The claim is basically one thing.
That once the whole people followed the House of Zadok.
But the Pharisees took over the people in the Second Temple period because they helped them, etc.; and besides, the Pharisaic calendar is basically just a poor imitation of the Babylonian one.

The Rabbi can watch the lectures of Prof. Rachel Elior.

Unfortunately I don’t have time to listen to these lectures, so I can only respond in a general way. In general, “proofs beyond doubt” in these areas do not really exist. I am very skeptical about historical claims like these (though as noted, I haven’t heard the claims you’re referring to here). Usually these are hypotheses and interpretations, not proofs, and every scholar has his own opinion, one contradicting another.
But even if it were true that the Pharisees took over the people (what does “took over” mean? Killed all the others? Beat them up?), that is still the opinion that was accepted, and therefore from my standpoint that is what is binding. Just as at Mount Sinai, public acceptance is what binds us. The Torah has undergone, and continues to undergo, very many changes throughout the generations, and in my opinion there is no point in reconstructing and returning to the original Torah. What has now been accepted is what is binding for us. This “takeover” could be a legitimate process by which a certain opinion or approach became accepted. That is also how the House of Hillel took over from the House of Shammai, and so on and so on.
Moreover, do you know “beyond doubt” that the House of Zadok themselves did not take over the people who “followed them” one generation earlier? If so, by the same token you could ask why listen to them. How far are you going to pursue these historical investigations? The tradition that reached us came as it came, and from my perspective that is what determines matters. And, as said, this is doubly true when the one challenging it does so on the basis of historical considerations and conjectures, which are usually not really well founded.

Raphael, they presented you with only one opinion; this is one of the best-known disputes in Jewish studies.
According to Professor Eyal Regev, the Pharisees actually came first.

Thank you very much for the Rabbi’s response.
But,
if we start from the assumption that the tradition of the House of Zadok is from Sinai,
then,
I assume that if it has been proven that a certain path is the correct one,
then why not return to it?
If the whole people go to the graves of the righteous, does that mean there is public acceptance of that practice?

And many thanks to B.
Do you know of other professors who support what you’re saying? Or is this a lone view of Professor Eyal Regev?

If I came to the clear conclusion that the tradition of the House of Zadok is from Sinai, then there would be something to discuss (unless the change was called for and was not a tendentious manipulation).
Going to the graves of the righteous is not a halakhic obligation, thank God. And even regarding halakhic obligations, one must distinguish between two proposals about which my tradition has no position, and a situation in which I have a position of my own.

As for the dispute among the professors, a bit of advice from experience: it’s not worth collecting professors for every side. It’s really not productive. If you want to, and if it seems important and interesting to you, you should get into the topic yourself and form your own view. This is not Torah from Sinai, and everything is accessible to laypeople. Just read, examine the arguments, and decide what seems right to you. Believe me, this is not 64-dimensional physics.

Hello Rabbi.
I don’t really understand what you said — that if you were one hundred percent sure that Zadok’s tradition was more reliable, you would consider accepting it.
After all, you’ve written several times that the Sanhedrin are the ones with authority, and if they decided to rule like the Pharisees, then that is what is binding, even if it came from error or power politics, etc. And just as they decided regarding the 39 categories of labor, so too in this matter.
The Rabbi also said that the Torah that reaches us is what is binding.
If someone nevertheless thinks the Sadducees are one hundred percent right, should he become a Sadducee?
And if so, why do you need certainty, since the Rabbi taught that there is no certainty with certainty.

To K:
I assume the Rabbi read a little of Professor Rachel’s fascinating lectures,
and understood, besides, what authentic Judaism is…

If Zadok’s tradition were correct, the Sanhedrin would have no authority. After all, that is one of the points of dispute with them.
A clear conclusion is not certainty. It is clear to the extent that any conclusion of mine can be. Certainty is out of bounds.

