Tractate Yoma 10a

Sponsor an upcoming episode of TEXTing!
Click here to learn more.

A transcript of this episode is available below.

Subscribe on all major platforms

TEXTing with Elana Stein Hain delves deeply into Jewish texts to guide and inspire us as we grapple with the concerns and meaning of this moment. Join Elana as she addresses the issues of our day through the lens of classical Jewish texts, in conversation with Hartman scholars Christine Hayes, Yonah Hain, and Leora Batnitzky.

TEXTing. Where ancient wisdom meets contemporary relevance.

Between a Rock and a Hard Place Transcript

Note: This is a lightly edited transcript of a conversation, please excuse any errors.

Elana: Welcome to TEXTing, where we consider issues relevant to Jewish life through the lens of classical and modern Torah texts. I’m your host, Elana Stein Hain. We’re recording on Wednesday, May 29th, 2024. If you’d like to follow along with today’s text, you can find the link to our source sheet in the episode description. 

So for the past decade, I’ve been watching intently as progressive and conservative politics diverged and become more polarized, and at the same time, we’ve noticed an increase in anti-semitism on both the right and left. By the right, we’re considered the globalist puppet masters, and by the left, we’re considered the white supremacists/colonialists. 

I kind of feel like I’m watching a ping-pong game where we are the ball, and it gets me thinking about how we Jews should align ourselves with major forces or groups beyond our own communities. Should we be choosing one side or the other? Which one of these sides makes us feel safer? Should we try to have allies on both sides, especially given the challenges that have emerged for Jews? 

To think about these issues, we’re gonna turn to rabbinic text that asks questions about the way that geopolitics impacts Jews as a minority group. This text is also gonna ask questions like, will things work out for the best, or, does the arc of history bend toward justice? 

The piece of Talmud that I want to look at is from Tractate Yoma, page 10a. And what’s going on in that passage is that the rabbis are looking at two major imperial forces that have been warring with each other for a long time. And they’re actual political entities. They are the two biggest empires of the time, the Persian Empire and the Roman Empire. And literally for hundreds of years, these two empires were vying for power. And so what the rabbis are trying to figure out is, well, who’s gonna win: Rome or Persia? They seem pretty evenly matched. And of course, that conversation is not a low stakes conversation for them either, because they know that whoever wins is going to impact them. 

My chavruta for today to talk about this and learn about this and think about this is Yonah Hain. Welcome back, Yonah. So happy that you’re here. 

Yonah: Thank you for having me, Elana.

Elana: So, it’s interesting, you know, you know this piece of Talmud that we’re going to look at of who’s going to win, Rome or Persia, and I’m setting it up as a rivalry that’s going to impact the Jews. I’m wondering, how would you frame it? Because I think we come into this with a little bit different frames.

Yonah: Well, our passage in the Talmud now is going to struggle with our notions of the way it is supposed to be, because one of the foundational elements in all streams of Jewishness is that there is a redemptive arc. A third temple is coming. The arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice. There is a redemptive quality, and so this Gemara is playing with our notions of what is supposed to be.

Elana: Okay, so this is important though, because what you’re basically saying is there’s somebody who’s supposed to win in Persia versus Rome. Is that what you’re saying? That there’s a version of this that’s a redemptive ending and there’s a version of it that’s not the way it’s supposed to be? Or, or don’t be so heavy handed about that yet?

Yonah: I wouldn’t be so heavy handed. I would say there’s a version of how it’s supposed to be for us, right? Jewish history, you’re always looking at historical phenomena and geopolitical conflicts through the prism of how it impacts the Jews. And so similarly here, what’s supposed to be for the Jews.

Elana: I see. That’s really helpful. SO let’s jump in. 

So we start as follows. Amar Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, Rabbi Joshua son of Levi, said in the name of Rabbi Judah the Prince, “Atidah romi shetipol b’yad paras,” Rome is destined to fall into the hands of, by the hands of Persia. 

