Home (Netzarim Logo)

Updated: 2021.02.05

B.C.E. 516 – B.C.E. 167

Hellenism v Kō•hanic Sacerdocy

(Background: Red= Hellenist v Blue= Judaic)

Achaemenid Seleucid & Ptolemaic Empires
Click to enlargeEmpires: •ki•mᵊn•id c BCE 516 en­compassing later (c BCE 200) Seleucid & Ptolemaic Empires

From the completion of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh ha-Shein•i (c. B.C.E. 516) under beneficent •ki•mᵊn•id  King rësh Jr., the Great, until B.C.E. 168, Yᵊhūdâh  was a sātrapy under foreign rule.

King rësh the Great was known for having Macedonian (Greek, ergo Hellenist) friends. Thus, before the building of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh ha-Shein•i even began, his sātrapy of Yᵊhūdâh was Macedonian-Greek aware, with the specter of Hellenism already looming.

In B.C.E. 323, Alexander the Great exerted his Hellenist rule over the region, preserving the sātrapy of Yᵊhūdâh. Upon his death, the Hellenist sātrapy of Yᵊhūdâh was inherited by one of his generals—Seleucus, founder of the Hellenist Seleucid Empire ruling the Hellenist sātrapy of Yᵊhūdâh.

Hellenist  Sātrap An•ti•ŏkh•ŏs ŏ Ëp•i•phan•eis Deposes Ōs•in

Hellenization of Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh ha-Shein•i & Kᵊhūn•âh

Ha-Shi•qūtz Mᵊshō•meim 

Yi•sᵊr•â•eil  Splinters Into 3 Min•im:

Remnant Ōs•in Kō•hanic Sacerdocy
Hellenizing Tzᵊdōq•im Hierocracy
Pᵊrush•im Davidic-Rabbinic Laity

In B.C.E. 168, the Hellenist sātrapy of Yᵊhūdâh came, for a second time, under the rule of (Hellenist Seleucid) sātrap An•ti•ŏkh•ŏs ŏ Ëp•i•phan•eis

Caught between the Hellenist sātrap and heavy Hellenist assimilation of his brothers, the priestly religious strictures of the Ōs•in Kō•hanic Sacerdocy, in their Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh ha-Shein•i, chafed under the aggressive idolatrous and hedonist assimilative pressures of the Hellenist Seleucid sātrap—and the sātrap's

Beit Din -Gâ•dōl was adjudicated by the Scriptural Kō•hein ha-Jâ•dōl, at the head of the kō•han•im contingent along with a subordinate society of wealthy aristocrats and intellectuals ("sages") from the lay population. These precipitated in 3 main groups: the ruling Kō•hanic Sacerdocy, a wealthy Hellenist Hierocracy, and a Davidic-Rabbinic oriented Laity. These tended toward a 3-way splintering that would eventually produce Ōs•in, Tzᵊdōq•im and Pᵊrush•im, respectively.

In BCE 175, Hellenist Seleucid Sātrap An•ti•ŏkh•ŏs ŏ Ëp•i•phan•eis authorized Hellenist Yәhō•shua  Bën-Shim•ōn Jr. Bën-Tzâ•dōq ha-Kō•hein to oust his own Ōs•in brother, Yәkhōn•yâh  Bën-Shim•ōn Jr. Bën-Tzâ•dōq, Kō•hein ha-Jâ•dōl, thereby Hellenizing the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh ha-Shein•i and the Kᵊhūn•âh.

As a result, Hellenist Yәhō•shua  Bën-Shim•ōn Jr. Bën-Tzâ•dōq ha-Kō•hein soon became known as -Kō•hein -Rësha הַכֹּהֵן הָרֶשַׁע dysphemism for רֹאשׁ בֵּית דִּין; ousting his own brother—the last Ōs•in Kō•hein ha-Jâ•dōl, famously called the Mōrëh ha-Tzëdëq of DSS 4Q MMT.

