Land, Center & Diaspora: Jewish Constructs in Late Antiquity (JSP Supplements)

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE PSEUDEPIGRAPHA SUPPLEMENT SERIES

21

Editors James H. Charlesworth Lester L. Grabbe

Editorial Board Randall D. Chesnutt, Philip R. Davies, Jan Willem van Henten, Judith M. Lieu, Steven Mason, James R. Mueller, Loren T. Stuckenbruck, James C. VanderKam

Sheffield Academic Press

Land, Center and Diaspora Jewish Constructs in Late Antiquity

Isaiah M. Gafni

Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 21

Copyright © 1997 Sheffield Academic Press Published by Sheffield Academic Press Ltd Mansion House 19KingfieldRoad Sheffield SI 1 9AS England

Typeset by Sheffield Academic Press and Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain by Bookcraft Ltd Midsomer Norton, Bath

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 1-85075-644-9

CONTENTS

Preface Acknowledgments Abbreviations Introduction

7 9 10 11

Chapter 1 J E W I S H D I S P E R S I O N IN T H E S E C O N D T E M P L E A N D

TALMUDIC

PERIODS: PUNISHMENT, BLESSING OR U N I V E R S A L MISSION?

19

Chapter 2 A T H O M E WHILE ABROAD: EXPRESSIONS OF

LOCAL

PATRIOTISM IN THE JEWISH DIASPORA OF L A T E ANTIQUITY

41

Chapter 3 BETWEEN ACTIVISM A N D PASSIVITY:

RABBINIC

ATTITUDES TOWARDS 'THE LAND'

58

Chapter 4 B U R I A L A N D R E I N T E R M E N T IN T H E L A N D O F ISRAEL: THE BEST OF BOTH W O R L D S

79

Chapter 5 B A B Y L O N I A A N D THE L A N D OF ISRAEL: THE LOYAL OPPOSITION CONCLUSIONS

Bibliography Index of References Index of Authors

96 118

121 130 135

PREFACE

During the second and third weeks of January 1994,1 had the honour of delivering the third series of Jacobs Lectures in Rabbinic Thought, sponsored by the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies. The topic I chose for the lecture series was: 'Rabbinic Reflections on Land, Center and Diaspora'. Upon completion of the series, I was encouraged by Philip Alexander and Martin Goodman to submit the text of my talks for publication, and this book is the result of their kind suggestion. The nature of the different presentations will help to explain the format of their present publication. Two of the lectures were delivered as formal presentations, and they are represented here as Chapters 1 and 3. Another two talks, included here as Chapters 4 and 5, were conducted as seminars, with the relevant texts before the participants. This would explain the somewhat more extensive use of texts and their analysis in these two chapters. The fifth presentation (Chapter 1) was originally intended as a somewhat informal discussion at Yamton Manor, at which time I attempted to sketch the broad range of issues relating to centerdiaspora affairs as they reflect on Jewish life in Late Antiquity. The point of all this is to explain that 1 have tried, to the best of my ability and following the advice of Dr Alexander and Dr Goodman, to retain the structure of the original lectures, with the full realization that my treat­ ment is selective at best, with each chapter focusing on specific and limited issues. A comprehensive study of center and diaspora in Late Jewish Antiquity remains a desideratum, and such a study would surely also include the detailed and comprehensive footnotes that are missing, by choice, in this modest volume. In preparing for these lectures, I realized that as far back as 1977, when I first published an article on 'Bringing the Dead for Burial in the Land of Israel', I had become fascinated by the diaspora phenomenon in Jewish history, and the light it sheds, when examined carefully, on so many facets of Jewish self-identity. I continued with subsequent research on related aspects of center-diaspora relations, and a number of these

8

Land, Center and Diaspora

studies served as earlier versions, upon which I built in preparing portions of the lectures included in this volume. I have referred to all my previous discussions of these issues in the notes to the relevant chapters. The reader should note that I have chosen to revise the second chapter of this book. As noted above, the original context of that presentation was an informal discussion, but here it constitutes an introductory survey of one major aspect of the diaspora phenomenon: the nature and expres­ sions of local patriotism embraced by Jews in the various diaspora com­ munities in Late Antiquity. This issue goes to the very heart of Jewish identity, and I would be disingenuous if 1 did not admit that some of the very same questions I will raise in connection with Alexandrian or Babylonian Jewry in this chapter will possibly tug at the hearts of certain people—or Jewish communities—today. In even greater candor I would have to admit that my own personal history, growing up as a child in a diaspora environment, speaking Hebrew with ray father on the streets of New York, and emigrating by myself as a fourteen-year-old youth to the Land of Israel—might also have contributed in no small manner to my long-standing preoccupation with the center-diaspora phenomenon in Jewish history. Like all self-proclaimed objective historians, I sincerely hope that I have not allowed my personal history to intrude into my critical observations of the past; in my heart 1 know how unlikely it is that I have truly succeeded. Isaiah M. Gafni The Hebrew University Jerusalem

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Words of gratitude and recognition are due a number of friends and institutions for their kind assistance at various stages of this book's preparation. My colleagues, Daniel Schwartz and Martin Goodman, read major portions of the early draft and their comments not only improved the text but also saved me from some embarrassing slips and oversights. I am also indebted to Erich Gruen for his excellent comments on the first two chapters. My student at the Hebrew University, Geoffrey Herman, helped in the correction of the final proofs. I began work on these lectures while a fellow at the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, and completed the final draft while Senior Fellow at the Center for the Study of World Religions at Harvard University, serving also as the Weinstock Visiting Professor at that university's Center for Jewish Studies. The heads and staff mem­ bers of these institutions have, over the years, shown me nothing but the utmost kindness, and I take this opportunity to express my sincere thanks for all their help and goodwill. Last and certainly not least, no expressions of gratitude will do justice to all I owe my wife Naomi, who has for almost thirty years followed me time and again in my travels 'from Center to Diaspora':

ABBREVIATIONS

AGJU ANRW BJS CII CRINT GTA HTR lEJ JAOS JJS JQR JSJ JSP NovTSup PAAJR REJ SJLA SPB TSAJ WUNT ZAW

Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt Brown Judaic Studies Corpus inscriptionum iudaicarum Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Gottinger theologische Arbeiten Harvard Theological Review Israel Exploration Journal Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Jewish Studies Jewish Quarterly Review Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Novum Testamentum, Supplements Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research Revue des etudes juives Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity Studia postbiblica Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament ZeitschriftfUr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

INTRODUCTION

The chapters of this book were not intended as a brief political history or socioreligious study of the Jewish diaspora in the Second Temple and Talmudic periods. Nor did I wish to describe the practical relations and ongoing contacts that existed between the Jews of the Land of Israel and the various diaspora communities before and after the destruction of the Second Temple in the year 70 C E . My late and revered teacher Menahem Stem produced a number of major studies on the first issue,' and his distinguished colleague and my mentor as well, Shmuel Safrai, has contributed over the past forty years some major works on the second topic, most notably his volume on pilgrimage during the Second Temple period.^ 1.

See M. Stem, T h e Jewish Diaspora', in S. Safrai and M. Stem (eds.). The

Jewish People in the First Century, I (CRINT; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1974), pp. 11783; for Stem's Hebrew articles on Jews in the diaspora and the attitudes of Greek and Latin authors towards them see his collected essays, in M. Amit, I.M. Gafni and M.D. Herr (eds.). Studies in Jewish History:

The Second Temple Period

[Hebrew]

(Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1991), pp. 417-568. Stem's monumental and Latin Authors

on Jews and Judaism,

Greek

I-III (Jemsalem: Israel Academy of

Sciences and Humanities, 1974-1984), is in fact also an invaluable contribution to our understanding of the history, as well as the non-Jewish perceptions, of Jews in the Graeco-Roman diaspora. Needless to say. Stem and Safrai have been joined by a long list of other scholars who have written on various aspects of the Jewish diaspora in the Graeco-Roman period, and my opening reference to these two historians was one way of acknowl­ edging a debt that can never really be repaid. For a survey and bibliography on the Jewish diaspora in Late Antiquity see E. Schiirer, The History of the Jewish in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 BC-AD135),

People

III.l (rev. and ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar

and M. Goodman; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986), pp. 1-176. For some additional recent literature see the notes to my conclusions here. 2.

S. Safrai, Pilgrimage

at the Time of the Second Temple [Hebrew] (Tel Aviv:

Am Hassefer, 1965; Jerusalem: Academon, 2nd rev. edn, 1985); idem, 'Relations between the Diaspora and the Land of Israel', in S. Safrai and M. Stem (eds.). The Jewish People in the First Century, I, pp. 184-215.

12

Land, Center and Diaspora

Nor do I propose to take up, yet again, the question of the legal status and civic aspirations of the Jews in the Graeco-Roman world, for which there exists a copious bibliography evolving out of the fierce debate on this issue in recent years.^ Instead, my purpose in this study is to shed some light on what the Jews of the period, in Judaea as well as in the diaspora, might have thought about their particular situation as a scat­ tered people, and how these thoughts were translated into concrete policies and subsequent measures that shaped and defined the relation­ ships among the various Jewish conmiunities of Late Antiquity. Needless to say, the fact of Jewish dispersion was not a unique phe­ nomenon in the ancient world. Other ethnic or religious communities also found themselves removed from their historical homelands, some by choice and others as a result of forced exile and captivity. What may have been unique in the case of the Jewish dispersion was that it was frequently—but not universally—accompanied by a broad-based yearn­ ing for a reverse process of ingathering, that is, a geographical as well as national restoration. The fact that this hope did not reach fruition, and that at certain times was rendered even more remote following each setback in a series of disastrous Jewish uprisings during the first and second centuries CE, could not have been ignored by those Jews who cultivated a self-identity based not only on a shared biblical past but also on an understanding, similarly based on biblical tradition as well as subsequent interpretation, that the future held some sort of promise of a collective change in the nation's situation. My study therefore begins with an attempt to locate these thoughts and to propose a categorization of the various Jewish interpretations of the phenomenon of an ongoing dispersion. The first two chapters set out to examine two distinct psychological and behavioral components that nevertheless may have combined to establish a Jewish comprehension of the nation's continued dispersion. On the one hand we will encounter an introspective Jewish attempt to explain the ongoing Jewish dispersion in the light of the corpus of sacred Jewish texts. Ultimately, however, this quest was redefined by a variety of historical impulses that led certain Jewish thinkers to seek additional, extra-biblical explanations for the dis­ persion. One obvious example of this new reality was the Christian church's recourse to the Jewish dispersion as a means of bolstering its own argument regarding God's abandonment of the people of Israel. From a totally different direction, Jews in the diaspora also found 3.

For a brief list of literature see below. Chapter 2, n. 11.

Introduction

13

themselves addressed on the issue by their brethren living in the Land of Israel. For a number of reasons and within a particular historical context the sages of Palestine began to project voluntary diaspora life as some­ thing akin to national treason and abandonment. The variety of responses to these and other pressures will serve as the focus of the first chapter. The second chapter continues with this picking of the diaspora Jew's brain, but this time my aim is to detect the various ways in which a Jew might identify with his non-Jewish surroundings and evince a sense of what is commonly called 'local patriotism'. To be sure, to the extent that some Jews, or even many Jews, identified enthusiastically and whole­ heartedly with their surroundings, we may have trouble identifying them as Jews. And so my search in this chapter is indeed unique: I set out to identify the means by which a Jew, conscious of his heritage and not out to deny or abandon it, might nevertheless have expressed a profound sense of 'belonging' in the land or city of his residence. In both these endeavors we must take into account the possibility that the voices we hear were not necessarily representative of the masses of Jews who lived throughout the Graeco-Roman world, as well as beyond the Euphrates river. Not only were the Jewish authors whose words survived few and far between, but it is also at times far from certain whom they considered as their primary audience.'* And so an effort must be made to uncover evidence of Jewish thoughts and expressions in nonliterary sources, and towards this end I examined a number of documents and inscriptions. Here, however, we frequently come up against a dif­ ferent barrier that may prevent us from knowing what people 'really thought': in every society, and certainly in the Graeco-Roman world, statements of allegiance and loyalty are frequently issued with a hidden (and sometimes not so hidden) agenda or expectation of reciprocity. Expressions of 'local patriotism' and either apologetic posturing or politi­ cal lobbying constantiy appear as two sides of the same coin, and this rendered my search all the more difficult. A totally different type of 'local patriotism' seems to have emerged among the Jews of Talmudic Babylonia, and its significance will be feU throughout the chapters of this book. The Babylonian sages evince a definite sense of 'homeness' and familiarity within the Persian Empire, but the intended audience for this posturing was primarily the Jewish community, whether in Babylonia, Palestine or—by the post-Talmudic period—throughout the Jewish diaspora. Simply stated, the Babylonian 4.

For literature on this see Chapter 1, n. 31.

14

Land, Center and Diaspora

Talmud will project the land of its provenance as something akin to a second Jewish homeland, with roots going back to the formative stages of Israelite nationhood. This perception, which evolved during the Talmudic era (third to fifth centuries C E ) into a highly developed and at times militantly proBabylonian ideology, could not be ignored by the rabbinic establishment in the Land of Israel. At stake were not only issues relating to a religious commitment to the Land but also the critical question of whether there exists a central Jewish halakhic authority. The third chapter of my study examines the crucial stages in the development of what might be con­ sidered in modem terms an active Zionist ideology, that is, a Palestinian demand for commitment to the Land that was accompanied—for the first time in Jewish history—by an attempt to render all Jewish life outside the Land illegitimate, and to attach to those who nevertheless reside there the ultimate stigma of renouncing the Jewish nation's pact with God (t. 'Abod. Zar. 4.5). And so we find ourselves by the third century confronted by two rabbinic communities, in Palestine and in Babylonia, that appear to be on a collision course which can only result in some sort of mutual excommunication. The fact that this did not take place suggests that religious as well as practical solutions were formulated, and these began to regulate certain patterns of behavior that afforded a means for the Babylonian community to remain loyal to the Land while at the same time continuing to live and indeed thrive outside its borders. The fourth and fifth chapters of this study take up these solutions and examine the religious behavior as well as the rhetoric that enabled the major com­ munity of the Jewish diaspora in Late Antiquity to assert itself and assume an almost totally independent position vis-a-vis the Land of Israel, while at the same time evincing a loyalty to 'the Land' not only as a hallowed religious concept, but also as the historically sanctioned center of Jewish leadership. My arguments and conclusions in major portions of this book are based on rabbinic sources, and so a few words on the possible uses of these materials for historical research—as well as the pitfalls involved in what has of late become a much-maligned endeavor—would appear to be in order. To be sure, I see no reason to recycle the well-wom litany of arguments for refraining from almost any use of rabbinic sources for the purpose of historical inquiry. I say this notwithstanding the fact that I concur with, or at least recognize, the cogency of many of those

Introduction

15

arguments. No, the rabbis were certainly not historians, nor did they have an agenda that required or encouraged the preservation of factual data for posterity.^ I am no less aware of the problems involved in the transmission of the texts, and the words of my late teacher E.S. Rosenthal still resound in my ears: 'All philological-historical interpretation revolves around three things: the text, the language and literary context, as well as the historical-realistic one.'* The redactional as well as literary problems involved in the use of these materials must also be taken seriously, and thus to read any isolated 'aggada' as a record of a historical event is to tread on very thin ice. J. Fraenkel has shown impressively the extent to which rhetoric helped shape rabbinic stories,^ and the questions raised by Neusner, Green, Jacobs and others regarding the reliability of attributions of statements to particular rabbis can also not be overlooked.^ 5. See for this M.D. Herr, 'The Conception of History among the Sages' [Hebrew], Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies, III (Jerusalem: World Congress of Jewish Studies, 1977), pp. 129-42; I have repeated some aspects of this argument in my recent article on 'The Hasmoneans in Rabbinic Literature' [Hebrew], in D. Amit and H. Eshel (eds.), Yemei Beit Hashmonay (Idan, 19; Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1995), pp. 261-75, wherein I also warned against trying to derive too much from the 'overwhelming silence' of the sages on major historical events. I have recently discussed the nature of rabbinic attitudes towards the past in my article, 'Concepts of Periodization and Causality in Talmudic Literature', in K.R. Stow (ed.), Jewish History, (Haifa: Haifa University Press, 1996), pp. 21-38. 6. E.S. Rosenthal, 'Ha-Moreh' [Hebrew], PAAJR^X (1963), p. 15. 7. J. Fraenkel, Darkhei Ha-Aggada VeHa-Midrash, I (Yad La-Talmud; Givatayim: Masada Press, 1991), pp. 235-85. 8. For Neusner see most recently J. Neusner, 'Evaluating the Attributions of Sayings to Named Sages in Rabbinic Literature', JSJ 26 (1995), pp. 93-111; W.S. Green, 'What's in a Name?—The Problematic of Rabbinic "Biography"', in W.S. Green (ed.). Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Practice (BJS, 1; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978), pp. 77-96; for the reliability of Talmudic attri­ butions see also, D. Kraemer 'On the Reliability of Attributions in the Babylonian Talmud', HUCA 60 (1989), pp. 175-90; S. Stem, 'Attribution and Authorship in the Babylonian Talmud', JJS 45 (1994), pp. 28-51; for recent summaries and approaches to the use of rabbinic literature for historical research see M. Goodman, State and Society in Roman Galilee, A.D. 132-212 (Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies: Totowa, NJ: Rowman & AUenheld, 1983), pp. 3-17; L.I. Levine, The Rabbinic Class of Roman Palestine in Late Antiquity (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak BenZvi; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1989), pp. 16-22; M.L. Satlow, Tasting the Dish: Rabbinic Rhetorics of Sexuality (BJS, 303; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), pp. 10-11; see also, S. Stern, Jewish Identity in Early

16

Lxind, Center and Diaspora

But having acknowledged all this I still maintain that a reasoned use of these materials, governed by a judicious consideration of what can and cannot be expected from a talmudic source, can still provide us with some convincing conclusions. Even skeptics would agree that a discemable stratification exists within the rabbinic corpus. And so, for example, without arguing for the historical veracity of any isolated tradition, the fact that different approaches to central issues can be identified through a comparison of tannaitic and amoraic sources suggests at the very least that these new attitudes appeared at a certain moment in time. More­ over, the preponderance of allusions to a particular issue only from a specific generation or stratum within talmudic literature, and even more convincingly the use of a particular phrase or the reference to a specific institution that appears only from a given generation, certainly suggest at least the possibility that a new reality had set in or that new terminology came into use at a specific point in time. Both Goodblatt and I, notwithstanding our different conclusions regarding the development of academies in Sasanian Babylonia, have shown, conclusively to my mind, that certain formal phrases or institutions make their appearance within the talmudic corpus only from a particular generation.' A very late and random attribution of the mass of rabbinic statements to particular rabbis, as assumed by certain critics, should have effected a 'homogenization' of rabbinic terminology, but this is clearly not the case when specific phrases are examined.'" Having expressed my belief in the existence of discemable talmudic strata, I now maintain that when information attributed to a particular stratum dovetails with archaeological evidence from the very same period, our sense of a particular historical development being reflected in rabbinic literature gains strength. One example of this lies at the base Rabbinic Writings (AGJU, 23; Leiden: Brill, 1994), pp. xxii-xxix; Stem's book reached me only during the final stages of proof-reading for this work. 9. See for example our discussions on the appearance of the phrase and institution of 'Pirqa' in Sasanian Babylonia; D. Goodblatt, Rabbinic Instruction in Sasanian Babylonia (SJLA, 9; Leiden: Brill, 1975), pp. 171-96; LM. Gafni, 'Public Sermons in Talmudic Babylonia: The Pirqa' [Hebrew], in S. Elizur, M.D. Herr, G. Shaked and A. Shinan (eds.), Knesset Ezra: Studies Presented to Ezra Fleischer (Jemsalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi and the Ben Zvi Institute, 1994), pp. 121-30. 10. I therefore agree completely with the argument forcefully put forward by D. Goodblatt, 'Towards the Rehabilitation of Talmudic History', in B.M. Bokser (ed.). History of Judaism: The Next Ten Years (BJS, 21; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981), pp. 31-44.

Introduction

17

of my discussion in Chapter 4. No mention is made anywhere in tannaitic literature of the custom of bringing the deceased of the diaspora to Palestine for burial. Indeed, the prooftexts that are employed at a later stage to support this custom are used in the earlier tannaitic literature in a totally different and even opposing context. We begin to encounter allusions to the practice only in the statements attributed to third-century Palestinian sages, which is precisely when a mass of archaeological evi­ dence, from Beth She'arim and elsewhere, proves the existence of this practice, unknown from any earlier archaeological evidence. This is just one of numerous examples of the convergence of rabbinic and archaeo­ logical evidence, and it clearly provides one way for using rabbinic materials in a historical context. Moreover, in the spirit of M. Bloch's statement that 'at the bottom of nearly all criticism is a problem of comparison'," I believe that a com­ parison of parallel sources in the two Talmuds—that of Babylonia and that of Palestine—can frequently provide solid information about the Ufestyles and contexts in which such parallel accounts were formulated.'^ To be precise, I quote in Chapter 5 of this work the parallel talmudic versions that tell the story of Hananiah's attempt to intercalate the calendar in Babylonia. These are accounts that were formulated some time during the talmudic period, that is from the third to fifth centuries. Therefore, I need not assume that even one of the 'facts' in the story actually took place in the mid-second century, when Hananiah lived. Nevertheless, the two versions describe the confrontation that takes place between the Babylonian sage and the messengers dispatched by the Palestinian Patriarch in totally different contexts and based on—to my mind—radically different arguments. Is it only by chance that the Babylonian version describes the clash within the context of an academic environment whereas the Palestinian version places it in what appears to be a synagogue? Moreover, why is it that the Babylonian version suggests that halakhic authority should be vested in the hands of the foremost scholars of the generation, whereas the Palestinian version constandy reverts to prooftexts and to the unassailable status of 'Eretz

11. M. Bloch, The Historian's Craft (New York: Knopf, 1962), p. 110. 12. For one simple example of how parallel accounts of the same story in the two Talmuds might reflect the unique Sitz im Leben of each storyteller's community, see L. Ginzberg, A Commentary on the Palestinian Talmud [Hebrew], I (New York: Ktav, 1971), Introduction, pp. 65-66.

18

Land, Center and Diaspora

Israel' to make its case? I would argue that these sources, notwith­ standing their aggadic nature, are accurate reflections not only of the different lifestyles amidst which they were formulated, but more importantiy of the different concepts of rabbinic authority as they were perceived in Palestine and Babylonia. As such, these sources are crucial for any attempt at the reconstruction of a history of ideas, and it is precisely this sort of enterprise that I have undertaken to carry out in this book.

Chapter 1 JEWISH DISPERSION IN THE SECOND TEMPLE A N D T A L M U D I C PERIODS: PUNISHMENT, BLESSING OR UNIVERSAL M I S S I O N ?

One of the outstanding features of Jewish history in the Second Temple period was the emergence of a widespread and thriving Jewish diaspora, functioning alongside a large and for a time politically independent Jewish community in the Land of Israel. This duality of Jewish existence would reappear only in modem times, with the gradual realization of the Zionist enterprise. Indeed, it would be a fair guess that many of the questions of self-identity so commonly heard among contemporary diaspora Jews might not have sounded all that strange to the ears of a Jew residing in first-century Alexandria. One major distinction, however, separates contemporary Jews from our Second Temple forerunners: while the former enjoy the luxury of a historical precedent for the diaspora phenomenon, with all its ensuing explanations and rational­ izations, Jews of the Second Temple period did not. The diaspora phenomenon in Second Temple times was a new reality in Israelite existence; it had no real precedent to relate to, during which ideologies would have been formulated to explain the ongoing dispersion and thereby help diaspora Jews to understand the meaning of their continuing presence outside the Land of Israel. Jews of the Second Temple and Talmudic periods were forced to grapple with the issue for the first time, supplying answers to questions that probably originated in a variety of circles: 1.

1.

Jews of the diaspora might be expected to have given thought to their status as part of a Judaic entity that—through a com­ prehensive system of beliefs, commandments and customs— somehow linked them to the Temple in Jemsalem, the Land of Israel and the Judaean community.' For the attempts of other dispersed religious and ethnic communities to

20

Land, Center and Diaspora 2.

3.

4.

As we shall see in the third chapter, some rabbinic authorities in the Land of Israel, at least in the aftermath of the Bar-Kokhba catastrophe, began to question the continued legitimacy of diaspora residence and at the same time declared unlawful any emigration from the Land. This position would certainly invite an ideological re-evaluation of the whole diaspora phenomenon. At times the questions surrounding Jewish dispersion might have been raised, or at least been caused to be raised, by Gentiles in whose midst Jews lived. These Jews were perceived as striving to achieve a degree of normality in their local sur­ roundings, while at the same time cultivating their links with another territory and community. These links were expressed through financial and religious ties as well as a political involvement that affected both communities. Herod and others like him might intervene on behalf of diaspora communities to resolve disputes between those Jews and their Greek neighbors, while in the other direction Jews outside the Land might take active positions regarding the political vicissitudes in Judaea, and even serve as a factor to be taken into consideration by the shapers and enforcers of Roman policies in the east.^ Yet another catalyst causing some Jews to seek explanations for their dispersion may have evolved out of the Jewish-Christian polemic of the first centuries, wherein Jewish dispersion served as only one factor in a far wider attack on—and subsequent defense of—the very totality of ongoing Jewish existence.

Thus, the conditions that fashioned Jewish self-identity and self-image in the diaspora, and that also aroused the need to supply meaningful explanations for the very existence of that diaspora, emerged in a variety of contexts. This will help us to understand the diversity of explanations maintain links with a central cultic center, see the literature cited by R.L. Wilken, The Land Called Holy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992), p. 266 n. 3. 2. Note for example the effect on Petronius of potential Jewish reactions to Gaius Caligula's decree regarding the proposed statue to be erected in Jerusalem: Philo, Leg. Gai. 214, 281-83. Not only were these links not severed with the destruc­ tion of the Second Temple, but in many ways the growing influence of third- and fourth-century Judaean Patriarchs in the communal affairs of the diaspora commu­ nities, a situation well documented in rabbinic literature as well as Roman legal codices, may have even exceeded the influence exercised by Judaean authorities over the diaspora during the Second Temple period.

1. Jewish Dispersion

21

that we encounter, a consequence not only of the personal proclivities of the various Jewish individuals whose words we will take up, but of the varying conditions and audiences to whom their words were directed. The logical point of departure for most Jews addressing the phe­ nomenon of their dispersion would naturally have been the Bible. To the extent that Jews were acquainted with Scripture, whether in the original or in translations such as the Septuagint, they could not help but be aware of the fact that in the Bible dispersion was understood as punish­ ment for the sins of the people of Israel. In the books of Moses and the first prophets this coimection was still employed as a threat expressed in terms of a future punishment for as yet uncommitted sins (cf. Lev. 26.33; Deut. 28.63-64; Jer. 5.19; 9.15). Later prophets would point to already committed transgressions as the cause for the nation's current or recent calamities. Consequently, a Jew of the Second Temple period might naturally wonder whether the ongoing dispersion was not intended as a constant reminder of past misdeeds and the price paid for them by the nation. If this were the case, then the diaspora—notwithstanding all its political and economic success—would continue to be perceived as an essentially negative reality. To be sure, national or ethnic dispersions were not unknown in the Hellenistic-Roman world. However, these would be considered accept­ able and even praiseworthy so long as they were deemed the result of a colonizing effort on the part of the dispersed community. But to be forcibly removed from one's homeland as the result of conquest and exile could only be perceived as demeaning.^ This was succinctly

3. 'Whereas Greek colonization at the dawn of the city-state took on the colors of a glorious adventure, the contemporary migrations of the Jews were the conse­ quence of the multiple catastrophes which annihilated Israehte royalty and culminated in the deportation of the entire people' (J. Meleze-Modrzejewski, 'How to Be a Jew in Hellenistic Egypt?', in S.J.D. Cohen and E. Frerichs [eds.], Diasporas in Antiquity [BJS, 288; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993], p. 69). In somewhat similar fashion, some of the Greek and Latin renditions of the biblical exodus story, wherein the local Jewish community was expelled from Egypt for a variety of unflattering reasons, would also cast aspersions on that particular conmiunity's origins. Recent scholar­ ship, in fact, has suggested that the Jews of Egypt, no less than their Hellenistic counterparts, might have played an early role in the fashioning of certain extrabiblical exodus traditions, with an eye towards enhancing their own self-image as respectable participants in the history of ancient Egypt; this was suggested most recently by E.S. Gruen, 'The Use and Abuse of the Exodus Story' (forthcoming article; an earlier version was delivered as a paper at the Institute for Advanced

22

Land, Center and Diaspora

articulated in the Letter ofAristeas. When the king asks one of the wise men how one might express a love of country, the sage replies, 'Keep in mind that it is good to live and die in one's country. Residence abroad brings contempt upon poor men, and upon rich—disgrace, as though they were in exile for some wickedness' {Ep. Arist. 249). Indeed, the stigma attached by Hellenistic authors to those who were forced to leave their homeland would explain why Philo could heap such lavish praises upon Abraham for agreeing to leave home and family, which in effect amounted to banishment: The legislators have appointed banishment as the penalty second only to death for those who have been convicted of the greatest crimes, though indeed in my opinion it is not second to death...but rather a far heavier punishment, since death ends our troubles, but banishment is not the end but the beginning of other new misfortunes and entails, in place of one death which puts an end to pains, a thousand deaths in which we do not lose sensation {Abr. 64).''

