Lesson 3—Changing Attitudes Toward the Land and the Diaspora After the Bar-Kokhba Revolt

Go to the Discussion Board. What are some of the criteria that people adopt in determining where to live? Should Jews have different criteria?

Text Study 1

Read texts 1-4 and answer the following questions:

1. Why is it important for Jews to live in Eretz Yisrael?

2. To what lengths are Jews supposed to go in order to live in Eretz Yisrael?

3. Are Jews permitted to leave Eretz Yisrael?

4. What is the underlying message in these texts?

1. Tosefta Avodah Zara 4.3

A person should always live in Eretz Yisrael, even in a town in which the majority of inhabitants are Gentiles, and not [live] abroad, even in a town in which all of the inhabitants are Jews.

This teaches that living in Eretz Yisrael is equivalent to the fulfillment of all the commandments of the Torah.

2. Ibid. 4.4

A person should not go abroad unless wheat sells at the price of two seahs for a sela. R. Shimon [2^nd century scholar in Eretz Yisrael] said: Under what circumstances? Only in a case when he cannot find any to buy (even at that price). But if he finds some to buy, even if one seah sells for a sela – he may not go abroad. For thus would R. Shimon teach: Elimelech was one of the great men of his generation and a leader of the community, and because he went abroad (Ruth 1:1) he died there with his sons in famine, while all of Israel survived in their land.”

3. Ibid 4.5

As long as you are in the Land of Canaan I am your God; when you are not in the land of Canaan, I am not, as it were, your God.

4. Bab. Talmud, Ketubot 110b

Our Rabbis taught: If [the husband desires to go up and his wife refuses she must be pressed to go up; and if [she does] not [consent] she may be divorced without a ketubah. If she desires to go up and he refuses he must be pressed to go up; and if [he does] not [consent] he must divorce her and pay her ketubah. If she desires to leave and he refuses to leave, she must be pressed not to leave, and if [pressure is of] no avail she may be divorced without a ketubah. If he desires to leave and she refuses he must be pressed not to leave, and if [coercion is of] no [avail] he must divorce her and pay her ketubah.

If he (=the husband) desires to come to Eretz Yisrael and she (=his wife) does not wish to come, she is coerced to come; if she wishes (to come) and he does not, he is coerced to come.

If he wishes to leave Eretz Yisrael, and she does not, she is not coerced to leave. If she wishes (to leave) and he does not, she is coerced not to leave.

Suggested Answers

1. These texts (very popular in religious Zionist circles) make several radical statements about the importance of the Land from a religious perspective. They say that living in the Land is equivalent to the fulfillment of all the commandments of the Torah. Let us understand the implication of this statement if taken at face value. By virtue of living in the Land a Jew is considered as though he has observed Shabbat, and observed all the festivals, prayed and recited blessings regularly, eaten strictly kosher, kept all the laws governing sexual conduct, honored and respected his parents, never told a lie, cheated or deceived, never spoke gossip, and the list goes on and on! Put differently, a Jew who eats pork on Yom Kippur, then commits adultery and proceeds to rob the woman of all her belongings, is considered to have fulfilled all the commandments by virtue of his living in the Land!

Now, let us assume that this is just a figure of speech, another way of saying that living in Israel is really, really, really important and not meant to be taken literally, it is still an incredibly strong statement about the importance of the Land. Yet as strong as that statement is, it is dwarfed by the statement in text 3. As long as you are in the Land “I am your God; when you are not in the land of Canaan, I am not, as it were, your God.” What does this mean? Isn’t God everywhere and can’t He be worshiped everywhere? Now, it is one thing to view the Land as an extension of the Temple; just as the Temple is holy and where God’s Presence is considered to uniquely reside, so too the Land is holy (on a smaller scale) and God is more intensely present there than He is elsewhere. But does that imply that God does not dwell elsewhere at all! Perhaps it means that God doesn’t deal as strictly with violations of Jewish law by those who live outside the Land and does not act in the same demanding manner as He does with Jews in the Land who must adhere to a higher standard. Or perhaps it means that God abandons those who abandon His Land by choosing to live elsewhere but not that He doesn’t actually exist elsewhere. Of course, this statement too is not meant to be understood literally. Indeed, the text says “when you are not in the land of Canaan, I am not, as it were, your God”. Nevertheless, the fact that such a statement could be made even figuratively is testimony to the enormous importance that these rabbis attached to living in Eretz Yisrael.

