I: TEXTS, TRADITIONS AND LIBATIONS:
In the Hashmonean Era, the sovereignty and independence of Judea was secured through a series of wars and treaties with the various factions of the collapsing Seleucid Empire. By the reign of John Hyrcanus (or, as he is known to us by the Jewish sources, Yohannan Kohen Gadol יוחנן כהן גדול), the grandson of Matthias Hashmonean and nephew of Judah Maccabee, between 134 and 104 BC, the regional and domestic politics had sufficiently stabilized to guarantee the Jewish People some peace and tranquility in which to practice their ancient religion, the goal of their initial revolt against the Syrian Kings.
It was in this relative peace that intellectual reexamination of Jewish Law, Theology, Mores and Faith. We can speak of two major movements that come to dominate the mainstream of Jewish life: The Pharisees and the Sadducees.
Now before we continue further, we must emphasize that these terms originally signified the leadership of each group rather than its ordinary followers, adherents. We must also recognize that most people did not outright fall into either camp completely, but were leaning towards one or the other in their practice and understanding of traditional Judaism.
The Pharisees or פרושים (Perushim), from the Hebrew root פרש, "Extraction", which can be interpreted in two ways:
Those who extract meaning from (i.e. interpret) the text and traditions of the Torah.
Those who extract themselves from (that is, those who avoid) impurity and sin and avoid circumstances which may lead to them, or even those who avoid unnecessary earthly pleasures.
Both interpretation are valid and in use in that period. For instance, Rabban Gamliel the Elder is praised in the Mishnah (Sotah 9:15) as the epitome of "The Glory of the Torah, of Purity and Asceticism (פרישות 'Perishut')".
The Pharisees, which can be rightly described as early Rabbis (the entire corpus of Rabbinical texts is of Pharisee origins and the Rabbis had consistently identified as the heirs of the Pharisees, indeed, the Mishnah brings debates between Sadducees and Pharisees verbatim and clearly sides with the latter) nevertheless enjoyed the support of the majority of the people, to the degree that even marginal sects such as the Zealots, the Essenes and the early Christians had accepted the Pharisee interpretation of the Law.
The reason for it was the Pharisee reverence for traditions, both those of institutions (such as the Great Sanhedrin, the Temple, regional courts and assemblies) and those of the common people. Theirs was a precedence based heuristic, confident in the ability of the People and their institutions to maintain good traditions and practices.
In more than one occasion, the Pharisees were even willing to let, in cases where the Law was unclear, the People decide it themselves, as did Hillel the Elder, the great Pharisee leader of the 1st century BC:
זוֹ הֲלָכָה נֶעֶלְמָה מִזִּקְנֵי בָּתֵירָה. פַּעַם אַחַת חָל אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר לִהְיוֹת בַּשַּׁבָּת. וְלֹא הָיוּ יוֹדְעִין אִם פֶּסַח דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת אִם לָאו. אָֽמְרוּ. יֵשׁ כָּאן בַּבְלִי אֶחָד וְהִלֵּל שְׁמוֹ. שֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ אֶת שְׁמַעְיָה וְאַבְטַלְיוֹן. יוֹדֵעַ אִם פֶּסַח דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת אִם לָאו. אֶיפְשַׁר שֶׁיֵּשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ תוֹחֶלֶת. שָֽׁלְחוּ וְקָֽרְאוּ לוֹ. אָֽמְרוּ לוֹ. שָׁמַעְתָּ מִיָּמֶיךָ. כְּשֶׁחָל אַרְבָּעָה עֶשְׂרֵה לִהְיוֹת בַּשַּׁבָּת. אִם דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת אִם לָאו. אָמַר לָהֶן. וְכִי אֵין לָנוּ אֶלָּא פֶסַח אֶחָד בִּלְבַד דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת בְּכָל־שָׁנָה. וַהֲלֹא כַמָּה פְסָחִים יִדְחוּ אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת בְּכָל־שָׁנָה… אָֽמְרוּ לוֹ. כְּבָר אָמַרְנוּ שֶׁיֵּשׁ מִמְּךָ תוֹחֶלֶת. הִתְחִיל דּוֹרֵשׁ לָהֶן מֵהֶקֵּשׁ וּמִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר וּמִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה. מֵהֶקֵּשׁ...
This question left the Elders of Betheira at a loss. Once the Fourteenth fell on the Sabbath and they did not know whether Pesaḥ pushes aside the Sabbath or not.
They said: 'We have here a Babylonian who served Shemaiah and Euthalion and knows whether Pesaḥ pushes aside the Sabbath or not. It is possible that there be some use to br had of him'.