To these two negative aspects of diaspora, the biblical view of sin as the major cause for dispersion and the Hellenistic rejection of uprootedness, the Jew of the diaspora could add yet another, at times more ominous, factor: Jews living outside of Judaea constantly lived with the fear that they might be punished by the ruling government for the sins of their brethren still residing in their perceived homeland. The author of Studies of the Hebrew University, 1996). For another recent treatment of the GraecoRoman version of the exodus story, c f P. Schaefer, 'The Exodus Tradition in Pagan Greco-Roman Literature', in I.M. Gafni, A. Oppenheimer and D.R. Schwartz (eds.). The Jews in the Hellenistic-Roman World: Studies in Memory of Menahem Stem (Jerusalem: Mercaz Zalman Shazar and the Historical Society of Israel, 1996), English Section, pp. 9-38. 4. For Philo the crucial words in God's commandment to Abraham were 'Go forth from your land, your birthplace and your father's house' (Gen. 12.1), whereas the sages would stress the latter part of the same scripture, i.e. 'to the land that I shall show you'. In rabbinic eyes Abraham's unqualified faith was exemplified by a willingness to go to an unnamed destination: 'Why did He not reveal [which land]? To render it more desirable in his (= Abraham's) eyes, and to give him a reward for each and every step' {Gen. R. 39.9 [ed. Theodor-Albeck, p. 372]). Elsewhere Philo reiterates the idea of dispersion as punishment and as a threat to be used against those who would behave wrongfully; see for example Conf Ling. 120-21, 197; but, as we shall note further on, he refrains from explaining the contemporary dispersion of the Jewish people as indicative of their sins, preferring instead to describe their commu­ nities as 'colonies', which obviously conjures up a positive development in the minds of his Greek readers.

1. Jewish Dispersion

23

the book of Tobit (1.18) considered it only natural that Sennacherib, after his setback in Jerusalem, would vent his anger on the Jews of Nineveh; Tobit himself was forced to flee after burying the Jewish victims of the king's wrath. Similarly, the author of 3 Maccabees had no difficulty connecting Ptolemy Philopator's humiliation in Jerusalem {3 Mace. 2.21-24) with his decrees against the Jews of Egypt. When the Greek-Egyptian author Lysimachus projects Jews as corrupt and sacrilegious. Stem may be justified in explaining this in light of GreekJewish tensions in Palestine in the wake of the Hasmonaean conquests.' Similarly, Cicero could justify the confiscation of Jewish funds in Asia Minor by the fact that their co-religionists in Judaea had recently done battle with Pompey (Pro Flacco 28.69),* and of course the most obvious link between the 'sins' of Judaean Jewry and the punishment inflicted on diaspora Jews would be the Jewish tax imposed by Vespasian (Josephus, War 7.218) on Jews throughout the Empire.^ And thus, whether you were a Jewish communal leader, a philosopher in first-century Alexandria or a sage in the Talmudic era, a variety of impulses might cause you to search for an understanding of the ongoing dispersion of Jews. The resuhs of such an inquiry might be needed to supply answers to co-religionists, possibly living in Judaea and beginning to cast aspersions on residence outside the Land, as well as to respond to potential non-Jewish polemicists, or simply to facilitate a self-under­ standing of the Jewish demographic reality in Late Antiquity.

5. Stem, Greek and Latin Authors, I, p. 386 n. 310; idem, 'The Jews in Greek and Latin Literature', in S. Safrai and M. Stem (eds.). The Jewish People in the First Century, II (CRINT; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1976), p. 1114; compare, however, I. Shatzman, 'The Hasmoneans in Greco-Roman Historiography' [Hebrew], Zion 57 (1992), pp. 5-64, who doubts the overriding influence of Hasmonaean activity on the Greek representations of Jews and Judaism. 6. Just as the confiscation of Jewish funds in Asia aroused the Jews of Rome, Cicero's speech and tactics are the perfect example of how the Romans tended to connect between the Jews of different provinces; see H. Lewy, 'Cicero on the Jews in his Speech for the Defence of Flaccus' [Hebrew], Zion 1 (1941-42), p. 125 (= H. Lewy, Studies in Jewish Hellenism [Hebrew] [Jemsalem: Bialik Institute, 1960], p. 101). 7. For literature on this tax, see Schurer, History, II, p. 272 n. 58. On the extent of this tax and its significance among the Jews of Egypt, see V.A. Tcherikover, Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, I (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press and Magnes Press, 1957), pp. 80-82; II (1960), pp. 119-36, 204-208.

24

Land, Center and Diaspora

1. Diaspora as Punishment As might be expected, those Jewish works of the Second Temple period that were written in Judaea and primarily in the Hebrew language, and which project a sense of continuity with biblical tradition, embraced the biblical perception of diaspora as divine punishment for the sins of Israel. Thus, for example, Sirach writes (48.15): 'Nevertheless (i.e. despite the warnings and signs of the prophets) the nation did not repent or desist from sin; until they were banished from their country and dispersed throughout the land'. This is the predominant emphasis in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, and the premise appears repeatedly in books such as the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. The Testament of Levi (10.3-4) predicts that 'you shall act lawlessly in Israel, with the result that Jerusalem cannot bear the presence of your wickedness...you shall be scattered as captives among the nations where you will be a disgrace and a curse'.* Even more of an elaboration can be found in the Testament of Asher (7.2-7): 'For I know that you will sin and be delivered into the hands of your enemies, your land shall be made desolate and your sanctuary wholly polluted. You will be scattered to the four comers of the earth, in the dispersion you shall be regarded as worthless...' The same link appears at the very beginning of the Book of Jubilees (1.9-13), and again in the Psalms of Solomon (9.1).' In similar fashion the famous Jewish 'novels' of the Second Temple period, Tobit (3.4) and Judith (5.18), also take for granted the dispersion of Israel as the result of the nation's transgressions. This same sentiment can even be identified in a number of books written in the Egyptian-Hellenistic diaspora, with a prime example being the Third Sybilline Oracle (26776). Indeed, even those works written in the aftermath of the destmction of the Second Temple continue to maintain the basic biblical linkage between sin and dispersion (cf. e.g. 2 Bar. 1.2-4). It is not at all surprising to find that the sages also followed this deeply entrenched premise linking expulsion from the Land with the nation's sins. In fact, some rabbis even expressed themselves in a manner not unlike that of Philo, by equating exile with death: '"Cast me not off in the time of old age" (Ps. 71.9)—for I have become old in galut...; "Thou Shalt bring me up again" (Ps. 71.20)—some explain this to mean

8. 9.

Compare T. Dan. 5.8. See dl&o Ass. Mos. 3.12-13.

1. Jewish Dispersion

25

from the exile which is the equal of death and the abyss' (Midr. Ps. 71.4 [ed. Buber, p. 323]). As we shall see, this rabbinic approach will ultimately be tempered, and certain sages will attempt to introduce a positive side to the nation's exile. But the overwhelming consensus of rabbinic statements still main­ tains the biblical attitude, with the rabbis even pointing to historical precedents for the link between sin and exile, precedents going back to the dawn of civilization and serving as a permanent warning for all who might stray from God's decrees: R. Abbahu in the name of R. Yosse bar Hanina said: 'But they like men have transgressed the covenant' (nnD TQ^J mt^D nam; Hos. 6.7)—^This is Adam; God said: Adam, I brought him into the Garden of Eden and commanded him, and he transgressed my commandments, and I sen­ tenced him to banishment... and his sons too, 1 brought them into the Land of Israel and commanded them, and they transgressed my command­ ments and I sentenced them to banishment' (Pes. K., Lamentation 1 [ed. Mandelbaum, p. 249]).

Correspondingly, among the ten decrees that were issued with regard to Adam was one 'that his children wander from city to city' (or 'from country to country'; A/W Version B, ch. 42 [ed. Schechter, p. 116]). This designation of Israel as 'the sons' of Adam is far from surprising, given the fact that by the third century Adam was already fashioned by the sages as the first 'Israelite' (he speaks Hebrew, keeps Sabbath and Passover, studies Torah and even is credited with writing one of the Psalms)."' Indeed the rabbis had no choice but to ultimately 'exhume' his body from its traditional burial spot in Jerusalem, and rebury it in the only fitting site for the father of the nation, the national mausoleum at Hebron." 10. For Adam's use of Hebrew see Gen. R. 17.4 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, pp. 15556); for Sabbath see Gen. R. 16.5 (p. 149); for Passover see PRE 21 (ed. Friedlander, p. 153); for the study of Torah see Sifre Deut. 41 (ed. Finkelstein, p. 87); PRE 12 (p. 85) and compare Seder Eliyyahu Rabbah 1 (ed. Friedman, p. 35), where Adam is listed among the early righteous who kept Torah; for Psalms see Gen. R. 22.13 (p. 220); b. B. Bat. 14b and parallels; and cf. L. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, V (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1947), p. 112 n. 103. 11. I.M. Gafni, '"Pre-Histories" of Jerusalem in Hellenistic, Jewish and Christian Literature', JSP 1 (1987), pp. 11-16; the rabbis were responding to the Christian role of Adam as the prefiguration of Christ, a role which necessitated his burial at the site of Golgotha, thereby pre-empting the earlier Jewish tradition of

26

Land, Center and Diaspora

Other rabbinic sages went even further, searching either for particular transgressions, or at times even for particular sinners, as responsible for the nation's exile. The greater the punishment, the more prominent the sinner, and thus none less than the Patriarchs were found lacking, and ultimately responsible for their sons' exile and subjugation to the nations. Indeed, one senses a certain political uneasiness on the part of certain rabbis, who would have the punishment fit the crime. Banishment and subjugation were thus understood to be the natural consequence of a lack of faith regarding the conquest and inheritance of the Land. Abraham was promised the Land for his sons as an inheritance, only to express his doubts: 'And he said: Lord God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?' (Gen. 15.8). Is it any wonder, the sages note, that God forthwith informs him: 'Know you that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them, and they shall afflict them four hundred years' (Gen. 15.13; Ned. 32a). Dating these sentiments and assigning them a particular historical context is highly speculative, but there is definitely a strain of political activism among certain rabbis—at times striking—that finds fault in the hesitations of the Patriarchs at crucial junctures, and considers their political waverings a major cause of Israel's loss of its rightful political role among the nations. The most striking of these accusations, to my mind, is the interpretation given by certain Palestinian amoraim to Jacob's vision of the ladder leading to heaven: 'And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven, and behold the angels of God were ascending and descending it' (Gen. 28.12)—R. Shmuel b. Nahman said: Do you really think these were the angels? Nay, they were the masters of the nations of the world... R. Berecliiah...in the name of R. Meir said: He showed him the master of Babylonia ascend and descend, and of Media ascend and descend, and of Greece ascend and descend, and of Edom ascend and descend. He said: Master of the Universe, just as these have descended I too will descend? And God told him: Fear not, go up, for you will ascend but not descend. Nevertheless he (= Jacob) was afraid, and did not ascend...and God told him: Jacob, had you believed and gone up you would never have descended, but because you had no faith and did not go up your sons will be caught up and involved with the nations, from nation to nation, from Babylon to Media, from Media to Greece, from Greece to

Adam's burial in Jerusalem. One wonders whether it is merely by chance that R. Abbahu of Caesarea, known for his anti-Christian polemic, is the sage that projects Adam as the forerunner of the Israelites in particular.

1. Jewish Dispersion

27

Edom. He said to Him: Lord of the Universe, forever?! And God told him: 'Fear not my servant Jacob... neither be dismayed O Israel, for I will save thee from afar' (Jer. 30.10), from Gallia and Aspamea, 'and your seed from the land of their captivity'—from Baby Ionia... from Media, from Greece...from Edom (Lev. R. 29.2).

This same motif, lack of faith regarding inheritance of the Land as cause for banishment and dispersion, appears elsewhere in rabbinic hterature,'^ and one can only speculate as to the source of this political activism that generated such attacks on the likes of Abraham or Jacob. Be that as it may, the common factor to these explanations is the overridingly nega­ tive view of dispersion: it is bad, and so it must be the result of sins. 2. Voluntary Dispersion as a Blessing Dispersion as punishment created an untenable position for historically conscious Jews who might nevertheless have tried to put a more positive face on the diaspora phenomenon. If it were only possible to show that at least a portion of the Jewish dispersion did not derive from forced exile but was the result of a voluntary emigration, the diaspora might be rendered somewhat more acceptable, in Jewish as well as non-Jewish eyes. Inasmuch as certain Jewish authors in Ptolemaic Egypt were cognizant of the fact that the local Jewish community was not primarily descended from those who were exiled or had fled Judaea at the time of the destruction, but was rather the result of mass voluntary movements of Jews to Egypt in the early Hellenistic period, this opened up the possibility of creating a distance between the sins of ancient Israel and

12. The most prominent rabbinic example of a lack of faith leading directly to destruction is the midrash to Num. 14.1, wherein the people wept upon hearing the reports of the spies sent to scout Canaan: 'Rabbah said in the name of R. Yohanan: [And the people wept] that night: "that night" was the eve of the Ninth of Ab. God told them: You wept this time without reason, and I (therefore) will appoint for you weeping for generations to come' (b. Ta'an. 29a). Urbach has cited this midrash as an example of a causal historical approach on the part of the rabbis; see E.E. Urbach, 'Halakhah and History', in R. Hamerton-Kelly and R. Scroggs (eds.), Jews, Greeks and Christians: Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity. Essays in Honor of W.D. Davies (SJLA, 21; Leiden: Brill, 1976), p. 116; see, however, my comments in 'Concepts of Periodization and Causality in Talmudic Literature', pp. 28-29. For connections between the cited midrash on Jacob's ladder and the pseudepigraphical 'Ladder of Jacob' that has survived only in a variety of Slavonic versions, see J. Kugel, 'The Ladder of Jacob', HTR 88 (1995), pp. 209-27.

28

Land, Center and Diaspora

the presence of a large Jewish community in the Hellenistic diaspora in contemporary times. Needless to say, the 'facts' surrounding this voluntary emigration are far from certain. While one well-known source described the transfer of one hundred thousand Jewish captives to Egypt by Ptolemy I {Ep. Arist. 12-14; Josephus, Ant. 12.11-33), another source (Josephus, Apion 1.186-87) attributed to Hecataeus of Abdera the fact that Jews of Syria, accompanied by the priest Hezekiah and his entourage, willingly moved to Egypt after the battle of Gaza (312 BCE), with the hope of enjoying the benevolent attitude displayed towards them by the enlightened Egyptian king. In the text attributed to Hecataeus (Josephus, Apion 1.194) we are also informed that following the death of Alexander the Great myriads of Jews emigrated from Judaea to Egypt and Phoenicia.'^ The truth in these varying reports probably lies somewhere in the middle (some captives, some voluntary emigrants), but in any case the 'knowledge' that Jews arrived in Egypt of their own free will would serve not only as a factor in their demands for civic rights in the city of Alexandria, but could also be utilized in the internal discussion about dispersion, effectively creating a distance between biblical banishment from the Land on the one hand and the existence of a thriving Jewish community in Hellenistic-Roman Egypt on the other.''* Moreover, bearing in mind the stigma Hellenistic observers attached to forced exile, the removal of this aspect would help contribute to the presentation of Jewish diaspora communities as 'colonies'. In fact, not

13. Scholarly opinion is divided on the relative veracity of these opposing sources; cf. V.A. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1959), pp. 56-57; compare MelezeModrzejewski, 'How to Be a Jew', p. 69; idem. The Jews of Egypt: From Rameses II to Emperor Hadrian (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1995), pp. 73-74, 83, 99; for a summary of the causes for Jewish emigration from Judaea in Second Temple times, see A. Kasher, 'Jewish Migration and Settlement in the Hellenistic-Roman Period' [Hebrew], in A. Shinan (ed.). Emigration and Settlement in Jewish and General History (Jerusalem: Mercaz Zalman Shazar, 1982), pp. 6591. 14. All this might lend further support to the argument that the statement attributed by Josephus to Hecataeus in fact derives from a Jewish source (cf. C.R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. I. Historians [Pseudepigrapha Series, 10; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983], pp. 277-90), or at least might have been influenced by an oral Jewish tradition; cf. Stem, Greek and Latin Authors, I, p. 42.

1. Jewish Dispersion

29

only does the Septuagint employ the term ccTioiKia for the biblical but as we shall see further on (cf. the beginning of Chapter 3) Philo also uses the term in describing the nature of Jewish communities throughout the world {Vit. Mos. 2.232). In fact, for a thinker like Philo, living 'in exile' might also assume a spiritual meaning, rather than refer simply to one removed from his geographical tribal homeland. Those who convert to Judaism from their previous world of superstition are described by Philo as emigrants turning (\iEzavaaxaq) to the truth, and are seen as having 'moved to a better residence' (KaX,fiv ocTtoiKiav; Spec. Leg. 4.178). Describing 'galut' as an inferior spiritual reality, and conversely presenting the 'city of God' not as the earthly Jerusalem but rather as a spiritual life of contemplation and peace (Philo, Somn. 2.250) might have contributed considerably towards an easing of the harsh implications of physical exile, especially in the eyes of a Jewish commu­ nity enjoying a relatively peaceful existence in the diaspora. As we shall note further on (Chapter 3), Josephus also attempted to alleviate the stigma of dispersion, by claiming that indeed it was none other than God—using Balaam as his prophet—who blessed Israel by promising it 'the whole habitable world...as an eternal habitation' {Ant. 4.115). Separating Josephus from Philo, of course, was the destruction of the Second Temple, but in fact Josephus consistently stresses the universal role of the Jewish people, while at the same time downplaying the promise of the Land to the Patriarchs. As noted by A. Schalit, Josephus was in effect already singing 'the praises of Israel as a nation living in the diaspora...this diaspora not only does not represent a calamity or endanger the existence of the nation, but to the contrary: it was a destiny that God had established for Israel'.'* In a sense, projecting the diaspora as an 'eternal habitation' places Josephus in a position far more extreme than that of Philo. The latter apparently found no contradiction between his stressing of the positive implication of dispersion as a sign of the nation's growth {Vit. Mos. 2.232), and his cultivation, at the same time, of a belief in a future ingathering of the people of Israel to their Land {Praem. Poen. 115).

15. Cf. Meleze-Modrzejewski, 'How to be a Jew', p. 68. 16. Cf. A. Schalit's Hebrew translation of Josephus's Antiquities, Antiquitates Judaicae, U. (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1967), p. 43 n. 295a; for an appreciation of Schalit's understanding of Josephus's political views, see D.R. Schwartz, 'On Abraham Schalit, Herod, Josephus, the Holocaust, Horst R. Moehring, and the Study of Ancient Jewish History', Jewish History 2 (1987), pp. 9-28.

30

Land, Center and Diaspora

Josephus, on the other hand, shows no signs of sharing such a belief.'^ The common ground shared by both authors was their attempt at portraying the dispersion of Israel in terms similar to the spread of other nations, that is, as the creators of colonies. The sages, in contradistinction, maintain a totally different position. Indeed, some rabbis were aware of the fact that other peoples also have diasporas, but proclaimed: 'Judah has gone into exile' (Lam. L3)—Do not the nations of the world go into exile? [The fact is, however, that] though they go into exile, their exile is not really exile. The heathen nations who eat their bread (i.e. local bread) and drink their wine their exile is not real exile, but Israel—who do not eat their bread or drink their wine—do experience real exile (Lam. R. 1.28).

That is, the pain of exile is meaningful only to those who cannot assimi­ late into their new surroundings. As opposed to Israel, other nations feel 'at home' even when far removed from their native countries. Can the people of Israel share such a sense of belonging? According to Philo and Josephus the answer was affirmative; according to the sages—decidedly not. 3. Dispersion and Exile: A Search for the Silver Lining While embracing theodicy in their wish to justify the harshness of exile from the Land, the sages nevertheless searched for a ray of light within what was otherwise considered a justified punitive process. As noted, the inability of the Jewish people to assimilate rendered their dispersion, in rabbinic eyes at least, as the ultimate criterion for 'galut'. But this very same chastisement was also given a positive role: it was their very reluc­ tance to assimilate that ultimately assured the people of Israel a final restoration to the Land. All this was derived from the fate of Noah's dove: And he (Noah) sent forth a dove, ...but the dove found no rest for the sole of its foot and so it returned to him, to the ark' (Gen. 8.8-9). R. Judah

17. Cf. A. Shochet, 'Josephus' Outlook on the Future of Israel and its Land' [Hebrew], in M. Ish-Shalom, M. Benayahu, Y. Press and A. Shohet (eds.), Yerushalayim, I (Jerusalem: Mosad Ha-Rav Kook, 1953), pp. 43-50; Shochet (unlike Schalit and others) nevertheless tried to show that Josephus did not abandon a future relationship between the people of Israel and the Land, but he too admits that Jo.sephus's version of Balaam's speech was opposed to the rabbinic belief in a future restoration to the Land. See also Wilken, The Land, pp. 273-74 n. 58.

1. Jewish Dispersion

31

b. Nahman in the name of Resh Laqish said: 'Had it found a place of rest—it would not have returned' {Gen. R. 33.6 [ed. Theodor-Albeck, p. 310]).

Now this exegesis hardly seems profound, except that the sages were playing with an association of phrases. The phrase 'to find rest for the sole of the foot' appears in one other, but crucial, scripture: 'And among these nations shalt thou have no rest, and you shall find no rest for the sole of your foot' (Deut. 28.65)—had they found [rest], the midrash continues, they too would not have returned. And thus the very nature of dispersion carries with it an element of comfort. Indeed, the greater the pain of dispersion, the more assured the people might be of God's fulfillment of the promise for an ultimate restoration. The biblical imagery used by the sages to describe 'galut' also lent itself to a sort of consolation within the process: 'And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth' (Gen. 13.16)—Just as the dust of the earth is found from one end of the world to the other, so shall thy children be found from one end of the earth to the other.. .and as the dust of the earth wears out even metal utensils yet it itself endures forever, so will Israel exist forever while the nations of the world will cease to be; and as the dust of the earth is trodden upon, so will thy children be downtrodden under the heel of foreign powers...nevertheless it is for thy benefit, for they purify thee of guilt (lit. they beat you of your guilt; I'mn ]D ]-pvpm)... What did they (the powers) do to them? They made them lie down in the streets and drew ploughs over them. R. Azariah said in R. Aha's name: 'That is a good augury; as the street outlives those who travel on it, yet itself remains forever, so shall thy sons outlive the nations of the world, and they will remain forever' {Gen. R. 40.9 [ed. Theodor-Albeck, pp. 395-97]).

While homiletics like these might be applied to alleviate the pain of 'galut', it is doubtful whether the dispersion as such was die focus of the derasha. Rather, it appears that statements like these, and similar ones, wish to stress primarily that 'there is no nation as downtrodden [today] as Israel, that is destined to rise up' {Tanh. Mishpatim 5). Not so the following tradition, which clearly attempted to introduce a positive side specifically to the dispersion of Israel: 'R. Oshaya said: ...The Holy One Blessed is He showed righteousness (or: mercy) unto Israel by scattering them among the nations' {b. Pes. 87b). This statement is followed by a somewhat enigmatic story of a min who said to R. Judah Nesi'ah:'*

18. This is the correct reading, as noted by S. Lieberman, Greek in

Jewish

32

Land, Center and Diaspora We are held in greater esteem (i.e. we are more righteous) than you. Concerning you it is written: 'For Yoav and all of Israel remained there six months until he had cut off every male in Edom' (1 Kgs 11.16); whereas you have been among us for many years, and yet we have not done anything to you!

R. Oshaya proceeds to reply on behalf of the Patriarch: The reason (you haven't) is because you do not know what to do. If you would destroy us all—we are not (all) among you. If you were to destroy those among you—you would be called a murderous kingdom (or: a king­ dom that is lacking). He replied: By the Goddess (or: love) of Rome''—it is with this thought that we he down and with this thought that we get up!

The idea expressed here was fleshed out a bit more in another rabbinic text. Seder Eliyyahu Rabbah (ch. 10 [ed. Friedman, p. 54]): A hegemon (governor) told R. Judah the Patriarch: 'We have more pity than you. When you had the power over Edom you did not permit but one pregnant woman to s u r v i v e . . . ' (a disciple then replies— mysteriously—to the hegemon: 'Don't you think the homeowner knows where he put his tools?'; the hegemon, at first dumbfounded, finally understands the implication and explains): 'From one hundred places [plans against you] have been formulated. But we said: If we kill those in Eretz Israel, who will kill for us those north and south? And if we kill (those) north and south, who will kill for us those in Babylonia and Elam and in other lands? And so everything is cancelled. Of course the owner (i.e. God) knows where he put his tools (i.e. the people of Israel); when he returns to his house (i.e. the Land, or the Temple) he will restore the tools to his house.'

And so there is a practical advantage to dispersion, for it is this scattering that renders the total destruction of Israel at the hands of the nations an impossible—although desired—^undertaking. While this exchange is presented as a confrontation between a Jewish sage and a min (or hegemon), it would appear to be primarily a literary Palestine (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1942), p. 141 n. 195; and E.E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1975), p. 542 n. 62 (printed talmudic versions read here: R. Hanina). 19. The phrase is "'Nam 1^23 and is obviously some sort of exclamatory oath, apparently from the Greek ccYaTtri; while S. Krauss (Griechische und lateinische Lehnwdrter im Talmud, Midrash und Targum, I-II [Berlin: S. Calvary, 1898-1899], p. 182) understood it to mean 'by the love of Rome', Lieberman (Greek, p. 140) suggests that the reference is to the goddess Isis, who is referred to at times as (fiXia (= love), a term often interchanged with dydTtTi.

1. Jewish Dispersion

33

device. The editor of Seder Eliyyahu Rabbah knew that the Roman hegemon, while sensitive to past cruelties inflicted by Israel on 'Edom', had no real power to inflict punishment upon those Jews living in (Sasanian) Babylonia. But it would be far-fetched to assume that we have here an actual debate based on any real confrontation.^'^ Rather, this would seem to be a totally internalized argument, which would carry little weight in convincing Israel's adversaries of the advantages of dispersion. Only a Jew would be comforted with the logic here, and medieval commentators would have no trouble attaching it to Jacob's preparations in dividing his camp, so that 'should Esau come to the one camp and smite it, the other camp will survive as a refuge' (Gen. 32.9).^' Because this attempt to find a bright side to what is in essence a painful reality was intended primarily for a Jewish audience that found itself confronted by a hostile Roman (and Roman-Byzantine) govern­ ment, it is not surprising that this type of explanation did not find its way into Jewish-Hellenistic literature. Nor was the need to employ it felt by the Jewish authors writing in Hebrew, in Judaea, prior to the destruc­ tion of the Second Temple. It is a uniquely rabbinic argument, possibly coming on tiie heels of the painful events of the destruction, as well as the Jewish wars under Trajan and Hadrian. With many thousands of Jews killed during these wars, one can readily understand the need for precisely such a comforting explanation. This is not to say that rabbinic literature is totally devoid of expla­ nations for the dispersion that served a decidedly polemic purpose. This was certainly the case as the Jewish-Christian polemic began to heat up, with the removal of Israel from its land assuming a central position and

20. Compare Urbach, The Sages, pp. 542-43; see also M.D. Herr, 'The Sages' Reaction to Antisemitism in the Hellenistic-Roman World', in S. Almog (ed.), Antisemitism through the Ages (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1988), p. 33 n. 11; while Herr considers the dialogue between the hegemon and Judah Nesi'ah 'a characteristic example of the polemic between the Jew-haters and the Jews', this does not remove such a polemic from the realm of a literary device, rather than the report of an actual confrontation. Indeed, Herr (p. 33 n. 11) notes correctly that the verse used by the hegemon in his attack (1 Kgs 11.16) is commonly placed by the midrashim in the mouths of antisemites in their attempts to prove the misanthropy of the Jews. 21. Cf. Nahmanides to Gen. 32.9; while the midrash (Gen. R. 763 [ed. TheodorAlbeck, pp. 899-900]) assumes that this was Jacob's intention and also notes prac­ tical implications for the present, it does not suggest outright that this was indeed God's plan in dispersing the nation.