2. Text 1 tells us that a person should live in Israel even in a town in which the majority of the inhabitants are Gentiles and not live abroad even in a town that is entirely Jewish. This statement is remarkable because it is contrary to what we generally tend to believe. We generally assume that our religious lives are considerably enhanced by joining a community of fellow Jews. According to this text, however, although it may be true that our religious lives are enhanced in the context of a community, there is something that is of greater religious importance: living in Eretz Yisrael regardless of the Jewishness of the community there. This, of course, is a logical extension of the concept that we just discussed. If God uniquely dwells, or appears, in the Land, then living in the Land automatically lends meaning and significance to religious life there, regardless of the people living there at the time. Indeed, living in the Land is so important that text 4 tells us that if either a man or a woman wishes to live there and their spouse does not then the latter may be forced to come against their will. If the wife still refuses she may be divorced and loses the rights to her Ketubah – the marriage contract with the full payment due upon divorce or death. If the husband still refuses, he must divorce her and pay her full ketubah. That the sacred bond of marriage may be severed in order to live in Eretz Yisrael is a powerful statement about its centrality.
3. According to text 4 the same principle regarding aliyah – immigration (literally, “ascent”) to the Land – applies to leaving it. If one party wishes to leave and the other to stay, the party who wishes to say may force his or her will on the other and the other must pay a penalty in the case of refusal. While text 4 attaches greater importance to the Land in the case of a dispute between husband and wife, text 2 actually prohibits leaving the Land except under extenuating circumstances. Only when the price of wheat is double its usual price (a seah is a measurement and a sela is a currency) is one permitted to leave. R. Shimon, however, goes even further. He may not leave as long as wheat can be purchased, no matter what the price! From where do they derive this principle? The biblical Book of Ruth begins with a description of a famine in the Land that forced Elimelech, the husband of Naomi and, according to the Rabbis, “one of the great men of his generation and a leader of the community”, to leave Eretz Yisrael for the Land of Moab. The text tells us how both he and his two sons died in Mo’ab. The Rabbis here interpret their death as a punishment for Elimelech’s decision to leave the Land even though there was a famine at the time.
4. The underlying message of these texts is that the People of Israel are supposed to live in Eretz Yisrael and those who live there should not leave even when the “going gets tough”. This is contrary to popular belief, according to which, where a Jew lives is a matter of personal preference. Furthermore, it is also contrary to the impression left by the previous lessons in which Eretz Yisrael occupied a central role in the lives of Diaspora Jews but the right to live in the Diaspora did not appear to be challenged. These texts seem to call into question the very existence of a Diaspora community!

Go to the Discussion Board. What do you think about these texts? How do they make you feel?

While no serious discussion on the centrality and importance of Israel in Judaism can ignore these texts, we will soon see other texts which express a very different point of view.

Text Study 2

Read texts 5-7 and answer the following questions:

1. What is R. Yehudah’s position with regard to emigration from Babylonia and immigration to Eretz Yisrael?

2. According to R. Yehudah in texts 5-6 what is the religious importance of Babylonia as compared to Eretz Yisrael? How do we know that his student R. Zei’ra did not accept this position?

3. According to R. Yehudah in text 7 what is the religious importance of Babylonia as compared to Eretz Yisrael? Note: The term “dough” refers here to the mixture of Jews of pure and impure lineage. Was his view accepted unanimously?

4. What happened between Zei’ri (not to be confused with R. Zei’ra above) and R. Yochanan?    

5. What is the fundamental difference between these texts and our previous texts?

6. Read the following historical background to the period. Based on this background, how might this difference be explained?

Eretz Yisrael

The defeat of the Jews in the Great Revolt against Rome in 66-70 CE that culminated in the conquest of Jerusalem and the destruction of the second Temple was a devastating blow. Thousands of Jews were killed and many towns were burned or destroyed. The Jews’ main source of income – agriculture – was in ruins. Furthermore, their defeat after a period of intense messianic hopes, and the destruction of the Temple – their spiritual center and where the institutions that led the nation were based – caused severe depression, paralysis and confusion. Nevertheless, despite the loss the suffering and the depression, they recovered remarkably quickly and, by the end of the 1^st century, the Jewish population in the Land was able to regain much of its numeric and economic strength. Although the Romans penalized them with a two-drachma tax in lieu of the former half-shekel contribution to the Temple, they did not withdraw their recognition of Judaism as a lawful religion that was exempted from emperor worship and other such pagan rituals. And within a short while they enjoyed a spiritual revival under the leadership of R. Yochanan ben Zakkai.