They sent and called him. The said to him: 'Did you ever hear, if the Fourteenth falls on the Sabbath, whether Passover pushes aside the Sabbath or not?' He told them: 'Do we have only one Passover which pushes aside the Sabbath every year? Are there not many Pesaḥim which push aside the Sabbath every year?...'
They told him: 'Already we said, there is use to be had of you!'
He started to explain to them by analogy, by an argument de minore ad majus, and by equal cut...
אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָיָה יוֹשֵׁב וְדוֹרֵשׁ לָהֶן כָּל־הַיּוֹם לֹא קִיבְּלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ עַד שֶׁאָמַר לָהֶן. יָבוֹא עָלַי כֵּן שָׁמַעְתִּי מִשְּׁמַעְיָה וְאַבְטַלְיוֹן. כֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּֽׁמְעוּ מִמֶּנּוּ כֵן עָֽמְדוּ וּמִינוּ אוֹתוֹ נְשִׂיא עֲלֵיהֶן. כֵּיוָן שֶׁמִּינוּ אוֹתוֹ נְשִׂיא עֲלֵיהֶן הִתְחִיל מְקֶנְתְּרָן בִּדְבָרִים וְאוֹמֵר. מִי גָרַם לָכֶם לְצָרֵךְ לַבַּבְלִי הַזֶּה. לֹא עַל שֶׁלֹּא שִׁימַּשְׁתֶּם לִשְׂנֵי גְדוֹלֵי עוֹלָם לִשְׁמַעְיָה וְאַבְטַלְיוֹן שֶׁהָיוּ יוֹשְׁבִין אֶצְלֵכֶם. כֵּיוָן שֶׁקֶּנְתְּרָן בִּדְבָרִים נֶעֶלְמָה הֲלָכָה מִמֶּנּוּ.
Although he was sitting and expounding the entire day, they did not accept it from him until he said, it should come over me, so I heard from Shemayah and Eutalion.
When they heard this from him, they rose and appointed him Prince over them.
After they had appointed him Prince over them, he started to goad them with words, and said: 'What caused you to need this Babylonian? Not that you did not serve the two greats of the world, Shemaya and Euthalion?' When he started to goad them with words, the Law was forgotten from him.
אָֽמְרוּ לוֹ. מַה לַעֲשׂוֹת לָעָם וְלֹא הֵבִיאוּ סַכִּינֵיהֶן. אָמַר לָהֶן. הֲלָכָה זוֹ שָׁמַעְתִּי וְשָׁכַחְתִּי. אֶלָּא הַנִּיחוּ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אִם אֵינָן נְבִיאִים בְּנֵי נְבִיאִים הֵן. מִיָּד כָּל־מִי שֶׁהָיָה פִסָחוּ טְלֶה הָיָה תוֹחְבָהּ בְּגִיזָתוֹ. גְּדִי הָיָה קוֹשְׁרוֹ בֵין קַרְנָיו. נִמְצְאוּ פִּסְחֵיהֶן מְבִיאִין סַכִּינֵיהֶן עִמָּהֶן. כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאָה אֶת הָמַּעֲשֶׂה נִזְכַּר אֶת הַהֲלָכָה. אָמַר. כָּךְ שָׁמַעְתִּי מִפִּי שְׁמַעְיָה וְאַבָטַלְיוֹן.
They said to him: What to do with the People who did not bring their knives with them? He (Hillel the Elder) told them: 'I have heard the Law but have forgotten it. But let Israel act; if they are not prophets they are children (-or: disciples-) of prophets.' Then everyone whose Passover sacrifice was a lamb stuck his knife in its fleece, (and those who brought) a kid goat bound them to its horns; thus it came to be that the Passover sacrifices brought their knives with them. When he (Hillel) saw events unfold, he remembered the Law and said to them (the Sanhedrin): 'Thus I heard from Shemaiah and Euthalion'.
(Jerusalemite Talmud, Pesahim, 6:1)
Here we see the main strength of the Pharisee movement:
The emphasis on tradition, precedence and intergenerational transfer of authority and practice. The Beteiras were willing to accept from Hillel only those teachings which originated in his masters, Shemaiah and Euthalion.
The use of logical and analytic devices and debate in cases where no clear precedence exists.
The willingness to accept such traditions from whoever carried them, even when such a person was of a lower social rank (or in the case of Hillel, a Babylonian Jew which the aristicratic Jerusalemite Beteira clan looked down upon as a country bumpkin).
The importance attributed to the agreeable virtues, such as humility and pleasantness and the belief in particular Divine Providence in human affairs: Hillel does brilliantly until he choses to arrogantly insult the Beteiras, and the Law is restored to his memory only after he displays sufficient humilty by deferring to the good sense of the Jewish People.