The Zūg•ōt

Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•im Συνέδριον

Hellenist-Tzᵊdōq•im Zūg: Nâ•si + Av-Beit-Din 

When the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•im ousted the Ōs•in c. BCE 175, the Hellenist, Roman-marionette aristocracy of Yᵊhūdâh went with the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•im, leaving the Ōs•in bereft of religious, political or financial support—and made homeless, witnessing ha-Shi•qūtz Mᵊshō•meim Hellenizing of Herod's "Second Temple".
Having been plus the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh ha-Shein•i, upon which the were inextricably dependent, Hellenized into were left plummeting into extinction.

From the initial formation of the Zūg•ōt, even the titles of the two leaders flaunt the core schism that divided ancient Yᵊhūdâh: the senior officer of the Hellenist-Tzᵊdōq•im dominated ΣυνέδριονSanhedrin (Hellenist Greek/​Roman term & institution)—the Nâ•si, with the junior officer representing the Scriptural Beit Din -Gâ•dōl—the Av Beit Din.

The schism between unquestioned Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•im kō•han•ic Religious-Rulership and Scripture was always at the very top of the post-BCE 175 Judean religious/​power pyramid.

Hellenist-Tzᵊdōq•im dominated the Συνέδριον until c. 10 C.E., the time of Hi•leil Sr. "the Babylonian". Thus, it is clear that from the first Zūg, emerging from the Hellenization of the Second "Temple" & Kᵊhūn•âh in B.C.E. 175, the Hellenist priests ("kō•han•im") Tzᵊdōq•im maintained their control over both their Hellenized "Temple" and the Συνέδριον, which was controlled by their Tzᵊdoq•i leader as the Nâ•si. It widely agreed that the minority (Pᵊrush•im) voice in the Συνέδριον was represented in the position of the Av Beit Din.

To date, however, there seems to be no unequivocal historical document informing whether, from Sātrap An•ti•ŏkh•ŏs' "ha-Shi•qūtz Mᵊshō•meim" Hellenizing the "Temple" in BCE 175, this secondary position in the Συνέδριον may, at first, also have been held by a Tzᵊdoq•i. And if so, history hasn't yet informed us when the junior (minority) position may first have shifted to the leader of the new (post-BCE 175), Pᵊrush•im, sect.

The Penultimate Zūg

Tzᵊdoq•i Nâ•si Shᵊma•yâh & Pᵊrush•im Av Beit Din Avᵊtalᵊyōn

According to the sparse material preserved in the Talmudic record, the 8 זִקְנֵי־בְּתֵירָא were the 4 Zūg•ōt, culminating with Tzᵊdōq•im Nâ•si Shᵊma•yâh and Pᵊrush•im Av Beit Din Avᵊtalᵊyōn; the penultimate Zūg in the late B.C.E. 1st century. Shᵊma•yâh and Avᵊtalᵊyōn are mostly famous for being unable to remember the Tōr•âh prioritizing the zᵊvâkh•im when Pësakh coincides with Sha•bât.

Sole consideration is Tradition! Azarah [temple court] gone "The change of protagonists focuses the conflict on the tension between two competing rabbinic-based groups. The Elders of Batyra are local, based in the Land of Israel, and aligned with the priests, while Hillel comes from Babylonia. The Yerushalmi" "logical proofs are refuted and dismissed" because adversaries are Tzedoqim kohanim [Y. Pesachim 39a/6.1 c 400 CE]

The transmission of the Interpretive Tradition of Ta•na"kh (i.e. "Oral Law") has been obscured by rabbinic zeal to blot-out pre-rabbinic sources; rewriting history to appear as if it has always been rabbis who have transmitted "Oral Law" to us from Mōsh•ëh at Har Sin•ai. This, of course, is intractably incompatible with documented history. Prior to the splintering of the Ōs•in in the wake of the Hellenization imposed by Hellenist Yәhō•shua Bën-Shim•on Jr. Bën-Tzâ•doq ha-Ko•hein (Hellenized to Jason) and Seleucid Sātrap An•ti•ŏkh•ŏs ŏ Ëp•i•phan•eis in BCE 175, the Pᵊrush•im never before existed; hence, neither did rabbis.

