be a work of later, anonymous glos- sators. It is perhaps not superfluous to add, furthermore, that a statement attributed to Rabbi in a story does not necessarily derive from the time of Rabbi himself. The author might have composed the story quite late and simply used important figures from the past to enhance his narrative ot help make his point. Even if we accept the attribution of the statement to Rabbi, however, there is no proof from this tradition, in any of its versions, that already in the late Tannaitic period anyone knew of the role played by the Bathyrans in the story of Hillel’s rise to power. Here as well we find that only later, anonymous glossators know this biographical “fact.” ‘The preceding discussion, which focuses on Genesis Rabbah 33 and y. Kil'ayim and y. Ketubot, is applicable to the reading of the Yerushalmi currently before us, a reading also attested to by two medieval Ashkenazic commentators. Another version of the 52, Friedman, “ha-Ishab Rabbah,” 301-2. 53. I will be recalled that according to the Yerushalmi, Rabbi continues in Ara- imac with the phrase “for they dismissed themselves and appointed him.” Pet haps it will be claimed that this phrase is an integral pare of the or Aramaic story, according to which the ‘story originally did contain an allusion to Hillel and the Bathyrans. However, simply reading the Aramaic without the Hebrew in the Yerushalmi passages yields nonsense ("Our Rabbi was very humble. He said, ‘Whatever anyone says to me I will do. For they dismissed themselves and appointed him. And if Rav Huna ..."). In addition, the fact that Genesis Rabbah and the Yerushalmi express basically the same idea in two very different ways (Genesis Rabbah, in Hebrew: “for they descended from their high position and elevated him"; Yerushalmi, in Aramaie: "for they dice missed themselves and appointed him") suggests stcongly that the phrase in guestion is a gloss on what is itself a later addition (“except for what Ziknei Bathyra did for my ancestor”) 54. See Sefer ha-Pardes le-Rashi, ed. H. L. Ehrenreich (1923-24; repr, New York: Menorah, 1959), 330; Avraham ben Shmuel Zacuto, Sefer Yuhasin ha. Shalem, ed. Zvi Filipowsky, 3rd ed. by Avraham Hayim Freiman (Jerusalem, 1963), 85.na Richard Kaimin Yerushalmi, attested to by Rav Sherira Gaon and the Meiri,°> has the brief narrative introduction and the first part of Rabbi’s state- ment entirely in Hebrew, as follows: “Rabbi was very humble. He said, ‘I will do what anyone tells me, except for what Ziknei Bathyra did for my ancestor.’*5® The Aramaic portion of the text begins onl with the phrase “for they dismissed themselves and appointed him, and the remainder of Rabbi’s statement, even in this version, is in Aramaic. How does this variant affect our understanding of the sources? For reasons stated above, the Aramaic phrase “for they dismissed themselves and appointed him” is probably a later addition to the text. The Hebrew core which remains (“Rabbi was very humble. He said, ‘I will do what anyone tells me, except for what Ziknei Bathyra did for my ancestor’) may imply knowledge of the role played by the Bathyrans in the Hillel story, but it is striking that Rabbi (o more precisely, the statement attributed to him) makes no explicit mention of Hillel, nor does it specify what act of humility the Bathyrans performed for Rabbi’s ancestor.°” It is only if we start with the assumption that the reference must be to the story of Hil- lel’s rise to power that it is clear how these lacunae should be filled. Without this assumption, we have a text like b. Baba Mesi‘a 84b— 85a, which refers to the Bathyrans’ great humility but leaves it to later generations to specify what that humility consisted of. True, the Yerushalmi refers to a particular act of humility and to a particular individual who is the beneficiary of that act, but as noted above nei- ther the act nor the individual is identified. Perhaps it was these con- siderations that induced Ephraim Urbach to understand the reference to zekeni in the statement attributed to Rabbi as a refer- ence to the latter’s grandfather, Gamaliel Il, in addition to the fact that zekeni generally means “my grandfather” and not “my ances- ror.758 55. Igeret Rav Sherira Gaon, ed. Lewin, 76-77, and appendix 16, pp. XI-XIlly Meir, Mavo le-Masekbet Avot, ed. Benjamin Prag (1946; cept. Jerusalem: ‘Makhon ha-Talmud ha-Yisre'li ha-Shalem, 1964), 25 56, Regarding the reading “irom