The Sadducees, on the other hand, were cut of a different cloth altogether.
Often described as strict literalists, it is clear they did, in fact, engaged in interpretation. This arises not only from the inevitability of interpretation, but also from documents such as the Book of the Covanent of Damascus, now widely accepted to be the writing of a Sadducee cult. It is more accurate to say that they have rejected traditional interpretations and practices and would follow מורי צדק ("Morei Tzedeq" - "Teachers of Right") and would castigate their opponents as מרי לצון ("Marei Latzon" - "Masters of Mockery").
The Mosaic text, for them, was not as much an absolute guide but rather a vessel into which they could pour their opinions and teachings and a cudgel by which to beat Pharisees and other traditionalists. As per Josephus, who had spent some years in this school, the Sadducees were harsh, unpopular, arrogant and moved mostly in the upper echelons of society.
While the points of contentions between the Pharisees and the Sadducees were myriad and painful, none was as clear cut in its characterization of the two as the ritual of the Water Libation.
Without any Biblical or Mosaic origins, this traditional Temple ritual was not merely popular, but was the highlight of the Feast of Sukkot, celebrated in early Autumn, right after the High Holidays of the New Year and the Day of Atonement.
It was celebrated with wide participation and jubilation: crowds would escort the expedition drawing the water from the Siloah rivulet outside the city walls, including singing Levites and trumpeting priests. The water would proceed through the city into the Temple courts, which would be illuminated with gigantic lamps lit by the "Flower of the Priesthood" (young priests who attained their majority but have not yet grew their beards). There the song, dance and music would continue, with the Prince of the Sanhedrin and other great men engaging in the festivities, throwing torches in the air and performing other feats to draw in the crowds and increase their joy.
No wonder than, that the Sadducees had a special hatred for that ritual. There was nothing sacred about the water of the Shiloah and the Pharisees never claimed otherwise- those were just the most readily available natural flowing - "living" - water in the vicinity. The ritual was not beloved for some magical power it held or deep mystic symbolism. It was purely a celebration coming out of the love the People of Israel had felt in their hearts to God and His Holies, a love which encompassed the entire nation from the most wretched servant to the Prince and High Priest and which was opposite to all the sensibilities of the "Teachers of Right" who believed themselves to be the few chosen from a sinful crowd to carry the truth and inherit the Earth.
II: THE PHARISEE PERSERVATIONAL TRIUMPH
Let us not surmise from this that the ultimate Pharisee victory was due to their agreeableness. There were many sages which were by far less patient than Hillel, after all.
The real cause of Pharisee success had more to do with their intelectual attitude as opposed to that of their opponents. The Pharisees preserved and elaborated upon traditions held by the entire People and placed great import on local customs. The Sadducees viewed anyone outside their circle with contempt, seeing them as dupes following "Men of Mockery" at best or as "the Sons of Darkness" at worse. This meant that for a certain artisan from Galilee, it was clear, despite frequent negative interaction with particular Pharisees, that the Pharisee as a class "sit upon the Throne of Moses" and that theirs is the measure of righteousness which the saints must exceed. It would have not occured to him to follow the Sadducees more than to follow modern Reformed Judaism. Sadducee teachings neither were present nor resembled the faith or practice of his fathers and he had no interest in them.
If anything, wherever Jesus was in conflict with the Pharisees it was over him expanding on Pharisee ideas in which they were in active controversy with the Sadducees:
The Pharisees believe that One is allowed to keep food warm on the Sabbath since it was created to be enjoyed. The Sadducees disputed it. Jesus exceeds beyond the Pharisee side of the argument by refusing to rebuke his disciples who plucked ears of corn arguing "the Sabbath was created for men".
The Pharisee believed in the Resurrection of the Righteous as a matter of principle, Christianity made it the main pillar of its faith.
Jesus opposition to divorce is exceeding on the Pharisee side of the argument, since the Sadducees alone believed that divorce requires no cause, while the two main Pharisee schools debated whether adultery is the only valid cause or not.
Jesus' teaching about the "Great Commandments of the Law" is in line with the teaching of Hillel, the greatest Pharisee of the preceding generation.
In the case of the tax, Jesus is asked for his opinion about the internal debate between the mainstream Pharisees and the Zealots and he decisively falls on the side of the Pharisee.
The list can go on and on, the important thing is, that as a representative sect rising from the masses and building on their traditional practices and teachings, early Christians were definitely close to the Pharisees and the Sadducees occupied a foreign moral and religious universe to them.