Despite, and perhaps because of, their quick recovery, Jewish turbulence in the Roman Empire, which was fueled by messianic hopes for the regaining control of the Land and for the restoration of the Temple, continued. Between 133-135 CE a messianic revolt erupted in the Land led by Simon bar Kosiba, otherwise known as Bar Kokhba. Although the rebels carefully prepared for the fight, the revolt was quickly crushed by the Roman forces who were at the height of their power. The results of this failed revolt were even more devastating than after the Great Revolt of 66-70. Towns and villages were razed and never rebuilt, and others which were predominantly Jewish were transformed into towns of mixed populations. Jerusalem was rebuilt as a pagan Roman city named Aelia Capitolina which was now prohibited to Jews and Judea was now renamed Syria-Palestina. The Roman emperor Hadrian outlawed Judaism throughout the Land and the rabbinic scholars who supported Bar Kokhba were executed. While the Jews remained the largest single community in the Land, their numbers were dramatically reduced. While many of the rabbinic leaders moved northward to the Galilee, which would soon emerge as the religious and intellectual center, others chose to rebuild their lives in Babylonia and elsewhere.

Babylonia

The story of the Jewish community in Babylonia began with the deportations of Nebuchadnezzar in the 6th century BCE. While a number of Jews returned to Eretz Yisrael during the period of Ezra and Nehemiah in the 5th century BCE, the vast majority chose to remain in Babylonia. Unfortunately, little is known about Jewish life there until the Parthians took control in the late 2^nd century BCE, and even then all we really know is that the Jews were granted autonomy to conduct their internal affairs. Apparently the main occupation of the Jews was agriculture. Taxes were relatively high but there are no indications that they were discriminated against in the imposition or collection of taxes, and, in general, the economic situation was far better than that of the Jews of Eretz Yisrael.

In the 2nd century CE, the Persian king recognized the exilarch as official head of the Jews, responsible for the collection of taxes, the appointment of judges, the supervision of the court and the representation of the people in the Persian royal court. During this time the community in Babylonia grew in numbers and in strength and was strengthened by the many refugees, including a number of important Torah scholars, who fled Eretz Yisrael after the Bar Kokhba revolt and the persecutions that followed it.

5. Bab. Talmud, Ketubot 111a

Rav Yehuda [3^rd century Babylonian scholar, the founder of the Beit Midrash – rabbinic academy – in Pumbedita] said in the name of Samuel [3^rd century Babylonian scholar, founder of the Beit Midrash in Nehardea and the outstanding authority of his day in civil law]: Just as it is forbidden to leave Eretz Yisrael for Babylonia, so it is forbidden to leave Babylonia for other lands.

6. Ibid. 110b

R. Zei’ra [early 4^th century Babylonian scholar who immigrated to Eretz Yisrael] was avoiding Rav Yehuda because he desired to go up to Eretz Yisrael while Rav Yehuda had expressed the following view: Whoever goes up from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael transgresses a positive commandment… Rav Yehuda said: He who resides in Babylonia it’s as if he resided in Eretz Yisrael.

7. Bab. Kiddushin 71a

Rav Yehudah said in Samuel’s name: All countries are as dough relative to Eretz Yisrael, and Eretz Yisrael is as dough relative to Babylonia. In the days of Rabbi [R. Yehuda Ha-Nasi, latter half of 2^nd century-early 3^rd century scholar, leader and redactor of the Mishnah in Eretz Yisrael] it was desired to render Babylonia as dough relative toEretz Yisrael. He said to them: You are putting thorns between my eyes! If you wish, R. Hanina b. Hama [early 3^rd century Eretz Yisrael scholar] will deal with you. R. Hanina b. Hama dealt with them. He said to them: I have received the following tradition from R. Yishmael son of R. Yossi [end of 2^nd century Eretz Yisrael scholar] who stated it in his father’s name: All countries are as dough in comparison with Eretz Yisrael, and Eretz Yisrael is as dough relative to Babylonia… Zei’ri [3^rd century Babylonian scholar who immigrated to Eretz Yisrael, student of R. Yochanan] was avoiding R. Yochanan [3^rd century scholar in Eretz Yisrael], who was urging him, “Marry my daughter’. One day they were traveling on a road, when they came to a pool of water. Thereupon he placed R. Yochanan on his shoulder and carried him across. He said to him: “Our learning is fit but our daughters are not?”

