Why is the rabbi a Pharisee?

The claim is only 1.
That once the whole nation followed the House of Zadok.
But the Pharisees took over the people in the Second Temple because they helped them, etc. What's more, the Pharisee calendar is just a bad imitation of the Babylonian.

The rabbi can see the lectures of Prof. Rachel Elior.

Unfortunately, I don't have time to listen to these lectures, so I can only comment in general terms. In general, the "proofs by signs and wonders" in these areas do not really exist. I am very skeptical about such historical claims (although, as I said, I have not heard the claims you are talking about here). Usually, these are hypotheses and interpretations, not proofs, and each researcher has his own opinion, and one contradicts his friend.
But even if it were true that the Pharisees took control of the people (what does "take control" mean? Killed all the others? Beat them up?), then this is the accepted opinion, and therefore, as far as I am concerned, this is what is binding. Just as at Mount Sinai, the acceptance of the public is what binds us. The Torah has undergone and is undergoing many changes throughout the generations, and in my opinion, there is no point in restoring and returning to the original Torah. What has been accepted now is what binds us. This ”takeover” can be a legitimate process of acceptance of an opinion or approach. Similarly, the House of Hillel took over the House of Shammai, etc., etc.
Furthermore, and do you know “by signs and wonders” that the House of Zadok themselves did not take over the people who ”followed them” a generation earlier? Then to the same extent you can ask why listen to them. How far will you go with these historical clarifications? The tradition that has come down to us has come down as it has come down, and for me that is what counts. And as I said, the things are doubly true when those who challenge this do so based on historical considerations and hypotheses, which are usually not really well-founded.

Raphael, you were given only one opinion, this is one of the most well-known disputes in Jewish studies.
According to Professor Eyal Regev, the Pharisees were actually ahead.

Many thanks for the Rabbi's answer.
But,
If we assume that the Beit Zadok tradition is from Sinai
Then,
I assume that if they have proven that a certain path is the correct one.
So why not return to it?
If the whole nation follows me to the graves of the righteous, then is there national acceptance of the above?

And many thanks to B.
Do you know of any other professors who support what you say? Or is this the sole opinion of Professor Eyal Regev?

If I had come to a clear conclusion that the Beit Zadok tradition is from Sinai, there would be something to talk about (unless the change was requested and did not constitute biased manipulation).
Going to the graves of the righteous is not a halakhic obligation (B”E). And also with regard to halakhic obligations, one must distinguish between two proposals from the tradition, for which I have no position, and a situation where I have my own position.

As for the debate between the professors, advice from experience. It is not worth gathering professors for every direction. It is really unproductive. If you want to and it seems important and interesting to you, you should enter the issue yourself and formulate your own position. This is not the Torah from Sinai and everything is accessible to laypeople. Just read, examine the arguments and decide what you think. Believe me, this is not physics in 64 dimensions.

Hello Rabbi.
I'm not so clear about what you said, if you were 100% sure that the tradition of Zadok is more faithful, that you would consider accepting it.
You wrote several times that the Sanhedrin have the authority, and if they decided to rule as Pharisees, then that is what is binding, even if it is misleading or poetic, etc. And just as they decided regarding the number of works, so is the case with this matter.
The Rabbi also said that the Torah that comes to us is the binding one.
If someone nevertheless believes that the Sadducees are 100% right, then should they become a Sadducee?
And if so, why do we need certainty, since the Rabbi taught that there is no certainty in certainty.

L.K.
I assume that the rabbi read a little of the fascinating lectures of Prof.’ Ms.’ Rachel.
And understood besides what true Judaism is…

If Zadok's tradition were correct, the Sanhedrin would have no authority. This is one of the points of disagreement with them.
A clear conclusion is not certainty. As clear as my conclusion can be. Certainty is out of the realm.

I once heard one of the lectures, and I wasn't really enthusiastic. But I intentionally don't express a position because I really don't know enough. I said general things that are true for this entire field. In this context, allow me to cast doubt, with all due respect, on Rachel Elor, in that she will be the source from which we can understand what true Judaism is.

The researchers actually show that the Sadducees also had their own Toshva, a fact that is beyond dispute at all! (It is more similar to the written version, but there are points where they deviate from the version!). One of the reasons that the researchers believe the movement was lost is because, unlike the Pharisees, they did not put it down in writing.

As for who preceded whom, I just wanted to show that there is no clear opinion on this. You can see the introduction to Professor Albeck's Mishnah, which also discusses this in favor of the Pharisees. And also the comprehensive book ‘Oral Torah, Its Authority and Its Ways’ published by Musar Ha-Rav Kook.