As late as the age of the Apostles, Paul, James, Peter and the rest often exhibit Jewish attitude or outright declare themselves to be Pharisees. In the Acts, Paul declare himself to be a "Pharisee, son of a Pharisee" and shrewdly cries that "he is persecuted for the (Pharisee) belief in the Resurrection (which the Sadducees denied)".
When Peter and James exempt the first Gentile converts to Christianity in the Council of Jerusalem from circumcision and Kosher diet, they think along the lines of Pharisee thought, which ever held that Gentiles do not require to obey the Law of Sinai to be considered righteous but rather to keep the Seven Noahide Laws. Only by claiming special revelation can Peter discard the Dietary Laws.
All is to show that Christianity emerged from the Judaism of common Jews, and that this Judaism was close if not identical to the teaching of the Sages. It naturally deviated from it more and more as the generations passed by from the death Jesus, especially as the number of Jews in the Church became miniscule compare to the Gentiles, which from the beginning were accommodated.
But One does not need to go to the early Christians to prove that the Sages merely taught based on common traditions and practices, since they themselves would often cite such traditions and practices as sources for their rulings.
Therefore the disappearance of the Sadducees after the failure of the Great Revolt should not surprise us. As the old social structure that supported that high class cult was eliminated and brushed aside, its membership disappeared either into isolated pockets such as the Dead Sea Cults or, like the ruling house of Herod, was assimilated into the Pagan Roman aristocracy. The common people continued as they did before, to obey the Law of God in the manner their Fathers handed it to them.
III: BETWEEN ZADOK AND SADDUCCES:
Much has been made of the Qumranite Rule of Community and the Damascus Covenant's mentioning of the "Priests, sons of Zadok" and their assignation as the leaders and arbiters of these respective sects. It was taken as confirming Abraham Geiger's baseless connection between the House of Zadok (the High Priest in the reign of David) and the Sadducees, a lineage he also connects with שמעון הצדיק ("Shimôn HaZādik"), a high priest in the generation before Alexander's conquest, which he arbitrarily changes the literal meaning of Zādik from "Righteous" (in which it appears countless times in Scripture) to "Descendant of Zadok" (in which it does not appear even once).
Geiger, of course, had an exe to grind as the founder of the Reformed Judaism movement in mid 19th century Germany, attempting to establish the inauthenticity of Halakhic practice by claiming it is itself a usurper upon a more ancient tradition it had driven to extinction. It is important to note that the Damascus Covenant and the Qumran Scrolls were not discovered at until the 20th century so he could have not based his theory upon them. I believe this is a classic case of scurrilous ideological "theory" that is then read into the evidence rather than letting the evidence, literary as well as archeological, speak for itself.
Further, while the priests of the Second Temple era claimed accurate knowledge of their lineage, it is unlikely that a distinct "House of Zadok" was still extant by the time of the authorship of the Qumranite and Damascus texts, nearly 8 centuries after Zadok's death. Of the 24 Guards of the Priesthood mentioned in 1st Chronicles 24:1-30, a division created by David and Zadok themselves, not one is named after Zadok, nor does the text clear which one did Zadok belongs to (merely stating that he belonged to one of the 16 Elazarite Guards rather than 8 Itamarite ones). Nor is Zadok's name referenced in the Book of Ezra as the Eponymous ancestor of any of the Priestly Families accounted for amongst the returners from Babylon (Ezra 2:36-39, 59-61). Yeshu'a (the self same "Joshua the High Priest" referred to in Zechariah 3:1 and Haggai 1:1) the High Priest is immediately accounted amongst "the Sons of Yeda'iyah", which in Nehemiah 11:10 is referred to as belonging to the Yoiarib Guard, the very Guard to which the Hashmoneans belonged. This is incidentally the only place where an individual priest is mentioned as a descendant of Zadok - namely, Seraiah, son of Hilkiah, which if One assumes (as is evident in the lineage of Mordechai in the Book of Esther) the scriveners' habit to skip generations when recounting an individual's lineage, may be none other than Ezra's own father, Seraiah son of Azariah son of Hilkiah (which is mentioned in Ezra 7:1 merely as a reference to Ezra himself but is not described as present or active participant).
Thus we can see that there was no "House of Zadok" to speak of in the early days of the Second Temple and that the two most prominent living descendants of Zadok, Ezra and his father Seraiah, were passed over for the position of High Priest. The only place in which "The Levite Priests, sons of Zadok" are mentioned as having a special role in the Temple is in the prophecy of Ezekiel (40:46, 44:15), which they are awarded by God for their loyalty in the times when "The Children of Israel had wandered away from me" (that is, they kept God's work while the Children of Israel had worshipped idols).
