So how was it OK for the Israelites to cross the Jordan and confront the Canaanites, which were much more numerous and stronger? In fact, Moses says that victory over the Canaanites would be achieved only through tremendous miracles comparable to the miracles G-d performed in Egypt, no less!
The answer, in my opinion, is that staying in the desert was just as miraculous, given that Israelites were eating Manna from heaven, drinking water from miraculous wells, and they were protected by the clouds of glory.
In fact, once the clouds of glory dispersed after the death of Aaron, the Israelites started to be attacked by some of the Canaanites (the King of Arad), Sihon and Og, the Moabites, the Midianites, etc. Conflict was inevitable anyway.
Gotta say, this is your most yeshivish post in a while :) Post-hoc mythmaking, with all due respect.
The actual answer is that there was no "grand decision" to go to war. Rebellions build up. Same as for the war against the Romans ~70 CE (that lead to the destruction of the Temple), and the Bar-Kochba rebellion against the Romans ~132 CE.
Interestingly, in the case of 70 CE, the Talmud itself provides some anecdotes as to some of the relatively trivial disturbances that led to the war.
Adler's book seems ignorant of verses like Amos 8:5, which demonstrates in passing that even evildoers in the less religious northern kingdom were observing Shabbat as early as the 8th century BCE.
Similarly, the lack of hewn mikvaot from before the Hasmonean period does not demonstrate that purity laws were not kept at this point (observance of these laws is taken as a given in much earlier sources like Samuel 1 20:26 and Samuel 2 11:4), but rather that people bathed in bathtubs (some of which have been found in digs) and did not know of a prohibition on "sheuvin" (which some rishonim say is only a rabbinic prohibition to begin with).
>"Adler's book seems ignorant of verses like Amos 8:5, which demonstrates in passing that even evildoers in the less religious northern kingdom were observing Shabbat as early as the 8th century BCE."
The point of the book is to focus on the archeological record, as opposed to the biblical literary record, since the biblical record is likely idealized to some extent (even taking into account the many verses about sinning/heterodoxy). Regardless, he still extensively quotes Biblical verses.
Re your second point, right, it's a claim strictly about the requirement for a mikvah vs simply bathing
The significance of verses like the one in Amos is that Amos is not idealizing the population's observance, on the contrary he is looking for things to criticize. But in the process of criticizing one (interpersonal) halachic failing, he inadvertently reveals that another (ritual) halacha was being kept faithfully by the bulk of the population. To reconcile this with Adler, one needs a pretty complicated conspiracy theory to explain why Amos would have invented a data point that contradicts his main message.
To address those specific examples: Samuel 2 11:4 describes mikveh. The abstention of Israelites from pork is well known in archaeology. Egyptian artists from the 13th century BCE drew Levantines (unclear if Israelite or not) wearing ornaments that resemble tefillin.
No, it doesn't. It simply says והיא מתקדשת מטמאתה, which most likely simply means that she was no longer menstruating, and had bathed. Verse 2 there says וירא אשה רחצת מעל הגג, which a) doesn't mention impurity, and b) more importantly, doesn't even mention any immersion (tevilah), it's simply washing (rehitza).
>"The abstention of Israelites from pork is well known in archaeology."
Adler discusses this at length. First of all, taboo on eating pork seems to be a wider Canaanite/middle eastern taboo. And second of all, pork isn't the only kosher law. Adler discusses fish bones and other relevant archeological findings.
>"Egyptian artists from the 13th century BCE drew Levantines (unclear if Israelite or not) wearing ornaments that resemble tefillin."
Yes, it seems that this was something that existed in the culture. The question is a) how widespread; and b) does it match the way it was actually understood by the wearers of tefillin in Second Temple period, and in works that discuss tefillin (i.e. Second Temple literature, Mishnah, etc): two hard black leather boxes on head and arm, containing biblical verses, with straps. See also a good discussion here: https://www.thetorah.com/article/the-origins-of-tefillin
Military history buff here. Military history is full of examples of apparently hopelessly outnumbered forces defeating much stronger enemies. Nothing supernatural. But when I recite "Al HaNisim" I acknowledge that HaShem is in charge of it all. This does not at all discount the bravery of the Maccabees -- or of the IDF in our lifetimes. Without the Maccabees, without the IDF, we deny HaShem the ability to create such miracles.
So how was it OK for the Israelites to cross the Jordan and confront the Canaanites, which were much more numerous and stronger? In fact, Moses says that victory over the Canaanites would be achieved only through tremendous miracles comparable to the miracles G-d performed in Egypt, no less!
