Hillel and Shammai didn’t exist? Is that possible? Does it matter?

Yigal Ben-Nun is weakened and therefore one must not doubt all the theological slop that he spouts. And seriously, those knowledgeable in research do not take his hollow and biased musings seriously.

He certainly looks and sounds like a scoundrel.
But still. Is it possible to know for sure whether these are literary characters or not?

Here”a – Hello Rabbi,

What difference does it make if Hillel and Shammai and all the conditions were there? – After all, we have a final decision by which we will walk until the coming of the Savior of righteousness and until the end.:)

With greetings, Sully Pazist

Gil.

Stop using personal attacks on a person and address their words.

The last rabbi is dear, in order to verify historical reality, one must compare with different sources, with external sources.

The last questioner is respected, see: cth 16.8.22, No. 41, 196-194.
Rabban Gamliel the Sixth.

I listened attentively to Yigal's lecture on the subject. The thesis he presents is baseless (a speculation that is partly improbable and partly impossible. Either way, his evidence is ridiculous and I'm still nice), and anyone who knows a thing or two about these subjects will make meatballs out of this research when it's published. And the things are long.

In the 8th of Tammuz 5772

The words of the Tannaim and the Amoraim are quoted in many places and in many sources that are not dependent on each other. Besides the Mishnah, there are also collections of baraithos (Tosefta, Avot Dr. Nathan, Part Kin'yan Torah, Tractates Ketaton, 32 Midot Dr. Yi Galili)) and halachic midrashim (Mekhilta Dr. Yishmael, Mekhilta Dr. Yi, Safra, Sifri, Sifri Zuta, Midrash Tannaim, etc.) What ‘disappeared hand’ could create such a great variety and implant within it all the personalities and their words?

With greetings, Sh”z

For external sources – Roman or Jewish historiographers who did not accept the tradition and authority of Chazal – it is clear that they would have very little interest in dealing with them and their teachings, and naturally it is not expected that there will be any significant mention of Chazal in them. Therefore, their lack of mention in external sources does not teach anything.

Sh”ts,
But the gra”l Steinman appeared on YNET…
Then it turns out there is a generational shift…

He basically did to Zal what Zal did to Job.

M.

Give us a taste of what's out there, talk and talk. What do you say?

Sh”t, did you read my response to the last question? Did you look at the original?

On the 4th of Tammuz 5771

Lk. – Shalom Rabbi,

The mentions of Rabbi Steinman in the secular press are a ‘drop by drop’, and they exist because he raised the ‘flag of the Torah’ involved in Israeli politics. Of course, his halakhic and philosophical teachings are of no interest to any journalist.

I remember the shock that gripped the journalists at the funeral of Gershom Auerbach, which was attended by hundreds of thousands, Jews from all walks of life whose rulings accompanied them in all areas of their lives, but the journalists had never heard of him because he was not involved in politics.

Thus, Josephus Flavius, who deals with a detailed description of the political and military history, focuses on those who were active in politics and wars and mentions Rabban Gamliel, who appointed him governor of Galilee during the revolt, but besides him, almost no one is mentioned, because the Pharisees were accepted by the people (as Josephus describes) but were quite excluded from political influence in the "high windows".

This is all the more true of Roman historians. Even major events such as the Great Revolt and the Bar Kokhba Revolt are mentioned in isolated places in what has come down to us from Roman historical literature. Kings and their wars make a great noise in their time, but the giants of the spirit and their teachings remain for generations by their students and the students of their students.

With greetings, Sh”t

For comparison, I clicked on ’Google’ ‘Moshe Feinstein’ and found no mention in the secular press. When I finally came across the article, it was about ‘Moshe Eichenstein’…

So maybe Rabbi Moshe Feinstein is a fictional character invented by the ’Dosim’? Do some research )

With best regards, Dr. Shimshon Ben-Nun, author of ‘A Brief History of the Twentieth Century”…

Lovers of debunking myths will find interest in the journal ‘Midbar Shekar’ (edited by Hagai Misgav and Hillel Gershuni) for the study of Southwest Asia in the 20th and 21st centuries; read and live your life 🙂

With best wishes, Mee Toos

A. – When I answer questions of this type on the site, I answer them as someone who is somewhat knowledgeable in the world of research and not as someone who is expressing his personal opinion, and if I say that I have examined the things, you will assume that there are things in the body (and therefore I see no real need to justify).

The above research by Yigal (if of course it is as he presented it in that lecture) is a groundless idea and full of methodological errors.

