The rabbinic movement's stance on Bar Kokhba Revolt is unclear based on seemingly contradictory Talmudic sources. However, the revolt strengthened the rabbis' position as the dominant Jewish sect. Most researchers believe Rabbi Akiva's students participated in the revolt and died fighting. A minority hold they died earlier of plague, unrelated to the revolt.
The stance of the rabbinic movement 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.Peter Schäfer, "Bar Kokhba and the Rabbis", in Petter Schäfer (editor), The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered, Tubingen 2003, pp. 1-22 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.A. Oppenheimer and B. Izak, 'Toldot ha-meḥḳar shel mered Bar Kokhba', in Amos Kloner, Yigal Tepper (editors) Hiding Complexes in the Judean Shephelah. 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.Michael L. Satlow, Creating Judaism: History, Tradition, Practice, Columbia University Press, 2006, page 120
Early testimonies – Bar Kokhba's messianism
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.Some interpret that the mentioned killing is not literal but metaphorical, meaning they held him in contempt. 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 is in order to sever the connection between Bar Kokhba and his rebellious and messianic delusions from the spiritual leaders of the Jewish people.J. Efron, "Milḥemet Bar Kokhba le-or ha-masoret ha-Talmudit - ha-Eretsyiśraʼelit ke-neged ha-Bavlit", in A. Oppenheimer and U. Rappaport (editors), The Bar-Kokhva revolt, Jerusalem 1984, pages 47 and 76.See also Peter Schäfer, "Bar Kokhba and the Rabbis", in Petter Schäfer (editor), The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered, Tubingen 2003, page 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":
Maimonides preferred the testimony of the Jerusalem TalmudSee M.A. thesis, 'Peraḳim be-ḥeḳer meḳorotaṿ shel Mishneh Torah leha-Ramabam', Jerusalem 1993 for other examples of where Maimonides follows the Yerushalmi over the Bavli. 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. Maimonides also saidLater on in Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Melakhim 11:3. 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.See I Samuel 24:6–10, II Samuel 1:14–21, 19:22, 22:23. 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 the miraculous. Many scholars such as OppenheimerA. Oppenheimer, 'Meshiḥiyuto shel Bar Kokhba, in Ts. Bres (editor), Meshiḥiyut ṿe-askoṭologyah, Jerusalem 1983, pages 155–156. and EfronJ. Efron, "Milḥemet Bar Kokhba le-or ha-masoret ha-Talmudit - ha-Eretsyiśraʼelit ke-neged ha-Bavlit, in A. Oppenheimer and U. Rappaport (editors), The Bar-Kokhva Revolt, Jerusalem 1984, pages 54–56. share this view.
Additional sources and conclusion 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.Jerusalem Talmud, Taanit 4:5.
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, 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.A. Openheimer, "Bar Kokhba ṿe-ḳiyum mitsṿot", in A. Openheimer and U. Rappaport (editors), The Bar-Kokhva revolt, Jerusalem 1984, pages 140-146.
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."Yisrael Friedman, 'Maʻamado shel Bar-Kokhba ke-rosh ha-umah u-temikhat ha-ḥakhamim be-mered', in Katedra 29 (1984), pages 13-28.
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. 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.Peter Schafer, "Bar Kokhba and the Rabbis", in Petter Schafer (editor), The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered, Tubingen 2003, page 21.
David Goodblatt, 'Bar Kokhba neśi Yiśraʼel u-maʻamado be-rosh ha-umah le-or ha-meokorot : temikhat ha-tanaʼim o hashpaʻat ha-kohohanim', in Katedra 29 (1984), pages 6-12. 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.
Criticism by the sages Despite generally supporting the revolt, the sages did not refrain from criticizing Bar Kokhba when he acted improperly in their view.
In the previously cited quote, two opinions were given about Bar Kokhba: Rabbi Akiva saw him as the one to redeem Israel, while Rabbi Yochanan ben Torta claimed redemption was still far off and would not occur in Rabbi Akiva's generation. According to Oppenheimer, this disagreement is not just on religious grounds about whether Bar Kokhba is the Messiah, but an ideological-political argument, meaning Rabbi Yochanan ben Torta rejected Bar Kokhba's leadership and opposed the revolt. Many emphasize that the view of Rabbi Akiva, one of the generation's leaders and backbone of Oral Torah with many supporters and disciples, should be weighed against an anonymous sage known primarily for this disagreement. Maimonides, for example, gave Rabbi Akiva's position central importance.
There is another testimony describing cooperation between the sages and Bar Kokhba on military matters:
This describes Bar Kokhba's "admission tests" to his army. Initially. his soldiers had to cut off a finger as an admission test, but the sages’ objection led Bar Kokhba to consult them on an alternative test. Their response was that a worthy soldier must uproot a cedar while riding on his horse. Though parts of this legend are difficult to accept, like riding on a horse and uprooting a cedar, the story's essence is significant. Based on this testimony, some researchers including Ben-Shalom conclude that the sages’ reprimand of Bar Kokhba's "admission tests" rather than the revolt itself, and his heeding their words indicate their participation in the revolt.
Another testimony about Bar Kokhba is the story of the siege of Betar and Bar Kokhba's downfall:
On the one hand, Rabbi Elazar Hamodai's support for the revolt is evident, but the conflict between the sides and the sage's killing by Bar Kokhba provide clear signs of tension between the sages and Bar Kokhba. This tension even leads to the sages' interpretation of Bar Kokhba's death and the revolt's failure according to some accounts.
Additional criticism is brought that Bar Kokhba would say before battles: "Master of the Universe, neither help nor hinder us." From the proximity to the Rabbi Elazar Hamodai story, this also seems to be criticism.
Participation of Rabbi Akiva's students in the revolt According to Jewish sources, Rabbi Akiva had 24,000 students who died in a short period between Passover and Shavuot, because they did not show proper respect for one another.Talmud Bavli, Yevamot 62b.
Most researchers argue that since the Geonic period it was accepted in Judaism that Rabbi Akiva's students died at the hands of the Roman army. They rely on the Spanish version of Rav Sherira Gaon's Epistle which states: "And Rabbi Akiva raised many students, and there was a religious persecution [killing by the government] of Rabbi Akiva's students."Igeret Rav Sherera Gaon, Levin edition, page 13.