the nesiut (patriatchate),” see above, pp. 99- 104, esp. 100 a. 17, 57, Several manuscripts of Genesis Rabbah eead “the elders” (zekenim) instead of “my ancestor” (eker 58. See Urbach, “Jews in Their Land,” 66, See also Goodblast, Monarchic Princi- ple, 151. Hillel and the Soldiers of Herod ns In addition, according to the statement under consideration, Rabbi refers to the Bathyrans as people who performed an act of humility so great that even he, so humble himself, would be unwill- ig to duplicate it. Neither of the Palestinian versions of the story of Hillel’s rise to power, however, portray his interlocutors as humble, According to the Tosefta’s version, “the whole courtyard gathered against” Hillel after his first halachic argument. After three more halachic arguments by Hillel, followed by his extraordinary predic tion that the Jewish people will bring slaughtering knives with them to Jerusalem, “they appointed Hillel nasi.” None of this strikes one as particularly humble, Neither does the Yerushalmi’s version depict the Bathyrans as humble: they mock Hillel's Babylonian origin, refute his logical and exegetical arguments, and are convinced only when he quotes the law in the name of his teachers, Shemaya and Avtalion, And as far as the version in the Bavli is concerned, it is dif- ficult to believe that a statement attributed to Rabbi in the Yerushalmi could be based on a version of the Baraita found only in the Bavli, In addition, the Bavli’s anonymous editors explicitly note that Benei Bathyra in the story of Hillel’s rise to power do not behave humbly (“Benei Bathyra also, perhaps they saw that Hillel was preferable to them”). On the basis of the above evidence, therefore, there is precious little, pethaps no, evidence that Rabbi knows about the role played by the Bathyrans in the Hillel story. Further support for this conchi- sion is provided by the fact that Rabbi's statement (“except for what Ziknei Bathyra did for my ancestor”) can be a reference to the Hi story only if Hillel is assumed to have been Rabbi’s ancestor, that to have been the progenitor of the Gamalielite dynasty. And the evi, dence for such an assumption in rabbinic texts is surprisingly mea- ger. The following discussion examines the evidence, an examination which will support our claim that there are serious reasons to doubt that Rabbi (or whoever attributed to him that statement) has Hi in mind when he refers to “my ancestor.”5? This conclusion in turn supports our claim that the statement attributed to Rabbi (“except for what Ziknei Bathyra did for my ancestor”) is not referring to the story of Hillel's rise to power. This rather complicated argument and its implications bear repeating: 59. Josephus Life 191 cefers to R. Shi but makes no mention of Hi as being of noble descentRichard Kalmin Mention of the Bathyrans is a later addition to the Hillel story, the earliest extant version of which is preserved in the Tosefta; 2. At first glance Rabbi appears to have the Bathyrans in his version of the Baraita, weakening the previous claim; 3. Alllof the cases which appear to prove that Rabbi has the Bathyrans in his version of the Baraita can be shown to be additions to his statements by later, anonymous com- mentators; 4, one of the statements attributed to Rabbi has survived in three versions: (a) Genesis Rabbah 33: [Aramaic] “Our Rabbi was very humble. He said, ‘Whatever anyone says to me I will do, [Hebrew] except for what Beit Bathyra did for my ances. tor. For they descended from their high position and ele- vated him’; (b) » Kif'ayim and y. Ketubot (Ashkenazic version): [Aramaic] “Our Rabbi was very humble. He said, “Whatever anyone says to me I will do, [Hebrew] except for what Ziknei Bathyca did for my ancestor, [Aramaic] for they dismissed themselves and appointed him’; (c) ». Kil’ayim and y. Ketubot (Rav Sherira Gaon and Meiri) [Hebrew] “Our Rabbi was very humble. He said, ‘Whatever anyone says to me I will do except for what Ziknei Bathyra did for my ancestor, [Aramaic] for they dismissed themselves and appointed him.” In versions (a) and (b), the phrase “except for what Ziknei Bathyra did for my ancestor” appears to be a later addition to the narrative, while in version (c), this phrase appears to be part of the statement attributed to Rabbi. If by “my ancestor” Rabbi means Hillel, there- fore it is possible (although by no means proven; see above) that Rabbi is credited with knowledge of the Bathyrans’ role in the Hillel story. It is therefore important for our argument to determine how likely it is that Rabbi believed that Hillel was the progenitor of the Gamalielite dynasty.