34

Land, Center and Diaspora

constantly compared to the woman dismissed by her husband.^^ The rabbinic reply to these claims would usually stress that so long as the woman possessed her ketubah (the marriage contract, which in the con­ text of the relations between God and Israel was the Torah) she has not been totally dismissed, but temporarily sent off—or her husband has gone away—until the air between the marital partners is cleared. One such example of this approach describes how the nations of the world scoff at Israel and proclaim: Why has God exiled you from your land and destroyed His Temple? And Israel replies by saying: We are like a King's daughter who has gone to carry out 'regel redufim' ( D ' S m b^l) at her father's house; in the end she will return home in peace (Cant. R. 8.10).

As noted by Torczyner and Kimelman^^ the midrash appears to be referring to the Roman practice of regale repudium, whereby a partner in marriage is sent away temporarily rather than divorced outright. As we shall see shortly, the Babylonian Talmud (b. Pes. 87b) also employs the image of a woman who is temporarily sent back to her mother's home (HQt^ Wlb^'^ after sinning, but there the thrust of the argument will be to explain why, of all the lands of the earth, Israel was exiled specifically to Babylonia. The reply will be to designate Babylonia as Israel's original 'home', inasmuch as its Patriarch Abraham originally came from across the Euphrates. Palestinian sources, of course, would use the image of the wife shipped back home for purely polemical purposes—with the bottom line being that this act was of a purely temporary nature, a necessary process of re-education before the ultimate restoration.

22. For examples, see R. Kimelman, 'Rabbi Yohanan and Origen on the Song of Songs: A Third-Century Jewish-Christian Disputation', HTR 73 (1980), p. 589. 23. Cf. N. Torczyner, 'R. Yohanan said: They are referring to B'Regel Redufim Shanu" [Hebrew], in M. Schwabe and I. Gutman (eds.), Commentationes ludaicoHellenisticae in memoriam lohannis Lewy (1901-1945) (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1949), p. 59; Kimelman, 'Rabbi Yohanan', pp. 590-91 n. 101. 24. While printed versions of the Talmud read 'to her mother's home', the Munich MSS (cf. Dikduqe Soferim ad loc.) reads 'to her father's home' (rfHS n'3'7) as was the case in the above quoted midrash from Cant. R. 'Father', however, might be an emendation in the Babylonian Talmud text influenced by the allusion there to Abraham.

1. Jewish Dispersion

35

4. Dispersion as a Universal Mission In contrast to all the explanations introduced up to now to explain the diaspora phenomenon, one attempt would be made to suggest that in fact dispersion was intended for the benefit of the non-Jewish world. This approach is not unique to rabbinic literature, and its antecedents may be found in a source as early as the book of Tobit. In Tobit's hymn of praise to God after all ends well, he includes the following: 'Acknowledge^' Him before the nations, children of Israel, for He has scattered you among them; and there He has shown you His greatness. Therefore extol Him before all the living, because He is our Lord' (Tob. 13.3-4). A bit further along in the same hymn Tobit says: 'I, in the land of my captivity, give Him thanks, and show His strength and majesty unto a sinful nation; return sinners and do righteousness before Him' (Tob. 13.8). While this second scripture might be aimed at Israel, the first one clearly was in­ tended for 'the nations'—but there, too, there is no explicit suggestion that the purpose of dispersion was to spread the knowledge of God among the nations. Nevertheless the author^^ clearly saw a link between the dispersion of Israel and the spreading of this knowledge, and his expressed hope later on is that ultimately 'many nations will come from afar in the name of God' (Tob. 13.13). This connection between the scattering of Israel among the nations and the dissemination of the knowledge of God found its way into rab­ binic literature as well, but with a possibly different emphasis. One of the most frequently cited rabbinic traditions suggests that the purpose for scattering the people of Israel was not merely didactic, but for the specific purpose of 'increasing proselytes': 25. e^onoX,OYeio6E autm; my colleague D.R. Schwartz has suggested this preference for 'acknowledge' over the usual 'give thanks', inasmuch as it relates to his demonstration of greatness further on. 26. It has been suggested, however, that chs. 13 and 14 of Tobit are later additions to the work, inasmuch as they depart from the personal nature of the story and assume a far more general approach to Israel's role in dispersion; cf. F. Zimmermann, The Boole of Tobit (New York: Harper-Dropsie College, 1958), pp. 24-25, 112; note also D. Flusser's comment inM.E. Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (CRINT; Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), p. 556 (but compare to the discussion by G.W.E. Nickelsburg in the same volume, pp. 40-46). This issue has been taken up most recently by S. Weitzman, 'Allusion, Artifice and Exile in the Hymn of Tobit', JBL 115 (1996), pp. 49-61 (esp. 50-51 nn. 4-6). Weitzman supports the relationship of ch. 13 to the poetics as well as the overall ideology of Tobit.

36

Land, Center and Diaspora R. Eleazar^^ said: 'The Holy One, Blessed is He, did not exile Israel among the nations save in order that proselytes might join them, for it is written: "And I will sow her unto me in the land (Hos. 2.25)—surely a man sows a se'ah in order to harvest many kor?!'" R. Yohanan deduced it from this: 'And I will have compassion upon her that hath not obtained compassion, and I will say to them that are not my people—thou art my people' (Hos. 2.25; b. Pes. 87b).

If indeed this is the correct reading of the talmudic passage, we have before us the closest expression of a universal mission attached to Israel's dispersion. However, while our printed editions do read: n'npn nb:n n n : n^''7i2 isoin^c "-ID K ' ^ K mait^n i^nb "7)100'm, at least two manuscripts (Munich B and Columbia X893-T141; also Yalkut) read differendy: D-i: Dn-b:; TDT?^ -nD

'PNitO''

n"npn rbiT]

(translation: The Holy One, Blessed is He, did not exile Israel to Babylonia...). It is possible, however, that this second reading was influ­ enced by the continuation of the talmudic discussion, wherein God's choice of Babylonia in particular as the site for the first exile was taken up. As noted above, the answer supplied is that they were exiled to 'their mother's home', that is, their original homeland, since Abraham originated from Ur of the Chaldeans. Interestingly, it was Abraham's persona in particular that was linked to proselytic activity,^^ but there is no evidence to connect Abraham's early career with the other state­ ments in b. Pesahim. There is no doubt, however, that some sages did link the dispersion of Israel—throughout history—^with the possibility of spreading monothe­ istic faith. Indeed it was Abraham who was assigned a major role in this connection: 'Thy name is as ointment poured forth' (Cant. 1.3)—R. Yohanan interpreted this scripture in connection with our patriarch Abraham. When God told him 'go forth from your land and place of birth' (Gen. 12.1)— 27. "ITU'PK 'DH—this is the version in almost all the manuscripts, and not R. Eliezer; the reference, then, is to R. Eleazar b. Pedath, a Babylonian amora who emigrated to Palestine and inherited R. Yohanan's position there in the latter portion of the third century. 28. Cf. M. Goodman, 'Proselytising in Rabbinic Judaism', JJS 4 0 (1989), p. 178; Goodman also notes that whereas the sages project Abraham as the first great proselytizer, Philo and Josephus place far greater emphasis on his own righteousness as a convert himself; cf. also M. Goodman, Mission and Conversion: Proselytizing in the Religious History of the Roman Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), pp. 89, 144-45.

1. Jewish Dispersion

37

what was he Hke? He may be compared to a flask of perfume that was sitting in a comer and not emitting any scent; someone came and shook it from its place and its scent began to spread. So said God to Abraham: 'Abraham, you have many good deeds, you have many mitzvot—move around the world...' (Cant. R. 1.3).

Now Abraham—who lived before Sinai—did not have many mitzvot, but Israel did, and just a few lines further on in the same midrash it is Israel's dispersion and ultimate redemption that will serve as a universal mission enhancing conversion: R. Berechiah said: 'Israel told the Holy One Blessed is He: Lord of the universe, when you bring light to the world your name becomes famous in the world (D'71:J3 ^IXn -pD), and what is that light? Redemption. For when you bring us that light many converts come and convert and are added to us' (Cant. R. 1.3).

Additional proof that this idea was cultivated in circles close to the sages seems to emerge from the words of Origen (Contra Celsum 1.55). He claims that in a discussion with those of the Jews considered 'wise men', one of them told him that the prophet Isaiah (chs. 52-53) described Israel in a particular way because 'they have been dispersed and beaten, but converts will multiply as a result of the dispersion of the Jews among the other nations'. All this is not to say that the idea of a 'universal mission' as an expla­ nation for Jewish dispersion actually points to an active proselyting poUcy embraced by Jews throughout the world of Late Antiquity. To be sure, there can be no doubt that Jews did not shrink from employing sophis­ ticated literary techniques—and especially in the Greek language—as a means of enabling their readers to appreciate the Jewish faith.^^ More­ over, they could not have been unaware of expressions of sympathy for Judaism heard in certain aristocratic circles in Rome.^° But it is a long way from propaganda literature to an active missionary enterprise. In fact, some of the literature commonly referred to may have been intended for a Jewish readership rather than a Greek one. Even if we are 29. Cf. P. Dalbert, Die Theologie der hellenistich-jiidischen Missionsliteratur unter Ausschluss von Philo und Josephus (Hamburg-Volksdorf: H. Reich, 1954); M. Goodman, 'Jewish Proselytizing in the First Century', in J. Lieu, J. North and T. Rajak (eds.), The Jews among Pagans and Christians in the Roman Empire (London: Routledge, 1992), p. 57. 30. Cf. M. Stem, 'Sympathy for Judaism in Roman Senatorial Circles in the Period of the Early Empire' [Hebrew], Zion 29 (1964), pp. 155-67.

38

Land, Center and Diaspora

to assume that non-Jews were also considered a potential audience for these works, whether this can be construed as active proselytism or simply an attempt at presenting a positive image of the Jewish faith is far from certain.^' In any case, activity such as that conducted by the Jewish merchant Hananiah, who taught the women in the court of the king of Charax Spasinu 'to worship God according to the Jewish laws of the fathers' (Josephus, Ant. 20.34) can certainly serve as an example of how Jewish dispersion might have served to spread the knowledge of a monotheistic faith throughout the world.^^ Moreover, the ongoing dispersion of the Jewish people in the face of a growing Christian community might also have encouraged certain Jewish authorities to cause the voice of the Jewish faith to be heard. This activity might have served to allay a growing sense of doubt felt in some Jewish circles, and to remain silent precisely when religious propagan­ dizing was developing into a common practice^^ might even have increased such agitation. In any case, it was only to be expected that both Jews and Christians would begin to perceive a connection between the scattering of the Jews among the nations, and the monotheistic message—whether Jewish or Christian—^that could thereby find its way to all comers of the world.^'' 31. Tcherikover was among the first to raise serious doubts about the polemical nature of much of Hellenistic-Jewish literature, suggesting instead a primarily Jewish readership as the intended audience; see V.A. Tcherikover, 'Jewish Apologetic Literature Reconsidered', Eos 48 (1956), Fasc. 3, pp. 169-93. The jury is still out on this issue; cf. S.J.D. Cohen, 'Was Judaism in Antiquity a Missionary Religion?', in M. Mor (ed.), Jewish Assimilation, Acculturation and Accomodation: Past Traditions, Current Issues and Future Prospects (Lanham MD: University Press of America, 1992), p. 17; Goodman, 'Jewish Proselytizing', p. 66; idem. Mission and Conversion, p. 79; compare with L.H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993), pp. 288-341 (esp. 293-98). 32. Note also the possibility that at least two of the expulsions of the Jews from ancient Rome (139 BCE and 19 CE) appear to be the result of some sort of Jewish proselytizing; cf. M. Stern, 'The Expulsions of Jews from Rome in Antiquity' [Hebrew], Zion 44 (1979), p. 26; see, however, the doubts raised by Goodman, Mission and Conversion, pp. 82-83. 33. Goodman, Mission and Conversion, p. 152. 34. Beginning with Paul (Romans, ch. 11) Christians would indeed consider the dispersion of the Jews to be something of a praeparatio evangelica; coupled with the destruction and the assumption that Jews would now curtail the national and ritual

1. Jewish Dispersion

39

And yet, despite all the above and even in the face of the tradition in b. Pes. 87b, one does not sense that the idea of dispersion as a universal mission occupied a major position in the thinking of the talmudic sages (although, curiously, this was the one issue where neo-orthodox thinkers such as S.R. Hirsch would find a common voice with espousers of Jewish reform in the nineteenth centory).^^ The rabbis appear to have adopted a different route, whereby Gentiles might embrace a monotheistic belief not so much as the result of active proselytizing but rather by drawing their own conclusions from the behavior of certain model figures inter­ acting both with fellow Jews as well as with others. Shimon b. Shatah's exemplary act of returning a lost object to its rightful—and non-Jewish— owner, no less than any active propaganda, might bring the Gentile to proclaim that 'blessed is the God of the Jews' (y. B. Mes. 2.8c). In any case, the idea that Jews might have had a positive and lasting influence on their surroundings was not limited to rabbinic circles. A totally different tack was taken by certain Jewish-Hellenistic authors, who appear to claim that the earliest Israelite travelers to places such as Egypt had already left a profound mark on those countries. Writing in the second century BCE, Artapanus mamtains that it was Abraham who taught astrology to the Egyptian king, Joseph who introduced order into the country's economic system, and Moses the teacher of Orpheus... who invented boats and bricklaying machines, weapons for Egypt and tools for irrigation and war, philosophy, and also divided the land into thirty-six districts, assigning to each its own

elements of their religion, it is not surprising that certain theologians in fact attributed to the Jewish diaspora a critical role in the spread of Christianity; cf. A. Hamack, Die Mission undAusbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1902; English translation by J. Moffatt: The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries, I-H, 2nd edn, 1984); compare S.J.D. Cohen, 'Adolph Hamack's, "The Mission and Expansion of Judaism": Christianity Succeeds where Judaism Fails', in B.A. Pearsen, A.T. Kraabel, G.W.E. Nickelsburg and N.R. Peterson (eds.). The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester {MmaedipoWs., MN: Fortress Press, 1991), pp. 163-69. 35. In fact, the notion of a mission to the world as one of the reasons for Jewish dispersion does appear among medieval Jewish thinkers. See, for example R. Bahya ben Asher, Kad ha-Kemah, Chapter on Redemption (a): 'and the reason for disper­ sion.. .was so that Israel might spread out to all comers among the nations who have no knowledge, and the nations will leam from them faith in the existence of God': C.B. Chavel (ed.), Kitvei Rabbenu Bahya [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Mosad Ha-Rav Kook, 1970), p. 115.

40

Land, Center and Diaspora deity{!)...and thus Moses came to be loved by the masses and respected by the priests, and came to be known by the name of Hermes.^*

Representations such as this inform us considerably about the self-image of certain types of Egyptian Jews, and indeed may suggest a unique way of handling the diaspora phenomenon. On the one hand these authors display what Momigliano has referred to as 'something like Egyptian patriotism',which will be discussed in the next chapter. At the same time authors such as Artapanus seem to imply that if indeed Egypt is the cradle of civilization, this is in no small part thanks to the contribution of our fathers, who upon moving to Egypt brought that civilization with them. In effect these authors were putting a different twist on the idea of 'universal mission'. If the rabbinic—and Christian—version of that mis­ sion looked to the future, that of Artapanus looked to the past. More­ over, whereas the religious mission was aimed at reshaping the culture of the nations to fit the Jewish model, Hellenistic-Jewish authors had no problems with perpetuating the culture that surrounded them. All they were claiming was that this culture owed a decisive debt to the fore­ fathers of the Jews, notwithstanding the fact that this culture had long ago been rendered 'universal'. In his own way, then, Artapanus may also have been seeking to provide himself, his fellow Egyptian Jews and his non-Jewish contemporaries with a credible solution to the dilemma of Jewish diaspora.

36, Apud Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica 9.27.4; for a discussion of the various theories regarding the identity of Artapanus and the nature of his writings, cf. Holladay, Fragments: Historians, p. 195 n. 8a. 37. A. Momigliano, Alien Wisdom: The Limits of Hellenization Cambridge University Press, 1975), p. 116.

(Cambridge:

Chapter 2 A T H O M E WHILE A B R O A D : EXPRESSIONS OF LOCAL PATRIOTISM IN THE JEWISH DIASPORA OF LATE A N T I Q U I T Y

In one of Amaldo MomigUano's brilhant semi-autobiographical essays— 'The Jews of Italy''—the great historian and essayist attempted to explain how his ancestors harbored what appeared to be two diametri­ cally opposed sentiments: on the one hand a pride and reverence for their Jewish heritage (Momigliano took particular pride in his rabbinic forebears) while at the same time an almost irrational Itahan patriotism. This patriotism...has been in our blood since the days of our great­ grandfathers and fathers, whatever reservations they and we may have about what was happening and is happening in Italy. It explains why my grandmother used to cry every time she listened to the 'Marcia Reale'— the royal hymn of the Italian monarchy—and if you can cry at such atrocious music you can cry at anything.^

Attempts to resolve the tension between the wish to maintain a Jewish identity in a non-Jewish enviroimient while at the same time striving to express some sort of 'local patriotism' and a sense of 'belonging' within that very same environment are not unique to any stage of Jewish history, at least from the time of the Second Temple. For many Jews today this tension serves as a constant factor of their Jewish existence, enhanced and rendered even more acute with the creation of the State of Israel. As noted in the previous chapter, it is fair to assume that contemporary reflections on this aspect of Jewish identity are not significantly different from those that confronted Jews throughout much of the diaspora in Late Antiquity. Having akeady examined the various solutions proffered by Jews of the diaspora in their quest to understand 1. First published in The New York Review of Books 36.12 (24 October, 1985); reprinted in A. Momigliano, On Pagans, Jews and Christians (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1987), pp. 238-53. 2. Momigliano, On Pagans, p. 243.

42

Land, Center and Diaspora

and explain—to themselves as well as to others—the phenomenon of their ongoing dispersion, we can now proceed to take up a second aspect of Jewish attempts at self-definition, namely how might a Jew in the diaspora have outwardly expressed a sense of 'loyalty' or of 'belonging' in the land of his residence, while at the same time preserving a conscious allegiance to his Jewish background? The question may be broken down into the following components: 1. Did there actually exist a phenomenon of 'local patriotism' among the Jews of the diaspora in Late Antiquity? That is, can we point to significant numbers of Jews who on the one hand did not wish to hide their Jewish identity, while on the other hand took certain steps to express their feelings of identification with the cities or countries in which they resided? 2. Might such Jews have considered some of the rulers of the countries or cities in which they lived to be particularly enlightened and benevo­ lent towards the local inhabitants in general and towards Jews in particu­ lar, thereby effecting a sense of well-being among local Jews, and thus encouraging them to identify with their surroundings? Similarly, might Jews have appreciated the cultural environment in which they lived to the extent that they would wish to express publicly an identification with their society and place of residence? 3. Assuming this were the case in certain instances, how might we take note of such a self-perception on the part of the local Jewish residents? That is, how might a Jew go about expressing to others his sense of 'belonging'? 4. Is there any way of ascertaining when such expressions are intended for an internal (= Jewish) audience, and when they are meant for others? 5. Does this last question hint at the need to constantly question the impulses that gave impetus to expressions of 'local patriotism', rendering them suspect as part of a larger struggle for local 'rights' equal to those granted other groups within the population? Simply stated, might some apparent 'local patriots' in reality be only insincere 'lobbyists'? 6. Might different political and social contexts lead to variations in the nature and expressions of 'local patriotism'? All these questions are obviously part of the broader issue of Jewish self-identity in Late Antiquity, which of late has seen a surge of interest among historians bent on defining the nature of Jewish 'nationalism'^ as 3. See for example D. Mendels, The Rise and Fall of Jewish (Anchor Bible Reference Library; New York: Doubleday, 1992).

Nationalism

2. At Home while Abroad

43

well as among the various parties interested in defining 'who is (or was) a Jew'.'' In this chapter I have chosen to focus on a particular and limited aspect of this larger question of Jewish compatibility with surrounding Gentile contexts. That is, rather than addressing the major question of whether it was indeed possible to remain wholly committed to a Jewish identity while at the same time considering oneself a 'Roman' or an 'Alexandrian',^ I wish to ask only through which mechanisms a Jew might have expressed his attachment to a geographical area outside the Land of Israel, and what the implications are of the different systems that were employed to express such belonging. The first and obvious answer to this question would appear to be those cases when a Jew referred to himself as an 'Alexandrian', a 'Macedonian', an 'Antiochean', a 'Cypriot', a 'Cretan' and so forth. If only this example were as simple as it initially appears! In fact, an enormous amount of scholarship has been devoted precisely to the question of what it means when a Jew is designated by some sort of geographical title, linked to a district or city outside of Palestine.^ In such cases one must note not only whether the geographical title was applied to an individual by himself or by others, but also the context in which such a designation appears. For example, geographical designations attached to a person's name in a formal document and intended for the eyes of a government official are completely different from a similar statement made on one's funerary inscription. When a third person uses a geographical designation in referring to a 4. These studies address not only the existence of a variety of sectarian groups during the Second Temple period, but also are part of the heated debate surrounding the nature and extent of Jewish proselytizing and conversion in Late Antiquity. For a copious bibhography on this and related issues see Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World, pp. 587-619, and most recently, Stern, Jewish Identity in Early Rabbinic Writings. 5. See most recently M. Goodman, 'The Roman Identity of Roman Jews', in I.M. Gafni, A. Oppenheimer and D.R. Schwartz (eds.). The Jews in the HellenisticRoman World, Studies in Memory of Menahem Stem (Jerusalem: Mercaz Zalman Shazar and the Historical Society of Israel, 1996), English section, pp. 85-99; for the Greek world, see J.J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora (New York: Crossroad, 1983); Meleze-Modrzejewski, 'How to be a Jew', pp. 80-85. 6. See D.R. Schwartz, Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity (WUNT, 60; Tubingen: Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1992), pp. 123-25 and nn. 32 and 38.

44

Land, Center and Diaspora

particular Jew, it may indeed be no more than a statement of geographic fact: that is, said Jew was either bom in the designated place, lives there at the present or has come to us from that place. This is tme whether we are dealing with someone referred to as a Cypriot in the New Testament (e.g. Acts 4.36), or whether we are confronted with people in Jemsalem on the Day of Atonement designated in rabbinic literature as 'Babylonians' or 'Alexandrians'.^ As we shall see further on, while some talmudic rabbis might claim that the designation of certain persons in talmudic sources as 'Babylonians' or 'Alexandrians' was changed because of animosity towards a particular group, this does not suggest that the geographic appelation per se contained anything beyond a designation of the origins of those described in the source. And so when the Tosefta describes the people who tore at the hair of the scapegoat sent to Azazel on the Day of Atonement as 'Alexandrians', it simply means they came from Alexandria. This, however, may not be the case when a Jew employs such a designation to describe himself. Here we are justified in asking whether this is merely a geographical-biographical bit of information, or possibly a means of evincing some sort of local pride, patriotism, emotional attachment or, conversely, political demand. This is not mere suspicion or oversensitivity on my part, for apparently others seemed to have shared my suspicion two thousand years ago. Josephus informs us that Apion, the noted Greek writer and scholar in Egypt in the first century CE, expressed astonishment 'at the idea of Jews being called Alexandrians' (Apion 2.38). From Josephus's rebuttal to Apion it is likely that Apion understood this designation as part of the Jewish demand to be considered citizens of Alexandria (cf. Apion 2.65).* Josephus answers the attack by noting that there is nothing out of the ordinary here, for 'all persons invited to join a colony, however different their nationality, take the name of the founders' (Apion 2.38). Josephus goes on to cite the example of Jewish residents in Antioch who are called Antiochenes, because Seleucus (I Nicator), the founder of Antioch,

7. M. Yom. 6.4; t. Kip. 3.13 [ed. Liebennan, p. 245]; b. Yom. 66b. 8. For the link between a geographical designation (with or without a personal name attached) and the claim of civic rights, as well as the larger issue of Jewish rights in Greek cities, see the long note by Stem, Greek and Latin Authors, I, pp. 399-400.

2. At Home while Abroad

45

had conferred citizenship (7ioA,ixe{a) upon them (Apion 2.39), and he notes other similar cases as well.' Similar intentions can be attributed to 'Helenos son of Tryphon', a Jew who referred to himself as an 'Alexandrian' in a petition addressed to the local Roman prefect, only to have a second hand erase this selfapplied designation and replace it with 'a Jew of Alexandria'.'" Consid­ erable scholarly debate surrounds the implications of the original designa­ tion as well as the emendation, but it appears fairly certain that Helenos was not led by any patriotic impulse to refer to himself as an Alexandrian but rather by his quest for certain civic rights that would evolve from having this designation recognized." Another possible way of expressing a sense of 'belonging' might be to relate to one's city in a manner that suggests attachment, such as the following example in Philo's Legatio ad Gaium (150). While describing how the whole habitable world voted Augustus 'no less than celestial honors', he goes on to describe how the most impressive monuments to that ruler might be found everywhere 'and particularly in our own Alexandria' (Ka-rot xTiv f m e T e p a v 'A>,e^(xv8peiav). And yet here.

9. The fact that at least some Jews indeed strove to be considered Alexandrians seems to be implied in the following statement made by Philo, who—while dis­ cussing the threat to the Jews posed by the actions of Gaius Caligula—wonders 'what religion or righteousness is to be found in vainly striving to show that we are Alexandrians?' (Leg. Gai. 194). Stem (Greek and Latin Authors, I, p. 400) sees this statement as 'the exact opposite of Apion's statement' quoted above. Note also Stem's brief question there (p. 399) as to whether the phrase nokmia in Philo (Leg. Gai. 349) refers to 'the general rights of the Jews of Alexandria' or to 'the right to Alexandrian citizenship'. 10. V.A. Tcherikover and A. Fuks (eds.). Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, II (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press and Magnes, 1960), pp. 29-33. 11. See the bibliography and discussion summarized by Tcherikover (Corpus); there is of course a vast literature on the whole issue of Jewish citizenship in Greek cities such as Alexandria, and the precise interpretation of the Helenos document hinges on which theory one accepts; cf. A. Kasher, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt: The Struggle for Equal Rights (TSAJ, 7; Tubingen: Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1985), pp. 192-207, 274-78, 297-309; compare Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, pp. 326-31; idem. The Jews in Egypt in the Hellenistic-Roman Age in the Light of the Papyri [Hebrew] (Jemsalem: Magnes, 1963), pp. 116-59; for more recent discussions, see the literature cited by S. Honigman, 'The Birth of a Diaspora', in S.J.D. Cohen and E. Frerichs (eds.), Diasporas in Antiquity (BJS, 288; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), p. 95 n. 3; see also Meleze-Modrzejewski, 'How to B e a Jew', p. 78 n. 36 (for responses to Kasher) and p. 79 n. 42.

