Sotah 105

1:
From this point on this last chapter of this tractate is mostly concerned with turning points in halakhic history – when certain laws, customs and traditions came to an end for one reason or another. The first of these were, of course, the subject of the previous mishnah: the cessation of the ceremonies of the 'decapitated calf' and the 'cursing waters'. It was also noted that the first of the "Couples" to be mentioned in the first chapter of Tractate Avot marked the end of a presumed 'golden age' of scholarship and piety. Like most 'golden ages' when seen in retrospect this judgement too is probably the view as seen through nostalgic and rose-coloured spectacles (if I may be permitted such an anachronism).

2:
Our present mishnah is concerned with the activities of Yoĥanan the High Priest. It is very difficult to identify this personality. Much of Jewish tradition associates him with the Hasmonean dynasty. Our liturgy, for example refers to the inaugurator of the rebellion against the Syrians that is celebrated at Ĥanukah time as "Matityahu, son of Yoĥanan, High Priest". Historically, this is impossible since neither Matityahu himself nor his father were ever High Priest.

3:
Another possible candidate for this identification could be a High Priest named Yoĥanan who is mentioned in the bible [Nehemiah 12:22-23]. This Yoĥanan would have been active much earlier, around 410 to 370 BCE. This can be pinpointed by the fact that he is mentioned specifically in a letter, dated 407 BCE, sent to the Persian governor of Judah by Jewish settlers from Aswan in Upper Egypt. They complain that he doesn't answer his mail!

4:
Possibly we are dealing with another member of the Hasmonean family, Yoĥanan Hyrkanos ("Tiger John"?). This Yoĥanan was the grandson of the above-mentioned Matityahu. His father was Shim'on, the last surviving brother of Judah the Maccabee, and his son and eventual successor was Alexander Yannai. This Yoĥanan was ruler and High Priest in Judah from 135 to 104 BCE.

5:
Not implausibly, the Gemara [Berakhot 29a] identifies Yoĥanan the High Priest with the above-mentioned Alexander Yannai, who ruled Judah as King and High Priest from 103 to 76 BCE. Yannai is simply a popular form of Yoĥanan (like Johnny). Justly, the Gemara disparages this ruler but uses hyperbole to do so: "he reigned for 80 years (!) and in the end he became a Sadducee!" The sages of the Tannaitic era had a very distorted concept of the time that lapsed between 539 BCE and 67 BCE: they recalled history accurately only from the Roman occupation of Judah; for example, they managed to conflate the whole of the Persian period, from Persia's conquest of Babylon (539 BCE) to Macedon's conquest of Persia (332 BCE) into 54 years!

To be continued.

When we were discussing the ceremony of the 'decapitated calf' I wrote that the sages understand … that after the ceremony, the place where the calf was decapitated may not be used for agricultural purposes. The sages noted that what is mentioned by the Torah is sowing seed. From this they determined that what is prohibited by the Torah is agricultural activity which involves the ground itself, such as plowing and seeding. This excludes agricultural activities which are not necessarily dependent on the ground itself.

Ed Frankel writes:

This begs the question of why? Is it as in the case of shechitah, that one ought not to take the life of any animal, but when we take the life of an animal we at least bury its blood as a compromise between the ideal of vegetarianism and acknowledgement that while we may eat meat, it was not the initial design with which God brought humankind into being? If so, what is the trouble the Torah implies and upon which our Sages expostulate? Could it be that there is a taint here not only in the fact that there was a 'met mitzvah' nearby, but that somehow there is something wrong with just destroying a calf to atone for it? If we bury the blood of animals intended for sacrifice or food, at least that animal served a greater purpose. Here, with destroying a calf by decapitation from the back of its neck there can be no purpose other than an attempt to atone for the death of the 'met mitzvah', no small act admittedly. Here the animal rendered dead can in the future only be animal feed at best, and with the denial of agricultural cultivation of the land beneath it, cannot even be considered as a fertilizer.

I respond:

Would anyone like to take up the issues raised here in Ed's comments? I think that the comment by Richard Friedman, posted on April 10th, is certainly one response. For the sake of convenience I bring his main points here a second time:

The Rabbis took the description of the decapitation site ("unplowed and unsown") as a prescription for how we should treat the site afterwards, rather than as a condition for what kind of site could be chosen – thus, they require us to keep reminding ourselves that, just as we may not grow plants here, nothing will ever grow out of the deceased victim.