Q&A: The Humility of Zechariah, or Are You Men of Thoughts?
The Humility of Zechariah, or Are You Men of Thoughts?
Question
In Sanhedrin 19, regarding King Yannai: “Stand on your feet…”
And the other judges lowered their faces to the ground [fear of the monarchy, understandably], and he said: “Let the Master of thoughts come and exact punishment from you,” and Gabriel came and struck them to the ground.
Why don’t we say they were justified because of fear of the monarchy? Rather, the law of “and they shall stand” takes precedence over fear of the monarchy. But in the case of Zechariah it is the opposite: he is criticized.
What is correct?
To insist on “do not be afraid of any man” even in the face of royal power [as with Shimon ben Shetach and Zechariah ben Avkolas], or to be flexible, as the Sages seemingly argue Zechariah ben Avkolas should have been?
[My daughter, may she live long, argues that the question is whether this is a private danger to the judges, as with Yannai, in which case one must follow the law, as opposed to a national danger, as with Zechariah ben Avkolas, where common sense requires not endangering the public…]
What does the Rabbi suggest as the proper prescription?
Answer
A good question.
In my article on “Do not be afraid,” (link below), I discussed whether a judge may yield to violence, and the conclusion was that he may not. That is, unless there is a possible danger to life, even if uncertain (see there for the explanation of the difference from definite danger to life).
Accordingly, the distinction between these two cases seems simple to me: in Zechariah’s case the king was a gentile, whereas in Yannai’s case it was a Jewish king. Before a Jewish king one must not yield, and only the fear of the law should rest upon him. But with a gentile king there is a clear danger to life—we plainly see what Nero Caesar did there—and therefore one may yield.
And indeed, in Sanhedrin there the context of the Talmudic passage is the difference between the kings of Israel (who are not judged) and the kings of the House of David (who are judged), where the difference lies in the danger and in their refusal to accept the authority of the judges. It seems to me that this is also the distinction relevant to our issue. Note that in Maimonides, in two places where he rules this as Jewish law (Laws of Sanhedrin 2:5; Laws of Kings 3:7), he explains it by saying that with the kings of Israel a mishap would result, but he does not speak of mortal danger to the judges. That danger also did not exist with the kings of Israel, and therefore in Yannai’s case apparently this was not a real danger but merely fear of the monarchy, and for that they were held accountable.
Link to the article: https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%91%D7%98-%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%A3-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%97%D7%95%D7%91%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%99%D7%93-%D7%91%D7%AA%D7%A4%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%93-%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%91%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99
But your daughter’s distinction, may she live and be well, also seems correct, of course. And perhaps it is only a continuation of what I wrote. More power to her in Torah.