46

Land, Center and Diaspora

too, we must remember that the statement appears as part of a lengthy argument by Philo, in an attempt to prove that the loyalty of the Jews to the Roman Empire was consistently recognized by the Romans notwith­ standing the fact that Jews did not erect statues or images of the emperors in their meeting houses, although this was done throughout the world and especially 'in our own Alexandria'. The point seems to be that while throughout the city there were such monuments, Jews there were never required to set them up in their synagogues, and thus we might be reading a sense of 'local patriotism' into this particular state­ ment which should really be understood in its practical context. A third device that one might employ in order to express a sense of attachment to a place of residence might be to refer to that place as one's naxpiq, that is fatherland, or home city. Indeed, Philo did claim that while Jews regarded Jerusalem as their 'metropolis' they also considered the lands in which they had lived for generations to be their fatherland {naxpibac, vop-f^ovxeq), having come to some of them as settlers (or colonists: otTiovKiav OTei^d|j.evov) at the time of their foundation {Place. 46). The allusion to a common past shared by Jews with the local Greek community, or to a common past with the Greek world in general,'^ might indeed have served some Jews as an expression of local patriotism. The most obvious example of such an attempt would be the various claims that Alexander the Great had 'received from the Jews very active support against the Egyptians, [and] granted them, as a reward for their assistance, permission to reside in the city on terms of equality with the Greeks' (Josephus, War 2.487; cf. Ant. 12.8 and Apion 2.35-36). Projecting Jews in such a manner as part of the local Greek

12. One such example might be the linking of the expulsion of the Jews from Egypt together with those who, led by Danaus and Cadmus, settled in Greece; this of course would lend support to those who doubt the authenticity of the Hecataeus passage in Diodorus Siculus 40.3 (Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, I, p. 26; Holladay, Fragments: Historians, pp. 277-90), or at least strengthen the claim that Hecataeus used a Jewish source; see D. Mendels, 'Hecataeus of Abdera and a Jewish "patrios politeia" of the Persian Period (Diodorus Siculus XL,3)', ZAW 95 (1983), pp. 96-110. Yet another way of alluding to the common endeavor of Greek and Jew in the past might be through the frequent references to Jews in the various Hellenistic armies, e.g. Ep. Arist. 13 (= Josephus, Ant. 12.8), 36; Josephus, Ant. 12.149; see the literature on this cited by Stem, Greek and Latin Authors, I, p. 43 line 200; Kasher, The Jews, pp. 38-55; I. Shatzman, The Armies of the Hasmoneans and Herod: From Hellenistic to Roman Frameworks (TSAJ, 25; Tubingen: Mohr, 1991), p. 14.

2. At Home while Abroad

47

past might certainly be considered a form of local patriotism on the part of the Jewish community, but the fact that these claims were so obvi­ ously employed for apologetic and practical motives tends to raise doubts regarding the degree of conviction that accompanied such claims. Like it or not, it is hard to escape the feeling that local patriotism and apolo­ getics are frequently two sides of the same coin. Moreover, even Philo's statement that Jews frequently consider their place of residence to be their 'patris' requires a certain clarification. In light of his use of the phrase in other contexts, the implication might be not so much one of patriotic identification, but merely that Jews—like others—relate to their place of residence in the proper manner, by evincing the requisite degree of loyalty and devotion to the well-being and security of the 'patris'.'^ There are, to be sure, a number of examples in which Jews apparently referred to their place of residence as 'patris' not in a formal document or literary work, where we may harbor suspicions of an ulterior motive or apologetic goal, but rather in inscriptions that would seem to express a real sense of attachment. However, the two following instances, cited by a number of scholars,''* seem to raise more questions than answers. Nearly eighty Jewish inscriptions have been discovered in the area of Leontopolis (now Tel el-Yehudieh), on the eastern edge of the Nile d e l t a . T h e vast majority of these inscriptions are epitaphs from the local necropolis, and scholars have made a major effort to try to establish the degree of 'Jewishness of the community','^ through a study of the names, commemoration practices, language and sentiments preserved in these inscriptions.'^

13. For Philo's understanding of the proper dedication one should exhibit towards the 'patris', see Mut. Nom. 40, and Deus Imm. 17. 14. E.g. A. Kasher, 'Jerusalem as a "Metropolis" in Philo's National Conscious­ ness' [Hebrew], Cathedra 11 (1979), p. 53. 15. For the most recent and thorough publication of these inscriptions, see W. Horbury and D. Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), nos. 29-105, pp. 51-182. 16. D.M. Lewis, in V.[^Tcherikover, A. Fuks and M. Stem (eds.). Corpus Papy­ rorum Judaicarum, III (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press and Magnes, 1964), p. 145. 17. See D. Noy, 'The Jewish Communities of Leontopolis and Venosa', in J.W. van Henten and P.W. van der Horst (eds.), Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy (AGJU, 21; Leiden: Brill, 1994), pp. 162-72.

48

Land, Center and Diaspora

In one of these epitaphs'^ the dead person is asked in metrical, Doric dialect: 'Who are you that lie in the dark tomb? Tell me your country and your father (KaiTidtpav Kal yevetii yevexriv evejie).' The answer supplied is: 'Arsinoe, daughter of Aline and Theodosius, and the land which nourished us is called the land of Onias.' The continuation of the text clearly attests to the Hellenizing influences that found their way into the local community, as the dead person goes on to describe how 'Child­ less I went to the house of Hades'. For the limited purpose of our discussion, however, what is note­ worthy is that the apparently Jewish family responsible for the inscription had no problem referring to the local territory as a 'patris'. While this phrase certainly evinces a strong attachment to the land, it is doubtful whether the example itself can shed any light on the broader phe­ nomenon of 'local patriotism' among Egyptian Jews. Even if we were to disregard the possibility that the text was composed by an outsider commissioned to write what is certainly one of the most elegant of the Leontopolis epitaphs,^" the very fact that the particular 'patris' in this case was 'the land of Onias' renders it an exception to what we are searching for. The land of Onias was a well-known Jewish center, and is referred to extensively by Josephus, who also quotes Strabo.^' The fact that the local Jewish community was considered a threat to the army marching from Palestine in support of Julius Caesar (Josephus, AnL 14.131) even suggests the existence of some sort of independent commu­ nal organization that was also capable of exerting military pressure.^^ And so, while the contents of the large number of extant inscriptions

18. Cn, II, no. 1530, p. 436; Tcherikover et al. (eds.). Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, III, p. 161; Horbury and Noy, Jewish Inscriptions, no. 38, p. 90. 19. See A. Momigliano, 'Un documento della spiritualita del Giudei Leontopolitani', A e g y p t o 12 (1932), pp. 171-72. 20. Momigliano, 'Documento'; compare Lewis, Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, in, p. 162. 21. For Josephus on the Land of Onias, see Ant. 12.387-88; 13.62-73 (on the Temple of Onias at Heliopolis); 13.284-87 (including Strabo's statement on the loyalty of the Jews 'of the Land of Onias' to Queen Cleopatra; see Stem, Greek and Latin Authors, I, pp. 269-70); Ant. 14.131; War 1.190; 7.421-36. For a general survey see Schurer, History, III.l, pp. 47-49. 22. The story is also noteworthy in that the local Jewish community was con­ vinced by Antipater to support his allies 'on the ground of their common nationality, especially when he showed them a letter from the High Priest Hyrcanus' (Josephus,

Ant. 14.131).

2. At Home while Abroad

49

clearly points to a significant degree of local acculturation among the Jews of Heliopolis,^^ the fact that one of them refers to the land of Onias as a 'patris' is only natural within a Jewish context. Indeed, this expres­ sion of 'belonging' may be more closely linked to expressions of 'local patriotism' that I will cite further on in connection with Babylonian Jewry, and in any case would not be the best example for an expression of 'local patriotism' among Jews of the Graeco-Roman world. A second case of a diaspora Jew resorting to the phrase 'patris' has been noted in an inscription from Acmonia, a city in Phrygia.^'' The oneline Greek text reads: vnep e\)Xf][(;] ndari TTJ jtaxpiSi. A menorah carved underneath the inscription attests to its Jewish origin, and it has been suggested that the text was originally inscribed on part of an object that was donated to the 'patris' in fulfilment of a vow. The question is how to translate the inscription, and what are its impli­ cations for the issue at hand. Frey translates 'Par voeu plenier en faveur de la patrie', and alternatively 'Par voeu en faveur de toute la patrie.' Trebilco,^^ similarly, has suggested: 'Because of a vow for the whole "naxpiq" which of course leaves open the question of what is intended by " 7 i a t p { ( ; " . ' One possibility would be to understand the phrase as referring to the Jewish community, but Trebilco rejects this inasmuch as the more common designations for Jewish communities were terms such as auvaYcoyn or Xaoq, whereas local clans within a city usually go by the term naipiq. Moreover, in other inscriptions from Acmonia nazpiq clearly refers to the whole city. And so he opts for understanding the phrase as 'place of residence, or country', citing among other examples of this usage Philo's reference to the phrase, which we noted above. The translation of the inscription suggested by Trebilco is thus: 'For a vow for the whole home city.' Inasmuch as Jews apparently made gifts to the city they must have been involved in its life; this, as well as their refer­ ence to the city as their 'home city' suggest to Trebilco 'a strong degree of "a homeness'", a feeling he claims to find in other inscriptions from Asia Minor as well. While this may be the case, Trebilco also notes that in fact 'patris is a geographical and not a sociological term'. If this is indeed the case, then 23. 'The people of the city were Ptolemaic or Roman Egyptians first and Jews second'; Noy, 'The Jewish Communities', p. 171. 24. a / , n , n o . 7 7 1 , p . 32. 25. P.R. Trebilco, Jewish Communities in Asia Minor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), p. 81.

50

Land, Center and Diaspora

the 'belonging' that probably emerges from such inscriptions is of a practical nature, rather than a deep-rooted and conscious identification with the particular area's past, including the cultural and social history of the country or city. It is only to be expected that Jews would wish to participate in the life of their surroundings, and the benefits of such par­ ticipation in the Graeco-Roman world were apparent, no matter what the final legal status of the Jews was in each particular polls. And thus, while the epigraphic evidence is an excellent tool for appraising the different degrees of acculturation or assimilation in various Jewish communities,^^ their potential for projecting a definitive sense or expression of local patriotism remains questionable. In the final account, it is nevertheless to certain types of literary sources that we must turn if we wish to identify specific cases of what appears to be Jewish local patriotism, whether this be expressed as an appreciation of the unique attributes of local society and its governing bodies or a shared past with major segments of that society. A good example of the first case—expressions of a high regard for the local envi­ ronment or monarchy—can already be noted in the Letter ofAristeas. Sometimes these take the form of a casual reference by the author, such as his having received information about the Jews 'from the most erudite High Priests in the most erudite land of Egypt' {Ep. Arist. 6). The king's father, Ptolemy I, is portrayed as being successful in his campaign in Coele-Syria and Phoenicia 'thanks to his good fortune and prowess' {Ep. Arist. 12), and even when he carried Jewish youths, the elderly and women into bondage this was 'not out of his individual choice but because he was overborne by his soldiers' {Ep. Arist. 14). Most signifi­ cantly, the king is described as the epitome of an enlightened ruler, who is determined 'to award justice to all men, and more particularly to those who are unreasonably tyrannized...to deal fairly with all men in accor­ dance with justice and piety' {Ep. Arist. 24). It was precisely sentiments such as these that led Momigliano, as we noted in the previous chapter, to suggest that 'Alexandrian Jews were altogether devoted to their Ptolemaic kings and displayed something like Egyptian patriotism'.

26. For the Jewish community of Rome, see the recent discussion by T. Rajak, 'Inscription and Context: Reading the Jewish Catacombs of Rome', in J.W. van Henten and P.W. van der Horst (eds.). Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy (AGJU, 21; Leiden: Brill, 1994), pp. 226-41. 27. Momigliano, Alien Wisdom, p. 116; compare J.L. Goldstein, 'The Message of Aristeas to Philokrates', in M. Mor (ed.), Eretz Israel, Israel and the Jewish

2. At Home while Abroad

51

Momigliano finds this same sentiment in the writing of Aristobulus, an Alexandrian Jew and philosopher whose allegorical approach to the Bible makes him something of a forerunner to Philo.^* Writing in the second century BCE, Aristobulus not only dedicated his book to King Ptolemy Philometor but also credited Ptolemy Philadelphus and his adviser Demetrius Phalereus with initiating the Septuagint translation of the Bible. His work may even have served as the inspiration for the Letter ofAristeas. But beyond praising the quest for knowledge displayed by the Ptolemaic monarchs, other Hellenistic-Jewish authors in Egypt proceeded to link together what they apparently considered to be their dual heritage. If those scholars who consider the story of Joseph and Aseneth to be of Jewish origin are correct, than we have before us a unique example of 'a Jew who wanted to reassert the old ties of the Jews with Egypt and at the same time make proselytes among his neighbors'.^' The meshing of Egyptian and Israelite history and culture into a common past, presented by Artapanus in his book 'concerning the Jews', has already been noted in the previous chapter. By attributing a central role in the cultural development of Egypt to biblical figures such as Abraham, Joseph and Moses, Artapanus may have achieved more than one goal. While Artapanus may have originally been motivated by the need to offset the negative representation of the Israelites' lawgiver in the writings of certain Egyptian authors, he may at the same time have given expression to a particular type of Jewish local patriotism in Egypt. Artapanus would likely have been aware of the fact that Moses was described in works such as those attributed to Manetho as having

Diaspora—Mutual Relations (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1991), pp. 17-18. 28. Momigliano, Alien Wisdom, pp. 115-16; on Aristobulus, see Schurer, History, m.l,pp. 579-87. 29. Momigliano, Alien Wisdom, pp. 117-18; the work is possibly based on some sort of Jewish oral tradition, a type of midrash, and later Christian recensions notwithstanding, there is no reason to doubt the Jewish origins of the story; see Schurer, History, IILl, pp. 546-52. For more recent discussions of 'Joseph and Asenath', see R.S. Kraemer, Her Share of the Blessings: Women's Religions among Pagans, Jews, and Christians in the Greco-Roman World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), pp. 110-13; Meleze-Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt, pp. 67-72; G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth and the Jewish Temple in Heliopolis (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1996).

52

Land, Center and Diaspora

established a decidedly anti-Egyptian legal system (Josephus, Apion 1.240) and that in general he was portrayed as the sworn enemy of the Egyptian King Amenophis. Consequently, Artapanus proclaims the exact opposite: Moses was in fact the ultimate Egyptian patriot, who 'did all these things for the sake of keeping the monarchy stable'.^° In the process of offsetting the anti-Jewish calumny that had become popular in certain Egyptian circles Artapanus emerges as unabashedly Jewish, while at the same time considering his ethnic heritage to be inexorably linked with the history and culture of Egypt. Such writings might have served an obvious apologetic agenda, but they could only have been conceived by a Jew fully convinced of his legitimate role in the life of his land of residence. And so once again the two-sided coin of apologetics and local patriotism makes itself apparent among certain elements of Hellenistic (or Egyptian) Jewry. Common to most of the expressions of local patriotism that have been noted up to this point was the role they might have played in informing Gentiles (as well as Jews) of the fact of and the reasons for a Jewish sense of allegiance to the lands of their residence. As we turn east and cross the Euphrates, we encounter a totally different corpus of expres­ sions of Jewish local patriotism, preserved primarily in the sayings of the sages of Talmudic Babylonia. For these sages, and indeed for the Jews of Arsacid Parthia and Sasanian Persia in general, the need to justify their very presence in the land and to project a loyalty that might otherwise have been suspect was not simply a natural outgrowth of their relation­ ship with the surrounding population and culture. Situated beyond the scope of the assimilatory forces so prevalent in the Hellenistic-Roman world, the Jews of Babylonia flourished in a general atmosphere of ethnic tolerance and—at least up to the third century CE—administrative decentralization, wherein the various com­ munities were only required to prove their loyalties to the king at crucial turning points, usually brought about by Roman invasions of the land.^' In the periods between such military confrontations, however, we have no knowledge of interference in Jewish communal life, save for one

30. Apud Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica 9.27.5; Holladay, Fragments: Historians, p. 210. 31. See G. Widengren, 'Iran, der grosse Gegner Roms: Konigsgewalt, Feudalismus, Militarwesen', A A « W n . 9 . 1 , pp. 249-80.

2. At Home while Abroad

53

isolated event in the first century CE.^^ With the rise of the Sasanians at the beginning of the third century C E , the only incidents between Persians and Jews that we know of took place when some Jewish practices were perceived as a violation of Zoroastrian tradition, but this should not be construed as an outright persecution of the Jews.^^ While the Babylonian talmudic principle that 'the law of the kingdom is law' {i^Tl \
32. See D. Goodblatt, 'Josephus on Parthian Babylonia: Antiquities xviii 310379', JAOS 107 (1987), pp. 605-22. 33. Among the offensive customs noted in the Talmud was the the Jewish practice of burial in the ground, thereby defiling—in Zoroastrian eyes—the sanctity of the earth; another cause for conflict was the lighting of candles by Jews on certain festive days; see M. Beer, 'Notes on Three Edicts against the Jews of Babylonia in the Third Century C.E.' [Hebrew], in S. Shaked (ed.), Irano-Judaica, I (Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, 1982), pp. 25-37; R. Brody, 'Judaism in the Sasanian Empire: A Case Study in Religious Coexistence', in S. Shaked and A. Netzer (eds.), IranoJudaica, n (Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, 1990), pp. 52-62 34. See J. Neusner, A History of the Jews in Babylonia., II (SPB, 11; Leiden: Brill, 1966), p. 69; S. Shilo, Dina De-Malkhuta Dina [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Jerusalem Academic Press, 1974), p. 5; see the nineteenth-century literature cited by I.M. Gafni, The Jews of Babylonia in the Talmudic Era: A Social and Cultural History, [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Mercaz Zalman Shazar, 1990), p. 42 n. 106.

54

Land, Center and Diaspora

previous chapter, the Babylonian Talmud likened God's removal of the Israelites to Babylonia to a man angered by his wife's misbehavior: 'To where did he send her? To her mother's home' (b. Pes. 87b). Once antiquity in the land of Babylonia was established, it was easy to embellish it with oral traditions. Thus, whereas even Palestinian Jews told stories about Abraham being imprisoned and cast into a fiimace by King Nimrod (Gen. R. 38.13 [ed. Theodor-Albeck, p. 364]), Jews in Babylonia were instructed by their sages about what blessing to recite upon actually seeing the furnace (or, for that matter, the lion's den from the days of Daniel; b. Ber. 57b). The sense of local familiarity with biblical sites in the Babylonian Talmud is striking, and Babylonian sages were adept at identifying cities of the Bible with towns of their own days.^^ When one remembers that two of the four rivers flowing out of Eden and mentioned at the beginning of the book of Genesis (Gen. 2.10-14) might have been part of a Babylonian Jew's everyday scenery, we can understand even more the sense of familiarity he may have felt with his immediate surroundings. But not only were Jewish longevity and familiarity involved in creating a fierce attachment to Babylonia. At some stage Babylonian Jews began to perceive of themselves as representing the purest, or least contaminated, Jewish stock in the world (b. Qid. 71b). The idea itself is expressed in a variety of statements, the most blatant being that Ezra did not leave for the Land of Israel until he rendered Babylonia 'like pure sifted flour' by taking with him to the Land all the doubtful or not quite pure elements of the Jewish population (b. Qid. 69b). It is for this reason, we are told, that 'all countries are an admixture (with impure lineage) in comparison to Eretz Israel, and Eretz Israel is an admixture (in comparison) to Babylonia' (b. Qid. 69b). Babylonian Jews were only too aware of the intermarriage that had contaminated the community of the returnees to Zion in the days of Ezra (cf. Ezra, ch. 9), and this might further have enhanced their own sense of superior Jewish lineage vis-a­ vis the Jews of the Land of Israel. This self-image was taken even further, for once Babylonian Jews were recognized as the purest of world Jewry, the immediate question that needed to be addressed was where does 'Jewish Babylonia' begin and where does it end? The question necessitated the drawing of 35. See the examples cited in my article: 'Expressions and Types of "LocalPatriotism" among the Jews of Sasanian Babylonia', in S. Shaked and A. Netzer (eds.), Irano-Judaica, II (Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, 1990), pp. 63-66.

2. At Home while Abroad

55

boundaries, and the Babylonian Talmud (b. Qid. 71b) indeed embarked on a sweeping and detailed demarcation, supplying interested parties (probably those seeking a 'pure' match for either themselves or their offspring) with precise designations of the upper and lower limits on both the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Border areas were singled out and specific towns named, and this led to no small measure of fingerpointing: city X has a dubious past regarding its strictness over marital relations, city Y is known to be contaminated by 'new' Jews (i.e. recent converts) and so on.^^ Once boundaries were drawn up, the ground within those borders ultimately assumed a degree of sanctity usually reserved only for the Holy Land. In Chapter 4 we will encounter statements extolling burial in the Land of Babylonia, and similarly we find even Babylonian earth assuming a religious status above that of the rest of the world. Rav, the third-century Babylonian sage, informs us that Adam's body was created from the earth of Babylonia, his head from the earth of the Land of Israel, and his other organs from the earth of other lands (b. Sanh. 38a-b). Our survey of the particular character of Babylonian local patriotism would not be complete if I were to omit mentioning the unique governing body that developed there over the years. If the Davidic monarchy was once a fixture in First Temple Israel, Babylonians could at least claim—based on biblical accounts—that beginning with the exile of King Jehoiachin by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylonia in the year 597 BCE (2 Kgs 24.12-16) a descendant of the royal family was in their midst. Absolutely nothing is known about the existence of an office of Exilarch in Babylonia until the third century C E , " but the historical narrative linked to this office was central to the nature of Babylonian self-identity, stressing as it did a continuity of Israehte history going back to the Bible and undergoing only a geographical transition. 36. Such aspersions would be cast not only about borderline cities, but in connection with the major centers of the Jewish Babylonian population as well, such as Mahoza (b. Qid. 70b; 73a), Nehardea and Pumbeditha (b. Qid. 70b); see H.L. Poppers, 'The Declasse in the Babylonian Jewish Community', Jewish Social Studies 20 (195S), pp. 153-79. 37. All the attempts to identify an Exilarch in Babylonia before the third century are based on late and insufficient evidence; see J. Liver, The House of David [Hebrew]) (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1959), pp. 41-46; J. Neusner, A History of the Jews in Babylonia, I (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 2nd edn, 1984), pp. 53-61; M. Beer, The Babylonian Exilarchate in the Arsacid and Sassanian Periods [Hebrew] (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1970), pp. 11-32; Gafni, The Jews of Babylonia, pp. 94-97.

56

Land, Center and Diaspora

A most striking example of this mentality is the Babylonian Talmud's statement that 'when they were exiled to Babylonia the shekhinah (divine spirit) accompanied them'. If so, the Talmud asks, where is the shekhinah located in Babylonia? 'Abaye said: In the synagogue of Huzal and in the synagogue of Shaf ve-Yatib in Nehardea' {b. Meg. 29a). By locating the holy spirit in particular synagogues the sages were again implying a sense of continuity, and in fact numerous passages in the Babylonian Talmud project synagogues not merely as places of prayer or public gathering, but as the equivalent of the ancient temple.^* By geonic times the claim for continuity was enhanced even more, and Rav Sherira Gaon (tenth century C E ) informs us that the synagogue of Nehardea was built from stones and earth taken from the First Temple and brought to Babylonia by King Jehoiachin and the exiled Judaeans of his generation.^' A similar historical reconstruction was created by the Babylonians, albeit in post-talmudic times, to support their claims regarding the supremacy of Babylonian legal traditions. As they did regarding the Exilarchate, here, too, they maintain that the origins of the renowned tahnudic academies of Babylonia can be found in pre-exilic Jerusalem: Therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, established two yeshivot for Israel, so that they would be discussing Torah day and night, and would come together from all their localities twice a year—in Adar and Elul— and engage in the 'wars of Torah' until they determine the correct law.. .Those two yeshivot have seen neither captivity nor persecution nor despoilment. Neither Greece nor Edom (= Rome) has ruled over them, for twelve years before the destruction of Jerusalem the Holy One, blessed be He, removed them from Jerusalem with their Torah and learning...[He] acted righteously with Israel in that He had the exile of Yekhonia (= Jehoiachin) precede the exile of Zidkiyah (= Zedekiah), in order that the Oral Torah not be forgotten by them. And they (= the yeshivot) have dwelt in Babylonia with their Torah from that time until now; neither Greece nor Edom (=Rome) has ruled over them, nor have

38. For the importance of synagogue references as an expression of Babylonian historical consciousness see A. Oppenheimer, 'Babylonian Synagogues with Histori­ cal Associations', in D. Urman and P.V.M. Flesher (eds.). Ancient Synagogues: Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery, I (SPB, 47; Leiden: Brill, 1995), pp. 40-48; I.M. Gafni, 'Synagogues in Babylonia in the Talmudic Period', in Urman and Flesher (eds.). Ancient Synagogues, I, pp. 221-31. 39. IggeretRav Sherira Gaon (ed. B.M. Lewin; Haifa, 1921), pp. 72-73.

2. At Home while Abroad

57

they been persecuted. And they will not even suffer 'the pangs of the Messiah'.'"*

As I shall suggest in the concluding chapter of this book, the under­ lying stimuli for this type of local patriotism and self-identity are totally different from those found in the Jewish communities of the GraecoRoman world. The issue here was not the need to convince Gentiles (or Jews) of the local Jewish community's loyalty and honorable social and historical pedigree, but rather to create and maintain a theoretical underpinning for the emerging and growing Babylonian Jewish assertiveness vis-a-vis other Jewish communities, most notably that of the Land of Israel. These particular expressions of self-awareness became increasingly apparent during the three centuries of the Talmudic era, and I suggest they contribute more than a little towards our understanding of the sounds that began to emerge at the very same time in Palestine, reinforcing the role of the Land of Israel as the true homeland of the Jewish people. The nature and expressions of those counterclaims will serve as the focus of our next chapter.

40. Midrash Tanhuma, Noah, 3; the translation is from D.M. Goodblatt, Rabbinic Instruction in Sasanian Babylonia (SJLA, 9; Leiden: Brill, 1975), pp. 13-14.

Chapter 3 BETWEEN ACTIVISM A N D PASSIVITY: RABBINIC ATTITUDES TOWARDS 'THE L A N D '

In his Life of Moses (Vit. Mos. 2.232) Philo of Alexandria addresses the issue that would ultimately come to be referred to in rabbuiic literature as 'the Second Passover' CiC nOS), that is what recourse was there for those who for some reason (such as having become ritually impure just prior to the Passover festival) were prevented from offering the Passover sacrifice at its designated time. Philo closely follows Num. 9.614, where God informs Moses that those prevented from participating the first time around will be afforded a second chance one month later. But to his paraphrase of the biblical version Philo adds the following: The same permission must also be given to those who are prevented from joining the whole nation in worship not by mourning, but by absence in a distant country. For settlers abroad and inhabitants of other regions are not

wrongdoers

(o\) yap oi ^eviTevovxec; ii exepcoBi oiKouvTeq

d5iK0\Joiv) who deserve to be deprived of equal privileges, particularly if the nation has grown so populous that a single country cannot contain it' and has sent out colonies (dTCOiKiaq) in all directions.

1.

Philo's allusion to the fact that one country alone cannot contain all the people

that comprise the nation appears elsewhere in his writings; see Leg. Gai. 214; Flacc. 45. That the Jews were an especially populous nation seems to have emerged as one of the well known 'facts' about that nation in Greek and Latin literature; see Hecataeus of Abdera (apud Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca

Historica

40.3.8) in Stem, Greek

and Latin Authors, I, p. 27 (cf. Stem's note on p. 34); Tacitus, Historiae 5.5.3 (Stem, Greek and Latin Authors, II, p. 19). This inordinate growth has been introduced as a major argument in the current debate regarding the extent of Jewish proselytizing in the Graeco-Roman period; see Feldman, Jew and Gentile, p. 293; cf. Goodman, Mission and Conversion,

p. 84, who suggests that 'the Jewish concept of charity...

made it a religious duty to prevent the children of the poor from dying in infancy, so that the main natural inhibition on population growth was at least partially stifled'. However, as for the actual numerical strength of Jews in the Graeco-Roman world at

3. Between Activism and Passivity

59

The imphcations here are crucial, for in essence Philo not only removes any stigma from those residing outside the Land (whereas the biblical stipulation might have been interpreted as referring only to those who happened to be 'on a distant journey'—npim "["lin—when the Passover was celebrated), but almost suggests interpreting the phenomenon of Jewish dispersion in his day as a sign of God's grace towards the seed of Abraham.^ Philo's benign attitude towards Jewish residence outside the Land serves as the perfect foil against which to highlight the following rabbinic anecdote, which purportedly took place in Tiberias more than two centuries after the death of Philo: A certain priest (cohen) approached R. Hanina [bar Hatnma] with the following question: (My brother has passed away, leaving a childless widow). Is it permissible to leave (the Land) for Tyre to perform a mitzva, either of levirate marriage (yibbum) or halitza (releasing the widow from her bond to me; cf. Deut. 25.5-10)? He replied: Your brother left [the Land]—blessed is God that killed him, do you wish to follow in his steps? And some say he replied: 'Your brother abandoned his mother's bosom ( 1 D « p'n) and embraced a foreign bosom (nnD3 pTl)—blessed is God that killed him, do you wish to follow in his steps?' (y. M. Qat. 3.81c).