The Last Zūg

Hellenist-Tzᵊdoq•im Nâ•si, Sha•mai v Pᵊrush•im Av-Beit-Din, Hi•leil

It wouldn't be until c. 500 C.E. that the compiler of the Ta•lᵊmūd Bâ•vᵊl•i, Yᵊhūdâh ha-Nâ•si, would morph the זִקְנֵי־בְּתֵירָא of c. 400 C.E. Ta•lᵊmūd Yᵊrū•sha•lᵊm•i into בְּנֵי־בְּתֵירָא of Ta•lᵊmūd Bâ•vᵊl•i. Regardless which title, these remained the same contingent that advocated their Interpretive Tradition: the Χειρόγραφον τοῖς Δόγμασιν; namely the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•im of The Last Zūg•ōt, under Sha•mai Sr. the Nâ•si of the Last Zūg—the group better known as Beit Sha•mai!!!

qqq Hi•leil was the principle leader (Av Beit Din) of the Pᵊrush•im junior contingent in the Συνέδριον, which, until c. 10 C.E., was dominated by the

Famously, the question arose c. 10 C.E. regarding the coincidence of Pësakh and Sha•bât: whether the qâ•rᵊb•ân Pësakh supersedes the qâ•rᵊb•ân Sha•bât. The זִקְנֵי־בְּתֵירָאHellenist Tzᵊdōq•im Complement of the Last Zūg, led by Sha•mai Sr. the Nâ•si—failed to develop a satisfying solution, whereas Hi•leil Sr. "the Babylonian" and Av Beit Din argued such a logically compelling set of interpretations from Tōr•âh that Beit Sha•mai was forced to concede the position of Nâ•si to Beit Hi•leilmarking the change of power from the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•im domination of the Συνέδριον under Beit Sha•mai to the first Rabbinic Pᵊrush•im domination of the restored Beit Din -Gâ•dōl: Beit Hi•leil.

In any case, by the time of the last Zūg, the Av Beit Din was held by Hi•leil Sr. "the Babylonian", a maternal scion of Beit-Dâ•wid —and a Pᵊrush•i! "His activity of forty years is perhaps historical; and since it began, according to a trustworthy tradition ([Ma•sëkët Sha•bât] 15a), one hundred years before the destruction of Yᵊru•shâ•layim, it must have covered the period [BCE 30 ] - 10 CE."

It was the Tzᵊdōq•im who were dependent upon their patron Roman occupiers for their own authority. There was no disagreement between Romans and Tzᵊdōq•im regarding Hellenism: both were Hellenists!!!

History also tells us that, despite the position of Av Beit Din being held by a Pᵊrush•i at some point before the turn of the C.E., the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•im, with the support of the Hellenist Romans, maintained their control over the Συνέδριον until c. 5-10 CE when, for the first time ever, Hi•leil Sr. "the Babylonian" Pᵊrush•i (who died c 10 CE) wrested the position of Nâ•si—control of the Συνέδριον—from the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•im.

Ergo, the Nâ•si of the Συνέδριον, the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•im Complement in The Last Zūg, who preceded Hi•leil Sr. as Nâ•si, could not have been himself! A priori, it could only have been his Zūg Complement, namely Sha•mai Sr.!

Thus, the Tzᵊdōq•im-controlled ha-Zūgōt. the "Complementary Pairs", administered the Συνέδριον from B.C.E. 175 until Hi•leil Sr. "the Babylonian" wrested the title of Nâ•si (Chief Justice), i.e. Pᵊrush•im control of the Συνέδριον, for the first time c BCE 28.

