Rabbi Pinĥas ben-Ya'ir says: since the Bet Mikdash was destroyed the colleagues and freemen are ashamed and cover their head, activists dwindle, thugs and threateners have become powerful, and "there are none who search, seek" or ask. On whom can we rely? – on our Father in heaven.
Rabbi Eli'ezer the Great says: Since the Bet Mikdash was destroyed the sages have become scribes, the scribes have become synagogue officials, the synagogue officials have become like the ordinary man-in-the-street, and the ordinary man-in-the-street has continuously dwindled. On whom can we rely? – on our Father in heaven.
In the pre-messianic age audacity will increase, prices will soar, vines will be fruitful but wine will be expensive, the empire will become heretic and none will berate; the meeting house [of the sages] will [serve] for prostitution, Galilee will be destroyed, the Golan will be desolated, the border-people will wander from town to town without comfort, the wisdom of the sages will go sour, sin-fearing people will give up, truth will be absent, youngsters will shame the elderly, the elderly will rise before the young, "a son will foulmouth his father, a daughter rise against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her father-in-law, a man's enemies will be the members of his household"; the generation will look like a dog, no son will respect his father. On whom can we rely? – on our Father in heaven.
7:
The dirge continues, and in the original Hebrew it achieves an almost lyric quality, which is enhanced by the repeated refrain "on whom can we rely? – on our Father in heaven", which occurs three times.
8:
Rabbi Pinĥas ben-Ya'ir lived during the second half of the 2nd century CE. He was the son-in-law of Rabbi Shim'on bar-Yochai, and seems to have been greatly influenced by his wife's father's supererogatory nature. The Gemara [Ĥullin 7b] tells that he was extremely careful never to partake from someone else's meal. He also refused to accept support from others. He was convinced that every problem that occurs is on account of not fulfilling the mitzvot properly. He was strict not only in his personal discipline but also in halakhic decisions for others, and would not join with Rabbi Yehudah, the President of the Sanhedrin, in allowing agricultural work during a sabbatical year. He also seems to have acted as a kind of (unsuccessful) 'conservative opposition' in general to Rabbi's more liberal halakhic tendencies.
9:
The 'colleagues' to whom Rabbi Pinĥas ben-Ya'ir refers are the sages. In Talmudic times certainly a distinction was observed between the "Am ha-Aretz", the "peasants", and the "Ĥaver" [colleague]. The ĥaverim undertook to observe the laws of ritual purity – in all its aspects – to their utmost degree, and reserved a certain disdain for the masses who did not do so (and whose kashrut could therefore not be trusted). Thus the sages divided the Jewish world into two groups: those who observed the minutiae of the Levitical laws of purity and separation of priestly dues from produce – and those who did not do so. The latter were the "Am ha-Aretz" ['peasants'] and the former were termed "Ĥaver" ['colleague']. Rabbi Pinĥas perceives that after the destruction of the Bet Mikdash the non-observance of these regulations of ritual purity was so widespread that those who did observe them were rather abashed – presumably because they began to see themselves as practising and increasingly meaningless supererogation.
10:
Rabbi Pinĥas also seems to be mourning the decline in personal safety experienced during his time. His reference to there being none who search and seek is influenced by Ezekiel 34:6.
11:
Rabbi Eli'ezer the Great is Rabbi Eli'ezer ben-Hyrkanos of whom we have written so much for so many years. His view of the post-destruction period is one of continuous decline. He sees a kind of spiritual hierarchy: sages – scribes – synagogue officials – peasants. Each stage represents a lesser degree of religious observance and he too sees a gradual diminution of religiosity in his time.
12:
This air of general pessimism (understandable after two immense military defeats within a lifetime and the acute economic depression in the middle of the 2nd century) leads inevitably to thoughts of redemption; and thoughts of redemption lead to thoughts concerning the messianic age which, it was perhaps hoped, was "just around the corner". (Though in the Talmud of Eretz-Israel there were sages who had a much more balanced view concerning the messianic fervour which overtook some of the sages with the rise of Shim'on bar-Kokhba: when Rabbi Akiva announced his belief that bar-Kokhba was the Messiah (!) Rabbi Yoĥanan ben-Torta retorted: "Akiva, grass will grow from your cheeks and the son of David will not yet have come!" [Ta'anit 24a]) It is most probable that the description of the pre-messianic age given in this baraita is intended as a description of conditions in Eretz-Israel in the mid 2nd century. If so, hopefully it is "merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative" (to borrow a phrase from W.S. Gilbert. The phrase beginning "a son will foulmouth his father" is a direct quotation from Micah 7:6.
To be concluded.