All right, you know who’s gonna win? Persia’s gonna win. You heard it here first. How do we know? As it was said, then a verse is quoted from Jeremiah, Yirmiyahu 49:20. And listen to this verse. It says as follows: “Hear, then, the plan that God has devised against Edom.” Which, for the rabbis, is Rome. “And what God has purposed against the inhabitants of Taman,” again, reference to Rome. And here’s the plan. “Surely the young of the flock shall drag them away. Surely their pasture shall be aghast of them.”

This is really interesting. Just to give a little bit of background in Jeremiah there, what happens is there’s a description of a lion coming to attack a group of sheep, and in a huge reversal, the sheep, really the shepherds, if you read it literally in context, are able to get the lion out of there, which is kind of a shocking underdog moment. And so Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says, this verse tells me that the plan for Rome is that the youngest of the flock, meaning, Persia, which we’ll see why they’re considered the youngest of the flock, is going to be able to take them out. But it feels a little bit like an underdog story, right?

Yonah: So, for Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, in the name of Rebbe, would you concede that this is a good thing? Right? That Rome is to be presumed as the more brutal empire and Persia, and I know there is a historical scholarly debate about their dynamic towards practicing Judaism, but Is it safe to say, irrespective of that, that Rome would be worse?

Elana: I do think so, because I think using that pasuk, that verse from Yirmiyahu, is suggesting Rome is the lion that is attacking the sheep. And it’s almost, it’s a mark of divine intervention, that the sheep or the shepherd is actually able to beat the stronger party and the more vicious party, right? Like it sort of makes it out to be that way.

The truth is that if you look in the Talmud in different places, there’s actually a reference to this on the top of Gittin 17a for anybody who wants to look it up, there are discussions about who was worse to the Jews in the Talmud itself. The, was it the Persians or the Romans, which is interesting.

Yonah: But isn’t this transmission, as attributed to Rabbi Yehoshua in the name of Rebbe, under Roman rule still?

Elana: Yeah. It’s just so hard to, yes, historically, it’s hard to parse, but yes. 

I want to go a little bit further because it actually, this whole move of let’s find verses in the Bible that explains to us what’s going to be, we kind of lean into it right now with the next passage.

Yonah: Right, meaning the way that this exegesis is operating is, the Torah is not just a divine book written with that divine spirit, but it’s also a predictive book.

Elana: Correct.

Yonah: Like, Bible codes.

Elana: Right, meaning there’s a way that it can stabilize you because you already know what’s going to happen, or you have a paradigm for what’s going to happen. It’s a very stabilizing move, and that’s why it’s so fascinating that Rabba bar Ula strongly objects, okay? He says, what do you mean? Why do you think that “the young of the flock” means Persia? Is it because, and then he quotes a verse from Daniel. He says, is it because in Daniel 8:20, chapter 8, verse 20, it says the “two-horned ram,” which I guess would be part of a flock, “that you saw in your vision signifies the King of Medea and Persia”? Meaning, is it because you have a verse in Daniel that calls them a ram and that would be part of a flock. He says, well, that’s not good enough because it also says in another verse in Daniel that maybe “the buck and the he-goat” is, refers to the king of Greece, meaning there’s another who’s referred to as the, the best of the, a member of the flock and that’s Greece. So maybe actually what we’re saying is that Greece is going to come in as like a third party and they’re going to win, right?

Like this is so fascinating. Actually if you look in that chapter of Daniel itself, you’ll see that what happens is that two rams fight each other in a vision that Daniel’s having, and the Dan, the ram that wins is supposed to be Greece, and it actually says it in the verses, and the rams that get vanquished are supposed to be Medea and Persia. So he’s sort of like, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. If you’re going to come to me with verses and say the youngest of the flock is going to be able to beat Rome, I’m going to tell you maybe the youngest of the flock is actually talking about Greece.

Yonah: And this is what happens when you’re trying to exegetically predict the future. You know, I can also use my hermeneutics. And draw a different conclusion. 

Elana: Right, it does actually say something about the instability of trying to predict, right? Meaning they’re looking at versus and saying, this has predictive power for us. And I think part of that predictive power is actually to say that having a divine destiny means that sometimes the rules of nature are overturned, right, the lion is not going to be able to win, right? It’s not actually how it usually is supposed to end, but it’s going to end in a different way specifically because there’s someone watching over and is going to make sure that it ends that way. 