Suggested Answers

1. According to R. Yehuda, just as it forbidden to leave Eretz Yisrael for other lands so too it is forbidden to leave Babylonia for other places, even for Eretz Yisrael. Indeed, in his view, one who leaves Babylonia for Eretz Yisrael transgresses a positive commandment.
2. R. Yehuda maintains that the same prohibitions regarding emigration from Eretz Yisrael apply to emigration from Babylonia because “He who resides in Babylonia it’s as if he resided in Eretz Yisrael.” In other words, from his point of view, Babylonia has the same religious importance as Eretz Yisrael. The radical nature of this position can be seen by the fact that his own star pupil R. Zei’ra refused to adhere to it and tried to leave Babylonia for Eretz Yisrael against his teacher’s will. However, out of respect for his teacher’s authority (or fear of being reprimanded) he did so by “avoiding” him and sneaking away.
3. If texts 5-6 introduced the idea of the equivalency of Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael this text introduces us to the idea of the supremacy of Babylonia over the Land, at least in one respect, the purity of their lineage. The central concern for pure lineage has to do with the eligibility for marriage. The more impure one’s lineage the more one is limited in who he or she may choose as a legitimate marriage partner. R. Yehuda maintained that while the lineage of the Jews of the Diaspora is of inferior purity (their population is an indeterminate admixture of pure and impure lineage) to that of the Jews of Eretz Yisrael, the lineage of the Jews of Eretz Yisrael is itself of inferior purity to that of the Jews of Babylonia.

Now, while the Talmud tried to trace this perception of the superior lineage of the Jews in Babylonia to the return of Ezra more than 600 years earlier it is hard to imagine that Josephus, who lived in the 1^st century CE could have described Eretz Yisrael as the central archive for world Jewry – including Babylonia – on Jewish marriages (see text 5 of lesson 2) if this view were widespread at the time. Indeed, not only is this view probably not nearly as old as the Talmud would have us believe but the Talmud itself reports that even prior to R. Yehuda’s time – during the time of R. Yehuda Ha-Nasi, the teacher of his teacher Samuel – it was already called into question. Although we are not told who tried to reverse the assessment, and consider the Jews of Eretz Yisrael of superior lineage to the Jews of Babylonia, the effort was clearly serious enough to put R. Yehuda Ha-Nasi on the defensive. Since R. Yehuda Ha-Nasi was a descendant of Hillel, a Babylonian, he was afraid of having a stigma attached to his birth. He, therefore, turned to one of his leading pupils, R. Chanina b. Chama, to “deal” with those who would jeopardize his status and prestige. Chanina then announced that the ruling is as “old” as R. Yishmael the son of R. Yossi (a contemporary of R. Yehuda Ha-Nasi) who said it in the name of his father. Since the ruling is a tradition that dates back at least a generation it cannot just be changed “out of the blue”. However, from the following story of R. Yochanan and Ze’iri it is clear that, despite R. Chanina’s tradition, it was not universally accepted.

4. The Talmud relates that R. Yochanan, one of the leading scholars in Eretz Yisrael in the 3^rd century, wanted Ze’iri, one of his star pupils, to marry his daughter. Ze’iri, however, tried to avoid his teacher which the Talmud presumes is due to the fact that, as a Babylonian, he considered women of Eretz Yisrael of inferior lineage. (Of course, Ze’iri may have had other reasons that he kept to himself. Who knows? Maybe he just didn’t find her attractive? How many good excuses to we come up with to avoid saying that!) When, one day, they reached a pool of water, Ze’iri carried his teacher across the water on his shoulders. Capitalizing on this rather intimate moment in which Ze’iri could not sneak away, he brought up the delicate subject once again. And given this rare opportunity, R. Yochanan decided not to “beat around the bush” but rather to “go for the kill”: “Our learning is fit but our daughters are not?”

Thus, we see that just a generation later not only was this view of the superior lineage of Babylonian scholars not universally accepted; it was even a source of resentment and derision. Indeed, it may be that it was only the scholars of Babylonian descent, such as R. Yehuda Ha-Nasi and Ze’iri who were adamant about preserving their superior lineage (or perception of superior lineage), and who, therefore maintained this view whereas many, if not most, local scholars rejected it altogether.

5. If the view set forth by the previous set of texts is that Eretz Yisrael is, and must always be, the center of Jewish religious life, these texts reveal that such a view was not universally accepted. Some of the leading Babylonian scholars, such as R. Yehuda and his teacher Samuel, attached equal, and in certain matters, greater religious significance to Babylonia than to Eretz Yisrael.