Pᵊrush•im Surpass Tzᵊdōq•im

Pᵊrush•im Hi•leil Appointed Nâ•si

Beit Din -Gâ•dōl (vis-à-vis Συνέδριον)
Hellenist-Tzᵊdoq•im Sha•mai, Nâ•si v Pᵊrush•im Hi•leil, Av-Beit-Din
Pᵊrush•im Hi•leil, Nâ•si v Hellenist-Tzᵊdoq•im Sha•mai, Av-Beit-Din

Practically everyone has routinely assumed that, in the wake of having been ousted by the Pᵊrush•im in the Συνέδριον, plus the Roman destruction of their "Temple" upon which they were dependent, the Tzᵊdōq•im simply faded into oblivion, leaving only the Pᵊrush•im—seemingly a priori (but actually ex falso quodlibet), Poof! Beit Sha•mai sages, magically, had always been "Rabbis" (i.e. Pᵊrush•im)! Roll eyes

It is also documented that "זִקְנֵי־בְּתֵירָא" exercised influence even after the destruction of the Temple, when the Beit Din -Gâ•dōl (no longer a Hellenist Roman Provincial Συνέδριον) was in Yavᵊn•ëh. Yōkhâ•nân Bën-Za•kai was said to have conferred with the זִקְנֵי־בְּתֵירָא in regard to certain legal rulings.

[? or Beit Din -Gâ•dōl?] was in Yavᵊn•ëh< !-- יַבְנֶה -- >. Yōkhâ•nân Bën-Za•kai< !-- יוׂחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי -- > was said to have consulted the Sons of Bathyra in regard to certain legal rulings. Zvi Kaplan, Encyclopedia Judaica https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/bathyra-sons -->

Points Of Contention

(Beit) Sha•mai Sr.  V  (Beit) Hi•leil Sr. "the Babylonian"
Tzᵊdōq•im Kō•han•im Hierocratic Laws (irrelevant hagiocracy after Roman destruction of "Temple", & Scripturally illegitimate after Roman destruction of all public yō•khas•in—except for Ribi Yᵊhō•shūa (NHM ch. 1 )Pᵊrush•im Laity Laws
Central "Temple"-dependent (destroyed 70 CE)Local bât•ei kᵊnësët (continue today)
Hellenist-assimilating hagiocratic (hierocratic), xenophobic collaborators with Roman occupiers to exercise rule over "Temple" traditions (& Jews)Anti-Hellenist welcoming, tolerant & inclusive of Ta•na"kh-centric diversity; respectful & gracious Ta•na"kh-centric standards; minimal sufferance under Roman occupiers
Interpretive Tradition: Codified in Χειρόγραφον τοῖς Δόγμασιν/​Aramaic: סְפַר גְזֵירָתָא  (Hebrew: סֵפֶר גְזֵירוֹת ). Excerpted in 18 גְּזִירוֹתInterpretive Tradition: Continued Oraluntil c. 200 CE (Mi•shᵊn•âh), c. 400 CE (Ta•lᵊmūd Yᵊrū•sha•lᵊm•i) & c. 500 CE (Ta•lᵊmūd Bâ•vᵊl•i)
Interpretive Methodology: Literalism ► Prohibited Anthro­pomorphism ► Irrational Supernatural Mysticism (e.g. Qa•bâl•âh) ► anti-science / anti-educationInterpretive Methodology: Logic rational science, education & progress — reality

Sadducees Rejected "Oral Law"?

By the 1st C.E. the Hellenist-Greek Tzᵊdōq•im had codified their Hellenist-Greek Interpretive Tradition in their Hellenist-Greek Χειρόγραφον τοῖς Δόγμασιν (Book of Dogma). Thus, all of the 3 major min•im of the 1st century C.E. maintained and respected their own Tradition of interpreting Ta•na"kh (Scripture, Bible)!

However, the Pᵊrush•im continued to transmit their Interpretive Tradition by oral repetition and memory.

Thus, it is inaccurate and false to generalize from the Tzᵊdōq•im Literalists' anthropomorphic & mystic supernaturalist rejection of Pᵊrush•im rational/​logical reality Interpretive Tradition that they rejected Interpretive Tradition wholly, simply because their rival Pᵊrush•im Interpretive Tradition happened to still be transmitted via "oral" repetition (enabling continuing interpretation) instead of codified (fixed) in a book.

