The Rabbis and the Bar Kokhba Revolt

The rabbinic attitude toward the Bar Kokhba Revolt of 132 might be considered to be a bit ironic. On the one hand, it was an enormous failure on the part of the Jews to resist Roman authority, and it resulted in disastrous prohibitions of the Jewish people not least among them the expulsion of Jews from Jerusalem and the renaming of Judea to Palestine. On the other, this was in effect being the final separation of the Jews from their holy city as they knew it, and as a result the rabbis were able to fill the resulting gap in the Jewish religion. Thus while the Bar Kokhba Revolt meant that the Judaism of the Temple would not see restoration in the foreseeable future, it also meant a need for some institution like the rabbis if Judaism itself was to survive. There are two main subjects that warrant attention thus far: the historical background of the revolt, and the rabbinic relationship to it, especially their responses in succeeding generations. The Bar Kokhba revolt is not at all well documented, so factual details are scarce. The sources consist of the Historia Romana of Cassius Dio, the Historia Augusta, and the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius. Archaeological discoveries have also revealed the “Bar Kokhba Letters” and other material artifacts from the time surrounding the revolt. From these sources shall the history be gleaned, and in the Midrash Rabbah on Lamentations the rabbinic response is exhibited.

Cassius Dio states in the Historia Romana LXIX 12.1 that the cause of the Bar Kokhba revolt was Hadrian’s construction of Aelia Capitolina on the site of Jerusalem and the construction of a temple to Jupiter on the Temple mount. Shaye Cohen notes in From the Maccabees to the Mishnah that thanks to the archaeological evidence provided by the coinage of Rome and of the rebels, “the city was indeed established before the outbreak of the rebellion, and but whether the construction caused the rebellion is a point that cannot be confirmed” (Cohen 25). Such an action could not have been well received, but still there are other matters worth consideration.

The Historia Augusta attributes the Bar Kokhba Revolt to the Emperor Hadrian’s toughening of Roman legislation against genital mutilation, including circumcision, saying, “At this point the Jews began war, because they were forbidden to practice circumcision” (14.2). The earlier historian Suetonius mentions the existing legislation of Domitian that “He prohibited the castration of males, and kept down the price of eunuchs that remained in the hands of slave dealers” (7.1). Whether the law was simply amended before the war or after it is uncertain, however, since the Historia Augusta is known to be unreliable, and Hanan Eshel, while advocating the probability of the change taking place before the revolt, acknowledges that hypotheses on both sides are inconclusive (107-108). Regardless, the ban on circumcision, whether it was before or after the beginning of the revolt, was a blow to Jewish tradition.

So far it is fairly certain that Aelia Capitoliana was at least a factor before the revolt, and it is arguably probable that a ban on circumcision was also an issue. Significantly, this runs contrary to the statement of Eusebius of Caesarea in his Ecclesiastical History, which places the foundation of Aelia Capitolina after the beginning of the revolt and makes no mention of circumcision (4.6). What other causes, then, might have contributed to the revolt, so that the likes of Eusebius have an explanation? Eusebius seems to indicate messianism, and in addition more recent historians have pointed out the lingering issues of the previous revolts. First is the latter, which can be summed up by the seizure of land by the Romans after the war of 66 to 74. This, says Cohen, “created a large number of landless poor in Judaea, and this group seems to have provided Bar Kokhba with the bulk of his support” (25). Eshel also points this out as “a possible economic decline—a shift from landowning to sharecropping,” mentioning in addition the “nationalistic agitation” lingering from earlier incidents (106). Perhaps all of this, however, can be linked to the messianic ideal, for as Cohen points out, “Seventy years after the destruction of the First Temple, the Second Temple was built in fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy. The Jews had no doubt the prophecy would be fulfilled again” (25). In short it was not fulfilled again, and Hadrian banished the Jews from Jerusalem. Still, the appointed year was fast approaching, and messianism was in the air, and here it is apt to consider the rabbis.

Rabbi Akiba, a contemporary of the revolt, certainly made the most famous pronouncement on Bar Kokhba. According to the Midrash Rabbah on Lamentations, he declared nothing less than, “This is the king Messiah!” (II.2, 4). In this messianic view of things, Numbers 24:17 factors in very heavily: “There shall step forth a star out of Jacob,” and Bar Kokhba means “son of a star.” In fact, this was a play on the rebel leader’s real name, Simon bar Koziba. The later rabbis, given hindsight, however, would not be particularly inclined to agree with this assessment, though apparently Akiba was for the most part an exception among his contemporaries as well. Indeed, much of the text at hand consists of the responses to Akiba and the responses to these responses. These are the words that reveal the rabbinic view of Bar Kokhba.