How should we interpret the enormous gap separating Philo from whatever rabbinic authority is responsible for the sentiments expressed in the talmudic story? Indeed, the seeming insensitivity of the rabbinic statement—bordering on cruelty towards a recently bereaved brother— certainly warrants some explanation, being so far removed from the expressions of compassion we usually expect from rabbinic models. Can we simply attribute the discrepancy to the diverse needs of the two parties, with the diaspora Jew bent on legitimizing his own situation and that of his fellow Jews who reside outside the Land, while the Palestinian rabbinic authority shares no similar impulse? This is possible, but why then the vehemence, all the more shocking when we imagine the poor brother, getting up from his period of mourning intent on performing what was considered a cardinal mitzva, only to be rebuffed in such any given time, or the percentage of Jews among the general population, there is little firm evidence for most of the scholarly guesses, some of which have estimated up to eight million Jews, or one of every tenth person in the Roman Empire (with one of every five in the Hellenistic east). For literature, see Stem, 'Jewish Diaspora', p. 122 n. 4. 2. Philo's designation of Jewish diaspora communities as 'colonies' was discussed in Chapter 1.

60

Land, Center and Diaspora

offensive terms by the rabbi. Or might the two sources possibly reflect two distinct cultural environments in which Jews found themselves in Late Antiquity: on the one hand a representative of Hellenistic Jewry, with all its cosmopolitan propensities, expressed not only by Philo but some years later by Josephus as well; on the other hand a representative of the sages, whose frames of reference vis-a-vis the Land derive from totally different social and reUgious contexts. Indeed, it was this distinction that was noted in 1948 by Isaak Heinemann, in his study of 'The Relationship between tiie Jewish People and their Land in Hellenistic-Jewish Literature'.^ Heinemann was cer­ tainly correct in documenting the different stresses relating to the Land in Hellenistic-Jewish literature on the one hand, and the statements of the rabbis on the other hand. While the latter would attempt to highlight all the metaphysical or miraculous attributes of the Land (e.g. being created before the rest of the world; enjoying superior—almost supernatural— agricultural advantages over all other lands; serving as the initial—or only—setting for the ultimate resurrection of the dead),'' nowhere will we find similar claims in Hellenistic-Jewish writings. The latter might stress certain positive natural characteristics of the Land, and in Philo's case even entertain hopes for an ultimate restoration to the Land, but this too would be the consequence of a natural development: they will return to their land after 'their masters...will set them free, ashamed to rule over men better than themselves' (Philo, Praem. Poen. 164). But Hellenistic-Jewish writers would never claim an ongoing superiority for Jewish history in the Land, such as the supremacy of the Land's 'wis­ dom' (no^n) in general or of the 'Torah of the Land of Israel',^ nor do they portray the Land as the only location for either inducing prophecy or serving as the setting for prophetic activity.* Neither Philo nor Josephus evince any such mystical or miraculous links to the Land, and it would be hard to imagine either of them kissing the cliffs of Acre (as R. Abba is said to have done; b. Ket. 112a), or rolling in the Land's dust, as alleged of R. Hiyya b. Gamda, to fulfill the scripture: 'For thy servants take pleasure in her stones and love her dust' (Ps. 102.15; b. Ket. 112b). Indeed, it was precisely this sort of behavior that Diodorus

3. Zion 13-14 (1948-50), pp. 1-9 [Hebrew]. 4. For examples of these rabbinic praises of the Land see Sifre Deut. 316 (ed. Finkelstein, p. 358); b. Ta'an. 10a; Gen. R. 74.1 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, p. 857). 5. Gen. R. 16.4 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, p. 147). 6. Mek., Bo (ed. Horovitz-Rabin, pp. 2-3).

3. Between Activism and Passivity

61

Siculus attributes to the 'captive barbarians', most probably those cap­ tured by Scipio following the fall of Numantia in 133 BCE: 'These same captives, on reaching the boundaries of their land, threw themselves to the ground and with cries of lamentation kissed the earth and even collected some of the dust in the folds of their garments.''' In Jewish literature such sentiments and demonstrative acts are found primarily in rabbinic thought, and they serve as the background to behavior displayed by sages such as R. Zera, who—coming up to the Land against the admonition of his Babylonian mentor—arrived at the border only to find no ferryboat by which to cross the river. Refusing to wait, he grasped a rope-bridge and crossed, lest he too—just like Moses and Aaron before him—be denied entry into the Land (b. Ket. 112a). I might mention, parenthetically, that after searching extensively for Palestinian rivers that would require ferries for passage into the Land, I have concluded that the most likely candidate is the mighty River Jordan as it flows through the fertile imagination of the Babylonian rabbi who told this tale. But let us return to the original question: To what should we attribute the striking difference in attitudes towards the Land, as well as the concomitant legitimacy or sinfulness attributed to those Jews who reside outside its boundaries? Is a sweeping generalization that distinguishes between the two corpora of Jewish thought, that of Hellenistic Judaism in contradistinction to the sayings of the rabbis, altogether sufficient or even justified? Or must we be more specific and search for a Judaeocentric philosophy on the rabbinic side, while assuming that diaspora Jews of the Hellenistic world were not only out to legitimize their existence, but to couch it in terms that would fit nicely with a universalist rereading of the Scriptures? Such exercises certainly have been noted, not the least of which was Josephus's rendition of Balaam's blessing: 'Lo they are a people dwelling alone, and not taking account of the nations' (Num. 23.9) which he paraphrased to read:

7. Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica 34-35, 4.1 -2 (LCL, vol. Xn, p. 92). Diodorus's description is also reminiscent of the story about the sages who, while leaving the Land, 'raised their eyes and wept, rent their garments' etc. (Sifre Deut. 80; see below in this chapter), for both sources describe acts of despan upon leaving one's land. I quote Diodorus here because of the similarity in the act of 'kissing the earth' and even collecting 'its dust', almost precisely the same acts attributed to the sages in b. Ket. 112a-b.

62

Land, Center and Diaspora That land, to which He himself has sent you, ye shall surely occupy... (and) ye shall suffice for the world, to fumish every land with inhabitants sprung from your race...(for) the whole habitable world, be sure, lies before you as an eternal habitation, and your multitudes shall find abode on islands and continent, more numerous even than the stars in heaven (Anf. 4.115-16).

It is abundantly clear, and has been duly noted by scholars,* that Josephus had an overriding agenda towards the Land, and towards the issue of Jewish isolation in general. Our current task, however, is to uncover the roots of the rabbinic statements demanding an active com­ mitment to the Land, statements that seem so diametrically opposed to everything on the issue in non-rabbinic literature. A systematic study of all rabbinic statements on 'the Land',' its status, attributes and require­ ments, serves to temper significantly any sense of a monohthic, unchang­ ing rabbinic approach to the issue. Indeed, a comprehensive analysis of these statements reveals, to begin with, that the degree to which these issues surrounding the Land were even taken up in statements attributed

8. There is a copious literature on the attitudes of both Philo and Josephus to 'the Land'; in addition to Heinemann, 'The Relationship between the Jewish People and their Land', see B. Halpern-Amaru, 'Land Theology in Josephus' Jewish Antiquities', JQR 71 (1981) pp. 201-229; eadem, 'Land Theology in Philo and Josephus', in L.A. Hoffman (ed.). The Land of Israel: Jewish Perspectives (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1986), pp. 65-93; eadem. Rewriting the Bible: Land and Covenant in Postbiblical Jewish Literature (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1994); in this recent work the author discusses aspects of land theology in Jubilees, the Testament ofMoses, pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities and Josephus; B. Schaller, 'Philon von A l e x a n d r i a und das Heilige Land', in G. Strecker (ed.). Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit (GTA, 25; Gotdngen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), pp. 172-87; Y. Amir, 'Philo's Version of the Pilgrimage to Jerusalem' [Hebrew], in A. Oppenheimer, U. Rappaport and M. Stem (eds.), Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period: Abraham Schalit Memorial Volume (Jemsalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1980), pp. 154-65. 9. Computer databases have facilitated such searches, but statements on the Land of Israel in rabbinic literature already enjoy a number of impressive collections; see M. Guttmann, 'The Land of Israel in Talmud and Midrash' [Hebrew], in Festschrift zum 75 jdhrigen Bestehen des jiidisch-theologischen Seminars 'FraenkelscherStiftung',l (Breslau, 1929), pp. 1-148 (= idem, Mafte'ahHa-Talmud, III.2 [Breslau, 1930], pp. 1-148 [New York: A m o Press, 2nd edn, 1980]); Y. Zehavi (Goldenbaum), Midreshei Eretz Yisrael [Hebrew] (Jemsalem: Mekhon Tehila, 1959).

3. Between Activism and Passivity

63

to the early tannaim, up to and including the Bar-Kokhba war (132-135 CE) is minimal. A review of the hundreds of statements attributed to sages such as Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, R. Joshua, R. Eliezer, R. Eleazar b. Azariah and even R. Akiva, reveals a striking paucity of allusions to the character and supernatural attributes of the Land, and similarly there is minimal allusion to the Land's centrality vis-a-vis the diaspora and the consequently required commitment of Jews towards the Land. All this is striking precisely in light of the numerous statements attributed to these very same rabbis regarding the 'commandments pertaining to the Land' (f1«n nrt>nn Pnnin). Indeed, the only statement by Yohanan b. Zakkai relating to the status of the Land and the nature of exile totally ignores any discussion of the attributes of the Land, and in fact seems to suggest almost the opposite: Why were Israel exiled to Babylonia more than all other lands ( V D D nnr miiisn)? Because the House of Abraham our patriarch is from there. To what might this be likened, to a woman who has misbehaved towards her husband. To where does he send her—to her father's home! (t. B. Qam. 13 [ed. Lieberman, p. 29]).'°

•"PID

One might almost read into this statement the embracing of what is usually considered a uniquely Hellenistic idea, namely that Israel, like other ethnic groups, have a dual homeland (Seuxepa natpiq). Philo refers to Egypt as the other homeland {Vit. Mos 1.36), whereas the rabbinic statement considers Babylonia to be the nation's second (or even original) homeland. In a similar manner we have almost no statements attributed to the two great disciples of Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai, R. Joshua b. Hananya and R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, that allude either to the unique attributes of the Land or to the imperatives deriving from its centrality. This situation is apparent in the following tannaitic midrash to Exod. 16.25: 'Eat it—the manna—today': R. Joshua says: If you will succeed in keeping the Sabbath, The Holy One Blessed be He will give you three festivals—Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles... R. Eliezer says: If you will succeed in keeping the Sabbath you will escape the three visitations: The day of Gog, the suffering preceding the advent of the Messiah, and the great Judgement Day.

10. b. Pes. 87b attributes the statement, with certain differences, to R. Yohanan; the statement itself has been discussed in Chapter 1.

64

Land, Center and Diaspora

It was only their student, R. Eleazar Ha-Moda'i, who first connected the Land to the rewards promised by God to those who keep the Sabbath: R. Eleazar Ha-Moda'i says: If you succeed in keeping the Sabbath, the Holy One Blessed be He will grant you six good portions: The Land of Israel, the future world, the new world (mn nb-iiit « 3 n nb^:}), the kingdom of the House of David, the priesthood and the Levites' offices' (Mek. Beshalach, 4 [ed. Horovitz-Rabin, p. 169; Eng. edn, Lauterbach, II, p. 120]).

This is the sole reference to the Land in all the teachings of R. Eleazar Ha-Moda'i, and given his particular role in the Bar-Kokhba uprising," the promises he attributes to God (David, Priests, the Land) take on a special significance. The lack of statements regarding the Land issued during the Yavne period, or even attributed at a later time to sages of that period, is striking, and thus while R. Akiva interpreted God's words to Moses upon his death—'This is the Land' ( p « n PKT; Deut. 34.4)—to mean that God 'displayed to Moses all the recesses ( n m n ) in Israel', the earlier Yavnean sage R. Eliezer omits the Land of Israel from his inter­ pretation of I'lKH nt^T, and explains instead: 'He gave strength to Moses' eyes to see from one end of the earth to the other' (Vi^'Un mD ]n3 1310 Dbiun fjlOQ n«-n nm 'PID; Sifre Num. 136 [ed. Horovitz, p. 182]). 'The Land' (flRn) in the eyes of the early tannaim, it appears, did not automatically conjure up the image of Eretz Israel, but rather the earth, or the world. At times one is struck by the fact that the tannaitic midrash, in the context of a long and detailed discussion of the Land of Israel and its attributes, will pass for a moment to the sayings or the actions of the Yavnean sages, and what emerges is that these rabbis took no active part in such deliberations, but were introduced into the text by the editor only to explain some peripheral issue. Thus, for example, chs. 37-40 of Sifre Deuteronomy are devoted almost entirely to statements praising the Land of Israel. Noteworthy, however, is the fact that all the state­ ments are either anonymous, or transmitted in the names of R. Judah and R. Shimon b. Yohai, that is, disciples of R. Akiva who were active in 11. See G. Alon, The Jews in their Land in the Talmudic Age, II (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1984), p. 623. 12. On the various meanings of 'eretz' and 'ha-aretz' (flK, j'lsn)—'earth', 'land' or 'the Land [of Israel]', and their bearing on the translation of ecoi; eaxaxov xfii; yfiq in Acts 1.8, c f D.R. Schwartz, 'The End of the TH (Acts 1.8): Beginning or End of the Christian Vision', JBL 105 (1986), pp. 669-76.

3. Between Activism and Passivity

65

the post Bar-Kokhba period. Sifre Deut. 38 (ed. Finkelstein, p. 74; Eng. trans., ed. Hammer, p. 74) takes up one particular advantage of the Land of Israel over all other lands: [Whereas] all other lands were given 'servants' to tend them—Egypt is watered by the Nile, Babylon by its rivers—the Land of Israel is not like that. Rather, there the inhabitants sleep in their beds while God causes the rains to fall for them. Thus w e leam that God's ways are different from those of creatures of flesh and blood. A man acquires manservants to feed and sustain him, but He who spoke and the world came into being (= God) acquires manservants so that He Himself may feed and sustain them. And once it happened that R. Eliezer, R. Joshua and R. Zadok were reclining at a banquet for the son of Rabban Gamaliel. Rabban Gamaliel mixed a cup (of wine) for R. Eliezer, who declined it. R. Joshua took it, whereupon R. Eliezer said to him: 'What's this, Joshua, is it fitting for us to be reclining while Rabban Gamaliel stands and serves us?...'

At this point a discussion commences over the issue of who may receive the ministering of those greater than himself. How striking, then, that while the entire thrust of the midrash is to extol the advantages of the Land of Israel, the only reference to Yavnean sages has absolutely nothing to do with the Land, but is introduced to illustrate a totally different issue. This is the pervading reality for all the tannaim of the first three gen­ erations. Taking up the first volume of Bacher's Aggadot Ha-Tannaim, which lists by topic the statements of sages up to and including the contemporaries of R. Akiva, one fails to find even a single statement praising the Land of Israel in the manner to which we have alluded. This situation changes—radically—with the appearance of the disciples of R. A k i v a . N u m e r o u s traditions in t. 'Abod. Zar. 4, which stress the requirement to live in the Land, the prohibition to emigrate from it, and

13. The claim made by W.D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land (Berkeley, CA: University of Califomia Press, 1974), p. 55, that as early as the year 70 CE, that is, in the immediate aftermath of the destmction, the sages began to stress the attributes of the Land and encouraged settlement therein, is not substantiated by the sources he cites'. His sources either relate to 'the Laws connected to the Land' (nvi'^nn HTlIiQ f n«D) which is a totally different issue, or they are attributed to R. Shimon b. Yohai, i.e. one of the disciples of Rabbi Akiva whose activity dates primarily to the postBar-Kokhba era. The same holds tme for the sources cited in his earlier work. The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964), pp. 295-96; see also E.M. Meyers and J.F. Strange, Archaeology, the Rabbis and Early Christianity (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1981), pp. 155-60.

66

Land, Center and Diaspora

similar pronouncements, are all quoted in the name of R. Akiva's disciples, the most prominent being R. Shimon b. Yohai, or are quoted anonymously. Indeed, it is the latter that, in the light of their particular content, can almost certainly be attributed to the post-Bar-Kokhba years: A person should always live in the Land of Israel, even in a town in which the majority of inhabitants are Gentiles, and not [live] abroad, even in a town in which all of the inhabitants are Jews. This teaches that living in the Land of Israel weighs as much as {ITa "^ipffi) all the commandments of the Torah {t. 'Abod. Zar. 4.3).

The first clause in this halakha fits precisely the reality that emerged in the Land of Israel following the Bar-Kokhba war: towns were destroyed, 'uprooted' OSj'pn]) or transformed from predominantly Jewish ones into towns of mixed populations, with significant numbers of Samaritans or Gentiles finding their way into them for the first time.''* Correspondingly, the second portion of the statement—which claims that living in the Land may be considered as the equivalent of all the other command­ ments—is attached in another tannaitic text {Sifre Deut. 80 [ed. Finkelstein, p. 146; Eng. trans., ed. Hammer, pp. 134-35]) to the story of a group of rabbis, all predominantly active in the post-Bar-Kokhba period, who were going abroad; When they reached Platana'^ and remembered the Land of Israel, they raised their eyes [heavenward] and wept, rent their garments, and recited the verse: 'And ye shall possess it and dwell

14. For the demographic results of the Bar-Kokhba war, see Alon, The Jews in their Land, II, pp. 643-46, and on the Samaritan expansion, pp. 742-46; M. AviYonah, The Jews under Roman and Byzantine Rule (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1984), pp. 15-19; see also J. Schwartz, 'Judea in the Wake of the Bar-Kokhva Revoh' [Hebrew], in A. Oppenheimer and U. Rappaport (eds.). The Bar-Kokhva Revolt (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1984), pp. 215-23. 15. Possibly Platana, mentioned by Josephus as a village 'in the territory of Sidon' {War 1.539) or 'near the city of Berytus' {Ant. 16.361); the second portion of the same midrash has other rabbis stopping at Sidon, where they too remember the Land of Israel. Tyre and Sidon are indeed noted by the sages a sort of boundary between the Jews of Palestine and points east; see A. Oppenheimer, Galilee in the Mishnaic Period [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Mercaz Zalman Shazar, 1991), p. 155; for the status of Tyre see also Y. Sussmann, 'A Halakhic Inscription from the BethShean Valley' [Hebrew], Tarbiz 43 (1973-74), pp. 102 n. 83, and pp. 125-28. The fact that the sages considered Tyre to be just over the border from Eretz Israel renders the message in the source quoted at the beginning of this chapter even more pointed.

3. Between Activism and Passivity

67

therein, and ye shall take care to do all the statutes and the ordinances' (Deut. 11.31-32); they said: Dwelling in the Land of Israel is equivalent to all the other commandments of the Torah.

All this weeping notwithstanding, of the rabbis mentioned in the story Judah b. Bathyra became a prominent rabbinic authority in Nisibis, Matya b. Heresh assumed an important position in Rome, and Hananiah, nephew of R. Joshua, scandalized the rabbinic community by attempting to intercalate the calendar in Babylonia.'* Other statements demanding commitment to the Land and forbidding emigration are attributed outright to R. Shimon b. Yohai, and here, too, the contents frequently reflect the realities of post-war Palestine: A person should not go abroad unless wheat sells at the price of two seahs for a sela.'^ R. Shimon said: Under what circumstances? Only in a case when he cannot find any to buy (even at that price). But if he finds some to buy, even if one seah sells for a sela—he may not go abroad. For thus would R. Shimon teach: Elimelech was one of the great men of his generation and a leader of the community, and because he went abroad (Ruth 1.1) he died there with his sons in famine, while all of Israel sur­ vived in their land, as it is written: '[And when they came to Bethlehem] all the city was stirred because of them' (Ruth 1.19); this teaches that all of the town had survived, but he and his sons died in the famine (f. 'Abod. Zar. 4.4).

The family tragedy in the house of Elimelech and Naomi may have resounded in more than one household, especially when husband and wife were divided on the question of going up to the Land, or—in the post-Bar-Kokhba years—more probably when the temptation to emigrate from the Land became acute. It is within the context of the pro-Palestinian traditions that we find the following regulation: If he (= the husband) desires to come to Eretz Israel and she (= his wife) does not wish to come, she is coerced to come; if she wishes (to come) and he does not, he is coerced to come.'^ 16. It would thus appear that the author of the midrash gathered the names of those authorities known to have been prominent in the post-Bar-Kokhba diaspora, and telescoped their respective emigrations into one story, a process not unknown in the development of rabbinic aggada. The creators of the Legend of the Ten Martyrs appear to have employed the same system, by gathering the names of known casualties of the Bar-Kokhba uprising into one narrative. 17. Cf. D. Sperber, Roman Palestine 200-400: Money and Prices (Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University, 2nd edn, 1991), p. 258 n. 12. 18. And if he refuses, he must divorce her and pay her ketubah; b. Ket. 110b. For

68

Land, Center and Diaspora If he wishes to leave Eretz Israel, and she does not, she is not coerced to leave. If she wishes (to leave) and he does not, she is coerced not to leave (/. Ket. 12.5 [ed. Lieberman, p. 98]).

While the precise dating of this law is not above question, proximity in the Tosefta to other laws of the post-Bar-Kokhba period suggests that it too was formulated in the wake of the war and its devastating effects. Another tannaitic law, also aimed at maintaining a Jewish presence in the Land, leaves no doubt as to the influence of the uprising on this par­ ticular legislation. I refer to the laws of sicaricon listed in m. Git. 5.6. The issue here is the process by which confiscated lands that originally belonged to Jews might be purchased by other Jews, without granting a degree of legitimization to an act of confiscation which was never legally recognized by Jewish authorities. The earliest stratum of the law pro­ claims that any purchase of such land by a Jew from the sicaricon (i.e. the possessor of confiscated land) is null and void, unless the buyer first strikes a deal with the original owner and compensates him. Anything less would attach legitimacy to the sicaricon'?, possession of the land. A second stage—but one enacted before the days of Judah the Patriarch— introduced a crucial change in the requisite process. A Jew could now approach the sicaricon directly, assuming the original owner is either unavailable or unable to buy back his land, and conclude a purchase of the land. The sole requirement was that he recompense the original owner a quarter of the value of the land. It was clearly a heightened sensitivity to the slow dispossession of Jews from the Land that brought about this departure from a proper recognition of only one legal owner. In fact, Judah the Patriarch went a step further, and proclaimed that if the sicaricon possessed the land for twelve months, whoever purchases it from him acquires the title. In effect, the original Jewish owner now no longer retained the right of first refusal. It seems evident that in the after­ math of the Bar-Kokhba war entirely new issues and concerns regarding Jewish presence in the Land of Israel were introduced, and these sensi­ tivities had an influence on legal as well as ideological attitudes towards the Land. I have made a point, until now, of quoting only tannaitic sources, the variants on this law in the Tosefta manuscripts, as well as the two Talmuds, see S. Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-Fshutah, Nashim, IV (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1967), pp. 385-87. 19. For a discussion of the law of sicaricon and its historical implications, cf. S. Safrai, 'Sikarikon' [Hebrew], Zion 17 (1952), pp. 56-64.

3. Between Activism and Passivity

69

because I find it striking tiiat even within these corpora of rabbinic material a strict distinction was made, indeed I suggest preserved, between statements attributed to the first three generations of tannaim, before the Bar-Kokhba rebellion, and those statements attributed to the last two generations.^° Furthermore, I do not think later generations were oblivious to this focus on the Land in the statements of R. Akiva's disciples; rather they attached to those disciples all sorts of related fables. Once R. Shimon was perceived as the champion of residence in Eretz Israel, there was nothing to prevent him from using all sorts of miracu­ lous powers to back up his demands: It once happened that a disciple of R. Shimon b. Yohai went abroad and returned wealthy; and all the disciples saw him and wished also to go abroad; R. Shimon was aware and removed them to the valley near his town of Miron. There he prayed before God: 'O valley, fill up with golden dinars!' and it filled up with golden dinars. He told them: Whoever wishes to take—let him come and take, but know you that whoever takes now, makes a withdrawal against his reward in the next world (Exod. R. 52.3; Tanhuma Pekudei, 7 [ed. Buber]).

The story appears in a very late midrashic collection, and—while strictly speaking I cannot prove it did not happen—a gut feeling leads me to believe that R. Shimon was the logical choice for hero of the story. But as I suggested before, even anonymous tannaitic sources relating to the centrality of the Land either fit the events of the post-Bar-Kokhba era or are attributed in parallel sources to sages of that period. Thus, for example, t. Ber. 3.15 states: 'Those standing abroad [in prayer] direct their hearts towards the Land of Israel, as it is written: "And they pray through their land'" (2 Chron. 6.38). In the Tosefta this statement is part of a lengthier text alluding to a hierarchy of sacred direction for prayer: from abroad to the Land of Israel, within the Land to Jerusalem, within Jerusalem to the Temple and so on. But, as noted by Lieberman,^' the various components of this text appear as separate statements in parallel sources and thus we find in Pes. R. 33 (ed. Ish-Shalom, p. 149b; Tanhuma Vayishlach 33): 'R. Eliezer b. Ya'akov says: If he were praying abroad he directs his heart towards the Land of Israel', and in fact this 20. Such a distinction would tend to overcome even the skepticism of J. Neusner regarding the reliability of rabbinic attributions; see, for example, his article 'The Formation of Rabbinic Judaism: Yavneh (Jamnia) from A.D. 70 to 100', ANRW

n.19.2, p. 14. 21. Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-Fshutah, Zera'im, I, p. 44.

70

Land, Center and Diaspora

attribution to the sage of the Usha period (c. 150-180 CE) also appears in a manuscript of the tannatic Sifre Deut., ch. 29 (ed. Finkelstein, p. 47). In a similar fashion I would suggest identifying other anonymous tannaitic statements with the realities of the later tannaitic period. One such example may be the statement in t. 'Abod. Zar. 4.5: 'Whoever leaves the Land in a time of peace and goes abroad, it is as if he worships idols, for it is written: "I will plant them in this land in faithfulness, with all my heart and all my soul'" (Jer. 32.41). In contradistinction to those prohibitions against leaving the Land in times of distress, one can only speculate what the anonymous rabbi had in mind when referring to 'times of peace', but a strong argument can be made for the days of Judah the Patriarch (c. 180-220 CE), and the favorable relationship between that figure and the Severan dynasty, as a good example of what the sages perceived as a peaceful era. This case is forcefully made by G. Alon, who goes on to interpret some of the steps taken by Judah towards accommodation with Rome in the light of just such a per­ ception.^^ If, indeed, the overwhelming majority of statements demanding allegiance to the Land appear for the first time in the aftermath of the Bar-Kokhba catastrophe, can we proceed to suggest a logical context for this development? To me the answer seems obvious. On the one hand the war effected a major demographic change among the various ethnic groups that populated the Land. While Jews may have remained the largest single community, their numbers were reduced dramatically. Two other factors must also be considered: I have already alluded to the rendering of certain areas, particularly in the regions surrounding Jerusalem, almost totally bereft of Jews, as well as to the transformation of heretofore predominantly Jewish towns into mixed cities. While I do not wish to suggest that the Bar-Kokhba war led to mass emigration, we have noted stories that seem to suggest that at least a significant number of rabbinic personalities left the country (Elimelech, the 'leader of his generation' might have served as a fitting intimation of this reality). The destination of at least some of those rabbis was well known, and for the first time would present a potential challenge to the self-perception of Palestinian sages as being the spiritual leaders of the Jewish worid. The famous story surrounding Hananiah's attempt to intercalate the calendar 22. Alon, The Jews in their Land, II, pp. 696-97; a perceived state of peace may have served as Judah's justification for attempting to abolish some of the fasts that commemorated the destruction of the Temple; see b. Meg. 5a-b; y. Meg. 1.70c.

