“Kingdom of Conviction”?

The Temple was destroyed because of gratuitous hatred. Are the Romans to blame for the gratuitous hatred that was Israel's inheritance? After all, the destruction of the Temple was a direct result (whether it was intentional or an unfortunate mistake on the part of the Romans) of the gratuitous hatred, division, and strife of various sects. Were the Israelites not afraid of this outcome? Were they not afraid that the unnecessary rebellions would fail and they would be punished?
PS: It is clear that there were bad rulers among the Romans, but as we know, these were few and far between for very short periods.

Benjamin, please don't waste my time with a clumsy klutz.

For the answer, it is not a question of a “hard-to-reach place”, in any case it did not detract from the question that was asked to Chaim at the time. K. and his answer was published in “Aliba Dehalkata” and is as follows: A Jew whose right hand is in a cast, is it permissible to wipe with his left hand? And D. L.
With blessings and thanks

Benjamin said –

See Wikipedia entry ‘Divide and Conquer’ that the Romans were masters of ’Divide and Conquer’, and encouraged internal discord so that the Roman government would appear as a peacemaker’ in the way of the ’Pax Romana’.

They came to power in Judea through hatred of the brothers Hyrcanus and Aristobulus who invited Poppius to be the arbitrator, and he enslaved both sides, and his successors continued the system and encouraged the division and internal conflicts among their subjects..

With greetings, Satius

According to Zachius, the internal division began long before Roman rule and without any connection to it. In fact, the first treaty was made by Judah Maccabee with Rome in 161 BC. See Hasmoneans 1, Chapter 8 for details.
PS: With all due respect, the historical facts are well known to me regardless of wiki.

On the 9th of Tammuz 5772

The ideological division in the Jewish people began in the Hellenistic period when the Jewish people were first exposed to a culture that attempted to unite the world into a culturally "global village." The separation began between the Hellenists, mainly from the elite of the rich and the priests, and the common people who remained faithful to the tradition of their ancestors.

With the victory of the Hasmoneans, the Sadducean view developed in elite circles, who had returned to Judaism but were already cut off from the tradition of the fathers, which accepted the biblical text, but not its traditional interpretation, while the common people remained faithful to the tradition and its subjects (and a third group arose that broke away and founded a sect in the Judean Desert9).

But the separation was still limited because they still had to cooperate in leading the state. When the Romans entered, the independent leadership was eliminated. The one who managed affairs was initially a vassal king (Horod) and later the service of the Roman procurators. They even disputed who would be the High Priest. All religious matters became more and more privatized, and countless splinter groups arose. Josephus already describes the Sadducees as incapable of uniting, and even the Pharisees split into two houses. And around them, countless different and strange groups arose.

The government The cruel and corrupt oppressor of the Roman governors, who changed every few months and whose main concern was to squeeze as much as possible from their subjects and fill the pockets of the people in power – All this caused bitterness and a desire to revolt, and groups of rebels on the one hand and people who were afraid to confront the government, argued and clashed with each other.

If the Hellenists left the people divided into two or three groups – The Roman government breaks the people into countless groups that fight each other, unable to find a common denominator until the last moment.

Best regards, Sh”t

Paragraph 1, line 2
… Thus began the separation…

Paragraph 3, line 3
… followed by the Roman commissioners who even determined…

Paragraph 4, line 2
… And their main concern was…

In any case, the fact that the destruction came to the Jews for their sin does not absolve their enemies of responsibility. Before Titus' decision to destroy the Temple, he held a consultation with his military leaders. Some were inclined to believe, as did Fenger, Duke of Arabia, that the barrel with the snake tied to it should be broken, and some, like Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai, that a distinction should be made between the rebels and the rest of the people - "kill the snake without breaking the barrel."

Roman sources indicate (contrary to Flavius' story) that the military leaders recommended to Titus not to destroy the Temple, and he did not accept their advice and decided to destroy it (this is what I heard in 1984 in a lecture by Professor Isaiah Gafni).

Titus' decision to destroy, a decision that was not necessary from a political-military perspective, It indicates that there was also a dimension of hatred in his considerations, and that Tala was only considering business matters. Therefore, he has rightly earned the nickname "evil".