The dispute between the researchers is not about the antiquity of the Toshva, everyone assumes that there were ancient traditions and regulations in the days of the First Temple. The researchers only disagree about what the dominant tradition was among the priests of the First Temple (some researchers assume that there were several). It should be remembered that according to the research (at least the absolute majority) there is no Torah from heaven, so it is clear that the traditions developed later and that there would be several of them.

Since a key part of our regulations and oaths developed later, the oath before Hazal is very limited and there are no writings of the Sadducees left, there is no way to decide this and it is all completely speculative. Some think this way and some think that way. The evidence on either side is not at all certain.

What is known is that in the days of the Second Temple, sometimes the Sanhedrin were Pharisees and sometimes Sadducees. Each of them held a different view. There is good evidence that the Pharisee oath is ancient (even according to those who believe that it is later than that of the Sadducees). The last (and decisive) Sanhedrin was Pharisee and hence, even if it is later, it is the binding law that the people accepted.

Dear B
I would be happy to receive a source that confirms that there were sometimes 2 Sanhedrins during the Second Temple period, I do not understand this because how is it possible that the Creator would allow an unauthorized Sanhedrin to dictate law to a holy people? This can bring great disaster! You must explain how the Sanhedrin got there and how it came down
from there! And who was it! And do you have the names of the Sadducean Sanhedrin!
B. The reason for the disappearance of the Sadducean Sanhedrin is that they did not put their oath in writing - what is the reason they did not put it in writing?
C. It could be that it was about the oath of the Sadducees that Isaiah prophesied continually: Hear the word of the Lord, you rulers of Sodom; Give ear to the law of our God, you people of Gomorrah. 11 Why do you offer me many sacrifices? The Lord says, “You have burnt rams and offered fattened lambs on my altar. And the blood of bulls and sheep and goats, I have not desired. 12 When you come to appear before me, who has required this from you, trampling down my courts? 13 Do not add, bring a burnt offering, incense is an abomination to me; a month and a sabbath are called a feast, I will not eat of it, and I will not stop it. 14 Your months and your appointed feasts are a hatred of my soul; they are a burden to me; I am weary, I cannot bear it. 15 And when you spread out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you, even though you make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.

1. It is not claimed that there were two at the same time, it is claimed that sometimes these ruled and sometimes these. And this is simply from our sources, see in the Megillat Taanit – “Esherin and Tamnia (2”8) on the tenth day of the month of Yativa, Knessta al Dina (the Sanhedrin sat on the judgment). Because the Sadducees sat in the Sanhedrin, King Yannai and Queen Shalmotsion sat with him, and no one from Israel sat with them except Shimon ben Shetach, and they would ask questions and laws and would not know how to bring evidence from the Torah. Shimon ben Shetach said to them: Anyone who knows how to bring evidence from the Torah is allowed to sit in the Sanhedrin. Once a matter of fact arose between them and they did not know how to bring evidence from the Torah except for one who would chatter against him and say: Give me time and I will return tomorrow. He gave him time, and he went and sat by himself and could not bring evidence from the Torah. The next day he was ashamed to come and sit in the Sanhedrin, and Shimon ben Shetah appointed one of the disciples and they sat in his place; he told them that there are no fewer than seventy-one in the Sanhedrin, and he did so to them every day until they all left and the Sanhedrin of Israel sat. The day that the Sanhedrin of the Sadducees left and the Sanhedrin of Israel sat, they made it a good day. Hence, it is clear that at the same time as them there were sages who opposed them (from both sides) until they gained the upper hand. See for all the length in Josephus, in the early generations (although there are later historians who dispute his constants, but from my impressions it is all speculation), in Renek (the early generations agree with him a lot) or in Regev.
Regarding the theological question: I did not understand why this is different from King Manasseh or Jeroboam who ruled the people or from false prophets? And this is without touching on the fact that authority does not necessarily stem from certain truth, but I will not go into that.

2. I am not a historian. This is the specific opinion of the prosphora Eyal Regev in his book (he has 2 works on this, he repeats many things between them, which only shows the level of uncertainty), I once remembered why. You can ask him. This is the reason why it is stated that this is ‘only one of the opinions’ and that everything is speculation. One can assume that the conclusion stems from the assumption that there really was such a prohibition once, which was also brought up by Chazal. In any case, I think this is also an uninteresting question. Others think it is because the Sadducees were a detached Hellenistic elite. Others think it is because most of their halakha was not practical without a temple, etc. (most. Not all of course). But really, it is not clear why this is interesting (beyond perhaps the research question).

3. Perhaps, but from the scripture's perspective, it is about the people of Israel who made sacrifices the main thing and neglected the observance of the commandments and honesty.

Welcome M to this discussion: B Where are you when you are needed? (Good 2 out of 1).