2- Between Activism and Passivity

71

in Babylonia^^ may reflect the fear in Palestine that its hegemony was shpping away. I would suggest that in the earliest stages tannaitic statements still limited themselves to a pragmatic effort to keep Jews in Palestine and prevent emigration, by establishing the legal prohibition involved in such abandonment of the Land as well as the ensuing punishment in store for those who nevertheless leave, as evinced by the deaths of Elimelech and his sons. At most we hear at this stage that 'dwelling in the Land of Israel is equivalent to all the commandments' (t. 'Abod. Zar. 4.3). Urbach has akeady taken up this terminology, which raises certain ques­ tions when one begins to gaflier all those mitzvot that are 'equal to all other commandments'. The question, of course, is one of mathematical logic, or if you prefer, of weights and measures: If mitzva A weighs the equivalent of all other mitzvot, B, C and D included, how is it that elsewhere mitzva B suddenly assumes the same overwhelming position? It would appear that the phrase was a means of proclaiming that at any given period, a particular commandment might be in danger and thus warrants—for the moment—a disproportionate amount of devotion.^'' At this stage we do not yet encounter the highly developed supernatural status and attributes which might make it worthwhile to remain in the Land at all costs. At the most, we find R. Meir proclaiming that he who dwells in the Land has his sins atoned for, or that 'he who lives in the Land of Israel, recites the Shema morning and evening, and speaks in the holy tongue—is assured of his place in the next world' (Sifre Deut. 333 [ed. Finkelstein, p. 383]). This is still a far cry from the attributes to be attached to the Land by the third century, when it will be claimed that buria^ in the Land atones for sins, or at least assures the person buried therein of rising up immediately with the appearance of the Messiah. If this is the case, how are we to understand the enhanced severity in rabbinic demands for commitment to the Land in the early amoraic period, in contrast to what we have seen even in late tannaitic sources? Here, again, the complete picture of statements and revised attitudes on other issues following Bar-Kokhba must be examined. While on the one hand allegiance to the Land assumed primary importance, statements relating to the nature of messianism, or messianic expectations, took a 23. y. Sanh. 1.19a; b. Ber. 63a-b; the story, which obviously survived in versions edited many decades after the purported fact, will be closely examined in Chapter 5. 24. Urbach, The Sages, I, pp. 347-48.

72

Land, Center and Diaspora

radically different course. Active, restorative messianism, a necessary component in understanding the Bar-Kokhba episode, now came under attack by rabbis of the post-Bar-Kokhba generation:^^ 'Whoever calcu­ lates the end of days [f pn n« ]m]n] has no share in the world to come' {Der. Er. Rab. ch. 11) proclaims R. Yossi b. Halafta, another of Akiva's disciples. The dangers involved in messianic speculations were clearer now than ever before, and in this light we can understand the timeliness of the following midrash: 'And it came to pass at midnigbit' (Exod. 12.29)—Moses told the Israelites 'And I (= God) will pass through the Land of Egypt this night' (Exod. 12.12)—but [He] did not set a time, lest they sit and think evil thoughts and say: The time has arrived and we have not been redeemed (Mek. SbY. Exod. 12.29 [ed. Epstein-Melamed, p. 27]).

Anyone living through yet another military debacle based, at least in part, on militant messianism, now might logically have been rendered a pohtical and rehgious pragmatist. One generation later R. Shimon b. Eleazar could say: 'If youths tell you "build the Temple" do not listen to them, but if old men say to you "destroy the Temple"—listen to them; for the building of youths is destruction, and the destruction of old men is building' (t. 'Abod. Zar. 1.19). Even harsher expressions of this nature appear in the early amoraic period: 'Blasted be the bones of those who calculate the end' proclaims R. Jonathan (b. Sanh. 97b). Rather than in one fell swoop, the messianic era will dawn 'bit by bit' (rtKQ'p n«a''p) just as the sun slowly rises, says R. Hiyya, colleague of Judah the Patriarch (y. Ber. 1.2c). The clearest and most obvious proponent of such pragmatism appears to be Judah the Patriarch himself, the very same leader to whom hints of

25. A v i - Y o n a h , The Jews under Roman and Byzantine Rule, p. 70; cf. G. Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism (New York: Schocken Books, 1971), pp. 56-57; according to Scholem, the religious authorities of the Jewish community, for sixteen hundred years—from the destruction and the Bar-Kokhba uprising and until the Sabbatean movement—opposed almost all acute messianic outbreaks. 'There were many good reasons for this: concern for the stability of the community, concern for the fate of the Jews after a disappointment as suggested by historical experience, combined with a deep-rooted aversion to the "Forcers of the End"... who could not wait for the arrival of the Messiah but thought to do something for it themselves. All these factors operate in the direction of removing Messianism into the realm of pure faith and inaction, leaving the redemption to God alone and not requiring the activity of men.'

3. Between Activism and Passivity

73

messianic potential would now be attached,^* but clearly a transformed messianism not of armies and generals, but something far more spiritu­ alized, and to that degree, requiring far less activism as a means of generating an ultimate messianic era. Placed in this context, one can readily understand the enhanced selfassuredness that will begin to make itself heard from across the Euphrates river. The notorious episode (in Palestinian eyes) connected with Hananiah's attempt to intercalate the calendar in Babylonia suggests that for the first time Palestine was in danger of losing one element of its central position of authority vis-a-vis the powerful eastern Jewish diaspora. The story itself—to be analyzed in ch. 5—was only preserved in two parallel amoraic accounts rather than in any tannaitic source (see n. 23), and thus later elements clearly found their way into these tradi­ tions. Nevertheless, it is the very same Hananiah who is frequentiy cited by the earliest Babylonian amoraim, Samuel in particular, as being the source and authority for a distinctive Babylonian halakhic tradition.^^ It is not by chance that the Palestinian Talmud linked Samuel with Hananiah, with the careers of both rabbis deemed to be turning points in the emergence of a Babylonian self-perception of halakhic independence, even to the extent of attributing to both sages designs for usurping the heretofore Palestinian control over the Jewish calendar. The very same Samuel will also introduce the first statements aimed at legitimizing Jewish residence in Babylonia: 'Rav Yehuda said in the name of Samuel: Just as it is forbidden to leave the Land of Israel for Babylonia, so it is forbidden to leave Babylonia for other lands' (b. Ket. 111a). Within a generation or two these statements would take on a far more strident tone, even to the extent of prohibiting Babylonian aliya to Palestine. The significance of these proclamations appears obvious when read in the light of those contemporary Palestinian statements that have been cited which express a total negation of any such license to live abroad. Samuel's disciple, Rav Yehuda, seems to have taken his mentor's approach one step fiirther, but a crucial step: 'Rav Yehuda says: He who resides in Babylonia—it's as if he resided in the Land of Israel' (b. Ket. 111a). This ideology takes on practical significance in the story of Rav Zera, a disciple of Rav Yehuda, who was forced to avoid his mentor on account of Rav Zera's wish to go up to the Land, for Rav Yehuda 26. See Urbach, The Sages, I, p. 678. 27. Gafni, The Jews of Babylonia in the Talmudic Era, p. 81. 28. y. Ket. 2.26c

74

Land, Center and Diaspora

taught: 'He who goes up from Babylonia to the Land of Israel trans­ gresses a positive commandment, for it is written: "They shall be trans­ ported to Bavel and there they will remain until I remember them, said God'" (Jer. 27.22; b. Ket. llOb-llla). The anonymous redactor of the Babylonian Talmud was aware of the irrelevance to the issue of this prooftext, for it deals not with the exiled people of Israel but rather with the utensils of the Temple that were transported to Babylonia. But such logic would not get in Rav Yehuda's way, the Talmud states, for he can find another scripture, and obviously what emerges is that these policies have nothing to do with Scripture, but rather with an emerging assertive­ ness within the Babylonian rabbinic community. What is interesting is that these pro-Babylonian statements in b. Ketubot are immediately linked by the redactors of the Talmud to the theological underpinnings—and prooftexts—of what would emerge as the ultimate basis for maintaining messianic expectations of a purely passive nature. The alternative prooftext provided by the Babylonian Talmud to explain Rav Yehuda's objection to one's leaving Babylonia is none other than Song of Songs 2.7: 'I adjure you (IDHt* "nmton) O maidens of Jerusalem... do not wake or rouse love until it please', which was widely interpreted by the sages to mean that God had imposed cer­ tain oaths upon Israel, whereby they undertake to refrain from rebelling against the nations or coming up all together ('as a wall'; HQiriD) to the Land.^' (It is not by chance that the modern anti-Zionist rabbinic argument would be based precisely on these traditions, alluding—among other things—to the oaths God required the nation of Israel to take, foregoing any active attempt to rebel against the nations or come up en masse—as a wall—and return to the Land prematurely.)^" All this Babylonian self-legitimizing, in addition to the emerging sense of a Jewish local patriotism in that land, was apparently not lost on the rabbinic contemporaries in Palestine of these Babylonian luminaries, and the statement attributed to R. Hanina b. Hanrnia (quoted at the beginning of this chapter) that prohibits even a momentary emigration from the Land for all the right reasons (yibbum, halitza, etc.) was thus made precisely at the same time that the Babylonians were forbidding their disciples to leave for Palestine. Indeed, the Babylonians not only under­ stood the implications of stories such as R. Hanina's categorical refusal to permit even a short visit abroad, but their subsequent retelling of that 29. Cant. R. 2.1 ^b. Ket. 111a. 30. See Urbach, The Sages, II, p. 1002 n. 11.

3. Between Activism and Passivity

75

very same story highlights how sensitive the issue had become: The story is told of a man whose sister-in-law became a yebamah (widowed and childless) in Khuzistan C»nn 'D).^' The story came before R. Hanina, who was asked: May I go d5wn (!) to carry out levirate marriage? He answered: Your brother married a foreign woman and died, blessed is God who killed him {b. Ket. 111a).

Told in a Babylonian context, this story was given a totally different slant. It is no longer an allegiance to 'the Land' that serves as the focus of the story, but rather a uniquely 'Babylonian' dilemma. The Babylonians, so careful to preserve what they considered to be their superior Jewish pedigree, frowned on those who married women from beyond the boundaries of 'purer Babylonia' (as designated in b. Qid. 71b). Khuzistan was situated to the east and beyond the borders of 'Jewish' Babylonia, and lineage there was suspect. Consequently levirate marriage with women of that region might also be discouraged. And so one could now tell this tale in its Babylonian version while continuing to live quite comfortably in Pumbeditha, and without giving any thought to a possible role for the Land of Israel in the context of the story. The brave few who nevertheless left Babylonia for the Land were frequently received there with scorn, suffering as it were either for the perceived sins of their ancestors who did not return to the Land in the days of Ezra, or for the anti-Palestinian policies of their current teachers. Beyond these 'ideological' causes for disdain, there were also expressions of ridicule aimed at the strange accents or behavior of these 'new immigrants'.^^ The third century seems to have produced quite a bit of anti-Babylonian sentiment among the rabbis of Palestine: Resh Laqish was swimming in the Jordan one day, when Rabbah bar bar Hanna appeared and offered him his hand. He—Resh Laqish—

31. 'Be Hozai' refers to the Khuzistan district of modem Iran, east of southern Iraq; see A. Oppenheimer, Babylonia Judaica in the Talmudic Period (Beihefte zum Tiibinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients; Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert, 1983), p. 75 and n. 28. 32. On the harsh attitude displayed towards new olim by certain elements of the Palestinian Jewish population in the Talmudic era, see S. Lieberman's timely article 'That is How it Was and that is How it Shall Be—The Jews of Eretz Israel and World Jewry during Mishnah and Talmud Times' [Hebrew], Cathedra 17 (1980), pp. 3-10. See also J. Schwartz, 'Tension between Palestinian Scholars and Babylonian Olim in Amoraic Palestine', JSJ 11 (1981), pp. 78-94; idem, 'Babylonian Commoners in Amoraic Palestine', JAOS 101 (1981), pp. 317-22.

76

Land, Center and Diaspora proclaimed: By God, how I hate you people! For it is written: 'If she shall be a wall, we will build upon her a turret of silver; if she be a door—we will enclose her with borders of cedar' (Song 8.9)—Had you made your­ selves like a wall and had you all come up in the days of Ezra, you would have been compared to silver, which cannot rot. N o w that you have come up like doors you are like cedarwood, where rottenness prevails (b. Yom. 9b).

Correspondingly, when Resh Laqish would see them (= the Babylonians) in the marketplace he would say to them: 'Scatter' (get lost! Cant. R. 8.9). Needless to say, in the ideological confrontation between Babylonia and Palestine, Scripture, tradition and national sentiment would logically favor the side of Eretz Israel, and even the Babylonians could not ignore this. Some compromise was necessary, and the one that emerges in the early third century will serve as the focus of our next chapter. It is only now that we encounter—for the first time—the practice of diaspora Jews who had never seen the Land of Israel requesting that their remains be transported to the Land for interment. All sorts of religious advantages were attached to this custom, with atonement for sins and immediate messianic resurrection being the two most prominent rewards. But what is striking, and what leads me to believe that this phenomenon is linked directly to the rabbinic debate surrounding the degree of required com­ mitment to the Land, is that the fullest treatment of the practice of Palestinian interment in the Babylonian Talmud is located on page 111a of tractate Ketubot, squarely in the middle of all those Babylonian pro­ nouncements stressing that he who lives in Babylonia—it is as if he resided in Eretz Israel, and that disciples are forbidden to leave Babylonia! In the light of this we can readily understand certain reactions in Palestine to the relatively new practice of sending remains to the Land for interment: upon seeing coffins arriving in Tiberias, one local sage proclaims as follows: '"My heritage you have rendered an abomination" (Jer. 2.7)—in your lifetime, and "You have come and defiled the Land" (Jer. 2.7)—by your death' Cv. KiL 9.32d). Some Babylonian super-patriots fashioned a reply even to this, and thus we find: 'He who is buried in Babylonia—it is as if he were buried in the Land of Israel.'" As we have already noted in the preceding chapter, this was only part of an emerging and far more comprehensive

33. ARN, version A, ch. 26 (ed. Schechter, p. 82; ET, ed. J. Goldin, p. 111).

3. Between Activism and Passivity

11

self-identity that the Babylonians were now developing. Ultimately the Babylonian community would consider itself a Palestinian clone, with all the attributes that until now had rendered the original Zion so unique. Using Zech. 2.11 as a prooftext, 'Zion' and 'daughter of Babylonia' were juxtaposed, thereby serving as support for Rav Yehuda's decla­ ration that 'He who resides in Babylonia—it is as if he resides in Eretz Israel' {b. Ket. I l i a ) . One cannot help but sense a dialogue emerging between the two communities and their religious authorities regarding the degree of allegiance or commitment demanded towards the Land. The intensity of the debate, beginning in relatively subdued tones in the second century but rising to a far more acrimonious level in the third, is characterized by parallel but diametrically opposed statements issuing from both camps, with the tone and vehemence corresponding most accurately in each generation. I can now summarize by attempting to put together some sort of logical sequence to the expressions towards the Land which emerged from the rabbinic world. To begin, I would be most surprised to find any sort of 'Zionist activism' negating the legitimacy of the diaspora and demanding an immediate return to the Land as early as the Second Temple period, even among the Pharisaic forerunners of the rabbis. All this, of course, did not prevent the cultivation of hopes for an ultimate ingathering, expressed not only by authors in Judaea (see e.g. Pss. Sol. 17.44) but by Jews such as Philo as well. The same sentiment is also expressed in the second letter prefaced to 2 Maccabees (1.27-29) wherein the Jews of the diaspora are informed by their Palestinian brethren that prayers to bring about the end of their dispersion are being offered in Jerusalem. This hope, however, need not have engendered any practical calls for aliya. On the contrary, I would imagine that the advantages of a large, thriving and at times politically influential Jewish diaspora were apparent to the majority of Jews living at the time of the Second Temple. Jerusalem priests knew where shekels came from, Herodian rulers knew where Jerusalem priests came from, and even officers of the Roman state—such as Petronius in the days of Gaius Caligula—could not ignore the potential power of the Jewish diaspora in dealing with Jerusalem. For this reason, as well as the lack of any contrary evidence, I would tend to doubt the existence of any early debate between Judaean Jews, even those aligned with the Pharisaic camp, and diaspora Jews surrounding the status of the Land. Moreover, we have seen that the unique type of Palestinian patriotism that would ultimately emerge is still totally lacking

78

Land, Center and Diaspora

in the statements of sages prior to the Bar-Kokhba uprising. It is only by the second half of the second century that we encounter an enhanced call for loyalty to Eretz Israel (and, interestingly, this takes place precisely at the same time that active, militant political messianism is rendered taboo. I make this point in light of certain current realities, which might lead people to assume that a heightened call for allegiance to the Land is automatically linked to some expression of messianic zeal.) What we have seen, I suggest, is that sensitivity to the plight of the Land—and the ensuing calls for commitment—appear precisely at a watershed in the history of the Land of Israel, when Jews slowly ceased to be the dominant ethnic factor in the Land, or at least came to fear this possibility for the first time. (One is reminded that it was at precisely this juncture that the Roman province ceased to go by the official name of Judaea, assuming instead the name 'Syria Palaestina'.) It appears that a most poignant midrashic statement sensed this fear and expressed it succincdy: 'They gloated at her destruction' (Lam. 1.7: Tt-mm bv ipntC)—[inter­ preted to mean] on their sabbatical... you find that when Israel was exiled they began to keep their sabbatical (laws),^'' and the nations of the world scoffed at them and told them: In your Land you did not keep the sabbatical and here you are keeping it?! (Lam. R. 1 [ed. Buber, p. 36a]).

Consciousness of the importance of the Land would become enhanced, this midrash seems to be saying, precisely when the nation senses that the Land is about to slip away!

34. It is not clear to what—if any—historical reality this midrash might be referring. We have no evidence for any organized undertaking on the part of diaspora Jews to keep the laws of sabbatical, although we do have such evidence for terumot and ma 'asrot; see S. Safrai, 'The Practical Implementation of the Sabbatical Year after the Destruction of the Second Temple' [Hebrew], Tarbiz 35 (1966), p. 306.

Chapter 4 BURIAL A N D REINTERMENT IN THE L A N D OF ISRAEL: THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS

Developing attitudes towards the Land of Israel in the Talmudic era, among Jews residing within its borders as well as among those living outside the Land, were not merely limited to or expressed by statements of allegiance or by nostalgic constructions of an idealized past. New customs and patterns of behavior linked to the Land also appeared at this time, and the emergence of new realities requires us to search for their underlying reasons, or at least for an atmosphere that would serve to foster such new manifestations. The most obvious example of this new relationship is the custom that now assumed prominence, whereby Jews living—and dying—in the diaspora would have their remains sent to the Land of Israel for burial. I shall attempt to show in the following pages that this was indeed a new development in Jewish religious practice, although this would not prevent later generations from assuming that the practice had its antecedents in the earliest stages of Israelite history. To be sure, all emerging customs require not only a cause, that is, some underlying impulse or historical context, but also a justification in the eyes of its earliest practitioners, frequently based on an authoritative precedent. That is to say: if what we are doing is proper, can we not assume that our revered fathers also knew of the practice, and most probably performed it as well?' By the Middle Ages the custom of bringing the dead of the diaspora

I. This line of reasoning is only one step away from the well-known rabbinic suggestion, found in a number of Second Temple works as well, that attributes to the pre-Sinaitic Patriarchs an adherence to all or many of the commandments of the Torah; c f the sources cited by Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, V, p. 259 n. 275. For the literary as well as conceptual variants of this type of anachronism, in rabbinic as well as non-Jewish literature, cf. I. Heiiiemann, Darkhei ha-Aggadah [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2nd edn, 1954), pp. 35-43.

80

Land, Center and Diaspora

to the Land of Israel for burial was sufficiently sanctioned to warrant its inclusion in the major halakhic codices: 'The dead are not to be trans­ ferred from a city in which there is a cemetery to another [city], the exception being from outside the Land to the Land of Israel.'^ The practice of removing the dead to the Land of Israel, or at least of placing earth from the Land in the deceased's coffin, had become so widely known that it was assumed that the custom had a long and impressive pedigree. Maimonides (Hilkhot Melakhim 5.11), who knew not only of the custom but was also cognizant of the talmudic rewards attached to it, could thus make the following statement: And he who is buried in it (= the Land) obtains atonement; it is as though the place (where one lies) were an altar which effects atonement, as it is said: 'And the Land doth make expiation for His people' (Deut. 32.43). In (forecasting) punishment (the prophet) says: 'And thou thyself shall die on unclean land' (Amos 7.17). There is no comparison between one whom (the Land) receives while he is living and one whom it receives after death; nevertheless the greatest of the wise men brought their dead there, go and leam from our father Jacob (Gen. 47.30) and from Joseph the righteous (Gen. 50.25).

Maimonides, it appears, was not only aware of one of the advantages cited by the sages for burial in Palestine—the atonement thereby of sins—but linked it both to the prophetic threat of punishment by death (and consequential burial) in unclean land (i.e. outside the Land), as well as the relative advantage of at least being buried in the Land, an advantage which he suggests—but does not state outright—was known as far back as the days of Jacob and Joseph, both of whom asked that their remains be brought to the Land for burial. Maimonides did not necessarily have access to a source that attributed the talmudic justifications for Palestinian burial to the biblical Patriarchs, nor did he possess any real knowledge that the custom was as ancient as all that. What he did have before him were the various rabbinic stories of coffins being sent to the Land for burial (we shall examine these sources presently) quoted by a number of midrashim in connection with Jacob's request to be buried in the Land (Gen. 47.29-30). Linking the two might suggest continuity of the custom, but in fact there is absolutely no

2. ShulhanArukh, Yoreh De 'ah 363.2; the same source also permits transferring the remains even after burial 'in order to bury in the Land of Israel'; cf. Or Zaru'a, part 2, Laws of Moiuning 419.

4. Burial and Reinterment in the Land of Israel

81

corroborating evidence for the antiquity of the practice we are about to examine.^ At what time, then, did the custom first take shape? To be sure, the very nature of a religious custom is such that we should never expect a source to reveal its origins. For their practitioners, customs don't begin, they simply existl"^ This, of course, would be the traditional view from within, while for the historian there may nevertheless be tell-tale signs of the emergence of a new religious phenomenon. One way to recognize the formative stages of a custom is to identify or isolate evidence of attacks on the practice. Truly ancient customs have a built-in defense mechanism: their very antiquity is their ultimate justification. It is the new customs, in their still formative stages, that arouse attacks or responses, and these are clearly visible regarding the practice of burial in the Land. A Palestinian midrash, as well as parallel talmudic traditions, relates the following anecdote regarding coffins being sent from outside the Land for burial in Palestine: R. bar Qoraiya and R. Eleazar were sitting and studying Torah in the 'ilasis'^ of Tiberias, when they saw coffins arriving from abroad. Said

3. A similar historical conclusion by Maimonides is his assumption that rabbinic ordination, semikha, existed as a chain of traditional practice going back to the days of Moses and Joshua; cf. Hilkhot Sanh. 4.1. Here, of course, Maimonides could rely not only on the linguistic evidence, with the verb samakh ("[QD) designating ordina­ tion appearing already in the biblical narrative of Moses and Joshua (Num. 27.23), but also on the reasoning that ordination by definition must attest to an unbroken chain of the transmission of oral Torah, for any breach would effect an irreparable rupture in the process of transmission; cf., e.g., b. Sanh. 13b-14a. 4. In any case, the fact that its legal basis and historical antecedents were unknown would not undermine the authority of a custom; see M. Elon, Jewish Law, n (New York: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1994), pp. 880-94. For the vast literature on Jewish customs, their sources and authority, see the works cited by D. Sperber, Minhagei Yisra 'el [Hebrew], I (Jerusalem: Mosad Ha-Rav Kook, 1989), notes to pp. 9-23. 5. S. Lieberman ('Emendations on the Jerushalmi' [Hebrew], Tarbiz 3 [1932], p. 208 n. 7) has suggested the Greek -udXtooiq, from vaJtoq, a place where glass was manufactured; variants to this tradition mention the 'stadium' or the 'gates' of Tiberias; cf. I.M. Gafni, 'Reinterment in the Land of Israel: Notes on the Origin and Development of the Custom', The Jerusalem Cathedra 1 (1981), p. 96 n. 3. For an up-to-date discussion of the 'ilasis' of Tiberias, c f Y.Z. Eliav, Sites, Institutions and Daily Life in Tiberias during the Talmudic Period [Hebrew] (Mi'tuv T'veria, 10; Jerusalem: The Center for the Study of Tiberias, Bar-Ilan University, 1995), pp. 11-15.

82

Land, Center and Diaspora R. bar Qoraiya to R. Eleazar: Regarding these I apply the verse: In your lifetime 'you made my possession abhorrent' (Jer. 2.7), and in your death—'you came and defiled My land' (Jer. 2.7) He [= R. Eleazar] said to him: Not so, when they come to the Land of Israel, they place upon them a lump of earth,* thus atoning for their sins. On what basis (is this assertion made)? 'And the Land doth make expiation for His people' (Deut. 32.43).^

The opposition to the custom as expressed in this source is note­ worthy for a number of reasons. To begin, the complaint towards those who only saw fit to ship their remains rather than embrace the Land during their lifetime seems to dovetail with those expressions of 'activist Zionism' discussed in the previous chapter. Beyond that, one can only wonder how any sage might cast such harsh aspersions on what pur­ portedly was recognized as a legitimate means for the atonement of sins, if the custom and the beliefs attached to it were indeed as ancient as the Patriarchs, or even perceived as going back hundreds of years. And yet the provenance of the story, based on the two rabbinic sages quoted, is the third century CE, which at least raises the possibility that it was sometime around that century that the custom of burial in Palestine began to emerge as a popular phenomenon. My first objective, then, will be to date the earliest known examples of the practice. Once this is established, 1 will examine the various explana­ tions supplied at the time for the custom, as well as the possible historical context for the emergence of the practice. All this, I hope to show, will fit neatly into the dialogue within the Jewish community and its spiritual leaders, beginning in the post-Bar-Kokhba period, surrounding the status of the Land of Israel. Tannaitic literature makes no mention of the practice, or indeed of the 6. The Palestinian Talmud version reads, 'Once they reach the Land of Israel they take a clump of earth and place it on their bier', a reading that cau.sed at lea.st one medieval authority, Sherira Gaon, to conclude that the custom of placing Palestinian earth in the coffin would not be effective regarding graves in the diaspora (cf. Gafni, 'Reinterment in the Land of Israel', p. 97 n. 5); had Sherira's conclusion become public knowledge, one can only wonder if the whole industry of 'earth from the Holy Land' would have assumed such a major role in Jewish households throughout diaspora conununities. 7. Gen. R. 96 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, p. 1240) (according to MSS Vatican 30); variants to the story are found in y. Kit. 9.32d; y. Ket. 12.35b; Pes. R. 1 (ed. IshShalom, p. 3b; trans. Braude, pp. 44-45); Tanh. Va-Yehi 3 (trans. Townsend, p. 289); Tanh. Va-Yehi (ed. Buber, pp. 214-15).