°° If we find it likely that Rabbi held this view, then it is possible that Rabbi used the phrase “my ancestor” to refer to Hillel, and that he has in mind the story of Hillel’s rise to power, despite the problems described above. And if Rabbi's version of the Hillel story has the Bathyrans, then it is difficult (although by no 60. Or that such a belief would be atributed to Rabbi, Hille! and the Soldiers of Herod 7 ‘means impossible) to argue (1) that they are a later addition to the story, and (2) that the Tosefta preserves the earliest extant version, V. Which Ancient Rabbis Hold the View That | Was the Progenitor of the Gamalielite Patriarchate? Much depends, therefore, on identifying the authors, or at least the Earliest attestation, of the view that Rabbi was of Hillelite descent. To reiterate, itis very likely that the Yerushalmi’s later editors attest this view;S! the question is: do Rabbi and any other Tannaim or carly Amoraim also attest this idea in Palestinian rabbinic literature? If they do, then our claims regarding the Tosefta version’s priority are slightly weakened, and the Bathyrans may be sages after all, as they are portrayed in the two Talmuds. As noted above, we will find litle firm evidence that Rabbi or any Palestinian rabbis living prior to the Yerushalmi’s anonymous editing hold the view that Hillel was the progenitor of the Gamalielite patriarchate. What ancient rabbis expressed the view that Rabbi was descended from Hille or that Hillel founded the Gamalielite patr- archate?® The only texts which more or less explicitly do so are found in the Bavli. On b. Horayot 11b, Rav Safra, a Babylonian Amora of the late third and early fourth centuries c..3 quotes a 61. I say this because the phrase identified as a later addition to Rabbi's statement according to all three versions discussed above (Genesis Rabbah: [Hebrew] “For they descended from the high position and elevated him”; » Kil'ayim and y. Ketubor: [Aramaic] “For they dismissed themselves and appointed him”) almost certainly refers to the story of Hillel’s rise to power. Where do the authors ofthis later addition derive the idea thatthe Bathyrans stepped down froma position of greatness? From y, Pesabim 6:1 (33a), which begins with che obscure reference to the Bathyrans abandoning their crown. The anonymous editors there connect this reference with the Hil lel story, which is the onl extant tradition that even remotely fits, despite the fact that it, too, is less thas fully appropriate (see p. 115 above). The authors of the later addition in Gene. sis Rabbah y. Kilayim, and x Ketubot (“for they dismissed themselves and appointed him”) borrow from the discussion in 3+ Pesabim the idea that the Bathyrans stepped down and appointed Hillel in thir place 62, For earlier discussion ofthis isue, ee Martin Jacobs, Die Institution des jdi- chen Patriarchen (Tabingen: Mohs, 1995), 35-39, 205, 212-21, 294. 63. Talmudic sources provide much less than certainty where chronological mat-Richard Kalmin version of a dialogue which explicitly names Rabbi as one of “the descendants of Hillel.” It is significant that several talmudic tradi- tions indicate that Rav Safra had close ties to and spent time in Pal- estine.® If the attributions are trustworthy, then it is possible that Ray Safra originated or learned of the tradition in Babylonia and introduced it to Palestine, or learned it in Palestine and carried it back to Babylonia. The discussior Horayot is as follows: Rav Safra taught [the tradition] thus Rabbi asked R. Hiyya, “What am I [i.e., what is my status] with regard to the goat offering?” [Am I the nasi mentioned in Lev. 4:22-26, who is obligated to bring a goat offering if he unintentionally sins?] IR. Hiyya] said to Rabbi, “There [in Babylonia] it is a scep- ter; here [in Palestine] it is a staff” [i.e., the exilarch in Baby- lonia is the nasi referred to by the Torah], for it is taught [in a Baraitals “The scepter shall not depart from Judah” (Gen. 49:10), these are the exilarchs in Babylonia, who discipline Israel with a scepter. “Nor the staff from between his legs” (Gen. 49:10), these are the descendants of Hillel, who teach Torah in public. [You are therefore the exilarch’s inferior and cannot bring the goat offering.] While