I once heard one of the lectures, and I wasn’t especially impressed. But deliberately I am not expressing a substantive opinion, because I truly don’t know the field well enough. I made general remarks that are true for this whole area. In this context, allow me to doubt — with all due respect to Rachel Elior — that she is the source from which we can understand what authentic Judaism is.

Actually, the scholars show that the Sadducees also had their own Oral Torah; that is a fact with no dispute at all! (It is more similar to the plain meaning of the text, but there are also points where even they depart from the plain meaning.) One of the reasons scholars think the movement disappeared is that, unlike the Pharisees, they did not commit it to writing.

As for who came before whom, I only wanted to show that there is no clear view on this. You can see Professor Albeck’s introduction to the Mishnah, where he also argues in favor of the Pharisees on this issue. Also the comprehensive book Oral Torah: Its Authority and Methods, published by Mossad HaRav Kook.

The dispute among scholars is not about the antiquity of the Oral Torah. Everyone assumes there were ancient traditions and enactments already in the First Temple period. Scholars differ only regarding what the dominant tradition among the priests of the First Temple was (some scholars assume there were several). One must remember that according to academic scholarship (at least the overwhelming majority), the Torah is not from Heaven, so of course the traditions developed later and of course there would be several such traditions.

Since a central part of our enactments and Oral Torah developed afterward, the pre-rabbinic Oral Torah is very limited, and since no Sadducean writings at all remain, there is no way to decide the matter and everything is entirely speculative. Some think this, others think that. The evidence for each side is not certain at all.

What is known is that in Second Temple times the Sanhedrin was sometimes Pharisaic and sometimes Sadducean. Each of them held a different Oral Torah. There is fairly good evidence that the Pharisaic Oral Torah is ancient (even according to those who think it is later than the Sadducean one). The last Sanhedrin — and the decisive one — was Pharisaic, and from that point on, even if it is later, it is the binding law that the people accepted.

Dear B,
I’d be happy to receive a source confirming that there were at times two Sanhedrins in the Second Temple period. I can’t grasp that, because how could the Creator give a non-authoritative Sanhedrin the authority to issue Jewish law to a holy people? That could bring great disaster! You need to explain how the Sanhedrin got there and how it came down from there! And who exactly it was! And do you have the names of the Sadducean Sanhedrin members?
B. As for the reason for the disappearance of the Sadducean Sanhedrin — because they didn’t put their Oral Torah in writing — what is the reason they didn’t put it in writing?
C. Could it be that concerning the Oral Torah of the Sadducees, Isaiah prophesied: “Hear the word of the Lord, rulers of Sodom; give ear to the Torah of our God, people of Gomorrah. Why do I need your many sacrifices? says the Lord. I am sated with burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; and in the blood of bulls and lambs and he-goats I have no delight. When you come to appear before Me, who asked this of you, to trample My courts? Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to Me; new moon and Sabbath, the calling of convocation — I cannot bear iniquity together with solemn assembly. Your new moons and your appointed festivals My soul hates; they have become a burden to Me; I am weary of bearing them. And when you spread out your hands, I will hide My eyes from you; even if you multiply prayer, I will not hear; your hands are full of blood.”