The text as a whole pertains to Lamentations 2:2, “The LORD hath swallowed up unsparingly all the habitations of Jacob.” It is the commonality of Jacob, it seems, that compels Rabbi Johanan to bring up Numbers 24:17 and the Bar Kokhba Revolt. In so doing, he proposes that Bar Koziba would be best rendered “Bar Kozab,” which means “son of a lie” (II.2, 4). It is this statement that introduces the messianic pronouncement of Akiba, which is torn to shreds by the proceeding commentary. Later, though, Rabbi Johanan does give a small defense of Akiba’s extraordinary view of the rebel leader, citing Bar Kokhba’s ability to “catch the missiles from the enemy’s catapults on one of his knees and hurl them back…On that account R. Akiba made his remark” (II:2 4). In this text, Akiba without question stands alone in his doomed hopes for Bar Kokhba.

The first response comes from Rabbi Johanan ben Tortha, and it says, “Akiba, grass will grow in your cheeks and he still will not have come” (II.2, 4). So much for any imminent messianism after the revolt in the view of Rabbi Johanan ben Tortha. Such is to be expected, though, since the revolt so thoroughly dashed all immediate hopes for the reestablishment of the Temple. How could there be a messiah without a Jewish homeland, and how could there be a homeland when Hadrian had expelled the Jews and repopulated it with Gentiles, changing its very name to Palestine? It was a rational attitude for the Rabbi to develop, that there would be no messiah in the lifetimes of Akiba or himself or even long afterward. This says something about the rabbis’ view of themselves. They were to be the saviors of Judaism, not Bar Kokhba or anyone else. This is further advanced by Rabbi Johanan.

Rabbi Johanan responds next by citing Genesis 27:22, “The voice is the voice of Jacob,” considering the voice to be a cry of distress, and it is the cry of the people at Bethar when Bar Kokhba is recorded to have been defeated there. Rabbi Jusdah proceeds to relate a story of Bar Kokhba’s followers, saying that Bar Kokhba “had with him two hundred thousand men with an amputated finger,” which he demanded be cut off as a test of fortitude (II.2, 4). The “Sages” did not approve, so they advised him to adopt a new test, uprooting a cedar of Lebanon. The Sages, of course, are equivalent to the rabbis, and this story demonstrates the authority to which the rabbis are laying claim, authority even to correct the rebel leader. That said, in the view of Rabbi Johanan, they still recognized that there was trouble with Bar Kokhba, for he writes of the battle cry of the rebels: “[O God], neither help us nor discourage us!” citing Psalm 60:20, “Has not Thou, O God, cast us off? And go not forth, O God, with our hosts.” Thereafter the doom of the revolt is expounded.

It seems that in the history according to Rabbi Johanan, the only reason the revolt went on without being utterly crushed was the fact that Rabbi Eleazar of Modim “continually wore sackcloth and fasted, and he used to pray daily, ‘Lord of the Universe, sit not in judgment to-day!’ so that [Hadrian] thought of returning home” (II.2, 4). This says much of the rabbis’ view of themselves, that it is they who link the Jewish people to God, and they alone, for that very reason, were able turn back the Romans. There is clearly a dichotomy between Bar Kokhba and Rabbi Eleazar at work here, for while Bar Kokhba proudly requests that God have no involvement whatsoever in his battles, Rabbi Eleazar continually beseeches God to have mercy on the people, and Rabbi Johanan leaves no doubt which was successful.

The final defeat of Judea came when Rabbi Eleazar was removed from the picture. According to Rabbi Johanan, a Roman agent identified that without Rabbi Eleazar, the Jews would fall. Even the Romans identified the power of the Rabbi in sustaining the survival of the Jews. This agent, though, was able to persuade Bar Kokhba that Rabbi Eleazar was about to betray the city of Bethar to the Romans, and with a kick to the head, Bar Kokhba killed him. This prompted a Bath Kol to issue forth, proclaiming the words of Zechariah 11:17, “Woe to the worthless shepherd that leaveth the flock! The sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye.” Such Bar Kokhba brought on Israel, so it would befall him. In the words of Rabbi Johanan, “the sins [of the people] caused Bethar to be captured” (II.2, 4). Just as the actions of Bar Kokhba clearly allowed for the final destruction of the land at the hands of the Romans, it is also made clear that this was the just wrath of God. Supposedly a snake was found around the neck of the dead Bar Kokhba after his defeat, prompting Hadrian to say, “If his God had not slain him who could have overcome him?” and Deuteronomy 32:30 is cited: “Except their Rock had given them over.” Without Rabbi Eleazar, Bar Kokhba and all the people faced the wrath of God without intercession, and so this is extrapolated to the Rabbis in general. Without them, the people face separation from God.