The question is did these radically different views about the religious importance of Eretz Yisrael and the religious importance of Babylonia emerge in a vacuum, out of an unbiased (if there is such a thing!) attempt to understand and fulfill God’s will as expressed in the Torah? Could it be that each view was formulated in complete detachment from the realities of the time and the relationship between the two communities? We will now attempt to answer this question.

6. Text 1 outlines the requirement to live in Eretz Yisrael “even in a town in which the majority of inhabitants are Gentiles” rather than living abroad “even in a town in which all the inhabitants are Jews.” Now, it is certainly possible to suggest that this text is simply describing a hypothetical situation, a situation that could exist at any time but didn’t necessarily exist in reality. However, it is also possible that this text was not describing a hypothetical scenario but a reality that existed in the Land after the Bar-Kokhba revolt.

As we mentioned in our historical background, the results of the failed revolt were the destruction of many towns and the transformation of predominantly Jewish towns into towns of mixed populations. Furthermore, as we mentioned, it is around this time that the community in Babylonia was gaining strength. Thus, could it not be that this emphasis on the importance of living in the Land reflects a conscious effort on the part of the rabbis to keep the Jews there precisely at a time in which conditions there had taken a considerable turn for the worse and Jews had begun to emigrate in large numbers? Indeed, according to Professor Isaiah Gafni, my professor from Hebrew University, in his book Land, Center and Diapora both the anonymous statements as well as those attributed to the Rabbis and R. Shimon (b. Yochai) in texts 1-4 were all written in the aftermath of the Bar-Kokhba revolt. If so, these texts may all reflect the same basic endeavor: by ensuring that those who wish to immigrate are not prevented from doing so, by establishing legal prohibitions against leaving the Land, and by offering powerful theological arguments to back these rulings, the rabbinic scholars in Eretz Yisrael were trying to reverse the growing trend of Jews who were either leaving the Land or at least considering leaving as a viable alternative. This would also help explain why the sources that we encountered in our two previous lessons did not seem to suggest that there was anything objectionable about Jews living in the Diaspora as long as they recognized the importance and centrality of the Land in Jewish life.

Against this background, we may begin to understand texts 5-7. When the Jews left Eretz Yisrael after the Bar-Kokhba revolt, where did they go? They went predominantly to Babylonia. Thus some of the leading rabbis there, such as Samuel and his student R. Yehuda, began to see Babylonia as the Jewish community of the future. But the idea of living in Babylonia was inconsistent with statements made by some of the leading figures in the Land about the importance of living there, and not elsewhere! Thus, they framed their preference for Babylonia in religious terms (just as it is forbidden to leave Eretz Yisrael.. so it is forbidden to leave Babyloniaia…”, “whoever goes up from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael transgressed a positive commandment) and eventually began to view Babylonia itself as equal to, if not better than, Eretz Yisrael.

One can certainly imagine the kind of tension that these two positions could have caused: leading rabbis in Eretz Yisrael claiming that the place for the Jews is there and rabbis in Babylonia claiming that the place for the Jews is in Babylonia! Indeed, the story of R. Zei’ra’s aliyah to the Land against his rabbi’s wishes does not appear to be an example of two Torah scholars who politely disagreed but of a student who felt he had to sneak away from his rabbi to avoid tensions and a possible rift with him for doing something to which the rabbi was adamantly opposed. Furthermore, the cynical comment of R. Yochanan toward his student Ze’iri in text 7: “Our learning is fit but our daughters are not?” may suggest that the Babylonian scholars seemed to exhibit an air of superiority toward their Eretz Yisrael teachers and counterparts which led to no small measure of resentment.

That tensions existed between the two communities is most clearly reflected in the following two texts.

Text Study 3

Read texts 8-9 and try to answer the following questions:

1. What did Resh Lakish and R. Yochanan say to Babylonians in Eretz Yisrael marketplaces? What grounds did they provide for their statements?

2. How did the shopkeeper greet R. Zei’ra? What were his grounds?

3. What was R. Zei’ra’s reaction?

4. What do these texts reflect about the relationship of many Jews in the Land toward their Babylonian counterparts?

5. What may have been the historical context for the episodes described in these texts?

8. Midrash Rabbah, Song of Songs 8:9

When Resh Lakish [3^rd century scholar in Eretz Yisrael] saw them [the Babylonians] thronging the marketplaces [in Eretz Yisrael] he used to say to them ‘Scatter yourselves.” He said to them: “When you went up [from exile] you did not make a wall (i.e., a unified mass), and now you come to form a wall?” When R. Yohanan [3^rd century scholar in Eretz Yisrael] saw them he used to rebuke them. He said: If the prophet could rebuke them “My God will cast them away, because they did not hearken unto Him (Hosea 9:17)” can I not rebuke them?