absolute certainty on this subject is not possible, Rav Safra seems to presuppose Rabbi's physical descent from Hillel. In the words of David Goodblatt, this tradition “comes close to being an explicit indication of a claimed family connection” between Hil. lel and the Gamalielites.6 eee ters are concerned. The situation is not hopeless, however, as has been demon strated by Isaiah Gafni, *On the Talmudic Chronology in Igeret Rav Sherira Gaon” (Hebrew), Zion $2 (1987): 1-24, 64. See, for example, b. ‘Abada Zara 4a. 65. We are less than fully certain because it is conceivable that even in b, Horayor the text makes no claim about Rabbi’s Hillelite descent. Rabbi may be a teacher of Torah like any other teacher of Torah and is therefore inferior to the exilarch and consequently ineligible to bring the sacrifice of the nasi. ‘The author of the ostensibly Tannaitic b. Shabbat 1Sa need not hhave assumed a familial connection berween “Hillel and Shimon Gamaliel and Shimon,” who “functioned as nesi'im [patriarchs] during the existence of the ‘Temple for a hundred years.” According to y: Ta‘anit 4:2 (68a), with a parallel | and the Soldiers of Herod 19 Part of the discussion in b, Horayot 11h is a tradition which pur- Ports to be a Baraita,®® also quoted in 6. Sanhedrin Sa as part of an anonymous discussion. It will be helpful to analyze the Baraita, both on its own terms and as part of the anonymous discussion, as a way of determining whether or not the idea of Hillelite ancestry is pre- supposed by other texts preserved only in the Bavli. The Baraita, of course, purports to derive from Palestine, and it reads as follows: It is taught [in a Baraita], “The scepter shall not depart from Judah” (Gen. 49:10), these are the exilarchs in Babylonia, who discipline Israel with a staff. “Nor the staff from between his legs” (Gen. 49:10), these are the descendants of Hillel, who teach Torah in public. The text contrasts the exilarch, the political head of the Jewish peo- ple in Babylonia, with Hillel and his descendants, who rule by virtue of theit scholarship. In both cases, this tradition claims, we are deal- ing with a dynasty, and the juxtaposition of the exilarch with the descendants of Hillel suggests that the latter refers to the patriarch- ate, the closest parallel to the exilarchate known to have existed in Palestine. This is, in fact, how the Talmud’s anonymous commenta- terpret the source in b. Sanhedrin Sa, and as noted above this is how Rav Safra interpreted the tradition in b. Horayot 11b.67 A Parallel to this source in Genesis Rabbah 97, furthermore, has the phrase “the nesi’im of Beit Rabbi” instead of “the descendants of Hillel,” making it explicit that the contrast is between the Babylo- nian exilarch and the Palestinian patriarch.®® An apparently early tradition, therefore, one that was known to Ray Safra and purports to be a Baraita, knows the tradition that the in Genesis Rabbah 98, ed. Theodor Albeck, 1259, Rv Levi warcs 7 found a genealogical scroll in Jerusalem and it was wieten in it: UKing) David." The fact chat by R. Levi's time it was claimed that both Rabbi and Hillel were of Davidic descent does not imply that the two of them were thought to be directly related to each other. See Goodblate, Monarchie Princt, ple, 152, regarding the insertion of Gamalielite sayings in m. Avot Uelé-2+4 between those of Hillel and Shammai on the one hand and of Yohanan ben Zakkai on the other, See also Jacobs, Institution, 217-18. 66. See the version of the Baaita inthe French version of Igeret Rav Sherira Gaon, ed. Lewin, 76 and appendix 15, p. Xl; Goodblatt, Monarchie Principle, 158. 67. See Rashi, 8.x. Benei banav shel Hille, Yad Ramah, sx. ve-Okoninan, 68. Sec Genesis Rabbah 97, ed, Theodor-Albeck, 1219.120 Richard Kaimin Gamalielite patriarchate is descended from Hillel. In contrast, we saw above that there was good (although not completely conclusive) evidence thar only the latest layers of Palestinian compilations attest to the tradition, Interestingly, both in b. Sanhedrin Sa and b. Horayot 11b the purported Baraita is quoted in the context of pro-Babylonian polemic. According to b, Horayot 11b, the Baraita “proves” that the Babylonian exilarch was the Palestinian patriarch’s superior and that the “nasi” referred to by Lev. 4:22~26 was the exilarch rather than the patriarch. In 6. Sanbedrin Sa as well, the purported Baraita “proves” the exilarch’s superiority to the patriarch, such