Even during the time of the First Temple when King Abijah boasts, before his battle with the armies f the seceding kingdom of Israel, of the lineage of the Priests of Jerusalem he never mentions the name of Zadok, rather declaring:
"Lo! That you have banished the Priests of the Lord Eternal- the very Sons of Aaron and the Levites! - and made unto yourselves priests as the peoples of the Earth - any who would come forth to fill his hands with a kine-born bull and seven rams shall be a godless priest!"
(II Chronicles 13:9)
No reference is made to Zadok, the great and revered high priest of Abijah's great-great-grandfather's reign. Nor is Zadok referenced as the ancestor of any First Temple era High-Priest, only as the father of one of Solomon's ministers (I Kings 4:2) - hardly a surprising sinecure, considering Solomon owed his throne in large measure to the Zadok's support.
The picture rising from these sources is that while Zadok's family had enjoyed certain prestige during the early reigns of the First Temple era and the name of Zadok was a source of pride to is descendants, they did not succeed in, or wish to, secure themselves a unique place in the priestly hierarchy similar to the House of David's monopoly over the Jewish throne.
It is also quite possible that the terms "Sons of Zadok" referred not to the lineage of particular families (unless when explicitly written as part of such a lineage, such as in the case of Seraiah), but as a term of endearment for particularly righteous priests or even to the Aaronite priesthood as a whole
But the best argument against the framing of the Sadducees as supporters of the House of Zadok as the only legitimate pretenders to the High Priesthood is the fact that many Hashmoneans (who claimed no descent from Zadok, but rather from Yoiarib!) SUPPORTED the Sadducees. It would make no sense whatsoever for them to support the very faction which wished them dispossessed of their only claim to power - the High Priesthood.
Josephus, the closest thing we have to an unbiased source on the matter never mentions anywhere Zadokite claimants to the High Priesthood, nor support for such claimants by the Sadducees, which he characterizes along theological, legal and ethical lines of thought, but not by political ideology. If One has to make an articulated guess of the etymology of the term "Sadducee" (Zadokki, צדוקי), there are only three good options:
The Cult was founded by a man named "Zadok", which have been a common name even amongst the Pharisees as late as the late the early centuries AD (we know of at least one "Rabbi Zadok", an ascetic sage from the time of the Great Revolt and a Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Zadok as well as a Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Zadok). This is indeed the traditional claim made by both Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews 18) and the Sages (Abot DeRabbi Nathan, 5:2)
The Cult claimed to emulate the virtues expected of the Priesthood or those embodied in Zadok the High Priest specifically, or claimed spiritual descent from him (latter day claimants to the spiritual legacy of safely far off historical figures are not rare).
The Cult followed their "Morei Zedek" "Teachers of Right" as opposed to the Pharisees/Sages which they believed were "Morei Sheqer" "Teachers of Falsehoods" or "Anshei Latzon" "Men of Mockery", all of these terms appear in the Damascus Covenant and the Qumranite Scrolls.
IV: JANAEUS AND THE GREAT CITRON MASSACRE
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בְּלֹג הָיָה מְנַסֵּךְ כָּל שְׁמֹנָה. וְלַמְנַסֵּךְ אוֹמְרִים לוֹ, הַגְבַּהּ יָדֶךָ, שֶׁפַּעַם אַחַת נִסֵּךְ אֶחָד עַל גַּבֵּי רַגְלָיו, וּרְגָמוּהוּ כָל הָעָם בְּאֶתְרוֹגֵיהֶן:
Rabbi Judah says:
"He (the priest) had used a one log vessel throughout the Eight (days of Sukkot and the Assembly Feast). They command the Libation Offeror, 'Raise your arm!' for once one (priest) had poured (the libation water) upon his feet, and all the people had stoned him with their citrons".
Mishnah, Sukkah 4:9
In one short sentence, omitting all names and details, Rabbi Judah relayed one of the most painful and tragic events in the annals of the Hashmonean monarchy.
As the event is recounted in more details by Josephus:
As to Alexander, his own people were seditious against him; for at a festival which was then celebrated, when he stood upon the altar, and was going to sacrifice, the nation rose upon him, and pelted him with citrons [which they then had in their hands, because] the law of the Jews required that at the feast of tabernacles every one should have branches of the palm tree and citron tree; which thing we have elsewhere related.
They also reviled him, as derived from a captive, and so unworthy of his dignity and of sacrificing. At this he was in a rage, and slew of them about six thousand. He also built a partition-wall of wood round the altar and the temple, as far as that partition within which it was only lawful for the priests to enter; and by this means he obstructed the multitude from coming at him.