Centuries later, the Pᵊrush•im codified their "Oral Law" as well: c. 200 CE Mi•shᵊn•âh, c. 400 CE Ta•lᵊmūd Yᵊrū•sha•lᵊm•i, and c. 500 CE Ta•lᵊmūd Bâ•vᵊl•i. Yet, no one claims, based on this, that the Pᵊrush•im rejected Oral Law!!!

The 18 גְּזִירוֹת  of Beit Sha•mai Sr.
Excerpted From The Χειρόγραφον τοῖς Δόγμασιν

Some have cited the 18 גְּזִירוֹת  the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•im of Beit Sha•mai, Sr. with tunnel-vision; viewing them as an anti-Roman manifesto to pursue an agenda of distancing themselves from the Romans. However, this flies in the face of overwhelming documentation of fact. First, the 18 גְּזִירוֹת  merely stipulate the literalist interpretive tradition of the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•im of Beit Sha•mai, Sr. relative to punishments; e.g. an eye for an eye literally (rather than metaphorically as the Pᵊrush•im interpreted it); i.e. which criminals should be stoned, which burned, which beheaded and which hung from a tree, etc. A fortiori, the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•im rule depended upon their collaboration with their Hellenist Roman-patron occupiers, who backed the aristocratic kō•han•im-priesthood religious hierocracy cum hagiocracy of Beit Sha•mai, Sr. over Pᵊrush•im Am Yi•sᵊr•â•eil only so long as they kept the Roman Province of Yᵊhūdâh in line with Roman requirements.

The Tzᵊdōq•im were a paternally-racist, Hellenist-assimilated, Roman-sycophant, hierocracy of priests (and wealthy Hellenist aristocrats) ruling over the Pᵊrush•im (Yi•sᵊr•â•eil) in the Roman Province of Yᵊhūdâh.

The advocacy of Beit Sha•mai Sr. for imposing kᵊhūn•âh ritual purity on all of Am Yi•sᵊr•â•eil has occasionally been misrepresented as measures to distance all Jews from Romans. But the Tzᵊdōq•im dependence on the patronization of their Roman overlords for their own dominance in the Συνέδριον over the Pᵊrush•im betrays the fallacy of the misrepresentation.

On the other hand, the insatiable drive of Beit Sha•mai, Sr. for absolute rule over Pᵊrush•im Am Yi•sᵊr•â•eil—which we still witness today among the advocates of Beit Sha•mai, Sr.—was intractably incompatible with Roman rule. This inherent conflict inexorably exploded in 70 CE, and again in 135 CE… and must inevitably and repeatedly explode for as long as advocacy for Beit Sha•mai, Sr. is tolerated by Pᵊrush•im Beit Hi•leil Am Yi•sᵊr•â•eil.

The great problem today is that "Orthodox Judaism" (and especially Ultra-Orthodoxy and particularly Kha•reid•im) don't recognize even the existence, today, of the inexorably explosive internal schism between these two intractably conflicted views.

Hi•leil v Sha•mai    Pᵊrush•im v Tzᵊdōq•im
  1. Kᵊhūn•âh (& Lᵊwiy•im) ritual purity codes, continuing relevancy?

  2. Dissimilar Systems Of Interpretation, Polemics & Apologetics:

    • Pᵊrush•i Hi•leil Sr. "the Babylonian" — big-picture semiotic logic applied to principles of jurisprudence, versus

    • Syrian-Hellenist "Temple" Tzᵊdoq•i Sha•mai Sr. — insisted on a literal interpretation of the Written Law; consequently, they did not believe in an after life, since it is not mentioned in the Torah.

      "take away Fate entirely, and suppose that God is not concerned in our doing or not doing what is evil; and they say, that to act what is good, or what is evil, is at men's own choice, and that the one or the other belongs so to every one, that they may act as they please. They also take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishments and rewards in the Underworld." Flavius Josephus, Jewish War 2.162-166 [https://www.livius.org/articles/people/sadducees/].

      simplistic mechanical-literal, Hellenist "Temple"-Tzᵊdoq•im kō•han•ic Unquestioned, Religious-Rulership Tradition! (which Hellenist "Temple" Tzᵊdoq•im perverted from their Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh Ōs•in kō•han•im forbears documented in the DSS).