Yonah: Which is another supposed to. 

Elana: Correct. It’s a different kind of supposed to. Essentially, the conversation is, well, how do you know it’s that and not that? Like maybe it’s actually, who’s the underdog? The underdog is Greece, right? And then it gets a little bit, a little bit further into it. It turns out that when Rabbi Chaviva, the son of Surmakei, came to the land of Israel, he reported this interpretation of saying maybe it’s Greece in front of a certain scholar. And the scholar responded, Oh, please. Man de’lo yada perushei kraei, a person who doesn’t understand the meaning of scripture, motiv tiyuvta l’Rabbi? He’s going to challenge Rabbi Judah the Prince. Oh, please. What does the young of the flock mean? The young of the flock means the youngest of the brothers. As Rav Yosef said, Tiras, the youngest child of Yefet, who was the youngest child of Noach and Naamah. She should get some credit. Right? That’s the rabbinic understanding of the name of Noah’s wife. Right? The youngest of the youngest, that’s the youngest of the flock. It’s Persia. Right? 

So it’s really digging back into, I think, this sense of the underdog is going to win. The youngest of the youngest. And I mean, who doesn’t like a good underdog story?

Yonah: Certainly, Americans do.

Elana: Right? And in some ways, you know, Rabbi Yoshua Ben Levi, in the name of Rebbe, saying that Persia is going to win is sort of saying, no, the underdog can win. The underdog can win. Don’t get stuck in the narrative that it’s, all might makes right. Okay. 

But then we start to get, you know, I think in earnest in the second part, like the second half of this conversation, we get away from the exegetical. Okay. And we actually get into what would be the logic of one winning versus another, not some sort of prediction, but what’s the logic of the universe in a way? And you have two different approaches. And I think this is where we get to your question of, does it end the way it should end, or doesn’t it end the way it should end? 

So it goes like this. Amar Rabba bar bar Chana amar Rabbi Yochanan mishum Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi Elai. So these people say, it’s a string of people, in the future, Rome will indeed fall to the hands of Persia. But instead of verses, we want to talk about what makes sense. So they say it’s a kal vachomer. It’s a logical argument. If the first temple, which was built by Jews. and the Babylonians destroyed it, those Babylonians fell into the hands of the Persians, then certainly the Second Temple, where the Persians themselves are the ones who built it, and the Romans are the ones who destroyed it, for sure the Romans are going to fall into the hands of the Persians. 

Meaning, if there’s any divine justice, right, the same way that the Persians were able to beat the last people who destroyed the temple in the First Temple, they certainly should be able to beat these more recent people who destroyed the temple, which is the Romans, especially because the Persians themselves are the ones under whom the Jews rebuilt that Second Temple.

Yonah: Now, this presentation, as you said, jettisons any scriptural evidence. And instead, it’s trying to use logic. Right? Specifically that famous rabbinic method, kal vachomer, where something is more stringent and something is lighter. So if something applies to the light context, certainly it applies to the more stringent context. And it’s just a wild thing to try to claim to predict the future based off of kal vachomer.

Elana: Yes, but I want to just point out what they’re saying. They’re saying the Persians are the good guys. They helped us. They built the temple. Of course, they’re going to, of course, they’re going to beat the ones who destroyed the Temple. 

Yonah: The kal vachomer is an expression of faith greater than the scriptural position.

Elana: You’re saying because the logic of the world is a logic that goes towards justice or what?

Yonah: No, it’s a logic based on divine justice. It’s a logic based on our continued future. It’s a logic based on, well, it should be.

Elana: I actually want to say it a little bit like this. I know that this is, you know, talking about how the Jews were treated, but I actually want to ask about morality. It’s essentially saying those who are more moral eventually will win out right now. They’re not saying they’re going to win tomorrow. They are saying eventually they’re going to win. It’s like when you say cheaters never prosper and people are like, well, what about those cheaters over there who are prospering? You’re like, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. In the end, in the end, in the end. Right. So you defer it to the end.