He also maintained foreigners of Pisidie and Cilicia; for as to the Syrians, he was at war with them, and so made no use of them. He also overcame the Arabians, such as the Moabites and Gileadites, and made them bring tribute. Moreover, he demolished Amathus, while Theodorus durst not fight with him; but as he had joined battle with Obedas, king of the Arabians, and fell into an ambush in the places that were rugged and difficult to be traveled over, he was thrown down into a deep valley, by the multitude of the camels at Gadurn, a village of Gilead, and hardly escaped with his life.
From thence he fled to Jerusalem, where, besides his other ill success, the nation insulted him, and he fought against them for six years, and slew no fewer than fifty thousand of them. And when he desired that they would desist from their ill-will to him, they hated him so much the more, on account of what had already happened; and when he had asked them what he ought to do, they all cried out, that he ought to kill himself. They also sent to Demetrius Eucerus, and desired him to make a league of mutual defense with them.
Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 13
The accusation of Janaeus (or Yanae, a shorthand for Yonathan-Jonathan, a common Hashmonean name) being unfit for the priesthood on account of his mother is repeated in the Mishnah:
וְהָיָה שָׁם אֶחָד אִישׁ לֵץ לֵב רַע וּבְלִיַּעַל וְאֶלְעָזָר בֶּן פּוֹעֵירָה שְׁמוֹ וַיֹּאמֶר אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן פּוֹעֵירָה לְיַנַּאי הַמֶּלֶךְ יַנַּאי הַמֶּלֶךְ לִבָּם שֶׁל פְּרוּשִׁים עָלֶיךָ וּמָה אֶעֱשֶׂה הָקֵם לָהֶם בַּצִּיץ שֶׁבֵּין עֵינֶיךָ הֵקִים לָהֶם בַּצִּיץ שֶׁבֵּין עֵינָיו
And there was one person present, a mocker, of an evil heart and useless, called Elazar ben Po’eira.
Elazar ben Po’ira said to King Yanae:
'King Yanae! the hearts of the Pharisees are against you!'
(The king replied):
'And what shall I do?
(Elazar responded):
'Raise them by (wearing) the frontplate (whose proper place is) between your eyes!'
He raised the Pharisees by wearing the frontplate between his eyes.
הָיָה שָׁם זָקֵן אֶחָד וִיהוּדָה בֶּן גְּדִידְיָה שְׁמוֹ וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוּדָה בֶּן גְּדִידְיָה לְיַנַּאי הַמֶּלֶךְ יַנַּאי הַמֶּלֶךְ רַב לְךָ כֶּתֶר מַלְכוּת הַנַּח כֶּתֶר כְּהוּנָּה לְזַרְעוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹמְרִים אִמּוֹ נִשְׁבֵּית בְּמוֹדִיעִים וַיְבוּקַּשׁ הַדָּבָר וְלֹא נִמְצָא וַיִּבָּדְלוּ חַכְמֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּזַעַם
Now there was a certain elder present called Yehuda son of Gedidía, and Yehuda son of Gedidya said to King Yannai:
'King Yanae! the crown of the monarchy suffices for you! Leave the crown of the priesthood for the descendants of Aaron.'
For it was said at the time that his (Yanae's) mother was a captive in Modi’in (and was therefore disqualified from marrying into the priesthood).
And the word was investigated and was not found. Thus the Sages of Israel departed in rage.
Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 66a
It's clear that raising that particular rumor has been an embarrassment for the Pharisee, and therefore the Sages (and Josephus!) emphasis on its falsehood.
While Josephus claims this canard (along with other offences) had brought the People’s ire upon Janaeus and Rabbi Judah recount the incidence if the citrons as happening to an anonymous priest, while the Beraita also recounts the Captive Mother rumor as the cause for the initial rift, it is possible that the story can be reconstructed thus:
Janaeus mother has been a captive in Modîin. According to the letter of the Law, which the Sadducees would have followed, a priest is forbidden from taking "A divorced, prostituted and violated wife" (Leviticus 21:7) According to this, there is no prohibition in laying with a wife that has been married prior to the prohibiting act occuring. Further, they would not neccesarily agree that violation of this law would bar the offspring from the Priesthood.
It is only in the traditional interpretation that the term "prostituted" is expanded to include every woman who had had, willing or unwillingly, sexual intercourse with a man forbidden to her. It is only by traditional interpretation that the term "violated" is understood to denote offspring of a priest and a woman forbidden to his class. Furthermore, it is only from "the Word of the Scribes", that is, by a legislative act, that all women taken captives are forbidden to the priesthood (Ketubot 36b) In short, Judah son of Gedidiah's ire was rasied by a statutory flaw in Janaeus lineage, not one proscribed by the Law, which was found out to be false.
But Janaeus knew that he can never stamp out the evil tongue. There was only one way out and this was to officially adopt the small sect in whose eyes those accusations, even if true, were meaningless.