כִּי תֹאמַר בִּלְבָבְךָ רַבִּים הַגּוֹיִם הָאֵלֶּה מִמֶּנִּי אֵיכָה אוּכַל לְהוֹרִישָׁם. לֹא תִירָא מֵהֶם זָכֹר תִּזְכֹּר אֵת אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה ה' אֱלֹקיךָ לְפַרְעֹה וּלְכָל מִצְרָיִם. הַמַּסֹּת הַגְּדֹלֹת אֲשֶׁר רָאוּ עֵינֶיךָ וְהָאֹתֹת וְהַמֹּפְתִים וְהַיָּד הַחֲזָקָה וְהַזְּרֹעַ הַנְּטוּיָה אֲשֶׁר הוֹצִאֲךָ ה' אֱלֹקיךָ כֵּן יַעֲשֶׂה ה' אֱלֹקיךָ לְכָל הָעַמִּים אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה יָרֵא מִפְּנֵיהֶם.
(Deut. 7:17-19)
So how was it OK?
The answer, in my opinion, is that staying in the desert was just as miraculous, given that Israelites were eating Manna from heaven, drinking water from miraculous wells, and they were protected by the clouds of glory.
In fact, once the clouds of glory dispersed after the death of Aaron, the Israelites started to be attacked by some of the Canaanites (the King of Arad), Sihon and Og, the Moabites, the Midianites, etc. Conflict was inevitable anyway.
Gotta say, this is your most yeshivish post in a while :) Post-hoc mythmaking, with all due respect.
The actual answer is that there was no "grand decision" to go to war. Rebellions build up. Same as for the war against the Romans ~70 CE (that lead to the destruction of the Temple), and the Bar-Kochba rebellion against the Romans ~132 CE.
Interestingly, in the case of 70 CE, the Talmud itself provides some anecdotes as to some of the relatively trivial disturbances that led to the war.
Though it *is* true that Judaism as we know it started in the Hasmonean era, as convincingly argued by archeologist Yonatan Adler. See my discussion here: https://www.ezrabrand.com/p/notes-on-some-historical-aspects
Adler's book seems ignorant of verses like Amos 8:5, which demonstrates in passing that even evildoers in the less religious northern kingdom were observing Shabbat as early as the 8th century BCE.
Similarly, the lack of hewn mikvaot from before the Hasmonean period does not demonstrate that purity laws were not kept at this point (observance of these laws is taken as a given in much earlier sources like Samuel 1 20:26 and Samuel 2 11:4), but rather that people bathed in bathtubs (some of which have been found in digs) and did not know of a prohibition on "sheuvin" (which some rishonim say is only a rabbinic prohibition to begin with).
>"Adler's book seems ignorant of verses like Amos 8:5, which demonstrates in passing that even evildoers in the less religious northern kingdom were observing Shabbat as early as the 8th century BCE."
The point of the book is to focus on the archeological record, as opposed to the biblical literary record, since the biblical record is likely idealized to some extent (even taking into account the many verses about sinning/heterodoxy). Regardless, he still extensively quotes Biblical verses.
Re your second point, right, it's a claim strictly about the requirement for a mikvah vs simply bathing
The significance of verses like the one in Amos is that Amos is not idealizing the population's observance, on the contrary he is looking for things to criticize. But in the process of criticizing one (interpersonal) halachic failing, he inadvertently reveals that another (ritual) halacha was being kept faithfully by the bulk of the population. To reconcile this with Adler, one needs a pretty complicated conspiracy theory to explain why Amos would have invented a data point that contradicts his main message.
Adler would likely agree that communal festival days such a Shabbat were broadly kept.
His book is primarily about personal rituals like tefillin, Mikvah, kosher laws, etc
To address those specific examples: Samuel 2 11:4 describes mikveh. The abstention of Israelites from pork is well known in archaeology. Egyptian artists from the 13th century BCE drew Levantines (unclear if Israelite or not) wearing ornaments that resemble tefillin.
>"Samuel 2 11:4 describes mikveh"
No, it doesn't. It simply says והיא מתקדשת מטמאתה, which most likely simply means that she was no longer menstruating, and had bathed. Verse 2 there says וירא אשה רחצת מעל הגג, which a) doesn't mention impurity, and b) more importantly, doesn't even mention any immersion (tevilah), it's simply washing (rehitza).
>"The abstention of Israelites from pork is well known in archaeology."
Adler discusses this at length. First of all, taboo on eating pork seems to be a wider Canaanite/middle eastern taboo. And second of all, pork isn't the only kosher law. Adler discusses fish bones and other relevant archeological findings.
>"Egyptian artists from the 13th century BCE drew Levantines (unclear if Israelite or not) wearing ornaments that resemble tefillin."
Yes, it seems that this was something that existed in the culture. The question is a) how widespread; and b) does it match the way it was actually understood by the wearers of tefillin in Second Temple period, and in works that discuss tefillin (i.e. Second Temple literature, Mishnah, etc): two hard black leather boxes on head and arm, containing biblical verses, with straps. See also a good discussion here: https://www.thetorah.com/article/the-origins-of-tefillin
Military history buff here. Military history is full of examples of apparently hopelessly outnumbered forces defeating much stronger enemies. Nothing supernatural. But when I recite "Al HaNisim" I acknowledge that HaShem is in charge of it all. This does not at all discount the bravery of the Maccabees -- or of the IDF in our lifetimes. Without the Maccabees, without the IDF, we deny HaShem the ability to create such miracles.