9. Ibid.

R. Zei’ra once went into the market to buy some goods, and he said to the shopkeeper, “Weigh them carefully”. Said the other to him: “Won’t you clear out of here, you Babylonian whose ancestors destroyed the Temple?” R. Zei’ra thereupon thought to himself: “Are not my ancestors the same as his?” Later he went into a meeting house, where he heard R. Shila [3^rd century Land of Israel scholar] sitting and expounding: “If she is a wall (Song of Songs 8:9)”: had the Israelites gone up from Babylonia like a wall, the Temple would not have been destroyed a second time. Said R. Zei’ra: That simpleton taught me well.

Suggested Answers

1. Resh Lakish said to Babylonians: “Scatter yourselves” or, in contemporary jargon, “get lost” because they (i.e. their ancestors) did not “form a crowd”. To what was Resh Lakish referring? As we mentioned in our historical background, only a portion of the Jewish community immigrated to Eretz Yisrael during the time of Ezra. The Jewish community did not immigrate as a “wall” (based on the Rabbinic interpretation of Song of Songs 8:9), i.e., as a strong unified mass, but rather as a splintered group. Thus, Resh Lakish’s remark was meant as a cynical commentary on the Babylonian community. Instead of immigrating en masse to Eretz Yisrael, which would have strengthened the physical and spiritual rehabilitation of the Jewish community at the time, the Babylonians were now seen congregating, en masse, at the Eretz Yisrael marketplaces in search of good merchandise and good sales! R. Yochanan would rebuke them on the same grounds figuring that if the prophet, who was supposed to exhibit patience and tolerance toward his people, did not hesitate to rebuke them for not answering God’s call to return to the Land, couldn’t he?
2. Unlike the previous text which describes the attitude of two prominent rabbinic figures toward the average Babylonian shopper in Eretz Yisrael, this text describes the attitude of the average lay person toward a prominent rabbinic figure, R. Zei’ra, who immigrated to Eretz Yisrael from Babylonia. Here too the Babylonians (in this case represented by R. Zei’ra) are sinners; no, not just ordinary sinners. They are sinners who are to blame for the eventual destruction of the Temple!
3. R. Zei’ra was understandably appalled by these allegations. What did he, or his ancestors, do to make them so blameworthy? However, when he later heard R. Shila explain that the Babylonians were to blame for the destruction of the Temple because they did not immigrate, en masse, during the time of Ezra when they had the opportunity to do so, he was forced to acknowledge “that simpleton taught me well.”
4. Thus, we see that Babylonians – even those who immigrated to Eretz Yisrael in dramatic fashion (see text 6 and a dramatization of his aliyah in Ketubot 112a) – were treated with contempt and derision by some members of the rabbinic leadership as well as an average “Joe” on the street. (Presumably, the average “Joe” felt justified in following the example of the rabbis, although perhaps he went too far in directing his comments to a prominent rabbi and a rabbi who had already “seen the light” and left Babylonia to settle in Eretz Yisrael). The question of course is did the Jews of Eretz Yisrael harbor resentment toward the Jews in Babylonia all this time? Were they really angry in the 2^nd century CE about what happened in the 5^th century BCE?
5. Consistent with what we have said thus far, this argument may have been merely an ideological justification for an increasing anti-Babylonian sentiment that only began to develop in the post-Bar Kokhba period. In response to the growth, assertiveness and perhaps arrogance of the Babylonian community, the leadership in Eretz Yisrael found grounds to disparage their Babylonian counterparts, just as people disparage one another in the realm of sports, academia, politics and business when the success of the one poses a threat to the other. One way to disparage the Babylonians was to point to their ancestors’ disappointing response to the call to immigrate, en masse, during the time of Ezra, and to contrast it with the many Babylonians congregating the marketplaces of Eretz Yisrael in his day.

What would become of these tensions? Who would emerge with the upper hand? How would the Jewish people survive when leaders of the two largest communities were increasingly at each other’s throats? For answers to these questions we must wait for lessons 4 and 5. Before then however we should go to the Discussion Board.

Do you think the existence of vibrant Jewish communities in both Israel and America is healthy for the Jewish people or should one of the two communities defer to the other?