For that end, there were two acts neccesary:
The King must anounce both his allegiance and his competency in the most public way possible.
The Pharisee and the supporters of traditional interpretation (which comprised most of the People) must be made to submit to the King's point of view with fear.
To pour the libational waters on the King's feet, an act which would not only violate but gravely insult a popular tradition hated only by the Sadducees (to "Wash One's Feet" was, on top of everything, a common euphemism to "Defecate" since Biblical times, evident as early as I Samuel 24:4 and used in that sense throughout our period) during a Pilgrimage Feast would be the most public and provocative way to declare the new royally favored sect.
Such an act couldn't but enraged the People in attendance and drive them to rash acts. Which the king can use to demonstrate the independent power his mercenary army had provided him and which was installed, against the Law, armed, in the corridors of the Temple.
Unlike the Water Libation, the use of the Four Species is explicit in the text of the Law:
אַ֡ךְ בַּחֲמִשָּׁה֩ עָשָׂ֨ר י֜וֹם לַחֹ֣דֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִ֗י בְּאׇסְפְּכֶם֙ אֶת־תְּבוּאַ֣ת הָאָ֔רֶץ תָּחֹ֥גּוּ אֶת־חַג־יְהֹוָ֖ה שִׁבְעַ֣ת יָמִ֑ים בַּיּ֤וֹם הָֽרִאשׁוֹן֙ שַׁבָּת֔וֹן וּבַיּ֥וֹם הַשְּׁמִינִ֖י שַׁבָּתֽוֹן׃
Mark, on the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when you have gathered in the yield of your land, you shall observe the festival of the Lord Eternal [to last] seven days: a complete rest on the first day, and a complete rest on the eighth day.
וּלְקַחְתֶּ֨ם לָכֶ֜ם בַּיּ֣וֹם הָרִאשׁ֗וֹן פְּרִ֨י עֵ֤ץ הָדָר֙ כַּפֹּ֣ת תְּמָרִ֔ים וַעֲנַ֥ף עֵץ־עָבֹ֖ת וְעַרְבֵי־נָ֑חַל וּשְׂמַחְתֶּ֗ם לִפְנֵ֛י יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶ֖ם שִׁבְעַ֥ת יָמִֽים׃
On the first day you shall take the product of hadar trees, branches of palm trees, boughs of leafy trees, and willows of the brook, and you shall rejoice before your God, the Lord Eternal seven days.
Leviticus 23:39-40
However, the identification of the Hadar tree with the Medicinal Citron (also known by its Persian-derived name, Etrog) as well as the idetification of boughs of leafy trees specifically with myrtle and countless other details about the properties of these species was down to traditional interpretation and practice. By throwing their citrons at him, the People protested their love for the Law of their Fathers, according to their Fathers' tradition.
But unlike its relatives (or, actually, descendants) the medicinal citron is neither juicy nor soft. It is a fleshy, hard and lumpy object that can grow to considerable sizes. As a projectile, it is nothing less than deadly. In the name of self-defense, Janaeus could unleash his foreign guard now without defiling the Temple. On the contrary, he could argue, as the Scripture describe the murder of a priest in the Temple as a terrible sin (Lamentation 2:20), he was, as a matter of fact, defending the Temple's sanctity.
And the blood of the pious people mixed with that of tye sacrifices and the defiled libational waters.
V: THE AFTERMATH
Janaeus had spent the rest of his reign prosecuting the Pharisees and waging a war against his own People. There are two versions to the end of that prosecution.
According to Josephus:
After this, king Alexander, although he fell into a distemper by hard drinking, and had a quartan ague, which held him three years, yet would not leave off going out with his army, till he was quite spent with the labors he had undergone, and died in the bounds of Ragaba, a fortress beyond Jordan.
But when his queen saw that he was ready to die, and had no longer any hopes of surviving, she came to him weeping and lamenting, and bewailed herself and her sons on the desolate condition they should be left in; and said to him:
"To whom dost thou thus leave me and my children, who are destitute of all other supports, and this when thou knowest how much ill-will thy nation bears thee?"
But he gave her the following advice:
That she need but follow what he would suggest to her, in order to retain the kingdom securely, with her children: that she should conceal his death from the soldiers till she should have taken that place; after this she should go in triumph, as upon a victory, to Jerusalem, and put some of her authority into the hands of the Pharisees; for that they would commend her for the honor she had done them, and would reconcile the nation to her for he told her they had great authority among the Jews, both to do hurt to such as they hated, and to bring advantages to those to whom they were friendly disposed; for that they are then believed best of all by the multitude when they speak any severe thing against others, though it be only out of envy at them.
And he said that it was by their means that he had incurred the displeasure of the nation, whom indeed he had injured.