  3. Philosophical Orientation:

    • Pᵊrush•i Hi•leil Sr. "the Babylonian" — respecting persons as equals and motivating best in human individuals, versus

    • Syrian-Hellenist "Temple" Tzᵊdoq•i Sha•mai Sr. — priestly-patronizing assumed arrogance of rulership over inferiors, increasingly limiting ("fencing") people collectively, geared to worst in humankind

  4. Expanding Fences Around Tōr•âh:

Hi•leil v Sha•mai    Pᵊrush•im v Tzᵊdōq•im, exactly matching the contention in each of the 5 categories!

Pᵊrush•im /​ Beit Hi•leil Legacy

Tzᵊdōq•im /​ Beit Sha•mai Invalidated Irrevocably

In the wake of the Pᵊrush•im wresting dominance over the Tzᵊdōq•im in the Συνέδριον by Hi•leil Sr. "the Babylonian" as Nâ•si c. 10 CE, the Tzᵊdōq•im of 25-30 CE were increasingly required by their Roman patrons to demonstrate their wished-for continued, but long-gone, indispensableness to the Roman occupiers. Despite numerous attempts of entrapment by the Tzᵊdōq•im to quash the growing wave of Pᵊrush•im dominance, the Pᵊrush•im preferred to "return to Caesar things that are for Caesar… and to ël•ōh•im things that are for ël•ōh•im"; as famously enunciated by the firebrand ta•lᵊmid granted sᵊmikh•âh by Hi•leil Sr. and Tan•â Rab•ân Ga•mᵊl•i•eil Sr.Ribi Yᵊhō•shūa.

The Tzᵊdōq•im desperation soon culminated in an all-Tzᵊdōq•im (Beit Sha•mai) kangaroo court, unprecedentedly convened at night and on a holy day, relying on the perjuries of false witnesses, to convict Ribi Yᵊhō•shūa of sedition against Roman rule (not any Scriptural trespass) and then, with the allowance of the Roman Provincial Governor of Yᵊhūdâh, Pontius Pilate, at the behest of the Tzᵊdōq•im (Beit Sha•mai), the Roman soldiers crucified him.

70 CE — Romans Destroy Hellenist-Tzᵊdōq•im Hellenized "Temple" Tzᵊdōq•im (Beit Sha•mai) Orphaned, Homeless & Scripturally Illegitimate

In the face of growing Roman suppression leading up to the destruction of the Hellenist-Tzᵊdōq•im Hellenized "Temple", the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•im had lost the confidence of the Israelis due to their complicity with their increasingly harsh Hellenist Roman patron-occupiers. This was exacerbated by their having cooperated with the Romans in railroading Ribi Yᵊhō•shūa (Pᵊrush•im never held Beit Din at night nor on a holy day), who had been a wildly popular Pᵊrush•i firebrand among the Pᵊrush•im citizenry, into a Roman crucifixion based on false charges).

After the destructions of 70 CE and 135 CE, the Tzᵊdōq•im, who had ruled the Συνέδριον from the first Zūg•ōt, the names of the Tzᵊdōq•im Nᵊsiy•im, although they are known and documented, were replaced by a reference to their Χειρόγραφον τοῖς Δόγμασιν—The סְפַר גְזֵירָתָא  (Hebrew: סֵפֶר גְזֵירוֹת ), excerpted in The 18 גְּזִירוֹת, which happens Roll eyes to be a Hebrew synonym of בְּתֵירָא!!! Thus, the phrase "sons of Bathyra" merely means "group members" of the Χειρόγραφον τοῖς Δόγμασιν—in other words, the Tzᵊdōq•im; and "Elders of Bathyra" are the same!

Recognizing that these phrases refer to previous—Tzᵊdōq•im Nᵊsiy•im, of the Συνέδριον resolves all of the multiple enigmas reported by—created by—the entire gamut of Jewish and Christian historians.