The destruction of Bethar, according to Rabbi Johanan, was a bloodbath of hyperbolic proportions, perhaps even with sacrificial implication, and Hadrian furthered the gruesomeness of his conquest by fencing in a large vineyard of his with dead bodies from Bethar, which were not to be removed until a certain king commanded it (II.2, 4). Rabbi Huna comments on this wall, using it to explain the origin of the benediction, “Who art kind and dealest kindly,” for the bodies did not rot and they were eventually allowed to be buried, corresponding to the respective halves of the benediction (II.2, 4). Since dead and decaying things are clearly designated as unclean in the Torah, a wall of death would have been a serious issue, so this partly accounts for the rabbis’ interest in postulating such a thing. Perhaps the best interpretation of this is symbolic, in that the revolt caused the Romans to separate the Jewish people from their land, thereby defiling it, and their God, who gives the land and His people life through Judaism, hence the vineyard to which Hadrian laid claim. The emergence of the blessing upon the removal of this barrier is arguably a simple affirmation of the survival of the vineyard of Judaism apart from the land, via the rabbis. Hadrian failed to banish the people from the true vineyard.

Rabbi Johanan next approaches the sins of Bethar that warranted its annihilation at the hands of the Romans, and the great sin was that “the inhabitants kindled lamps [to manifest their joy] over the destruction of the Sanctuary” (II.2, 4). They did this because of mockery and fraud on the part of the Jerusalemites. Rabbi Johanan records that “when one of the inhabitants of Bethar went up there to pray, he would be asked by [the Councilors of the city], ‘Do you wish to become a councilor?’…[and], ‘Do you wish to be a city magistrate?’” (II.2, 4). These things were asked of him to imply that his interest was in the city and not in prayer. It was then asked whether he would sell his estate, for which the Jerusalemite would proceed to forge a deed and send it to estate’s steward (II.2, 4). This persuaded the Betharites to wish ill on Jerusalem and the Temple, but Rabbi Johanan notes Proverbs 17:5, “He that is glad at calamity shall not be unpunished” (II.2, 4). Such explains the wrath that was poured out upon Bethar itself, not just Bar Kokhba and his followers. Justice yet called for satisfaction, and Bethar was to be sacrificed to that end, flooding the city with its own blood and spilling a sanguinary river for miles into the sea.

According to Rabbi Johanan, it is recorded that “The brains of three hundred children [were dashed] upon one stone, and three hundred baskets of capsules of phylacteries were found in Bethar” (II.2, 4). Rabbi Simeon ben Gamaliel continues with some grandiose numbers: “There were five hundred schools in Bethar, and the smallest of them had not less than three hundred children.” Gamaliel then enumerates the fate of those he says were his former schoolfellows, saying that they were all wrapped in their scrolls and burnt. This is perhaps the ultimate attack on Rabbinic Judaism, for not only were the pupils destroyed en masse, so too were just as many Torah scrolls. With one fire, both the written law and the oral law were lost in Bethar, except in Simeon ben Gamaliel. Like the wall of bodies around the vineyard, again the Romans, in the view of these rabbis, attempted to separate the Jewish people from Judaism with death.

The final episode in the text records two brothers in Kefar Haruba, whose death parallels that of Bar Kokhba himself. Of these brothers it is said that they “did not allow any Roman to pass there but they killed him” (II.2, 4), leading them to decide that they must take Hadrian’s crown for themselves. This, like the styling of Bar Kokhba, is reminiscent of messianism, in the sense that a messiah would free Judea from the Romans and, at this point, restore the Temple. They also provide the same quotation regarding the involvement of the Deity in their quest, “Let Him neither help us nor discourage us!” This, though courageous, did not serve to help Bar Kokhba as the rabbis present him, and in this parallel it does no better. The brothers died violently for this attitude, and Hadrian responds to their bodies and the snakes around their necks the same as he did Bar Kokhba. Deuteronomy 32:30 again applies (II.2, 4). Interestingly, they spoke thus in response to the well wishes of an old man, saying, “May the Creator be your help against him!” Most probably, this seems to be an explanation of the rabbinic attitude toward the revolt; specifically, that the rabbis hoped that God would see to it that Bar Kokhba, whose heroism they at least tended to admire, succeeded, but Bar Kokhba would not heed the old man, representing the rabbis, and turn to God. For this reason he and the rest of Judaea faced justice rather than deliverance from Rome.

The rabbis view with frustration the conditions that allowed them to prosper, namely the loss of the Jewish homeland as such and the defeat of most immediate hope for the reconstruction of the Temple. There would be schemes to rebuild it, especially the attempt to do so under Julian the Apostate in the middle of the fourth century, but just as that failed and the rabbinic institution became more important as far as Jewish practice goes. At least the rabbis do not hesitate to ascribe importance to themselves, whether as the voice of reason in the face of sin and chaos or as the keepers of Torah, without whom Judaism as they knew it would collapse. With this in mind, though the facts of the Bar Kokhba revolt are few, the rabbis derived no shortage of commentary from it.