that when a rabbi obtains an authorization from the exilarch to serve as a judge in Babylonia, that authorization is also valid in Palestine. It seems at first glance, therefore, that the Baraita, which serves in two contexts as pro-Babylonian polemic, is of Babylonian origin or has been tam- pered with by Babylonian tradents and made to reflect Babylonian ideology. This conclusion is important because, as noted above, this Baraita is apparently the earliest expression of the claim that Hillel is the progenitor of the Gamalielite dynasty. If this claim originates in Babylonia, then one of the most frequently repeated “truths” of ear- lier scholarship, a “truth” we hear in modern scholarship to this very day,®? namely the Hillelite origin of the Gamalielites, is appar- ently a Babylonian invention. Even further, it is apparently a Babylo- nian invention which originated as a piece of pro-Babylonian polemic. In addition to the polemical uses to which the purported Baraita is put in b. Sanbedrin Sa and b. Horayot 11b, the claim in Babylonia may have originated as a polemical attempt to assert that Babylonia, Hillel's birthplace, produced the patriarchal dynasty.” A closer look at the Baraita, however, independent of the literary contexts provided by the Bavli, suggests that it may have originated in Palestine and been subjected not to Babylonian emendation, but to Babylonian reinterpretation. The “Baraita,” it will be recalled, reads as follows: “The scepter shall not depart from Judah” (Gen. 49:10), these are the exilarchs in Babylonia, who discipline Israel 69. See, for example, Gunter Scemberger, Jes and Christians in the Holy Land: Palestine in the Fourth Century (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000), 230. 70. See also Goodblatt, Monarchic Principle, 145-46, 152, 158; Jacobs, Institue tion, 35-39, 218-20, Hille! and the Soldiers of Herod 21 with a staff. “Nor the staff from between his legs” (Gen, 49:10), these are the descendants of Hillel, who teach Torah in public, It bears emphasizing that this tradition is preserved in a rabbinic text, and it therefore makes sense to interpret it from a rabbinic point of view. We must ask ourselves, in other words, whether the rabbinic authors of this tradition prefer “the descendants of Hillel” or “the exilarchs in Babylonia.” Considering the Baraita indepen- dent of the context provided by Rav Safra in Horayot and the anon- ymous commentators in Sanhedrin, it seems clear that the descendants of Hillel are preferred. They are Torah scholars, in addi. tion to whatever political power they might have (and this source seems to be totally uninterested in the political aspect of the patri- archate), as opposed to the exilarchs, who rule by might alone. Per- haps, therefore, we have a legitimate Baraita, which originated in Palestine and unfavorably contrasted the exilarchate with the patti- archate, which in its contexts in the Bavli has been preserved, with- out emendation but subjected to reinterpretation such that it now serves Babylonian polemical purposes. According to this reconstruc- tion of the peregrinations of this tradition, the notion of the Hillelite descent of the Gamalielite patriarchate originated in Palestine and traveled from there to Babylonia, perhaps carried there by Rav Safra, whose close links to Palestine were noted above, To sum up this portion of the discussion: there is little firm evi- dence that Rabbi, or a Palestinian near-contemporary of Rabbi, knew the tradition that Hillel was the progenitor of the Gamalielite patriarchate. All of the texts which appeared to attribute this idea to Rabbi were found to be problematic, very likely the work of later slossators, and a Baraita which appeared to express this idea is pre~ served only in the Bavli in the context of pro-Babylonian polemic, ‘We suggested that it may be possible to extricate the Baraita from its Babylonian polemical context and recover its pro-Palestinian polem- ical thrust, however, according to which the purported Baraita may be a real Baraita. But it is also possible that while the core of the tra- dition is Palestinian and Tannaitic, its reference to the patriarchs as “the descendants of Hillel” originated in Babylonia, whereas the Palestinian version of the tradition is preserved in Genesis Rabbah 97, where an almost identical tradition refers to the patriarchs as “the nesi’im of Beit Rabbi” rather than as “the descendants of Hil.