Pᵊrush•im Beit Din -Gâ•dōl Convenes in Yavᵊn•ëh

"The determination of the Ha•lâkh•âh according to Beit Hi•leil was probably not accomplished in a single act but was rather a process that continued during the entire Yavᵊn•ëh period, commencing with Yōkhâ•nân Bën-Za•kai, soon after the destruction of the Temple (70 CE) and ending with the death of Rab•ân Ga•mᵊl•i•eil Sr. before the Bar-Kōkh war (c. 135 CE).

"At [Yavᵊn•ëh], in the generation after the destruction of the Temple, [Beit Hi•leil (i.e. Pᵊrush•im) cemented their] ascendancy (first–second century [CE]), whereupon the [Ha•lâkh•âh] was laid down according to [Beit Hi•leil (i.e. Pᵊrush•im)]. It was then stated that the possibility of making a choice between the two schools applied only "before a [bat kōl] went forth, but once a [bat kōl] went forth, the [Ha•lâkh•âh] was always according to [Beit Hi•leil], and whoever acted contrary to the views of [Beit Hi•leil] deserved death. It was taught: A [bat kōl] went forth and declared, 'The Ha•lâkh•âh is according to the words of [Beit Hi•leil].' Where did the [bat kōl] go forth?… At [Yavᵊn•ëh]" (Ta•lᵊmūd Yᵊrū•sha•lᵊm•i, Ma•sëkët Bᵊrâkh•ōt 1.7, 3b; and parallel passages)".

Âmor•âyim In Yᵊhūdâh (220-365 CE)

In the Âmor•âic period the Ha•lâkh•âh of Beit Hi•leil was accepted in the schools of the Âmor•âyim who declared: "The opinion of Beit Sha•mai, when it conflicts with that of Beit Hi•leil is no Mi•shᵊn•âh" (Ma•sëkët Bᵊrâkh•ōt 36b, et al.)! 

This includes the idolatries of anthropomorphism and irrational supernatural mysticism (e.g., Qa•bâl•âh & har) that arises from the Literalist Interpretive Methodology of Beit Sha•mai (the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•im).

Qa•bâl•âh's Bible, the har, contradicts Yavᵊn•ëh: "In the future (i.e., the world to come) the Ha•lâkh•âh will be according to Beit Sha•mai."

Contrary to the pneumati-nocti-xeno-stitious har—more than a millennium later, advocacy of Beit Sha•mai has, since Yavᵊn•ëh, carried a spiritual death sentence!!!

At Yavᵊn•ëh, the intelligent methodology of logical interpretation of pristine Original Principles by Beit Hi•leil had irreversibly prevailed; inclusive and welcoming “big tent” logic, protective of diverse logical (scientific) explorative discussion and advancements. The pivotal advantage of the Beit Hi•leil logical (scientific) method over the Beit Sha•mai (Temple Kohanic) dead-end "Tradition!" method proclaimed by Tuvya the Milkman (Fiddler on the Roof), is that only the Beit Hi•leil logical (scientific) methodology adopts and produces advances in science and technology, remaining apace in our הָעוֹלָם הִשְׁתַּנָּה (mundus mutatus)!

The Beit Sha•mai methodology guarantees ossification, obsolescence, irrelevance, intractable internal conflict and extinction!

Today's Jews All Claim To Be Pᵊrush•im

What Happened To
The Roman-Hellenist Tzᵊdoq•im & Pᵊrush•im?

Recognizing that Sha•mai Sr. was the Tzᵊdōq•i Nâ•si Complement of the Last Zūg is the critical frame that enables scholars to peer through the 5 th century CE rabbinic rewrite of the debates between "Hillel & Shammai".

The earliest and most pristine accounts of the debates within The Last Zūg, and continuing debates between Beit Hi•leil and Beit Sha•mai, are documented in the Tō•sëphᵊtâ, where the original debaters are manifestly and unambiguously defined as Pᵊrush•im v Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•im kō•han•im (offspring of the extinct Ōs•in).