Take, for example, the stupid claim that some of the conditions are literary works because they all start out as poor. Well, anyone who knows anything about the Second Temple period understands that all this evidence is one big nonsense. When Josephus described the conditions, he noted that among the sects of the Second Temple, whoever was rich was already a Sadducee and whoever was poor was already a Pharisee, since this was the class that represented the people (not always, but mostly true). When Yigal claims that it is impossible for everyone to be poor, this only shows that he does not understand anything about the study of the Second Temple. If you were a poor rabbi, you automatically belonged to the Pharisees (Chazal) and not to the Sadducees.

Beyond that, Albeck and other scholars have proven (and you are welcome to study the material and understand why) that the Mishnai were written as early as the Hellenistic period, and in any case, to say that this is a late literary fiction is a groundless theory. Read, for example, Sussman or Albeck and you will see the arguments there.

Another example is that Although we do not have versions of the Mishnah until the 9th century, we do have literature by the Geonimis that is built on the order of the tractates (all in the same order consistently. I wonder why) and refers to ancient laws that they had (see the section on the Teshuvot HaGeonim...). To say that there are no Jewish texts until the 9th century is sheer ignorance, and to ignore the fact that the version of the Mishnah (which other scholars have proven to be ancient) was before the Tannaim is a complete nonsense.

The argument that couples were not mentioned in Josephus is also nonsense. Josephus describes sects of sages and the Sanhedrin, and he almost never mentions the names of the people who sat there. To say that Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai did not exist because his name is not mentioned is an embarrassing argument. Dozens of other sages who sat in the Sanhedrin were never mentioned either, (including the heads of the Sanhedrin for most of history), and in any case this logical inference is completely stupid.

I am not surprised that such nonsense came out of Yigal, he is a researcher who in his previous book proved that he lacks any knowledge of philological research (the book contains truly embarrassing errors for experts in the genre) and when a literary researcher enters such a broad field without philological knowledge and makes claims that “it doesn't make sense” without fully knowing the material, it is no wonder that such nonsense came out.

I will not go into the more serious methodological errors that were in his research path and point out the fact that this is a change activist who is trying to shatter myths in order to return the question (the so-called – objective researcher”). It is sad that this person allows himself to belittle other scholars that he is not even close to what they were when they completed their first degree (take for example his claim that Talmudic research does not deal with when the text was written, anyone who has studied for a day in the Talmud department knows that the time of the text's composition is one of the most talked about topics and there are real polemics about it. But “no one deals with it”)

The problem with Yigal Ben Nun is that he is only wise about the weak who have no idea about the material and he builds theories based on “it doesn't make sense” for people who don't know the facts and have no experience in research in order to examine whether it stands the test of reality (i.e. – it is true in the face of parallels) or the facts. No wonder that in academia, almost no researcher is familiar with this gibberish, but on the Internet, where most people who have never studied philological research or biblical studies are, the guy is seen as an idol who proves things with signs and wonders. It's a shame that this is how research is thought to look, and it's a shame that he's disparaging academia and trying his hand at convincing people who have no ability to deal with the material.

M.

Still, one needs to reason, and claims about a person's character don't really interest me. Look, you didn't provide clear sources and evidence here. I personally need to study a lot to consider the things being said, and I admit that I'm really lacking in that. If it turns out he's wrong, then he's wrong. I don't think he's doing it on purpose, after all, his environment is testing him on things. In any case, I wouldn't call a person who completed two doctorates with honors "disgraceful of academia."

A. I suggest you ask academics about the man and you'll hear the same answers… by the way, his environment that examined the things is exactly the same that said that the guy is not serious and is making arguments out of thin air.
B. I referred you to sources, I can't write books here. If the topics interest you – go study it. In this subject (unlike many historical research fields) there is no shortage of good material in Hebrew
C. I'm just saying that as someone who is knowledgeable in the world, most of the things he claimed are without proof that holds water (Josephus) and things that the facts refute (the non-existence of the Mishnah). Raising random skeptical claims (who said that X really existed, just because there is no empirical proof from that time) is not a serious argument. Based on this, I can invent whatever I want and claim that Ezra the Writer (a character whose existence is not doubted by a single person in academia) did not exist and is a literary fiction, it is not science, it is clowning.
D. His mistakes are not intentional (although I once caught him explicitly making a mistake!), but it is the fictions that are the problem – they stem from ignorance! The problem is that a broken man who has never engaged in Second Temple research allows himself to call Israel Prize winners by insulting nicknames. This is while he himself raises factual arguments that are very basic errors.

M.

What would he say about Ezra the writer? And based on everything you've learned, you accept the existence of all the couples and who is fat, etc. even though there is no empirical evidence other than the writings themselves for their existence?