4. Burial and Reinterment in the Land of Israel

83

possible advantages, of bringing the deceased of the diaspora for burial in the Land. The lone reference to burial in the Land in a tannaitic corpus {t. 'Abod. Zar. 4.3) does not list it as a virtue in and of itself, which would justify the transport of bones for burial in the Land, but as one of the consequential privileges of those who have resided in the Land up to their death ('the mitzva of residing in the Land is equal to all the other mitzvot in the Torah, and he who is buried there—it is as though he were buried under the altar [of the Temple]').* In fact, the reference to burial in the Tosefta is, as noted by Urbach,^ most probably a later addendum to the text, and is quoted in the Babylonian Talmud {b. Ket. 11 la) in the name of the amora R. Anan. Thus, the earliest rabbinic story to allude to the custom of bringing the deceased of the diaspora for burial in the Land is amoraic, and places the event in the days of R. Judah the Patriarch: Rabbi [Judah the Patriarch] was very humble, and would say: Whatever anyone tells me to do I would do, except for what the Elders of Bathyra did on behalf of my forefather (= Hillel), for they gave up their position [of Nasi] and appointed him; [but] if Rav Huna the [Babylonian] Exilarch should come up here, I would seat him ahead of me, because he is of the tribe of Judah while 1 am from Benjamin, he is from the male line (of the House of David) and I am from the female line. One time R. Hiyya entered before him and said: Lo, Rav Huna is outside! Rabbi blanched. He (Rav Hiyya) said to him: His coffin has arrived. He [Rabbi] said to him: Go see who wants you outside. He went out and found no one, and knew that he [= Judah] was angry with him. He did not come before him for thirty days.'°

8. For this phrase, see S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1962), pp. 161-63, and the literature cited by Gafni, 'Reinterment in the Land of Israel', p. 100 n. 21. 9. The Sages, II, p. 999 n. 87. 10. y. Kil. 9.32b; y. Ket. 12.35a; Gen. R. 33.3 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, pp. 305307); the Babylonian Talmud (b. M. Qat. 25a) also relates that the coffin of another Rav Huna was also brought to Palestine for burial, as were the remains of two other amoraim, Rabba bar Huna and Rav Hanmuna. Yet a third Rav Huna, described in y. Kil. 9.32b as 'Exilarch' was also brought to Palestine for interment, but he was apparently not the same Rav Huna referred to in our story about Judah the Patriarch (according to the Palestinian Talmud that other Huna was buried near R. Hiyya's grave, whereas in our story R. Hiyya is still among the living). The nature of the transmission of these stories, wherein one 'event' might have evolved into three different versions, is far from clear; see Gafni, 'Reinterment in the Land of Israel', p. 104 n. 32; S. Friedman, 'On the Historical Aggada in the Babylonian Talmud'

84

Land, Center and Diaspora

As noted, this is an amoraic source, which already treats the removal of Rav Huna's coffin for burial in Palestine as an accepted practice. Note­ worthy, although possibly with no real bearing on the issue before us, is the fact that the above story is also the earliest mention of an Exilarch in Babylonia (more precisely: Huna is the earliest Exilarch to be explicitly referred to anywhere in rabbinic literature, and for that matter, in any extant literary source). The one point in this story that may nevertheless be relevant to our discussion, if in fact the tradition contains any authen­ tic historical testimony at all, is the probability that the Exilarch's remains were brought for burial to Beth She'arim. This would be the logical explanation for the inclusion of R. Judah the Patriarch in the story, inas­ much as we know that the town was also the location of the patriarchal burial plot at the time {b. Ket. 103b), and archaeological evidence provides unassailable proof of Beth She'arim's role as an international Jewish cemetery, whose use began in the early third century CE (see below, n. 18). As noted, up to the days of Judah the Patriarch we have no reliable source attesting to the practice or ideology later attached to burial in the Land. The biblical examples of Jacob and Joseph expressly allude to the wish of Israelites bom in the Land who wish to have their remains returned there and buried with their ancestors; this precedent fits practi­ cally all the examples of a similar practice in Second Temple times." Thus, for instance, we hear of Aristobulus II, son of Alexander Jannaeus, who was poisoned by the supporters of Pompey in Rome in 49 BCE. His corpse, we are told, was preserved in honey, and later transferred to Palestine to be interred in the tombs of the Hasmonaean kings (Josephus, War 1.184; Ant. 14.124). This would also seem to be the case of Matitya son of Judah, mentioned in an inscription discovered in a cave on Giv'at ha-Mivtar in Jerusalem.'^ He was almost certainly a Judaean who died in [Hebrew], in S. Friedman (ed.), Saul Lieberman Memorial Volume (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1993), p. 160 n. 256. 11. Except for the practice of reinterment in the Land, the removal of a person from his grave and reinterment in another grave (even a less respectable one) was sanctioned by the sages only in the case of reburial in a family plot; the rationalization for this is given in y. M. Qat. 2.81b: 'It is pleasant for a man to rest with his ancestors.' For the importance of family tombs in the bibUcal period, see the literature cited by E.M. Meyers, Jewish Ossuaries: Reburial and Rebirth (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1971), pp. 14-15; L.Y. Rahmani, 'Jason's Tomb', lEJ 17 (1967), pp. 94-100. 12. See the articles by E.S. Rosenthal, 'The Giv'at ha-Mivtar Inscription', lEJ 23

4. Burial and Reinterment in the Land of Israel

85

the diaspora, and whose remains were returned to the Land for burial by Abba, son of El'azar the Priest, who was also a Jerusalemite exiled to Babylonia and who later returned to his native land. To the extent that we do find evidence of Jews from the diaspora buried in the vicinity of Jerusalem, this evidence attests only to the fact that the interred had origins in diaspora communities. At some time in their life they appar­ ently came to Judaea, either to reside there or as pilgrims; they then died there and were buried there. The most prominent example of such a phenomenon is the burial site on Mt Scopus of the Nicanor family of Alexandria, 'maker of the gates' (or 'donator of the gates').'"* Here, too, we are not dealing with a person, or persons, whose remains were brought from Alexandria and who had no prior contact with their final resting place. Rather, these appear to be the remains of people who had lived in Jerusalem for some time, died there and were subsequently buried there. In fact, the only explich case of Jews from the diaspora who died outside the Land and were then brought to Jerusalem for interment, namely Queen Helena and her son Izates (Josephus, Ant. 20.95), also conforms to this process. Helena Uved in Jerusalem for many years, and even had built there three pyramids, which later, according to Josephus, served as a mausoleum for the queen and her son.'^ While the transferral of royal remains from the place of (1973), pp. 72-81; and J. Naveh, 'An Aramaic Tomb Inscription Written in PaleoHebrew Script', IEJ23 (1973), pp. 82-91. 13. This fact, that the geographic origin of a person written on his gravestone proves only that he belonged to a certain community and not necessarily that his remains were brought from that place for interment, has been noted by several scholars; see G. Alon, 'On the Source of an Ancient Jewish Burial Custom' [Hebrew], in G. Alon, Studies in Jewish History, II (Tel Aviv: Hakibutz HaMeuchad, 1958), p. 103 n. 14; Safrai, Pilgrimage; M. Schwabe, 'On the History of Tiberias' [Hebrew], in M. Schwabe and I. Gutman (eds.), Commentationes ludaicoHellenisticae in memoriam lohannis Lewy (1901-1945) (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1949), pp. 210, 220; idem, 'Tiberias Revealed through Inscriptions' (Hebrew), in H.Z. Hirschberg (ed.). All the Land ofNaphtali (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1967), p. 182. Consequently, the various funerary inscriptions found near Jerusalem that list the deceased person's origins do not prove the existence of a custom to bring to the dead of the diaspora for burial near Jerusalem during the Second Temple period; cf. Meyers, Jewish Ossuaries, p. 72. 14. N. Avigad, 'Jewish Rock-Cut Tombs in Jerusalem and in the Judean HillCountry' [Hebrew], Eretz-lsrael 8 (1967), pp. 119-25. 15. On these tombs, cf. M. Kon, The Tombs of the Kings [Hebrew] (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1957).

86

Land, Center and Diaspora

death to a distant mausoleum could look back to the elaborate precedent of Alexander the Great (Diodorus 18.28), there is no reason to believe that commoners—Jewish or otherwise—embraced a similar practice. Indeed, the enormous expense involved in such an undertaking would have been sufficient to preclude the development of such a practice among broad segments of ancient society. In summing up the archaeological as well as literary evidence of the Second Temple period and immediately afterwards, there appears to be no compelling evidence either for the existence of any practice of bringing the dead of the diaspora for burial in the Land, or of any religious ideology that would have rendered such a practice meaningful. Moreover, the very same prooftexts that would later be cited as the basis for the virtues of Palestinian burial find no such interpretation in tannaitic literature. Indeed, these verses are connected in the tannaitic midrashim with the exhortation to reside in the Land, and as such conform perfectly to similar calls that were cited in the preceding chapter. For example, the Sifre to Deut. 32.43 ('And the land doth make expiation for His people') has the following: R. Meir used to say: The Land of Israel makes expiation for anyone who dwells in it, as it says: 'The people that dwell therein shall be forgiven for iniquitv'—]1P t<1P3 m zmVT] •:;n; Isa. 33.24). Nevertheless, this matter is still in doubt (i.e. the scripture is ambiguous), for we do not know (according to the Hebrew text) whether they must suffer their iniquities in it, or whether their iniquities are atoned for by it. But when scripture states: 'And the land doth make expiation for His people' (Deut. 32.43)— we leam that their iniquities are atoned for by it. Similarly R. Meir used to say: He who lives in the Land of Israel, recites the Shema moming and evening, and speaks the holy tongue—he is assured of the world to come (Sifre Deut. 333 [ed. Finkelstem, p. 383]).

This statement of R. Meir dovetails nicely with those similar sentiments expressed by his contemporaries, the other disciples of R. Akiva, which seem to have taken on a special import in the post-Bar-Kokhba period. It is only in the third century, in amoraic sources, that we encounter for the first time any positive emphasis on the advantages of burial in the Land. Two major traditions now emerge, in a variety of parallel sources, each promising a specific reward for those whose remains are interred in the Land. One tradition—quite possibly the earlier of the two—claims that those buried in the Land will be the first to be resurrected with the coming of the Messiah. The Palestinian Talmud version of this tradition

4. Burial and Reinterment in the Land of Israel

87

attributes it to sages at the very beginning of the amoraic period, the first half of the third century: R. Shimon b. Laqish (var. R. Levi) said: 'I will walk before the Lord in the land of the living' (Ps. 116.9). But are not 'the lands of the living' Tyre and its environs, Caesarea and its environs, [for] there (everything is) cheap, there there is abundance?'* R. Shimon b. Laqish (var. Levi) in the name of Bar Qapparah said: [The Psalmist means] a land whose dead will come to life first in the days of the Messiah. On what (scriptural) basis?—'Who gives breath to the people upon it' (Isa. 42.5).'^

Such an overwhelming advantage for Palestinian burial immediately raised the questionable status of those not fortunate enough to be buried in the Land, and so we find attached to the basic premise the following addendum: But if so our sages in the golah have lost out! R. Simai said: The Holy One Blessed be He, will bore through the earth before them and they will roll through like wine-skins and when they arrive in Eretz Israel their souls return to them. On what scriptural basis? 'And I will bring you unto the Land of Israel... and I will put my spirit within you and ye shall hve' (Ezek. 37.14; y. Kil. 9.32c).

The Babylonian Tahnud has a shghtly different version: R. Eleazar said: The dead outside the Land will not be resurrected.. . N o w according to R. Eleazar will not the righteous outside the Land be revived? R. Elai said: [They will be revived] by rolling {b^±li '"V). R. Abba Sala the Great demurred: Will not the rolling be painful to the righteous? Abaye said: Tuimels (m'^TID) will be made for them in the ground (b. Ket. 11 la).

This last statement is not only quoted in the name of a later, fourthcentury, Babylonian sage (Abaye), but in fact appears to be a slightly re­ fashioned version, adding the double meaning implied by the word mehilla, signifying at one and the same time a tunnel and a process of atonement. Moreover, while the Palestinian version was merely willing to supply a subterranean passage for 'our sages in the golah', the Babylonian

16. The parallel in Pes. R. 1 (ed. Ish-Shalom, p. 2b) reads, somewhat caustically, 'Now is the Land of Israel really the land of the living? Do not men die in it? For that matter, is not the world outside the Land of Israel [more accurately called] "the land of the living..."?' 17. y.Kil 9.32c; Gen. R. 74.1 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, p. 857); b. Ket. 11 la; Pes. R. 1 (ed. Ish-Shalom, p. 2b; trans. Braude, p. 42).

88

Land, Center and Diaspora

Talmud goes one step further by seeing to it that this passage is free of any pain. The second advantage attached to burial in the Land, that is, the claim that such burial effects an atonement for sin, is associated primarily with rabbis of the latter part of the third century, such as R. Eleazar b. Pedat. We have already noted his defense of the custom of Palestinian burial for the dead of the diaspora ('for as soon as they are buried in the Land of Israel...it will make expiation for them, as it is written: "And His land doth make expiation for His people'"), and indeed this notion is echoed in another Palestinian Talmud dialogue: It is written: 'And you, Pashhur, and all who dwell in your house shall go into captivity; to Babylon you shall go and there you shall die and there you shall be buried' (Jer. 20.6). R. Abba bar Zamina said: R. Helbo and R. Hamma b. Hanina [were discussing this verse]. One said: If one died (abroad) and was buried there—he has suffered two deaths; if one died there and was buried here (i.e. in the Land), he has suffered one [death]. The other said: Burial here atones for death [there]... (y. Kil. 9.32c).

While the first advantage, resurrection at the dawn of the messianic age, does not necessarily suggest the belief in an imminent messianic coming (indeed, it may even imply just the opposite: with no immediate messianic expectations, there should be no cause for one's removal to the Holy Land during his lifetime), it is quite easy to see how the idea emerged from the simple juxtaposition of two scriptures: Isa. 42.5 ('Who gave breath—nW2—to the people upon it and life (or spirit; mi) to those who walk thereon'), and Ezek. 37.12-14: 'I am going to open your graves and lift you out of the graves, O my people, and bring you to the Land of Israel... and I will put my breath (Tm) in you and you shall live again.' By exegetically linking these two scriptures (mi.. .mi) the sages also rendered new meaning to the designation of Eretz Israel as 'the Land of the living' (D"nn p « ) , that is, the land where the deceased will 'live' first. The second advantage of burial in Palestine, the atonement thereby of sins, hardly issues from the simple meaning of the prooftexts cited as support for the idea. In fact, scriptures such as Isa. 33.24—'The people that dwell therein shall be forgiven for iniquity'— leave the reader with the distinct impression that it is dwelling there which is expiatory, rather than burial. (Deut. 32.43 is even more ambigu­ ous, and in fact enjoys a wide variety of translations.) In such a case it is not unlikely that this advantage was deduced only after the custom of

4. Burial and Reinterment in the Land of Israel

89

Palestinian burial had become to some extent established.'* In any case I find it highly significant that it is precisely when our lit­ erary sources begin to extol the benefits of Palestinian burial that we first encounter the physical evidence of the practice. Inasmuch as questions regarding the authenticity of attributions of particular rabbinic statements to specific sages have been raised more than once, it would appear that at least in the case of Palestinian burial the archaeological evidence tends to corroborate the chronological context in which the first rabbinic allu­ sions to the phenomenon are located. The example of Beth She'arim is the most noteworthy case, and excavations have conclusively shown that the site served as an international Jewish cemetery begiiming in the early third century." Among those brought there for buriaP" we find: 'Eusebios the most illustrious archisynagogos of the people of Beirut';^' 'Aristeas from S i d o n ' ' T h e sons of Leontius, the banker, from 18. Once burial in the Land was conceived as an effective means of atonement for the deceased's sins, connecting such interment with burial 'under the altar' (/. 'Abod. Zar. 4.3)—i.e. the site for effecting the atonement of the sins of the living—took on a particular significance; cf. Maimonides, Hilkhot Melakhim 5.11 (quoted above). 19. For the most recent summary on the dating of the Beth She'arim catacombs, see N. Avigad and B. Mazar, 'Beth She'arim', in E. Stem (ed.) The New Ency­ clopaedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, I (Jemsalem: Israel Exploration Society and Carta, 1993), p. 248 ('the quarrying of the graves and the building of the magnificent catacombs began, without doubt, at the beginning of the third century'); that the remains of many of those interred at Beth She'arim were indeed brought from outside the Land is evident by the remains of the numerous imported marble coffins, as well as the lead coffins that were most likely brought from Phoenician cities ('Beth She'arim', p. 244). 20. The inscriptions in Greek probably serve as the main testimony to those who were brought to Bet She'arim from abroad, although some of the Greek inscriptions, and certainly the Hebrew and Aramaic ones, may also designate graves of deceased persons from the Land of Israel. On the Greek inscriptions in general, see M. Schwabe and B. Lifshitz, Beth She 'arim. II. The Greek Inscriptions (Jemsalem: Rutgers University Press on behalf of the Israel Exploration Society and the Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University, 1974). Inscription #183 {Beth She'arim, II, p. 157) describes the tomb of the noble Karteria: 'Zenobia brought her here for burial, fulfilling thus her mother's behest'. The fact that the Greek inscriptions describe persons who held important offices abroad {archisynagogos; gerousiarch) as well as the physical evidence of many of the coffins (see preceding note) suggests that these deceased were brought here from abroad in a manner similar to the Exilarch described in the rabbinic sources. 21. Schwabe and Lifshitz, Beth She 'arim, H, # 164, p. 141. 22. Schwabe and Lifshitz, Beth She'arim, n, #172, p. 144.

90

Land, Center and Diaspora

P a l m y r a ' A i d e s i o s , head of the Council of Elders of Antioch (Yepou[a]idpxoi) 'AvTioxecoi;)';^'' and 'Sarah—also named Maxima— from Meishan' (southern Iraq, at the confluence of the Euphrates and Tigris)^^ to name just a few. Beth She'arim is not the only example of a Palestinian necropohs from this period that served as the final resting place for the deceased of the Jewish diaspora. At the ancient Jewish cemetery of Jaffa archaeologists have uncovered the gravesites of Jacob of Cappadocia, Cyrilos and Alexander of Alexandria, Judah b. Yosi of Tarsus and others,^^ and the same phenomenon is known to have existed in Tiberias.'^^ Needless to say, not all the Jews of the diaspora could permit them­ selves the luxury of a Palestinian burial. Not only would the expenses involved have been prohibitive for many, but such a distant burial would have prevented the periodical visiting of the grave by members of the deceased's family. But apparentiy even that difficulty was overcome through an ingenious maximalist demarcation of the geographical bound­ aries of the Land of Israel. The Palestinian midrash attributes to the Babylonian amora Samuel the following statement: Up to the place that the River goes, that is Eretz Israel. And which (place) is it? It is Tarbiqna (Gen. R. 16.3 [ed. Theodor-Albeck, p. 145]).

'The River' referred to in the biblical scripture (Gen. 2.14) is the Euphrates, and so the point of Samuel's statement is that the boundary of the Land of Israel extends to a particular spot, up to which the Euphrates flows. Oppenheimer has identified the site with Baniqya, near 23. Schwabe and Lifshitz, Beth She 'arim, II, #92, p. 72. 24. Schwabe and Lifshitz, Beth She'arim, II, #141, p. 128. 25. Schwabe and Lifshitz, Beth She'arim, II, #101, p. 81; on the Jewish commu­ nity at Meishan (Mesene), cf. Oppenheimer, Babylonia Judaica, pp. 241-56; idem, 'Links between Mesene and Eretz Israel' [Hebrew], Zion Al (1982), pp. 335-41. 26. S. Klein, Sefer Ha-Yishuv, I (Jerusalem: Dvir and the Bialik Institute, 1939; Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2nd edn, 1977), pp. 80-88. No definitive dating has been established for these inscriptions, inasmuch as already in the nineteenth century most had been removed from their original setting and shown separately to archae­ ologists, beginning with Charles Clermont-Ganneau in 1871. In a sweeping and general statement, Y. Kaplan assumed that 'most of the tombstones are from the period after the Bar Kokhba uprising'; see Y. Kaplan, The Archaeology and History of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa (Tel Aviv: Masada, 1959), p. 96. A comprehensive study of these Jaffa inscriptions, most of which have been scattered among museums outside of Israel, is a major desideratum. 27. Schwabe, 'On the History of Tiberias', pp. 238-49.

4. Burial and Reinterment in the Land of Israel

91

Nagaf, southwest of Kufa in southern Iraq.^* Arab writers such as the twelfth- to thirteenth-century geographer Yaqut in fact state that the Euphrates went as far as Nagaf, and there flowed into an extension of the Persian Gulf. As for the area of Baniqya, these same sources attach an interesting Jewish significance to the district. It was here, they claim, that Abraham and Lot stopped on their way to the Land of Israel, even effecting a certain supernatural benefit through their presence: the cessa­ tion of local earthquakes. More interesting, however, is Yaqut's claim that the Jews used to carry their dead to Baniqya for burial, because Abraham had said that seventy thousand of his descendants—slain fighting for the sake of the Lord—would be resurrected there.^^ Baniqya thus emerges as the site of a major Jewish cemetery that on the one hand could guarantee to those buried therein all the advantages of interment in the Land of Israel, while at the same time maintaining its geographical proximity to the Babylonian Jewish community. Indeed, the counterpart to tiiis necropohs, situated at the southwestern comer of 'Jewish Babylonia', may have been near Nahar Anaq, located at the northwestern tip of the Jewish community of Babylonia in the neighborhood of Pumbeditha.-'^ The Babylonian Talmud {b. Ber. 42b, according to the Munich manuscript) records the following: 'When Rav died, his disciples followed after him (i.e. accompanied his coffin). When they returned, they said: Let us go and eat bread in Nahar Anaq.' Inasmuch as Nahar Anaq has been con­ clusively located just east of the Euphrates in the district of Firi (= Firuz) Sapur (i.e. Anbar), the talmudic anecdote seems to be suggesting that Rav's disciples carried his remains to be buried just west of the Euphrates, and upon re-crossing the river on their return stopped at Nahar Anaq, east of the Euphrates. The practice of Babylonian Jews burying their dead on the west banks of the Euphrates seems to have continued for centuries. Not only have Jewish gravestones been found in the Anbar district, but the following

28. Cf. Oppenheimer, Babylonia Judaica, p. 447. 29. Oppenheimer, Babylonia Judaica, p. 449. 30. Oppenheimer, Babylonia Judaica, pp. 269-70; Pumbeditha has been identified as being situated in the Anbar district, near the village of Dimmima; see J. Obermeyer, Die Landschaft Babylonien im Zeitalterdes Talmuds und des Gaonats (Frankfurt: 1. Kauffmann, 1929), pp. 215-18 (followed by Oppenheimer, Babylonia Judaica, p. 362).

92

Land, Center and Diaspora

responsum of Rav Hai Gaon (tenth to eleventh century) spells this out in no uncertain terms: It is not our custom to move the deceased from the grave in his place [of residence], but it does happen that the deceased is buried in Bagd (= Baghdad) and some time later taken several parasangs to the west of the Paras (Perat, i.e. Euphrates), to the desert near the wasteland...when an important woman dies, her corpse is sent from Baghdad Jo Firi Sabur to the desert wasteland...

The point of all these sources, beginning in the third century and connected with the names of the two earliest and most prominent sages of third-century Talmudic Babylonia, Rav and Samuel, seems to be evident. On the one hand these traditions appear to reflect the growing recognition of the rewards held out to those buried in the Land of Israel. But at the same time these beliefs were not applied—at least by the Babylonian sages—as arguments requiring the Jews of Babylonia to abandon their places of residence and 'go up' to flie Land. By defining the boundaries of the Land as stretching to the very outskirts of Jewish Babylonia, the local Jewish population could now enjoy the best of both worlds. How noteworthy, then, that the demarcation of the boundaries of Eretz Israel so close to Babylonia was attributed by Palestinian sources to Samuel. For it was this very same amora who was perceived more than once as being the champion of a new sense of Babylonian-Jewish self-sufficiency. I have already cited Samuel's statement that 'it is forbid­ den to leave Babylonia for other lands' {b. Ket. I l i a ) , and also noted that Samuel's name was linked in the Palestinian Talmud with Hananiah's attempt—^two generations earlier and in the wake of the Bar-Kokhba war—to intercalate the calendar in Babylonia, thereby usurping what had been considered the sole prerogative of the Palestinian leadership up to that time.^^ Similarly, Rav's return to Babylonia (219 CE) after an extended period of study in Eretz Israel was already considered in the Babylonian Talmud {b. Git. 6a) to be a major turning point in the selfperception of Babylonian sages as independent legal autiiorities vis-a-vis the Land of Israel. 31. J. Mann, 'Addenda to "The Responsa of the Babylonian Geonim as a Source of Jewish History'", JQR 11 (1921), p. 436; Oppenheimer, Babylonia Judaica, p. 271. 32. For the link between Hananiah and Samuel, and their perceived role in establishing Babylonian autonomy, see Gaftii, The Jews of Babylonia in the Talmudic Era, p. 81, and below. Chapter 5.

4. Burial and Reinterment in the Land of Israel

93

The growing sense of Babylonian assertiveness may automatically have raised the need to re-define the nature of Palestinian centrality in Jewish minds, and in this context we can readily understand the need to high­ light the religious, and indeed supernatural advantages attached solely to the Land of Israel. To the extent that scholarship became more accessible to students outside the Land, a distinction would be made between the spuitual activity of sages that recognizes no boundaries, and the physical (and metaphysical) attributes of the Land that could only be enjoyed by an immediate attachment to it. This distinction found its way into the thinking of precisely those sages whose careers spanned both centers of Jewish life. The Palestinian rabbis who traveled to Babylonia and brought with them the legal traditions and deliberations of Eretz Israel are collectively known in talmudic sources as the nahotei (those who 'go down', i.e. from the Land). The most prominent of these was the late third-century sage 'Ulla, and both Talmuds took note of his death in Babylonia: 'Ulla was a 'nahota'; as he was dying there (i.e. in Babylonia) he began to cry. They told him: Why are you crying, w e will bring you back up to Eretz Israel. He told them: What use is it, I am losing my precious stone (i.e. my soul) while in an unclean land; losing [the soul] in a mother's bosom (i.e. in the motherland) is not the same as losing it in the bosom of a foreigner (i.e. on foreign land; y. Kil. 9.33c).

The Babylonian Talmud version of the same story is slightly different: 'Ulla was in the habit of going up to Eretz Israel, but died while outside the Land. When this was reported to R. Eleazar (b. Pedath; late thirdcentury CE head of the academy in Tiberias) he exclaimed: Thou 'Ulla 'shall die in an unclean land' (Amos 7.17). They said to him: His coffin has arrived. He replied: [The Land] receiving a man in his lifetime is not the same as receiving him after his death... {b. Ket. I l i a ) .

A sense of unease, albeit not the unbending criticism cited at the outset of this chapter, seems to hover over these traditions. They are the clear product of third- and fourth-century developments in the shifting relation­ ship between Jewish Palestine and Babylonia. On the one hand these sources refrain from censuring the very presence of Jews in the diaspora, but on the other hand they argue the advantages of maintaining links to the Land. One who lives in Palestine is likely to die there, and conse­ quently is assured of the rewards of Palestinian burial as well. While some Palestinian contemporaries of R. Eleazar considered the practice of bringing coffins to Eretz Israel for burial as 'defiling the Land',

94

Land, Center and Diaspora

R. Eleazar expresses a milder form of opposition to the practice, by suggesting that the effects of Palestinian burial are more potent when the deceased had previously lived in the Land. While the sages of Palestine were obviously unhappy with the conclu­ sions, as well as the practical applications, that were being drawn by diaspora Jews from the concept of Palestinian burial that had originally meant to stress the Land's centrality, some Babylonian authorities were at the same time doing all they could to prevent a negative flow of scholars and students from Babylonia to other parts, including to Eretz Israel.^^ If, as we have seen, the third-century sage Samuel proclaimed that the Land's boundaries are literally adjacent to Babylonia, subse­ quent Babylonian luminaries began for the first time to refer to the land of Babylonia as maintaining a religious prominence of its own: Both Rabbah and Rav Joseph said: The fit persons (DHtOD) of Babylonia are received by the Land of Israel, and the fit persons of other lands are received by Babylonia (b. Ket. 11 la).

Inasmuch as this hierarchy suggests a supremacy for the Land of Israel, the possibility that 'reception' refers to the acceptance of living people and their pedigree (e.g. for the purposes of marriage) was discounted by the anonymous Babylonian Talmud, for 'we all know' that the Jewish lineage of Babylonians is superior to that of Palestinian Jews (e.g. b. Qid. 69b). Hence, the Talmud concludes, receptance here must refer to burial, in which case burial in the earth of Babylonia now seemingly assumed an importance all its own, in a manner similar to that of the Land of Israel. By attributing this sort of sanctity to their land, the Babylonians were now implying that it was not only on an intellectual level that the Babylonian center had achieved parity with the Land of Israel, but that this parity now pertains to certain physically sanctified attributes as weU, or at least comes close to parity. All that was left, it would appear, for the Babylonian sages to complete tiieir ongoing process of self-assertion was to go one step further. If, as we have noted, Samuel was prepared to recognize the borders of the Land of Israel as being just beyond the Euphrates river, later generations

33. Cf. b. Ket. 11 la, where the local Babylonian sages not only prohibit leaving the country, but even oppose removal from centers of Torah within Babylonia, such as Pumbeditha: 'A man who left Pumbeditha for Be Kube was banned by Rav Joseph. A man once left Pumbeditha for Astunya and died; Abbaye said: If this young scholar had wished it, he could still be alive.'

4. Burial and Reinterment in the Land of Israel

95

would, in a sense, 'stretch' those borders even further. As we head into the latter portion of the Talmudic era, the gathering evidence seems to suggest that at least some Babylonian authorities were beginning to project their land as something of a Palestinian clone. The process was a most delicate one, and no one statement goes as far as unequivocally proclaiming this. But all the tell-tale signs are there, and it is this evidence that will serve as the focus for our presentation in the ensuing and final chapter of this work.

