I know that the Asarah Harugei Malchus took place over generations. Nonetheless, who is recognized as being the original antagonist? Who is the one who went to Chazal about the claim about Yosef's brothers?
12
-
3Somehow I doubt there was ever any such Roman leader who went to the sages with this argument. That would have demanded killing ten sages then and there, but obviously this didn't happen since, as you said, the killings spanned generations. I think it's a symbolic-aggadic opening intended to connect their deaths together and perhaps offer some reasoning too.– Harel13Commented Oct 7, 2022 at 8:20
-
@Harel13 so then R’ Yishmael never went up to shomayim to ask if the gezeira was real? That’s a real far fetched sorry to make up.– ChatzkelCommented Oct 7, 2022 at 11:50
-
@Chatzkel Don't know, but I think a number of mefarshim ask about what's happening in the piyut, since it cannot possibly be literal. Once you say that it's a metaphor for something happening in shamayim (which I think some of them do), that will apply to many parts of the piyut.– MichoelRCommented Oct 7, 2022 at 11:56
-
@Chatzkel However, the details of the actual deaths of many of the chachamim there do come from midrashim and gemaros.– MichoelRCommented Oct 7, 2022 at 11:57
-
1We know Hadrian was the one who killed Rabbi Akiva. According to third Wikipedia entry, he was the one who was the antagonist of the story with the brothers. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Martyrs– ChatzkelCommented Oct 7, 2022 at 12:06
|
Show 7 more comments
2 Answers
Can’t give you a source but from all the different versions that I’ve heard of the story, it was either Turnus Rufus (the brutal governor who had a particular quarrel with Rabbi Akiva since he stole his wife) or Hadrian. And btw if you want a really great and detailed account of the Ten Martyrs with background, watch this video: https://youtu.be/PZwXmZE87_s
-
1So you identify the Rabban/Rabbi Shimon in the story with Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai or Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel II and Rabbi Yishmael ben Kohen Gadol with a post-destruction tanna?– Harel13Commented Oct 10, 2022 at 18:57
-
@Harel13 no why do you say that? I believe like most people do that those two figured were killed before the others, around the time of the churban. I think I agree with your comment above of how the whole story of them being summoned by the Roman leader is merely for dramatic effect and symbolism Commented Oct 10, 2022 at 20:23
-
The above suggestions are some other opinions for whom Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yishmael in the aggadata are, based on different versions of it. So if I understand you correctly, you think on the one hand that the opening was written to be symbolic yet on the other hand you think that the author did have a certain Roman leader in mind, but for whatever reason decided not to include his name?– Harel13Commented Oct 10, 2022 at 20:29
-
Idk whatever it doesn’t really matter what I think. Though from the fact that different sources say either Hadrian or Turnus Rufus, that shows that there is some discrepancy and a possible answer could simply be that it’s symbolic but each different account chose a different Roman to villainize Commented Oct 10, 2022 at 22:37
-
Well, this is your answer and very likely based on what you think. Are the sources you're referring to sources about the versions of Asseret Harugei Malchut or simply sources regarding the deaths of different sages?– Harel13Commented Oct 10, 2022 at 22:47
The midrash Eleh Ezkera and related similar works should not be understood literally. Rather, one should view the midrash as a veiled criticism of Christianity, which the Roman government sought to impose upon the Jewish people. It is a form of religion based on the Scripture and devoid of any Oral Law, Shakla v'Tarya, Midrashim, etc. to help one understand the essence of the Torah words.
The kind of punishment, sought by the Roman emperor, can be compared to how Reuven responded to Yaakov avinu, Bereshis 42:37, on the possibility that he may not bring Binyamin from Mitzraim. Jewish people certainly attoned for sale of Yosef by being subjugated to slavery in Mitzraim. Thus, in the end, the Roman emperor has faith coming out of the Scripture which interprets the law against it!
Another point of the midrash is the interest of the Roman emperor in Torah can be compared to a specific moment of the sale of the birthright by Eisav to Yaakov, when Eisav states Bereshis 25:30
And Esau said to Jacob, “Give me some of that red stuff to gulp down, for I am famished”—which is why he was named Edom."
Emperor's asking about Yosef's story is no different from Eisav's "I am famished", rabbis, entertain me by puring down my throat that spiritual "lentil stew".
Historically, the Roman Emperor who expressed interest in Judaism was Nero. The New Testament account of Paul's contacts with emperor went through people working for Nero. The Jewish legend in Gemara Gittin 56a-b states that Nero converted to Judaism. With the death of Nero a number of very unfortunate events took place. Nero was the last member of the first Roman imperial dynasty of Tiberii of patrician origin. There was an uprising against Rome by zealots, possibly fuelled by the Parthian empire and certainly supported by its vassal the kindom of Adiabene. The new imperial dynasty of Flavii had non-patrician origins, but sought to start a new imperial cult to become equal in reverence to the previous dynasty of Tiberii. Flavii had full cooperation of the Herodians and their money. That's how the new religious thought got its jump-start. Many emperors unrelated to Flavii since then sought to adopt the name Flavius, including Constantine the Great who officially adopted Christianity as the imperial religion.
The fact that the persecutions occured all the way through the time of Hadrian (Nerva-Antonine dynasty which suceeded the Flavii) can also be associated with timing of all New Testatment books and formation of Christianity as a religion based on these books.
