Avot120

11:
The Zealot guards at the gates of the city, of course, were not just going to let Yehoshu'a and Eli'ezer take their teacher out for burial. Orders are orders and the orders were "no one in and no one out". However, the guards also realized that they could not treat the greatest sage of Jerusalem the same as they would treat anyone else: public opinion must be considered. They knew that 'public opinion' was against the Zealots because of the immense suffering that they were causing the hapless inhabitants of Jerusalem; they also knew that as the acknowledged leader of what Rabbi Eli'ezer Finklestein called 'the peace party' Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai was held in the greatest esteem by 'public opinion'.

12:
The guards at the gate decided to let the body through for burial, but first they wanted to make sure that the sage was really dead. They wanted to spear the corpse. The two students did not lose their wits: they now realized that the guards were wary of 'public opinion'; so they protested that if the guards speared the corpse "People will say they speared the rabbi". The guards then suggested that they topple the body off the bier to see how it would fall; Eli'ezer and Yehoshu'a made the same objection: "People will say they toppled the rabbi". Thus the guards found themselves between the rock of their duty and the hard place of concern for what "people will say". They decided to let the 'funeral party' through the gates.

13:
Once through the gates and out of sight, of course, Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai was able to resurrect himself. The Romans must have been watching the proceedings at the gate very carefully and they were ready for him. He was brought under guard before Vespasian. This means that this episode must have occurred at the beginning of the summer of 69 CE since, as we have seen, by mid-July of that year Vespasian had already left Eretz-Israel to make his bid for the imperial throne.

14:
Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai greeted the general with "Hail Caesar!" This put Vespasian at a disadvantage: not only was he not (yet) Caesar but if he permitted this prisoner to hail him thus he was guilty of treason. According to the story in the Gemara [Gittin 56b] Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai helped him over this difficulty: he had achieved what he really wanted, and that was that his greeting had appealed to Vespasian's vanity and political plans and he was now prepared to give the sage a favourable hearing. What did this man want? He had braved death at the hands of the Zealots in order to achieve something: what did he want to achieve?

15:
Vespasian must have been sure that Yoĥanan would beg him to spare Jerusalem and the Temple; but Yoĥanan knew that such a request would be turned down for military reasons. So when he was asked what he wanted he is reported to have given the famous response: "Give me [the town of] Yavneh and its sages and the dynasty of Rabban Gamli'el."

To be continued.

Mishnayot 5-7 of our present chapter presented teachings attributed to Hillel. While the generality of our tradition has found no problem with these teachings some of our participants certainly have. Let Jim Feldman be their spokesperson:

The more I read of Hillel's pronouncements, the less I admire the man. His utter contempt for the poor, even for his own roots, is a detestable form of snobbery. How can this man, whose astonishing rise from the ignorance endemic to poverty to one of our people's most famous sages, be so hostile to the less gifted (and less lucky) who were born "on the same side of the tracks" as he was? Then there is his misogamy in our most recent shiur. No man escapes living in his own time, but these quotes were awful. We all laughed at Professor Higgins: "Why can't a woman be more like a man," but Hillel takes it seriously. Misogamy is what we see at its worst among the Taliban (or, noticeably less but awful all the same in "Reading Lolita in Tehran.") It should have no part in either our society or our philosophy. Now, having reviled the poor, Hillel shows contempt for the rich. As it seems to turn out, "If you are not one of us learned, wise and observant male rabbis, you are worthless. (But be sure to keep bringing those priestly emoluments.)" If this is wisdom, I want no part of it.

I respond:

While I do not entirely agree with these sentiments I can understand them. And yet Hillel's standing in our Jewish tradition is almost without peer. Perhaps those who think that these latter teachings attributed to Hillel leave much to be desired can salvage something of Hillel's reputation. In Avot 099 I wrote:

It is true that in that same shiur I rejected this possibility and preferred to attribute these mishnayot to the original Hillel. But Jim's comments have given me pause: maybe they should be attributed to Hillel II after all.