According to Yigal Ben-Nun's method, the Mishnah is invented, since its earliest manuscripts are from the 9th century - it should be said that the writings of Josephus Flavius were also invented in the Middle Ages, since the earliest manuscripts of his books are from the Middle Ages 🙂

What to do? Manuscripts are not preserved for more than a thousand years, only in places with a dry desert climate, such as the Geniza in Cairo or the Judean Desert, and in any research one must rely on copies that are hundreds of years later than the writing of the text. There are copying errors, but a comparison of several manuscript witnesses can give a good indication of the authenticity of the text.

Best regards, Sh”t

If he follows the same logic, he will reach the same conclusion. This is the same logic that once made people doubt the very existence of David.

I argue that since the Mishnahs preserve an ancient text and in general this is the Oral Tradition, from my point of view they all existed unless proven otherwise. In other words – not that it is certain but that it is the rational starting point (and what I said is a perfectly acceptable scientific argument)

Yigael actually did 2 things – said that he does not accept the objection I mentioned – but that is just a skeptical argument,
and tried to present counter-evidence. The counter-evidence is really stupid and the skeptical argument is just skepticism.

What probably also contradicts his claim (although in truth – there is no need to do this because skepticism is not evidence) is the ancient formulation of the Mishnahs and historical considerations of this style.

To say that there is no evidence is a somewhat inaccurate statement because the Hellenistic wording of the Mishnah is significant evidence (and this issue itself is dozens of pieces of evidence because there is a lot of research to support it), it is simply not proof of a contemporary document.

Okay. So if that's the case, you also have to accept the miracles and wonders that abound throughout the Talmud. What makes this place hate this place?

A. Don't compare the mere existence of leaders and the quotes they said to the stories about their lives in the Midrashim.
B. This does mean that the stories in the Mishnah are at least very ancient, there is no doubt about that.
C. In general, please separate the Mishnah from the Talmud, Yigal claims that the conditions are an invention.

Agent M,

You focus on methodologies.
If you notice, I didn't ask whether his methodology was correct. I'm not interested in that at all. You can open a different thread about that.

The question is whether Hillel and Shemai and the other couples existed. From all your words, I haven't seen any proof of that. The fact that sages are mentioned is not proof of anything. There are always sages. And if that's your proof, then his proofs are already superior.

The fact that you write a lot about methodology just diverts the discussion. I hope that this is not your practice to hide the fact that you have no proof of existence.

And if you do have proof of existence. I would be happy to know because those things that were said by him did not please my ears.

We have summarized the teachings according to Yigal Ben-Nun's method:

Several books of the Bible were written in the first century CE in the Judean Desert. The Bible as a whole was originally written in Greek in the fourth century, as there are no earlier manuscripts. The manuscripts of the Septuagint translation in the Sinai Desert, where the Sinai Conference took place, were in the fourth century. Following the impressive conference, the Roman Empire accepted Judaism.

The Quran was written in the 5th-6th century, as an ancient manuscript of the Quran is dated to this period (before the birth of Muhammad) according to carbon-14 tests. The Bible was translated into Hebrew in the 9th-10th century, and only since then have there been any earlier manuscripts of it. In the 11th century, Homer's Iliad and Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews were written, the Mishnah was written in the 11th-12th centuries, the Jerusalem Talmud was written in the 13th century, the writings of Maimonides were written in the 13th century, and in the 14th century, the Babylonian Talmud was written, which, inspired by Maimonides, reinterpreted the Mishnah to fit Maimonides' rulings...

Another important note: Regarding ‘Sh”Z Levinger’, many responses from him were found on Rabbi Michael Avraham's website, but no authentic manuscript of his has been found. It seems that ’Sh”Z Levinger’ is a figure invented by the editors of the website. His surname also appears in the letter suppression’ Such as ‘Gorlin’, ‘Regniol’ and ’Shei Tsai Rolling’.

Best regards, Shamzon Levinon

All your questions have been explained in detail and I do not intend to repeat them.

M.

And maybe the stories about their lives are also invented? I still haven't received an answer as to who hated this place from this place? If this is invented, then these are also invented. Do you have any evidence about the status of Mount Sinai other than the Bible? And who told you that there was Moses?

A. I have no problem in principle with saying that there are invented legends, the question is when were they written down. And the study of the Mishnah has taught that the things were written down in an ancient period and therefore it is certainly not an invention of hindsight. Apparently, for example, there was indeed a guy named Honi who was told about him who performed miracles and the Mishnahs that mentioned him were more or less from his time.