With best wishes, Sh”t

I mentioned in paragraph 2 the discussion of whether it was Titus who ordered the destruction of the temple.

Flavius, whose name already indicates his inclination in favor of his patron Titus – claims (in The Jewish Wars) that the soldiers on their own initiative began to burn the temple. Titus called on them to stop, but because of the noise they did not hear his voice.

This version is problematic. After all, the Romans' way was not to destroy temples in conquered cities so as not to get into trouble with the idols of that temple. The only time they destroyed a temple was during the destruction of Carthage. It is difficult to assume that soldiers would decide on their own initiative to do something almost unprecedented in the presence of the commander as the destruction of a temple.

In Wikipedia, the entry ‘The Great Revolt’ states that, contrary to Josephus's words in The Jewish Wars that Titus opposed the destruction of the temple – In Antiquities, Josephus omits that Titus captured and burned the Temple, and does not mention anything about his opposition to the destruction of the Temple.

Similarly, the Christian chronicler Sulpicius Severus (cited in Wikipedia entry ‘Titus’) states that it was Titus who ordered the burning of the Temple. Severus is about 300 years later than Josephus, but he apparently relies on an earlier Roman historian.

Professor Gafni apparently relied on these two sources, preferring their testimony to Josephus's testimony in ’Warhum’ and believes that there Josephus tried to defend his patron.

Best regards, Sh”T

Sh”Z, “After all, the Romans' way was not to destroy temples in conquered cities so as not to get involved with the idols of that temple. After all, the Romans' way was not to destroy temples in conquered cities so as not to get involved with the idols of that temple.” – What is the source of your words?

On the 10th of Tammuz 5771

Bev. 3 – Hello,

The fact that the Romans did not destroy temples in conquered cities is cited in the ’Wikipedia’ entry ‘The Great Revolt’, as support for Josephus’s version in the ’Jewish Wars’ that Titus opposed the destruction of the temple.

For this reason, it is &#8216evidence to contradict’, since it is unlikely that soldiers would dare to take an unusual and almost unprecedented step on their own, without the approval of the commander, and even in his presence? It is not clear that the sg would act on his own accord in the presence of the sg.

Therefore, the testimony of Josephus himself in the Antiquities is preferable; Titus captured and burned the temple, and as Sulpicius Severus also wrote.

With greetings, sg.

Sh”t, you are avoiding answering me, my question is not understandable to you, quote your words above “After all, the Romans' way was not to destroy temples in conquered cities so as not to get involved with the idols of that temple” – What is the source of your words? I would be happy to receive a location map.
P.S.: Please do not refer me to Wikipedia with historical questions, Wikipedia is only popular history and there is no way for me to deal with it at such a level.

On the 14th of Tammuz, 5731

Not only are ’judgmental’academic publications’ – whose constant existential need to produce ‘revolutionary innovations’ – should be treated with criticism and suspicion. Popular historical literature, which usually reflects a broad consensus in the world of research, should also be treated with criticism,

That is why I criticized the evidence that the author of the article on the ‘Great Revolt’ brought to Josephus’s version in his &#8217War’ that Titus opposed the destruction of the Temple, and the fact that the Romans did not destroy the temples of their conquerors. And I wrote that there is actually &#8216evidence to contradict’.

It is unlikely that the emperor would dare to do an act of great significance without the approval of the commander-in-chief, and especially an act that has almost no equal before it, such as the destruction of a temple? The Roman Empire allowed its subjects to indulge in and respect the pagan paganism. Is it known in the scientific literature that you find so much of it another description of the destruction of temples of conquered nations besides the destruction of Carthage?

Josephus, who is called Flavius after his patrons, has a clear need to clear his patron of the blame for the destruction of the temple, and therefore in Wars he changed the earlier version that appears in Antiquities, which attributes the burning of the temple to Titus himself.