This definition is corroborated and confirmed in the Ta•lᵊmūd Yᵊrū•sha•lᵊm•i (c 400 CE) as a debate between the Pᵊrush•im and "those in the Temple Court"—the precinct of the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•im kō•han•im.

Thus, when the Pᵊrush•im had consolidated sole power over the Beit Din -Gâ•dōl in Yavᵊn•ëh, however, the Pᵊrush•im "blotted out" the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•im kō•han•im from rabbinic history in Ta•lᵊmūd Bâ•vᵊl•i (c 500 CE), rewriting subsequent rabbinic history as a strictly internal Pᵊrush•im debate between "Our Rabbis" — i.e. 2 Pᵊrush•im!!! Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•im kō•han•im were thusly written-out of rabbinic history, encouraging the assumption that Beit Sha•mai were "Our Rabbis" (i.e. Pᵊrush•im)!

Today's Beit Sha•mai (Tzᵊdōq•im) Orthodox Jews & Judaism

The most racist, intolerant and xenophobic of today's "Jews" are Ultra-Orthodox Jews who advocate "Shammai" tradition—in defiance of the written record in Ta•lᵊmūd documenting that the Tan•â•im declared unambiguously that "the Ha•lâkh•âh was always according to Beit Hi•leil, and whoever acted contrary to the views of Beit Hi•leil deserved death"! For decades I've repeatedly observed instances of today's Ultra-Orthodox claiming to be Pᵊrush•im while preaching the primacy of Sha•mai "Sadduceanism"; and behaving like the ancient arrogant, ruling, "Sadducees" who brought about the destructions of 70 CE, 135 CE—and perhaps even the 1940s CE; very much unlike the ancient "Pharisees" personified by the scions of Beit-Dâ•wid: Hi•leil, Ribi Yᵊhō•shūa  and (subsequently) Rab•ân Ga•mᵊl•i•eil Sr.

Many Orthodox Jews & Judaism today, loudly proclaiming the primacy of Sha•mai (Tzᵊdōq•im) arguments blatantly contrary to Hi•leil Sr. "the Babylonian" and Pᵊrush•im history, contrary even to Ta•lᵊmūd, blindly march in lockstep, unquestioningly following the mystical (anti-education, anti-science, reality-denying = delusional = insane) Cult of Darkness of beyond-questioning, Ultra-Orthodox "great rabbis". Worship of rabbis is no less idolatry than worship of foreign gods or athletic and entertainment idols. They're labeled idols for proper reason, attracting admiration that belongs exclusively to the Existant; no human. Singing, playing pretend, playing with a ball, or a degree in art, is no indication of intellect or wisdom. While many of today's Jews secretly maintain their grip on the real universe and its Existant Creator, most "religious" Jews who view themselves as Pᵊrush•i have been duped into following Beit Sha•mai Tzᵊdōq•im; straying catastrophically from Mōsh•ëh at Har Sin•ai: Ta•na"kh-centric Principles afforded the logical understanding and resulting interpretation of the modern scientific and technical world; not the Cult of Darkness mystical perversion!

Outlook: Protection Of Ta•na"kh-centric Diverse Opinion

Changes in the world environment have repeatedly proven terminal to large segments, or even entire species, of populations that lack some previously unappreciated DNA. Like undefined rare DNA, the same holds true for diverse opinions, which may not seem correct or acceptable presently, but ultimately could prove correct in future; providing the sole—previously uncomprehended and unappreciated—explanation that averts extinction of entire belief systems. Advances in world knowledge dooms religions dependent upon a divine-son prophet, a prophet riding a Pegasus from Mecca to Yᵊru•shâ•layim overnight or Bronze Age (much less Cult of Darkness) premises, which are, therefore, ex falso quodlibet.

יְהוָׂה is Immutable, but הָעוֹלָם הִשְׁתַּנָּה (mundus mutatus).

Rainbow Rule © 1996-present by Paqid Yirmeyahu Ben-David,
Rainbow Rule
Go Top Home (Netzarim Logo) Go Back

Nᵊtzâr•im… Authentic