1. Too bad, too bad, I don't think anything of what you wrote seems right to me, not that you lied or that it's not written anywhere, it's just so absurd, that in your place and without disparaging any opinion, it's really meaningless stuff to the listener. And luckily for you, I'll explain:
First of all, it doesn't say how the Sadducees went up to the Sanhedrin at all, which is why you were asked to explain (I asked for the ascent and descent) and it's clear to you that the Pharisees were before them, right? And if they made a holiday on the day they went down – then they should have made a day of mourning on the day the Sadducees went up to the Sanhedrin!
B. Any Sadducee who came down could have used someone else from the Sanhedrin or even someone from the former Pharisee Sanhedrin, on the other hand, it is impossible that he did not know something in the Torah as a reference because the entire oath of the Sadducees is supposed to be built on the Torah because it interprets the written Torah – right?
B2. On the other hand, the questions were not recorded about why they could not give a verse from the Torah, and this weakens because Tractate Taanit is not relatively difficult!
C. Regarding theology – I did not understand too much (and I did not understand why you also say that you did not understand why it is different from the king……?), but from what I understood, I claim that you are implying that there was something unkosher from an authoritative point of view in returning our Sanhedrin to its place? I hope you will explain because it is very interesting.
D. There is a complete disregard for why we think that the Sanhedrin makes decisions and not the priests, Deuteronomy 17’ – And you came to the Levitical priests and to the judge who … and you kept doing whatever he told you”. If the Sanhedrin were Sadducees, surely the Sanhedrin too! And all his entourage!
E. This is the most interesting, my brother - it is just as I am interested in news about the Knesset these days! Everything that happens there is very important to the people and not just to the members of the Knesset and their entourage. And when the Sanhedrin is overthrown, it can cause a great upheaval, because in fact there was no upheaval, and this is suspicious, because in the first place when the Sanhedrin Sadducees came up, I did not hear from you about an upheaval in the people! And this is also suspicious, it is a shame that you buy all the last 3 lines that you brought in your answer 2 - very shameful!

3. Whose inhibitions, my brother? The inhibitions of the leaders who were above them, and this includes everyone - and this creates another problem, unfortunately, because how could they not be dealt with before they fell on the people? Because usually, in normalcy, one first blames the person responsible and then falls on the people! And in my opinion, he is addressing both the people and the elite!

My dear friend,
First of all M==B, I am simply answering from different computers and this is where the confusion in the users comes in.
1. In question “a” you asked for a source for my statement that there were different types of Sanhedrins, and I answered that. There are sources for this in the Sages and I gave an example from Tractate Taanit.
2. Regarding the historical theory of how the Sadducees arose. I was not there so I have no idea, I stated that this was the opinion of the scholars and I gave some speculations on the subject. I know no more than that.
3. Regarding 1-b, I did not understand what you are asking. If you mean the ruling methods of the Pharisees, it was done in a way that was unique to them and not according to the 13 Virtues. But none of that is of interest – my statement was that there were such Sanhedrins, that is all.
4. Regarding theology, I did not at all allude to what you said. I hinted that even if the Sanhedrin were incompetent people, perhaps ostensibly according to the law, they should have been listened to (regarding the correctness of this statement – I didn't want to go into it). All of this is of course irrelevant to our day because a Pharisee Sanhedrin arose and corrected the Oral Torah as we know it.
5. First, to the priests or to the **judge**. Priests are not required. Second, let's say the High Priest was a Sadducee (there were probably such periods), so what?
6. The fact that there were Pharisee sects among the people (Sadducees, Bethuselites, Essenes) already appears in the Gemara. What false fact did I buy? There were others, but our bottom line is binding. Why does it matter at all what was happening at the same time?
7. – Regarding ‘G’. I didn't understand what you're saying. I claimed that your interpretation is possible, but the simple text suggests otherwise. What's the problem with that?

Correction to 3:
” Regarding 1-b, I didn't understand what you were asking. If you mean the rulings of the Pharisees “. It should be “of the Sadducees”.

It also depends on who he is asking, a Pharisee or a Sadducee, and as one of the Sadducees in the Sanhedrin, he must know what each verse teaches, right?!

Dear M,
Your arguments are weak. Forgive me - if I answer something weaker than the previous one, I have done nothing! Therefore, I will not answer!
But I appreciate your availability!

M, a little homework. Eyal Regev does not claim that the Pharisees were ahead, but rather the exact opposite.
“The strict halachic view of the Sadducees is anchored in the Torah. On the contrary, it was their Pharisee opponents who created a complicated sermonic tradition in order to reach the lenient conclusions they reached, contrary to the simplicity of the verses. The most famous example deals with the punishment of a person who injured another's limb. The Torah, and following it the Sadducees, say about this: “an eye for an eye”, that is, the eye of the offender will be put out as punishment for the eye he injured. The Pharisees explained that this was a ransom payment. Regev, like other scholars before him, concludes from this that the Sadducees were precisely those who faithfully expressed the ancient law, anchored in the Torah, while the Pharisees were the reformists of their time, who sought to simplify and bring the law closer to the world of the reasonable person.

https://www.haaretz.co.il/misc/1.1099609

Rabbi, where did you get your idea from that you wrote that if the Sadducean tradition is correct, then the Sanhedrin has no authority? We haven't heard anyone dispute its authority (after all, these are explicit verses), and hence if the last Sanhedrin was Pharisee, then even if the original tradition is Sadducean, one still has to follow the Pharisees.