But, rather, go out and perhaps find a side finding, study merit also on Titus, and purify his name 🙂

With greetings, Satius Livius Negros

In the last line
… Rather, go out and search. Perhaps you will find…

Sh”ts, I would refer you to reading Elias Bickerman's book:- Elias Bickerman, From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees – NY 1962
The book will contribute a lot to your ability to analyze the connections between “religious pluralism” and polytheism / monotheism.
Good luck

In the days of the Lord, all the sons of Sheth 5750

He said to Benjamin,

Indeed, ‘idolatry and a covenant’. I worship Chemosh and you worship the flea, and a man by his faith shall live’, and the world can enjoy the most cruel ‘bread and amusements’, because even morality is relative.

This idyll began to be threatened during the Second Temple period when Judaism began to exert a cultural influence on the Hellenistic-Roman world and introduced the idea that idolatry was forbidden, that sexual promiscuity was forbidden, and that murder was not acceptable. In short, all the elements of Hellenistic-Roman culture were threatened.

Therefore, enlightened Hellenes like Antiochus, Titus, and Hadrian are forced to carry out a ‘root treatment’ to the evil that threatens their enlightened culture.

But that didn’t help them much. The Jewish BJB conquered their culture. What do we do? Redefine the concepts. The Trinity is monotheism, and true Judaism is without the 3 commandments, and the gladiator is made to be converted into an auto de pa.

And then he said

With the blessing of Shabbat Shalom, it is difficult.

We will speak joyfully after reading the book, Shabbat Shalom and blessed.

Paragraph 1, line 1
… ‘And a man by his faith shall live’…

Paragraph 2, line 1
… When Judaism began to influence…

Ibid., line 3
.. and that murder is not entertainment…

Paragraph 3, line 1
… In the Jewish bug’ that threatens their culture…

Paragraph 4, line 2
… The Trinity is monotheism…

Ibid., line 3
… And the gladiator games are converted into’auto…

And for further reference, see Wikipedia, entry Hatred of Israel in the Greco-Roman World’ and in his excellent book there, Bickerman pretty much avoided dealing with this (as noted in Bezalel Bar-Kochba's review (which is linked to in the Wikipedia entry on ‘Elijah Bickerman’))

With best regards, Sh”t

On the 14th of Tammuz 5721

On Bickerman's argument that hatred of Israel in the Greco-Roman world came about as a result of the Hasmoneans forcing the Edomites and Hittites to convert, Zvi Yavetz concluded from the fact that this forced conversion is not mentioned at all in Greek and Roman sources. The Hasmonean kingdom, even at its peak, did not extend beyond the territories of Israel, and there was no fear that it would conquer the world.

What is documented is the intensification of hatred in Rome in the first and second centuries AD by the culture of converts, which came not by force but from cultural influence. The existence of Jewish communities whose entertainments are not in the circus But around the synagogue, the reading and study of the Torah fascinated many Romans from the upper class, to the point that one Roman writer complained that there was no house without a Jew.

The existence of a group presenting a spiritual and ethical alternative was a real threat to Greco-Roman culture. Someone offering more serious and moral "amusement" than the "amusement" of the horrors of the circus, or the revelries of debauchery and debauchery - this is attractive and dangerous to the dominant "subculture".

Then Tiberius tries to expel the Jews from Rome, Domitian persecutes the converts as 'atheists', and Hadrian decrees a general ban on circumcision, leading to the outbreak of the Bar Kokhba rebellion. Ultimately, the situation stabilized with Antoninus' decision to permit circumcision only to Jews, and to strictly prohibit it to others. Thus, the danger of conversions that threatened Rome was averted.

However, the Christian 'mosquito' continued to 'sting' at the mind of Rome in the form of Christianity, which offered 'instant Judaism', monotheism, and moral values without circumcision and without the burden of commandments. Judaism in its homoclastic version took over the empire at the end of the fourth century, while absorbing pagan symbols such as the belief in the Trinity.

In short: influence through the ’ways of kindness’ was much more dangerous to Greco-Roman culture than &#8216forced conversion’, and naturally, when the existence of a culture is endangered, hatred comes. As the sages said, ”Mount Sinai’ is called Yes, from which came the hatred of the nations for Israel.

With blessings, ”Z

I am wise
Excellent

If I am not mistaken, Tractate Avoda Zarah is about the relations between the people of Israel and Rome (or Greece). Indeed, at first, the people of Israel and Rome lived in peace for 26 years. But then everything turned upside down.