In addition, the critical study of the Mishnah can constitute strong evidence for the very existence of the Mishnah. You see this in the connections between the halakhah as addressing the needs of its time and the lifetime of that Tanna (which is something that was discovered only in modern times and concealed the Talmudic tradition, thus proving that it was unlikely that it was intentional) or in the consistency in the halakhic method (if you like – in the philosophy of jurisprudence) of conditions that make it unlikely that this is an intentional conspiracy given that they simply invented characters and there is more evidence for this, but the things are really long and it is not possible to write a book here. If this interests you, there are research materials from which you can learn how they reached the conclusions they reached. I'll tell you that it's really not because “that”.

M.

If the legends were written in ancient times, then what does that mean? Do you accept those legends or not? And if you don't accept them, how did they fit in with those Tannaim/Amoraim who also argued over verses? Or would you say that there were the same characters and the writers invented legends about them?

On the 9th of Tammuz 5771

Against every theory of invention stands a difficult question: How did an invented narrative dominate a people scattered and divided in all corners of the world?

And how is the invented narrative accepted without question by a critical and stubborn people who will not easily abandon the tradition of their ancestors, and the invented narrative quickly conquers all the diasporas? And yet another narrative that imposes a demanding burden of commandments and leads to conflicts and persecutions on the part of ‘the whole world and its wife’?

We have seen that a narrative dominates the masses by the power of a strong political government. Thus Christianity and Islam were dominated by mighty empires led by believers of these religions – But a scattered and divided people without any political leadership – how will they govern the narrative invented throughout the nation?

Apparently, without a central, coercive government – the stubborn people accepted the authority of the sages, because they saw them as reliable representatives and interpreters of their deep-rooted tradition.

With best wishes, Sh”t

It's really hard for me to understand why things are unclear, but I'll explain one last time.
1. Yigal claims that the Tanais did not exist. The Tanais are the sages of the Mishnah
2. The Mishnahs were written during the Second Temple period (i.e. – during the life of the Tanais)

Now you're saying what about the legends about the Tanais?
1. In the Mishnah, as far as I can remember, there are really no legends, except perhaps about Choni, but we'll take his example for the sake of discussion –
2. It is indeed clear that during the Second Temple period, a young man named Choni was wandering around the land, about whom there were stories of miracles, as there were about Rabbi Kaduri.
3. These stories of miracles also entered the narratives of the Tanais that were passed down orally.
4. The story of Choni's miracle could have been a real, coincidental event, or an urban legend, it doesn't matter. During his lifetime, a legend of miracles was told about him, and it was written down orally at the time and passed on.

Have you learned that there is no connection between the existence of a person and whether every story about him is accurate, just as there is no connection between whether Jesus had the Holy Spirit and the simple fact that there was a strange guy in the land named Jesus about whom legends circulated that he performed miracles (although in his case there is clear evidence that most of the miracles are a later addition and apocryphal).

Everything has been explained and I have nothing more to add. If you don't get it – then no.

On the 9th of Tammuz 5771

Honi the Circle is also mentioned by Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews as a “beloved of God” who in the past prayed and brought about rain. Josephus relates that during the Hasmonean fratricidal war, the besiegers of Jerusalem asked him to pray for their success in their war against their brothers. Honi refused and they murdered him. The Mishnah mentions that Shimon ben Shetach responded to Honi’s action in his prayer for rain, so it seems clear that both Josephus and the Mishnah are referring to the same Honi. See Wikipedia, entry “Honi the Circle.”

With greetings, Sh.

According to Josephus, Honi was murdered in 63 BCE while trying to stop the civil war. What happened in the next seventy years? The house of Antipater the Edomite came to power in Judea under the protection of the Romans. About seventy years after Honi's murder, the rule of the house of Antipater came to an end, which was expelled by the Romans in 6 CE.

It turns out that there were those who remembered Honi's attempt to stop the civil war, and came to the conclusion that a "window of opportunity" would open here, allowing Honi to renew his attempt and heal the rifts in the people, in the figurative way of "bringing Honi's spirit back to life," but much to his disappointment, the people were not willing to accept his spirit, Honi's aspiration, and Honi's spirit had no place in the world.

It is very clear that talk about renewing Jewish unity and ending the situation in which everyone tries to involve the Romans for the benefit of their camp – could not have been heard in public except by way of a parable. The path that aspires to unity wanted to learn from the carob tree that even in this path there is a great need to come to terms with a less than optimal reality – it is worth investing in a long-term process of rapprochement in the hope that the full fruit will come in future generations.

Best regards, Sh”t [Viewer]

In paragraph 3, line 3
… The path that aspires to unity wanted to learn from the carob tree…

Okay, so Flavius doesn't mention Shemaiah and Abtalion. But he does mention the Pharisee sages Samaeus and Petalion. To me, that's close enough.