1. It wasn’t claimed that there were two at the same time; the claim was that sometimes these were in power and sometimes those were. And this is clear from our sources. See Megillat Ta’anit: “On the twenty-eighth of Tevet, the assembly sat in judgment. Because the Sadducees were sitting in the Sanhedrin — King Yannai and Queen Shlomtzion sat beside them, and not one of Israel sat with them except Shimon ben Shetach — and they were asked responses and laws, and they did not know how to bring proof from the Torah. Shimon ben Shetach said to them: Anyone who knows how to bring proof from the Torah is fit to sit in the Sanhedrin. Once a practical matter came before them, and they did not know how to bring proof from the Torah, except for one who quibbled against him and said: Give me time and tomorrow I will return. He was given time; he went and sat by himself and was unable to bring proof from the Torah. The next day he was ashamed to come and sit in the Sanhedrin, and Shimon ben Shetach appointed one of the disciples and seated him in his place. He said to them: The Sanhedrin is not fewer than seventy-one; and thus he did to them every single day until they had all departed and a Sanhedrin of Israel sat. The day the Sanhedrin of the Sadducees departed and the Sanhedrin of Israel sat, they made into a festival.” And from this it is clear that alongside them there were sages who opposed them (from both sides) until their side prevailed. See all this at length in Josephus, in Dorot HaRishonim (though there are later historians who dispute his determinations, but from my impression it is all speculation), in Rapoport, whom Dorot HaRishonim debates extensively, or in Regev.
As for the theological question — I didn’t understand why this is different from King Manasseh or Jeroboam, who ruled over the people, or false prophets. And that is without even touching on the fact that authority does not necessarily stem from certain truth, but I won’t get into that….

2. Thank God, I’m not a historian. This is the specific view of Professor Eyal Regev in his book (he has two works on this; he retracts many things in them, which only shows the level of uncertainty). I once remembered why. You can ask him. That is why it was noted that this is ‘only one opinion’ and that everything is speculation. One may assume the inference comes from the assumption that there really once was such a prohibition, something the Sages also mentioned. In any case, I think this too is not an interesting question. Others think it is because the Sadducees were a detached Hellenistic elite. Others think it is because most of their Jewish law was not practical without a Temple, etc. (most, not all of course). But really, it’s not clear to me why this is interesting (except perhaps as a research question).

3. Perhaps, but from the plain meaning of the text it is speaking about the people of Israel, who made sacrifices primary and commandment observance and uprightness secondary.

Welcome, M, to this discussion. B, where are you when we need you? (Two are better than one.)

1. Too bad, too bad, too bad — nothing you wrote seems convincing to me. Not that you lied, Heaven forbid, or that it isn’t written somewhere, it’s just so silly that in your place, without disrespecting any opinion, these really sound like nonsense to the listener. And luckily for you, I’ll explain:
First of all, it doesn’t say how the Sadducees rose to the Sanhedrin at all, which is what you were asked to explain (I asked about the rise and the fall), and it’s clear to you that the Pharisees were before them, right? And if they made a festival on the day they came down, then they should have made a day of mourning on the day the Sadducees rose to the Sanhedrin!
B. Any Sadducee who came down could have gotten help from another member of the Sanhedrin, or even from someone from the former Pharisaic Sanhedrin. On the other hand, it cannot be that he knew nothing in the Torah as a support, because all the Oral Torah, even that of the Sadducees, is supposed to be built on the Torah, since it interprets the Written Torah — right?
B2. On the other hand, the questions for which they could not give a verse from the Torah were not recorded, and that weakens it, because Tractate Ta’anit is not especially difficult!
C. As for theology — I didn’t really understand much (and I didn’t understand why you also say you didn’t understand why this is different from the king…?), but from what I understood I claim: are you hinting that there was something not kosher from the standpoint of authority in restoring our Sanhedrin to its place? I hope you explain, because it’s very interesting.
D. There is complete ignoring of why we think the Sanhedrin determines matters and not the priests. Deuteronomy 17: “And you shall come to the Levitical priests and to the judge who will be in those days… and you shall observe to do according to all that they instruct you.” If the Sanhedrin were Sadducean, surely the High Priest was too! And his whole entourage!
E. This is the most interesting part, brother — it’s exactly like my interest in the news about the Knesset today! Everything that happens there is very important to the people, not only to the Knesset members and their entourage. And when they “topple a Sanhedrin,” that can cause a huge upheaval. In fact, no upheaval happened, and that is suspicious, because in the first place, when the Sadducean Sanhedrin rose, I didn’t hear from you about any upheaval among the people! That too is suspicious. Too bad you’re buying the last three lines you brought in your second answer — really too bad!