"Do thou, therefore," said he, "when thou art come to Jerusalem, send for the leading men among them, and show them my body, and with great appearance of sincerity, give them leave to use it as they themselves please, whether they will dishonor the dead body by refusing it burial, as having severely suffered by my means, or whether in their anger they will offer any other injury to that body. Promise them also that thou wilt do nothing without them in the affairs of the kingdom. If thou dost but say this to them, I shall have the honor of a more glorious Funeral from them than thou couldst have made for me; and when it is in their power to abuse my dead body, they will do it no injury at all, and thou wilt rule in safety."
So when he had given his wife this advice, he died, after he had reigned twenty-seven years, and lived fifty years within one.
Josephus, Antiquities, 13:15:5
The account of the Pharisee sources differs somewhat and is less complementary of Janaeus' cunning:
אֲמַר לַהּ יַנַּאי מַלְכָּא לִדְבֵיתֵיהּ אַל תִּתְיָרְאִי מִן הַפְּרוּשִׁין וְלֹא מִמִּי שֶׁאֵינָן פְּרוּשִׁין אֶלָּא מִן הַצְּבוּעִין שֶׁדּוֹמִין לִפְרוּשִׁין שֶׁמַּעֲשֵׂיהֶן כְּמַעֲשֵׂה זִמְרִי וּמְבַקְּשִׁין שָׂכָר כְּפִנְחָס.
King Yanae said to his wife before he died:
Do not be afraid of the Pharisee, and nor should you fear those who are not Pharisees (that is, the Sadducees); rather, be wary of the hypocrites who appear like Pharisees, as their actions are like the act of the wicked Zimri and they request a reward like that of the righteous Pinehas (Numbers 25).
Babylonian Talmud, Sotah 22b
There are a few other stories dealing with Janaeus and his brother in law, the great Pharisee Rabbi Simon son of Setah, in which the latter outwits the former in various fields (for example, he tricks the King inti feeding him while he is in disfavor, into purchasing excessive amount of sacrifices and so forth) but there is really no telling at what stage of their lives were these stories supposed to have occured. Janaeus made peace with the People and the Pharisees several times, which he proceeded to break. These stories could have occured before the first infraction between him and the Pharisees.
In any rate, one narrative rises from both Josephan and Traditional accounts: that Janaeus gave his wife some sage advice about secterian politics (which in Josephus appears cynical and in the Talmud, self-pitying) and that she have proceded to rely upon the Pharisees, whose esteem in the eyes of the People only increased by their suffering.
And yet, despite all his crimes, another common thread is an a begrudging respect which even the Pharisee sources show to the wicked King. He is portrayed as ruthless, but also generous. Cruel and arbitrary, but also witty and brave. The Sages did not wish to open a fight with him and expressed deep regret that it came to it.
CONCLUSION: THE FATE OF THE SADDUCEES:
And what of the Sadducees? They remained as they were before they had their stroke of luck with Janaeus.
They continued to have the ears of the Hashmonean elite, at least some of them, but they no longer held a monopoly on power and were completely banished from certain sections of it altogether.
When Civil War came again upon the death of Queen Alexandra Salome, and with it, the rise of the Herodians and the domination by Rome, the Sadducees found their niche as collaborators with the Romans, but even in that role they oftenhad to compete with the Pharisees. Attempts to surpress the Pharisees inspired popular revolts. There was little need to surpress the Sadducees, whom without Herodian and Roman support, wouldhave just withered on the vine.
If indeed the Covenant of Damascus and the Qumranite Scrolls represent the last of the Sadducees, it was a sad fate indeed to have befallen this sect. From an elite group, never in the majority but often in power, to be reduced to a contemptible, hateful order, cowering in the lonely and barren caves of the Dead Sea desert.
By the time the Great Revolt came, all the disparate factions, from Yohanan of Gyscala's Zealots through Simon son of Giyora's Idumeans to the High-Priest's Men and the Friends of Rome appear to be firmly in the Pharisee side or in some orbit around it.
Before the fall of the Galilee and the chaos it brought to the ranks of the Revolutionaries, the Sanhedrin (that is, the true, popular, traditional, Pharisee Sanhedrin, not the collaborative, composite body Roman governors would occasionally put together to do their dirty work) had came out of hiding and was recognised as the main body who could appoint and depose regional commanders. The traditonalist Citron Fruit was once more the symbol of the War for the Liberty of Israel.
And if that war had ended in defeat, it was not a failure. For the Temple was lost, the shaddow of independence was lost, but the Jews, ever loyal to the Laws of the Fathers and their Tradition remained.
And we still work the Path of the Lord Eternal and waiting to His salvation.
Comments