Yonah: This is a big reason why in a lot of rabbinic literature, in the face of injustice, there has to be justice in the world to come. Here, the logic deployed is one of moral judgment because they have more merits on their side. Persia will have to be victorious. It’s a declaration of faith couched in a moral or a lot of moral logical argument,

Elana: Well, it’s so interesting. Cause I’ve been thinking a lot about allyship lately and like, what is the relationship that you have with allies? Right. Like political allies. I mean, are they like really your friends? And I’ve been thinking about the fact that, you know, Aristotle says, and Maimonides quotes him, but Aristotle says there are three types of friendship. One is a friendship for utility, where you’re just getting something done. One is a friendship

Yonah: Like a marriage. Rambam says that, doesn’t he?

Elana: No, he says a relationship for comfort is a marriage, okay. A relationship for comfort, but ooh, ah, we’re going to discuss this afterwards. Okay. A relationship for comfort where you can like trust and, and engage and be honest. And then a relationship for virtue where it’s like, you’re all in with your vision of the good that you share, right? 

This is really interesting to suggest. The Persians, because they were good to the Jews, it’s going to bode well for them in the long run, meaning there’s utility for them in the long run. But from the perspective of the rabbis, what they did for the Jews actually falls under probably virtue, right? 

So it’s really interesting to consider, you know, when, because I don’t know how utilitarian it was for the Persian King Cyrus to send the Jews back to build the temple. It might have been something that he chose to do because it actually works to his benefit. It works as benefit to have people who are happy, or maybe he did something that was against his self-interest, right? And it was actually because he had some sort of virtue and some vision of the good. But I think it’s interesting to ask. What’s the relationship between virtue and utility? 

One other thing that I do want to say is that these things are all paradigms. Like, what do you mean? It’s not the same Persia who built the temple as the Persia that’s in charge now. Like, meaning, even that, it’s still this sort of symbolic thinking.

Yonah: That’s such a great point because that’s a way that connects these first two opinions. They agree that in the future, Persia will defeat Rome, but both of them are relying on a certain archetype of Rome and Persia. One, based off the scriptural references, and two, based off of the merits from previous generations and iterations of these kingdoms.

Elana: Yeah, it’s so, it’s so interesting that paradigmatic thinking, that’s the terminology, it’s paradigmatic thinking, and I think a lot of people, you know, I started at the beginning with right and left antisemitism converging, and I think a lot of people are saying, okay, What does this feel like? What does this sound like? Where have we seen this paradigm before, right? Like, that’s what the human brain does. It connects. 

This is a more intensive version of it. It’s a little bit like, you know, me saying, well, your great-grandparents did X for me, so, of course, now you as their great grandchildren, great grandchild are going to reap the benefits of what they did for me. Right, even if you’re completely different, even if you’re only by marriage, right, all that sort of thing. There’s a, there’s a logic to the universe, right, there’s a logic to the universe.

Yonah: Okay, we have to see how this gets challenged. It’s amazing. 

Elana: Yes, and I do want to say one last sentence, which is, there’s a lot I don’t know about how the Persian Empire treated the Jews. And here they’re being presented as the ones who built the temple and therefore like, wow, vaunted, amazing. There’s a lot more to be said in terms of the history of it that I’m just not aware of that’s worth reading. And some books are coming out soon, actually, I think, on that very topic.

So I want to go to the opposite side, right, of this argument. Rav said, atida Paras shetipol b’yad Romi, uh uh, Persia is destined to fall into the hands of Rome. Okay. Sorry, Rome, the destroyers of the Temple, they’re gonna win in this tete-a-tete for hundreds of years between Rome and Persia. And Rav Kahana and Rav Asi say to him, but the builders are gonna die at the hands of the destroyers, the ones who built the temple? 

Yonah: It’s not the way it should be.

Elana: It’s not the way it should be. That’s not right. Right? So he responded, “In gzerat melech hi,” it’s God’s decree. What? I want to pause there because there’s another version, but it’s God’s decree. That’s the way it’s going to go. Stop looking for logic. Stop trying to figure out, try, stop trying to outsmart the system. Just let it go. What do you think?

Yonah: I think this is saying that there are not always answers to unknowns. I think this is saying there are moments inJewish history where the despair does not look temporary, but it looks existential. And as much as we might fall back on and believe that there will be that redemption, in that moment, there’s no obvious guarantee.