3. Because of whom, brother? Because of the leaders who were above them, and that includes all of them — and that creates yet another problem, unfortunately, because why didn’t they deal with them before things fell on the people? Because normally, first they blame the one responsible, and only afterward do they come down on the people! And in my opinion he is addressing both the people and them, not just the elite!

My dear friend,
First, M == B, I’m just answering from different computers, hence the confusion in usernames.
1. In question “A” you asked for a source for my statement that there were Sanhedrins of different types, and that is what I answered. There are sources for this in the Sages, and I brought an example from Tractate Ta’anit.
2. As for the historical theory of how the Sadducees rose, I wasn’t there, so I have no idea. I noted that this is the view of scholars and brought some speculations on the subject. I don’t know any more than that.
3. Regarding 1-B, I didn’t understand what you’re asking. If you mean the Pharisees’ methods of ruling, they were done in a manner unique to them and not according to the thirteen hermeneutical principles. But none of that is interesting — my statement was that there were such Sanhedrins, nothing more.
4. As for theology, I was not hinting at all to what you said. I was hinting that even if the Sanhedrin were not upright people, perhaps one still had to listen to them according to the law, at least on the face of it (as for the correctness of that determination — I didn’t want to get into it). Of course all this is irrelevant to our day, because a Pharisaic Sanhedrin arose and fixed the Oral Torah as we know it.
5. First, “to the priests or to the judge.” It does not have to be priests. Second, suppose the High Priest was a Sadducee (apparently there were such periods) — so what?
6. The fact that there were separatist sects in the people (Sadducees, Boethusians, Essenes) already appears in the Talmud. What false fact did I buy into? There were others too, but in the bottom line ours is binding. Why is it of any interest at all what existed in parallel?
7. Regarding “C,” I didn’t understand what you’re claiming. I argued that your interpretation is possible, but from the plain meaning of the verses something else emerges. What is the problem with that?

Correction to 3:
“Regarding 1-B, I didn’t understand what you’re asking. If you mean the Pharisees’ methods of ruling” — it should say “the Sadducees’ methods.”

Both and both, depending whom he asks — a Pharisee or a Sadducee — and as one of the Sadducees in the Sanhedrin, he has to know what every verse teaches, right?!

Dear M,
Your arguments are weak, forgive me — if I answer something even weaker than the previous one, I’ve accomplished nothing! So I won’t answer!
But I appreciate your availability!

M, do a little homework. Eyal Regev does not argue that the Pharisees came first, but exactly the opposite.
“The Sadducees’ strict halakhic approach is anchored in the Torah. On the contrary, their Pharisaic rivals created a sophisticated interpretive tradition in order to reach the more lenient conclusions they arrived at, contrary to the plain meaning of the verses. The most famous example concerns the punishment of a person who injured another person’s limb. The Torah, and following it the Sadducees, says: ‘An eye for an eye,’ meaning that the eye of the offender would be removed as punishment for the eye he injured. The Pharisees explained that this refers to monetary compensation. Regev, like other scholars before him, concludes from this that the Sadducees were actually the ones who faithfully expressed the ancient Jewish law rooted in the Torah, whereas the Pharisees were the reformists of their time, who sought to be lenient and to bring Jewish law closer to the world of the average person.”

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

Rabbi, where do you get what you wrote — that if the Sadducean tradition is the correct one, then the Sanhedrin has no authority? We have not heard that anyone disputes its authority (after all, these are explicit verses), and from this it follows that if the last Sanhedrin was Pharisaic, then even if the original tradition is Sadducean, one still has to follow the Pharisees.

The Sadducees did not accept the Oral Torah. Therefore, as I understand it, in their view the Sanhedrin had authority to interpret the Torah and decide between views, but not to innovate laws and transmit oral laws.

What do you mean by “innovate laws”? If these are laws they derive by reasoning as an explanation and specification of a commandment, why should there not be authority? (For example, a collision between commandments, saving life on the Sabbath, etc.)