The Sadducees did not accept the Toshavah. Therefore, I understand that according to their system, the Sanhedrin has the authority to interpret the Torah and make decisions, but not to renew laws and to transmit the laws of Sheva.

What do you mean by “renewing laws”? If these are laws that they are renewing, interpreting them as an explanation and elaboration of a mitzvah, why wouldn’t there be authority? (Like, for example, a conflict between mitzvahs, pikuach nefesh on Shabbat, etc.)?

They renewed a law that it is permissible to light a fire during the day, and the Karaites who accept the Torah including “You shall not forsake” do not accept this. What does it mean that they do not accept the Toshvah in your opinion? If they accept any innovation of the Sanhedrin, it is the Toshvah. The very authority of the Sanhedrin to renew laws is an innovation of the Toshvah, and therefore it is likely that they would not accept this either. And the fact that they did not accept the innovations of the Pharisees. I really do not understand what the argument is about here.

They accept the Sanhedrin because it is a fact that the Sadducees were in it. B. The Sadducees had innovations in laws that were not in accordance with the plain meaning of the verses. Hanoch Albeck elaborates on this.

If they did not accept the law as their own. (Perhaps the Rabbi is a Sadducee in disguise 😮 )

Why is Ramada a Pharisee? And what do you want him to be? He is not a Hasid. The way of the Pharisees, who follow the example of the HaGal, who are dedicated to “revising the law from the Gemara,” is much more suitable for him 🙂

With blessings, Shimshon Zvi Badihi

Thanks for the great response, but the question is about you, after all, the halacha that it is permissible to light a fire during the day is a legitimate interpretation, and if it is not an interpretation, I do not know what an interpretation is, and what ruling of the Sanhedrin the Sadducees/Karaim would accept. It is clear that every interpretation creates a new halacha (so far we have mistakenly understood that it is forbidden to light during the day) or decides between previous interpretations (some used to light and some used not to light).
In my opinion, the meaning of ‘not to receive the resident”p’ It is to reject the tradition that transmits to us interpretations that are not in accordance with the simple, or a tradition that transmits to us a system of sermons that allows us to uproot laws that have been practiced since time immemorial, or to reject the authority of the Sages to interpret the Torah in a way that it is clear to us that Moses our Rabbi understood differently (“And you shall bind them to a sign by your hand” in the time of Moses it was a parable, and now we have the authority to change it and create tefillin).
But when there is a claim about a contemporary interpretation, with arguments in favor of this interpretation, it is clear that it is within the authority of the Sanhedrin.

I see no point in discussing the position of the Sadducees, especially since I have no clear information on the matter, and it does not seem particularly important to me.

Raphael - Are you from Jerusalem?
The Sadducees have become extinct - even though the prophecies in the Torah teach that there must remain a part that preserves the word of God. This in itself tells me that 2000 years have passed and because of the hidden scrolls, "new Sadducees have come from nearby", and they forgot that their Sadducee ancestors abandoned their entire library in the Judean desert. In my opinion, this is a very important matter and that the whole process should start from the point I mentioned: Why did they disappear?

Why doesn't it matter? If they came first, then we are living in a lie, and this could explain endless strange things in our Judaism (and as you know, you like to slaughter sacred cows): the strange "Darsh" of Chazal, the "Laws of Moses from Sinai" that we have never heard of, and many other wonders.

To the one with the nickname “Rabbi Michai” I don't know if you answered me since both I and the Honorable Rabbi talked about the importance, and my question is still standing and has not been answered: Why did the ancient Sadducees disappear and abandon their entire library?
Regarding your words, I think that Judaism at that time experienced many ups and downs and therefore I don't believe in examining who preceded whom at that time, the way of the righteous (the followers of God), must at all times and at all times aim at the will of the Creator, so that we do not have to use the marginal, meager and unacceptable justification: “Our fathers sinned and are not, and we have suffered their iniquities” , “What shall we say and what shall we justify ourselves because through our sins and the iniquities of our fathers Jerusalem and your people are a disgrace to all around us”.
What do you mean by sacred cows?
If I may ask, were you a yeshiva student in the past? How do you know so much about Pharisaic law?
Did you choose to be a Sadducee and now you follow the Qumran calendar 364 days a year? And wear round tefillin in whatever color you want?