Rabbinic stance on Bar Kokhba revolt

Regarding the participation and positions of the rabbinic movement, the heirs of the Pharisees, Peter Schäfer noted that the Talmudic literature is not generous in providing information about Bar Kokhba himself. And Bar Kokhba's own letters make no mention of the sages of Yavneh.^[1] There are contradictory Talmudic sources: The Babylonian Talmud shows the sages' opposition to Bar Kokhba (in Tractate Sanhedrin it is even written that the sages themselves killed him), while supporting Rabbi Akiva and certainly his students’ support of Bar Kokhba. Data from the Babylonian Talmud is less reliable than data from the Jerusalem Talmud regarding testimonies about Bar Kokhba and the revolt, for two reasons: the distance from where the events took place, and the opposition of Babylonian Jews to rebelling against the government.^[2] While it is difficult to infer the rabbis' attitude towards the revolt, there is no doubt that they were strengthened by it and progressed further towards becoming the dominant sect in Judea, a status they finally achieved in the third century.^[3]

"Bar Koziba reigned two and a half years. He said to the rabbis: I am the Messiah. They said to him: It is written about the Messiah that he can smell and judge [can tell who is correct by smell], let us see if you can do so. When they saw that he could not smell and judge, they killed him." —Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 93b.

This testimony from the Babylonian Talmud claims that Bar Kokhba himself claimed to be the Messiah, but when it became clear that he did not have the supernatural ability to smell and judge, he was killed by the sages.^[4] This testimony should be taken with some reservation given its Babylonian origin. In fact, this fits the Babylonian Talmud's agenda. Bar Koziba's revolt essentially becomes Bar Koziba's reign over an anonymous state—the revolt itself is not mentioned at all, and no sage dares to support this messianic figure. Joshua Efron argued that this[100] is in order to sever the connection between Bar Kokhba and his rebellious and messianic delusions from the spiritual leaders of the Jewish people.^[5][6]

"It was taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai used to interpret the verse "The path of a star comes from Jacob" (Numbers 24:17) as "The path of Bar Koziva comes from Jacob." Rabbi Akiva, when he would see Bar Koziba, would say: "This is the King Messiah." Rabbi Yochanan ben Torta said to him: "Akiva, grass will grow on your cheeks and the son of David still will not have come." —Jerusalem Talmud, Ta'anit 4:5.

This is clear and unambiguous testimony that Rabbi Akiva, one of the greatest sages of his generation and of Judaism throughout the generations, a contemporary of Bar Kokhba, explicitly declared that Bar Kokhba is the King Messiah. Based on this source, Maimonides made his famous statements about Bar Kokhba in his "Laws of Kings":

"Do not imagine that the King Messiah needs to perform signs and wonders, bring about new phenomena in the world, resurrect the dead, and the like... For Rabbi Akiva, a great sage of the Mishna, was a supporter of Bar Koziba the king, and he would say of him that he is the King Messiah, until he was killed for his sins. Once he was killed they realized he was not the one, for the Sages did not ask of him neither sign nor miracle." —Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Melakhim 11:3.

Maimonides preferred the testimony of the Jerusalem Talmud^[7] and completely ignored the testimony that appears in the Babylonian Talmud, and the idea that according to their method, the Messiah should be a miraculous and wondrous figure.

Joshua Efron believes that it was Maimonides' rationalistic view of the Messianic age and the end of exile that led him to favor the Jerusalem Talmud over the Babylonian.^[5] Maimonides also said^[8] that Rabbi Akiva was a weapon-bearer for Bar Kokhba. Some interpret this literally, arguing he must have had a source which has been lost, while others see it as an allegorical expression of Rabbi Akiva's great support for Bar Kokhba.

According to Maimonides, the Messiah has to be a Jewish king, based on the Biblical model of the Messiah, primarily referring to the first kings of the united Kingdom of Israel—Saul and David.^[9] These kings were anointed upon their coronation with sacred anointing oil by the prophet Samuel, and both of them were military men who saved the nation from its enemies. Thus, the Jewish Messianic hope was for an earthly Messiah who would redeem the people from their troubles, and at its height rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple, not a divine-spiritual Messiah who would bring about miraculous. Many scholars such as Oppenheimer^[10] and Efron^[11] share this view.

The Jerusalem Talmud recounts that Rabbi Elazar Hamodai stayed in Betar and was very close to Bar Kokhba, even praying daily for the revolt's success – leading to the conclusion that Rabbi Elazar Hamodai, one of the sages, supported the revolt.^[12]

In the Jerusalem Talmud, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel testifies from first-hand experience about being a child in Betar who survived the revolt's horrors,^[12] and Gedaliah Alon wrote that this indicates the Chief Rabbi (Nasi)'s residence was in the besieged city, signaling his support of the revolt.

After examining these testimonies, most researchers estimate the sages did support Bar Kokhba. Oppenheimer believes the sages' support for the revolt was inevitable due to its religious-halachic nature – its causes and consequences (the decree of persecution). Additionally, besides the sages' support of the revolt, Bar Kokhba briefly governed a state after years of foreign rule, and this requires halachic involvement that only the sages could provide.^[13]

Similarly, Yisrael Friedman Ben-Shalom argues that the meticulous, covert preparations for the revolt and the prolonged resilience against the mighty Roman army necessitated cooperation by the entire nation under unified leadership. The leadership that united the people before and after Bar Kokhba was the sages – so it is illogical that for a short period the people's loyalty shifted elsewhere. Also, there is no decisive, indigenous testimony opposing Bar Kokhba's leadership and the revolt itself, even after its failure, due to the sages' support. In contrast, contradicting testimonies are quite late. Thus, Ben-Shalom writes: "A revolt that amazingly united most of the nation for the final war against the 'evil kingdom' – was a revolt in which the Pharisees played a major role."^[14]

From Bar Kokhba's letters, he seems to have been meticulous regarding many commandments, including some enacted at Yavneh. Some argue Bar Kokhba emphasized commandments with nationalistic features.^[13] Peter Schäfer analyzes Bar Kokhba's adopted title "Nasi" – a title unused before or after the revolt (since Hasmonean times) that later became used by the sages – perhaps indicating a lack of conflict between the sides.^[15]

David Goodblatt [he]^[16] argues a minority opinion that the sages did not support the revolt, which was actually led by priests rather than Pharisees. He discounts contradicting Talmudic evidence and relies on numismatic testimony, with one revolt leader being Elazar the Priest. Schäfer summarizes that active rabbinic participation in the revolt cannot be proven, however likely, and the priesthood must have played a decisive role.