Elana: It’s so interesting. Because the Gemara then quickly, like quickly wrote, like what’s the word? Recoups. And says, um, actually ika de’amri, and I’m adding the um, because it’s like a, wait, what? Like, what? You’re gonna let Rome, what? And then ika de’amri, there’s actually a different version of how Rav answered them of like, why is this fair? And that is, he said, no, no, no, no, no. “Inhu nami ha ka satri bei knishta.” The Persians, they’re not so squeaky clean. They destroy synagogues. Like, let’s not set this up as like the big binary between good and evil. There is a lot going on with the Persians that’s not so good. 

Yonah: But I think that first opinion, which is immediately pivoted from, and we’ll see there’s further evidence of trying to downplay this opinion, but that initial version of Rav, that this is just the decree that’s saying that there is rigid, religious legitimacy to being uncertain. 

Elana: It’s like the end of Job. It’s like the end of Iyov. God’s saying, you don’t understand everything. 

Yonah: It’s lamentations. It’s the night and morning of Tisha B’Av, the ninth of Av, before we sit up. I’ve actually, on a pastoral level, shared this passage with people who have been suffering, folks going through severe bouts of crisis, trauma, depression to legitimate that it doesn’t always have to be sunny and you still have a place within the religious Jewish tradition. That sometimes we don’t have the answer.

Elana: Look, the only thing I’ll say is that your move to say gzerat melech, that it’s a divine decree, to use that in more of a human-centric way to say, we don’t understand everything and uncertainty is okay, that itself is a move, I just want to point out. Meaning, theologically speaking, this may be a lot more scary, actually, than just being uncertain. And I think that’s important to note. The other thing I’m going to take from this, oh, what did you want to say?

Yonah: You’re saying they’re accepting defeat?

Elana: They’re accepting defeat. It’s not uncertainty. It’s, and they’re saying God’s decided this. Like, that’s, that’s pretty intense. And that’s why it reminds me of the end of Job, because it, Job’s like, I didn’t do anything. I didn’t do anything. And God says, you’re right. You didn’t do anything. I, I don’t know what to tell you. Like, this is the way, things aren’t always fair.

Yonah: Fair’s got nothing to do with it.

Elana: Yeah, that’s scary stuff. Honestly, that’s scary stuff in the world.

Yonah: It’s also antithetical to every stream of Jewish practice. Everyone is predicated upon that redemptive arc. And this is saying, look, it’s a minority view and it’s not the way. Most of Jewish tradition has been passed on, because obviously it’s hard to inspire conviction and commitment when you’re uncertain of the guarantee. It’s also not relying on that move of, well, there’ll be redemption in the world to come.

Elana: Correct. It doesn’t fix it at any point. 

Yonah: Which may be part of, it doesn’t, it, that may be an assumption here, but this is saying,

Elana: Okay, but I also want to take something from, I think that’s profound. And I also want to take something from the ika de’amri, the second version of saying, well, they also destroy synagogues, because I think the idea of valorizing one power as, well, they’re our friends. They would never do anything to hurt us. And this side comment saying, one second, it’s not a great idea to never be able to see the shortcomings of any, of every group. You have to always see the shortcomings and the possible pitfalls of every group and I see that right now in terms of Jews falling prey to partisanship over the last 10 years where we think we’re going to choose this group because they’re going to save us and the other group, oh, forget them. And it’s sort of like, sorry, you need to keep cultivating allies in all the places, because everybody has their problems, everybody has their dangers, and that I think is really significant.

Yonah: I think it’s also interesting, I think historically, if you do some of the academic work on this passage, you know, that second explanation, the ika de’amri, that’s often a signifier of a later edition. And in fact, in one of the manuscripts, you don’t have that second opinion. And I think it is,

Elana: It’s powerful.

Yonah: It’s worthwhile to appreciate that over time, there was discomfort with Rav’s position. That’s not how Jewish tradition has been passed on.

Elana: Yeah, it’s really interesting. All right, let’s, let’s round third base here. Tanya nami hachi, we also learned this in a braita, an early rabbinic teaching, similar to what we just said, namely, attidah Para shetipol b’yad Romi. In the future, Persia is going to fall into the hands of Rome.