They innovated the law that it is permitted to light a fire before the Sabbath begins, and the Karaites, who accept the Torah including “do not turn aside,” do not accept this. In your view, what is the meaning of not accepting the Oral Torah? If they accept every innovation of the Sanhedrin, that is the Oral Torah. The very authority of the Sanhedrin to innovate laws is itself an innovation of the Oral Torah, and therefore it is reasonable that they would not accept that either. And in fact they did not accept the Pharisees’ innovations. I really do not understand what the argument here is about.

They do accept the Sanhedrin, because in fact the Sadducees were in it. B. The Sadducees also had legal innovations that were not according to the plain meaning of the verses. Hanoch Albeck discusses this at length.

At most they did not accept all the “halakhot transmitted to Moses at Sinai” and the like. (Maybe the Rabbi is a closet Sadducee 😮 )

Why is Rabbi M. A. D. a Pharisee? What do you want — that he should be a Hasid? That doesn’t suit his personality. The way of the Pharisees alongside the Vilna Gaon suits him much better, whose heart’s desire is “to derive a new law from the Talmud” 🙂

Best regards, Shimshon Zvi Bedechi

Thank you for the response, Rabbi, but the question is about you. After all, the law that it is permitted to light a fire before the Sabbath begins is a legitimate interpretation, and if it is not interpretation, I do not know what interpretation is. And which ruling of the Sanhedrin would the Sadducees / Karaites have accepted? Clearly every interpretation creates a new law (until now we mistakenly understood that it was forbidden to light before the Sabbath begins) or decides between previous interpretations (some practiced lighting and some practiced not lighting).
In my view, the meaning of “not accepting the Oral Torah” is to reject the tradition that transmits to us interpretations that are not according to the plain meaning, or a tradition that transmits to us an exegetical system that allows uprooting laws that had been practiced from time immemorial, or to reject the authority of the Sages to interpret the Torah in a way where it is clear to us that Moses our teacher understood it otherwise (“and you shall bind them as a sign upon your hand” in Moses’ time was a metaphor, and now we have authority to change that and create tefillin).
But when there is a claim about a present interpretation, with arguments in favor of that interpretation, clearly that is within the Sanhedrin’s authority.

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

Raphael — are you from Jerusalem?
The Sadducees disappeared, even though the prophecies in the Torah indicate that a remnant that keeps the word of the Lord must remain. That in itself calls for explanation, because 2,000 years have passed, and because of the Dead Sea Scrolls “new Sadducees have recently appeared,” forgetting that their Sadducean forefathers abandoned their entire library in the Judean Desert. In my opinion this is a very important issue, and the whole process has to begin from the point I mentioned: why did they disappear?

Why is it not important? If they came first, then we are living in falsehood, and that could explain an endless number of strange things in our Judaism (and as is well known, you like slaughtering sacred cows): the strange “midrashic interpretation” of the Sages, “laws transmitted to Moses at Sinai” that we never heard of, and many more puzzles.

To the one using the nickname “To Rabbi Michi,” I don’t know whether you answered me, since both I and the honorable Rabbi spoke about the importance, and my question still stands and has not yet been answered: why did the ancient Sadducees disappear and abandon their entire library?
As for your words, I think that Judaism in that period experienced many upheavals, and therefore it is not reliable to check who came before whom in that period. The path of the righteous, the pious of the Lord, must at all times aim toward the will of the Creator, so that we should not need to use the marginal, weak, and unacceptable justification: “Our fathers sinned and are no more, and we bear their iniquities”; “What can we say, and how can we justify ourselves, for because of our sins and the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and Your people are a reproach to all around us.”
What do you mean by sacred cows?
If I may ask, were you in your past a yeshiva student? How are you so expert in Pharisaic laws?
Did you choose to become a Sadducee, and do you now follow a solar calendar like Qumran, 364 days a year? And do you wear round tefillin, and in whatever color you want?