Yonah: Rav’s opinion.

Elana: That seems to be Rav’s opinion. And then we have an explanation for why that is. So we have chada, one reason, desatra bei knishta, because they destroy synagogues. V’od, and another reason, because it’s a gzerat hamelech. It is adecree of the King, of God, that those who built the Second Temple are going to fall in the hands of those who destroyed it. So the Persians who built the Second Temple will fall in the hands of the Romans who destroyed it.

Yonah: Now this earlier opinion of Rav’s conclusion is a little fishy. 

Elana: Very fishy. 

Elana: One, the language is mixed. It starts in Hebrew, switches to Aramaic, then reverts back to Hebrew.

Elana: So you’re saying the explanations for why Persia is going to fall into the hands of Rome is probably not originally in that source. It’s an interpolation of some sort. It’s an addition within it.

Yonah: And secondly, it’s the whole point of something being a decree is that it doesn’t have an explanation.

Elana: Right, like what, these two don’t work together. 

Yonah: Trying to mush them together, the “od,” the “also” is doing a lot of work there. So again, it stands to reasons, and scholars have made this argument that Rav’s position is something that the later layers of this passage really want to distance themselves from.

Elana: The lady doth protest too much, with these two explanations. 

Yonah: Exactly. We want to find some, and, and you want to find something more inspiring, which I understand.

Elana: Well how’s this for more inspiring, the way that the Gemara ends here. As Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rav, right, so we have Rav back again. The son of David, meaning the Messiah, Mashiach, will not come until the evil kingdom of Rome has spread throughout the entire world for nine months. Why is that? As is said in the book of Michah, or Micah, chapter five, verse two, it says, “Truly God will leave them helpless until she who is to bear a child has born a child. And then the rest of the countrymen will return to the children of Israel.” 

In other words, God’s going to sort of leave you and let you be in a dangerous state for nine months. But actually that nine months you’re not buried. That’s pregnancy. Don’t worry about it. Something is going to be born out of it. Now this is the ultimate redemption move of Rav. It’s like, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, no, no, no, no, no. 

Yonah: Darkness before, the night is darkness.  

Elana: It’s a gestation period, come on. It’s a gestation, don’t mistake a gestation period for burial. You’re not dead and buried. You’re encased in a womb and you’re going to come out and you actually need these nine months. That’s the scary part. I think it’s the idea that like, what, what do you need these for? 

Yonah: But I like to see all of these four or five different opinions who will win and why as tools in our kit for coping with struggles.

Elana: A hundred percent. Look, the last word that I would say on this is, we’ve seen us like as bystanders, right? Like in the ping pong game of, who’s going to win, Persia or Rome, who deserves to win, who’s been good to us? We are very passive in this conversation. We are watching and seeing what’s going to happen as bystanders. And one of the things that this prompts me to ask myself is, well, how do we actually get involved? How do we get involved in making things happen that hopefully can lead us in directions that can be good for us in the long run and not just be sort of stuck at the side, worried about what might happen next.

Yonah: Or on the side, studying Torah as important that is, or making moral judgments, which are critically important, but also rolling up our sleeves and trying to influence.

Elana: A hundred percent. 

Thanks everyone for listening to our show and special thanks to my chavruta this week, Yonah Hain.

TEXTing is produced by Tessa Zitter with production assistance from Sarina Shohet. Our senior producer is M Louis Gordon, and our executive producer is Maital Friedman. This episode was mixed by Ben Azevedo at Bear Cave Audio with music provided by Luke Allen.

You can now sponsor an episode of this show. Follow the link in the show notes or visit shalommhartman.org/texting. We will acknowledge your gift on a future episode. 

We’re always looking for ideas for what we should cover in future episodes, so if you have a topic you’d like to hear about, or if you have comments about this episode, please write to us at [email protected]. And I’ll tell you. I always write back. 

For more ideas from the Shalom Hartman Institute, sign up for our newsletter in the show notes and subscribe to this podcast everywhere podcasts are available. See you next time, and thanks for listening.