Chapter 5 BABYLONIA A N D THE L A N D OF ISRAEL: THE LOYAL OPPOSITION

At some time during the early ninth century CE, a letter (or series of letters) originating in Jewish Babylonia was dispatched to the diaspora communities of North Africa, the most prominent of which was Kairouan.' The author of this communication, who went by the name of Pirkoi ben Baboi, was well connected to the rabbinic establishment in Babylonia, and in fact claimed to be a student of R. Abba, one of the disciples of Rav Yehudai Gaon, head of the academy of Sura during the eighth century. In light of the revered status of the Land of Israel as expressed in rabbinic literature, the contents of Purkoi's letter might well be considered scandalous. Even after placing it in its proper historical context, the thrust of the argument advanced by Pirkoi is most disturbing. In brief, the letter contains a broadside attack on the totality of Palestinian rabbinic tradition at the time, presenting it as a 'tradition bom of persecution' and consequently bereft of any binding authority. Pirkoi's historical argument is simple almost to the point of naivety: inasmuch as the Jewish community in the Land of Israel had for hun­ dreds of years been subjected to an almost constant series of conquests and persecutions, primarily under the Romans and the Christian Byzantine Empire, the religious practices and halakhic traditions of the local Jewish community there were cormpted beyond repair. Indeed, the rabbis of 1. The Pirkoi texts were discovered in the Cako Genizah, and beginning in 1903 were published in bits and pieces, based on a variety of manuscripts. For a review of the material and scholarship up to 1920, see J. Mann, 'Les "Chapitres" de Ben B§boi et les relations de R. Yehoudai Gaon avec la Palestine', REJ 70 (1920), pp. 113-48; for subsequent studies and texts, cf. L. Ginzberg, Genizah Studies, II (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1929), pp. 504-73; S. Spiegel, 'On the Affair of the Polemic of Pirkoi ben Baboi' [Hebrew], in S. Lieberman (ed.), HA. Wolfson Jubilee Volume (Jerusalem: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1965), Hebrew Section, pp. 243-74.

5. Babylonia and the Land of Israel

97

Palestine possess such a vitiated corpus of legal tradition that their role as authoritative sources and adjudicators has been rendered worthless, and their teachings should be shunned at all costs. Pirkoi actually cites examples of this Palestinian ignorance, with one of the most scathing of these bemg the claim that even their Torah scrolls are produced counter to halakhic requirements, written as they are on improperly prepared vellum actually produced by Gentiles and intended for idolatrous writings!^ The other side of Pirkoi's coin, of course, is his claim that the only valid rabbinic tradition is that which emanates from the Babylonian academies. Following the highly developed local patriotism of Babylonian Jewry,^ these institutions were projected as having had their roots in Jerusalem prior to the destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE. In fact, he claims, only after the academies were transported in their entirety to safe haven in Babylonia a few years earlier was permission 'granted' to destroy Jerusalem and the Temple. In Babylonia these academies suf­ fered 'neither captivity nor persecution, and they were not ruled by either Greece or Rome'."* It was here, therefore, that the 'oral tradition and practical law' were preserved, having been passed down to them 'from their teachers, and their teachers from their teachers back to Moses our Rabbi'. In the future, too, Pirkoi is convinced that 'redemp­ tion will come first to the academy in Babylonia'.^ The question we must deal with in the following pages relates not so much to the political realities of the ninth-century Jewish world, but rather to the extent that Pirkoi represents the natural culmination of a long-standing and gradual policy of assertiveness on the part of the Babylonian diaspora. Moreover, our discussion now addresses for the first time the question of legal ramifications attached to the emerging tensions between center and diaspora in the Talmudic era. Until now we have focused primarily on the self-perceptions of diaspora Jews as a result of their ongoing dispersion on the one hand, and the theological consequences attached to the status of the Land as a response to this diaspora phenomenon, on the other. As we have noted, the issues 2. Ginzberg, Genizah Studies, n, pp. 561-62. 3. See Spiegel, 'On the Affair of the Polemic of Pirkoi ben Baboi', pp. 266-69; Gafni, 'Expressions and Types of "Local-Patriotism"', pp. 63-71, and the discus­ sion above. Chapter 2. 4. Cf. Tanh. Noah, 3. 5. Cf. B.M. Lewin, 'Geniza Fragments' [Hebrew], Tarbiz 2 (1931), p. 396.

98

Land, Center and Diaspora

related to the Land of Israel in tannaitic literature revolved primarily around the religious status of the Land and the requisite expressions of commitment and loyalty to it, such as the requirement of residence. These earlier rabbinic sources do not address the legal hegemony or superior halakhic status of Palestinian sages vis-a-vis their diaspora con­ temporaries. However, as we head into the amoraic period, beginning in the third century, a second major issue begins to emerge: to what extent does the growing self-sufficiency of the Babylonian Jewish community call into question the heretofore apparently unassailable legal status of the rabbinic authorities in Eretz Israel? A new reahty in the bilateral relations between the two communities now develops, and rabbinic sources afford us an excellent opportunity to study this process as h was addressed by lumi­ naries on both sides of the Euphrates river. Towards this end, I have chosen to take up two spheres of rabbinic activity, both of which were commonly perceived as primary manifesta­ tions of a rabbinic hierarchy. These issues pertain to the regulation of the calendar, and the granting of rabbinic ordination. In both cases we will encounter blanket statements that place Eretz Israel in a predominant position, but likewise in both cases we begin to encounter cracks in this facade that suggest an attempt at reformulating the relationship between center and diaspora. To be sure, the very relevance of the Land to these two areas of rab^ binic authority is problematic, as it is to the very essence of rabbinic activity in the post-Temple period. We tend to think of the process that begins at Yavne as something of a spiritualization of Jewish religious behavior, with a parallel process influencing the nature of Jewish leader­ ship as well. Needless to say, a major consideration in taking up this assumed watershed in Jewish history is to what extent the nature of our extant source material has imposed itself on this determination. After all, the major portion of our knowledge of tiie Second Temple period derives from the writings of Josephus, who projects a very particular type of Jewish leadership, that is, an oligarchal priesthood alongside various types of monarchs. For the post-Temple period, beginning at Yavne, our sources are primarily rabbinic, and these focus on a totally different type of leadership, supposedly far more merit-oriented and deriving its authority from perceived erudition and behavior rather than family pedigree. Has the variation in source material shaped our historical

5. Babylonia and the Land of Israel

99

perspective, or is the change in the nature of the Uterary production in fact a result of a new social reahty? Be that as it may, few would deny the fact that the destruction of the Temple undermined, or totally destroyed, the power base that heretofore afforded the priestly class its primary hold on positions of authority.^ At the same time it is clear that a new class, associated with the rabbinic world, began to assume a more dominant role in Jewish society, its mam advantage being precisely that it did not derive its position from links with the Temple and sacrificial worship. The very nature of this geo­ graphically decentralized leadership, if indeed it was merit-oriented, was in its mobiUty: knowledge of Torah certainly knows no borders, nor is it necessarily limited to only a small number of persons. The down-side—at least in Palestinian eyes—to this post-Temple recipe for Jewish leadership was that it could not prevent the emergence of new authority structures vying for equal degrees of power, whether within the Land of Israel or beyond its borders. To avert such potential chaos, the Palestinian sages were willing to accept the creation from within their midst of a new hierarchy. This new central authority emerged in the shape of the Patriarchate.^ However, the designation of a central rabbinic family as enjoying primary status thanks to its Davidic pedigree might be considered a step back from the promise of a democ­ ratization of leadership that the rabbinic ideal had held out. The talmudic story-teller, who relates that a successor to Rabban Gamaliel at Yavne was chosen for all the wrong reasons (that is, beyond wisdom, what determined the choice of R. Eleazar b. Azariah was wealth and family background), appears to have sensed keenly this regression.* 6. Rabbinic literature would tend to minimize the efficacy of priests in the Jewish social fabric of the post-Temple period; some recent studies have neverthe­ less posited a far more central role for priests even after 70 CE; cf. D. Ben-Haim Trifon, 'The Jewish Priests from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Rise of Christianity' [Hebrew] (PhD dissertation, Tel-Aviv University, 1985); S. Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics (Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition, 18; Leiden: Brill, 1990), pp. 70-82; S.A. Cohen, The Three Crowns: Structures of Communal Politics in Early Rabbinic Jewry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 158-60; D. Goodblatt, The Monarchic Principle (TSAJ, 38; Tubingen: Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1994). 7. For a recent survey of the history and functions of the Patriarchate, cf. Goodblatt, Monarchic Principle, pp. 131-231. 8. b. Ber. 27b-28a. In something akin to a midrash on the statement there that R. Eleazar ben Azariah was chosen 'because he is wise, and rich, and tenth

100

Land, Center and Diaspora

The emergence of the Patriarchate seems to have succeeded in coun­ terbalancing the decentralizing process that the rabbinic ideal naturally supported, but this success was felt primarily within the rabbinic circles in the Land of Israel. When rabbinic activity began to spread beyond the Land into Babylonia, that community need not necessarily have felt constrained by the authority structure set up in Palestine. For if Palestinian primacy is based on rabbinic erudition, the Babylonians would slowly begin to claim for themselves a degree of learning on a par with that of their Palestinian brethren. And if Davidic pedigree justifies obedi­ ence, here too the Babylonians would be able to point to a scion of the House of David among them as well, in the form of the Exilarch. Numerous comparisons between the two Jewish princes were drawn, at times even hinting at the superior status of the Babylonian official.^ By the third century it became clear that an additional factor needed to be introduced, to justify the continued adherence on the part of the Babylonians to the decisions of their Palestinian counterparts. This factor would be 'the Land' itself. By declaring that the calendar can only be regulated in the Land of Israel, and that rabbinic ordination can only be granted by sages (or the Patriarch) in the Land and only bestowed on those disciples physically present there, a situation was created whereby Babylonia, notwithstanding its enhanced stature as a major center of legal studies and traditions, found itself nevertheless in a subservient position in a whole range of halakhic issues, and forced to rely on some sort of instruction from the Palestinian center. The formal Babylonian recognition of this Palestinian supremacy can be found in a number of talmudic passages. The case of b. Pes. 51a can serve as a prime example: When Rabbah b. bar Hannah came (to Babylonia) he ate the fat of the stomach. (An animal's stomach, in rabbinic eyes, was considered to be partly curved like a bow, and the fat of the straight portion—the bow's generation to Ezra' the Babylonian Talmud clearly sensed that these are not the criteria one might expect to play a decisive role in the rabbinic choice process. Hence it tempers the unpleasant impression by explaining that certain conditions relating to the office of Patriarch nevertheless required that these attributes also be taken into account. 9. Cf. I.M. Gafni, ' "Staff and Legislator": On New Types of Leadership in the Talmudic Era in Eretz-lsrael and Babylonia' [Hebrew], in I. Gafni and G. Motzkin (eds.). Priesthood and Monarchy: Studies in the Historical Relationships of Religion and State (Jerusalem: Mercaz Zalman Shazar, 1987), pp. 79-91; Goodblatt, Monarchic Principle, pp. 279-83.

5. Babylonia and the Land of Israel

101

string—was deemed permissible by the sages of Eretz Israel but forbidden in Babylonia.) Whereupon the Talmud asks: 'Does Rabbah b. bar Hannah dispute the principle we have learnt, that a person should assume both the restrictions of the place whence he departed as well as those to which he has gone?' Said Abaye: This applies only when travelling from one place to another within Babylonia or within Eretz Israel, or from Babylonia to Eretz Israel, but from Eretz Israel to Babylonia it does not apply—for since we (i.e. in Babylonia) are subservient to them (in Israel) we behave as they do (JV'VrO ]T1'2VI rt> p'S^'D p « l IPD).'"

Already medieval commentators (Tosafot ad loc.) noted that this principle would appear to clash with the thrust of a lengthy discussion in b. Sanh. 5a which deals with the relative power of court systems in the two lands, and which suggests that those judges recognized by the Babylonian Exilarch were better accredited than the Patriarch's appointees in the Land of Israel. Rabbenu Tam's answer, however, correctly distinguishes between the discussion in b. Sanhedrin, which alludes to a superior practical strength of the Babylonian court system in monetary matters, backed as it was by a powerful Exilarch, and our discussion, which deals with issues of halakhic disputes, and where Eretz Israel takes precedence 'for there they study Torah in public, and we have learnt that the air of the Land of Israel makes people wise'. While we are dealing here with a medieval interpretation, I find it noteworthy that although Rabbenu Tarn links the relative supremacy of the sages of Eretz Israel to their superior learning and wisdom, that is, the fruits of a merit-oriented hierarchy, Rashi {ad loc.) suggests a purely formal advan­ tage: the sages of Eretz Israel are ordained, whereas the Babylonians are not, for ordination cannot be bestowed outside the Land (as we shall see below). The medievalists seem to have touched en passant precisely on the issue at hand: was the subservience of the diaspora communities to the 10. The concluding statement does not quite fit our story, which describes a man coming to Babylonia from Eretz Israel and nevertheless retaining his Palestinian cus­ tom, and not the opposite, i.e. a Babylonian conforming to Palestinian custom ('we behave as they do'). The Tosafists {ad loc.) note that the particular phrase has its origins in a parallel story unfolding in the opposite direction, wherein R. Zera goes from Babylonia to Eretz Israel and embraces the custom of the latter, foregoing the restrictions of his Babylonian homeland {b. Hul. 18b). More interesting, however, is the fact that the phrase 'we are subservient to them' appears elsewhere in the Babylonian Talmud {b. Hor. 1 lb) in just the opposite sense, alluding to the primacy of the Babylonian Exilarch over the Palestinian Patriarch.

102

Land, Center and Diaspora

Land of Israel understood as the practical consequence of a historical, but ultimately changing, reality—that is, the concentration of Torah sages in Palestine—or was it the result of a formal or intrinsic status enjoyed by Land, and thus one that should withstand all the vicissitudes of a chang­ ing Jewish reality? The latter argument would surely serve the interests of a Palestinian center, and as we shall see it was indeed this rationale that was intro­ duced into many of the relevant talmudic discussions, thereby raising the Land of Israel to an almost unassailable position among Jewish commu­ nities. One of our primary goals in this chapter will be to demonstrate how even this hierarchic determination would ultimately be overcome by the Babylonian rabbinic establishment, thereby effectively rendering them independent and self-sufficient in almost all matters of Jewish law and ongoing religious instruction. Our first examination takes up the wide-ranging problems related to the regulation of the Jewish calendar. To begin, the Jewish calendar system that ultimately overcame all other attempts that were embraced (whether practically or only in hypothetical literary form) by various groups during the Second Temple period was a lunisolar one, and this system lies at the core of all the major issues that required a judicial process of decision-making by a central authoritative body." There were two major problems involved: one was connected primarily with the proclamation of New Months, and the other with the periodic addition of a thirteenth month, approximately once every three years. Regarding the first issue, inasmuch as a lunar month lasts approxi­ mately twenty-nine and one half days, a decision had to be made regard­ ing each month as to whether it would have 29 or 30 days. This decision would depend on witnesses seeing the initial appearance of the new moon and testifying to this before a single and recognized court. Upon acceptance of their testimony that court would proclaim a new month.'^ Tannaitic sources allude to such a process as operating during the

11. For a concise overview of the problems related to the rabbinic calendar, as well as certain aspects of other systems—such as those of the Enoch ckcle. Book of Jubilees and Qumranic literature—cf. M.D. Herr, 'The Calendar', in S. Safrai and M. Stem (eds.). The Jewish People in the First Century, II (CRINT; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1976), pp. 834-64; see also Schurer, History, I, pp. 587-601; E.P. Sanders, Judaism:

Practice

and Belief

63 BCE—66 CE (Philadelphia: Trinity Press Interna­

tional, 1992), pp. 131-32. 12. m. RoSHaS, chs. 1-2; m. Sanh. 1.2; t. Sanh. 2.1.

5. Babylonia and the Land of Israel

103

Second Temple period,'^ and proceed to elaborate on the frameworks and functions of the court, as well as the manner of interrogating wit­ nesses, during the Mishnaic period. These sources also refer to the fact that while witnesses reported to an apparently recognized central court, a critical factor was the presence and consent of the 'head of the court',''* ultimately assumed to be the Patriarch. In this context tiie most widely discussed example of the role of the Patiiarch can be found in m. RoS Hal (2.8-9), wherein Rabban Gamahel is depicted not only as accepting the testimony of two witnesses notwith­ standing certain problems involved in their report, but also as imposing his will on dissenting elements among the rabbis who were convinced that the witnesses were either mistaken or lying.'^ The thrust of these traditions is the issue of authority hnked to the decision-making process; that is, that the decision of the court and its head regarding tiie calendar should be binding on all of Israel, even if it appears that certain aspects of a particular process were flawed (cf. t. RoS HaS. 2.1 [ed. Lieberman, p. 312]). The status or degree of learning of the judges on any given court for purposes of regulating the calendar is irrelevant, once tiiat court has been recognized as the sole authority responsible for matters pertaining to the calendar. Indeed, one might argue that control over the calendar indicates, more than any other factor in the social and religious hfe of the Jewish people, in whose hands lay ultimate authority over the community. It is not sur­ prising, therefore, to find rabbinic literature frequentiy reverting to issues surrounding the calendar while discussing aspects of the relative authority of different groups or personalities. Not only do calendar-disputes pit the Patriarch against the sages and—as we shall see presently—Palestine against the diaspora, but they are even employed to illustrate the totality of rabbinic self-sufficiency, to the exclusion of the Deity himself! One midrash describes how even the heavenly tribunal, about to be convened to judge humanity on the New Year, must be delayed by one day fol­ lowing the eartiily court's decision to add a thirtieth day to the preceding month.'^ Yet another story has a particular sage scolding tiie (outgoing) moon (of the previous month) for having the temerity to continue its 13. m. RoiS HaS. 2.5. 14. m. RoSHaS. 2.7; 4.4; m. 'Ed. 7.7. 15. On the 'sharing of power' between the Patriarch and the sages regarding the calendar, cf. Alon, The Jews in their Land, I, p. 317. 16. Midrash Tehilim 4.4 (ed. Buber, p. 44).

104

Land, Center and Diaspora

appearance an extra day, contrary to rabbinic calculations. Like God and his tribunal in the previous story, here too the moon is forced to acqui­ esce to the authority of the rabbinic court, and forthwith disappears!'^ The other major problem created by the lunisolar system resulted from the fact that while twelve lunar months form a year of 354 days (12 x 29.5), the solar year lasts approximately 365 days.'* Inasmuch as the Jewish festivals were linked to various agricultural phenomena, they are almost by definition seasonal, and thus determined by the stages of the solar year. Passover, for instance, is specifically linked to the spring (Exod. 13.4; Deut. 16.1), but if a year were to be determined solely by the passing of twelve lunar months, Passover would fall each year approximately 11 days earher than the previous year, slowly working its way back into winter (similar to the Muslim Ramadan). Hence the need to reahgn the two systems—^lunar months and solar years—was created, and its solution was estabUshed through the addition of a thirteenth month (a second Adar, just before spring), every few years, thereby pushing Passover forward again into the spring. As in the case of the new moon, here too the decision to intercalate the calendar was considered to be the sole prerogative of a universally recognized court, with the rabbinic leader—ultimately referred to as the Patriarch (Nasi)—heading the court and issuing its decisions. Again, tannaitic Uterature describes such activity taking place during the Second Temple period, with descriptions of how epistles with the relevant information were dictated and dispatched to all Jewish communities, in the Land of Israel as well as in the diaspora." Both in the case of determining the New Months as well as proclaiming a thirteenth month, the underlying assumption throughout rabbinic litera­ ture is that only one authoritative court could carry out this activity, which included not only the determination itself but also the responsibility for seeing that word got out to all the communities of Israel as soon as possible. The system could only work on the basis of a sole authoritative body, for any parallel process attempted by different courts or persons could lead only to certain confusion and irreparable divisions within Jewish society. The question was: who determines the identity and location of the recognized authority? As long as the Temple stood, it was assumed by the later rabbis that somehow this activity was carried out by a 17. b. RoSHai.

25a; see also Exod. R. 15.20.

18. 'These are the additional 11 days of the sun over the moon'; y. Sanh. 1.18c. 19. t. Sanh. 2.6; y. Sanh. 1.18d; y. Ma'as. S. 5.56c; b. Sanh. 1 lb.

5. Babylonia and the Land of Israel

105

recognized central body in Jerusalem. With the destruction of the Temple, it is not surprising to find that some of the earliest pronouncements attributed to Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai and the Yavnean sages deal with the process of calendar regulation.^" The very same process was repeated in the aftermath of the Bar-Kokhba uprising, and one of the first acts of communal leadership at that time was the intercalation of the calendar in the valley of Rimon by the surviving disciples of R. Akiva.^' Almost all these statements were predicated on the recognition that, al­ though leadership is a function of rabbinic stature and rabbis are mobile, nevertheless a central rabbinic court must be recognized for purposes of precluding any mishandling of the regulation of the calendar. Hence the tannaim talk about witnesses going to the court, and the need for the central rabbinic figure to grant his recognition to the court's decision. Nowhere, however, do the tannaim (as opposed to later authorities) stipulate that this activity was restricted to the Land of Israel. Of course, inasmuch as the major concentration of rabbinic figures was located in the Land at the time, and given that the agricultural situation in the three main regions of the Land (Judaea, Galilee and Transjordan) was a deter­ mining factor in the decision to proclaim a leap-year,^^ the presence of the deliberating body in the Land may have been taken for granted on a practical level,^^ but nowhere does it appear as a sine qua non in any formal declaration before the amoraic period. In fact, one mishnaic tradition actually quotes R. Akiva as testifying that he 'went down to Nehardea to intercalate the year' (m. Yeb. 16.7). Inasmuch as medieval and modem scholars were aware of the talmudic 20. Cf. Alon, The Jews in their Land, 1, pp. 109-111. 21. y. Hag. 3.78d; There is no need to determine here the factual historicity of these accounts. I merely wish to note that rabbinic tradition repeatedly introduces calendar-related issues into crucial stages, indeed watersheds of Jewish history, such as the destruction of the Second Temple and the aftermath of the Bar-Kokhba disaster. For an analysis of the Rimmon-valley tradition, see A.I. Baumgarten, 'The Akiban Opposition', HUCA 50 (1979), pp. 179-97. 22. t Sanh. 2.3 and talmudic parallels. 23. t. Sanh. 2.13 (and the talmudic parallels y. Sanh. 1.18d-19a, and b. Sanh. 1 lb) does state, 'A leap-year may not be proclaimed except in Judea, but if it was proclaimed in the Galilee it is (also) a leap-year'; this halakha simply reflects the reality of the day, and the tannaitic preference for Judaea, but makes no proclamation regarding 'outside the Land' (|'"ll^'7 pn). Explicit reference to the prohibition 'outside the Land' can be found only in the Palestinian Talmud, where it is attached to the above baraitha (y. Sanh. 1.19a); see below in our discussion.

106

Land, Center and Diaspora

stipulation limiting such activity to the Land of Israel, they were hardpressed to find some extenuating circumstance—if not a redemptive tex­ tual variant—to justify or explain R. Akiva's actions. Some suggest that all R. Akiva did was announce the decision already taken in Palestine, while others see R. Akiva's move as a Palestinian attempt to encourage Babylonian participation in the process, thereby checking any heretic thoughts of independence within that community.^"* As we shall see presently, the Babylonian Tahnud itself introduced Akiva's action into its account of the intercalation carried out by Hananiah in Babylonia, suggesting that at least in the eyes of that Babylonian sage it could have served as a valid precedent. While the talmudic account also proceeds to explain Akiva's action as an exception to the rule, the fact is that the above-quoted mishnah in Yebamot (16.7) saw no need for any explana­ tion, nor does any other tannaitic source refer to the monopoly of the Land of Israel on issues pertaining to the regulation of the calendar. The sweeping statement confining the intercalation of the calendar to the Land appears only later, in the Palestinian Talmud, attached to a baraitha from the Tosefta {Sanh. 2.13): A leap-year may not be proclaimed (n32?n fl'ZVC except in Judea, but if it was proclaimed in the Galilee, it is (also) a leap-year. Hanina of Ono testified that if it cannot be proclaimed in Judea, then it is done in Galilee. [This is the extent of the tannaitic source in the Tosefta, as well as that quoted in b. Sanh. 1 lb. The Palestinian Talmud, however, continues:] A leap-year is not proclaimed outside the Land (n^iinD nmt< I'll^IJO j'K fit*'?) and if it was done—it is not a leap-year. [The Talmud then asks]: You see that it is not done in Galilee, and yet [you ask whether] outside the Land it is done? In the Galilee it is not done, but if it was proclaimed— it is a leap-year; outside the Land if it was done—it is not a leap-year (y. Sanh. 1.18d).

It is this tradition that leads the Palestinian Talmud into the account of the renegade Hananiah's attempt to intercalate tiie calendar in Babylonia. After describing Hananiah's recantation, the same source concludes with tiie following midrash: 'And to the rest of the elders of the Golah' (Jer. 29.1)—God said: They (the elders of the Golah) are most beloved to me [but nevertheless] a

24. For a summary of the varied explanations, see A. Burstein, 'On the Problem of Proclaiming Leap Years outside the Land' [Hebrew], Sinai 38 (1957), pp. 33-37; see also Alon, The Jews in their Land, I, pp. 240-48; Herr, 'The Calendar', p. 857.

5. Babylonia and the Land of Israel

107

small band in Eretz Israel is more beloved to me than the Great Sanhedrin outside the Land {y. Sanh. 1.19a).

The formulators of this tradition were apparently aware of the fact that an impressive rabbinic establishment already existed outside the Land, and in fact in the very next line they refer to the scriptures in 2 Kgs (24.14, 16) that allude to 'the craftsmen and smiths' ("iJOnm toinn) who were exiled to Babylonia just prior to the destruction of the First Temple. These 'craftsmen' came to be identified in the Babylonian tradition as the Torah-scholars who were deported to that land and in effect laid the foundations for the local rabbinic academies,^^ and it may be that the sages of Palestine were party to the same tradition. The sense of all this seems to be an awareness among Palestinian sages that the central role of the Land of Israel in Jewish communal affairs is now in question, especially in the hght of the Babylonian renaissance. The Hananiah story is central here, for it suggests both a historical context for the initial assault on Palestinian hegemony, as well as the self-perceptions of both the Palestinian and Babylonian rabbinic circles regarding their relative positions within the Jewish world during the Talmudic era. Hananiah, nephew of R. Joshua, was a Palestinian sage listed among those prominent figures who emigrated from the Land in the aftermath of the Bar-Kokhba uprising, and assumed central positions in the various diaspora communities {Sifre Deut. 80 [ed. Finkelstein, p. 146]; the source was quoted in Chapter 3). He is commonly referred to as going to 'the G o l a h ' w h i c h is usually synonymous in rabbinic literature with Babylonia. As we have noted, the famous event connected with his name is his attempt to regulate the calendar 'outside the Land', and both Talmuds have preserved dramatic accounts of the affair. While I am fairly certain we can never know 'what really happened' in this case, the importance 25. b. Git. 88a; Tanhuma Noah, 3; see the passage quoted at the end of Chapter 2. 26. b. Sanh. 32b; b. Suk. 20b; one late midrash, however, dates Hananiah's emigration during the lifetime of his renowned uncle, R. Joshua, thereby placing it before the Bar-Kokhba war, and this has led to all sorts of attempts at synchro­ nization of the sources; cf. Gafni, The Jews of Babylonia, p. 80 n. 111. For the use of 'golah' for Babylonia in general, or as the designation of a particular city in Babylonia, note for example Samuel's claim that he is capable of making a calendar 'for all of the golah' {b. RoS HaS. 20b) which in all likelihood refers to Babylonia rather than 'all the diaspora'; see also b. RoS HaS. lib: 'What is the "golah"? Rav Yosef said: Pumbeditha'; cf. Rashi to b. Sanh. 32b: 'What is the golah? Abaye said Pumbeditha, for the main portion of the yeshiva in Bavel was there.'

108

Land, Center and Diaspora

of the two talmudic accounts lies in their respective presentations, which I suggest not only reflect the different perspectives of the two commu­ nities regarding the event itself, but more importantly, also evince a different perception of the nature of rabbinic authority and its relation­ ship to the Land. The version in the Palestinian Talmud (y. Sanh. 1.19a) reads as foUows: Hananiah the nephew of R. Joshua intercalated (i.e. proclaimed leapyears) abroad. Rabbi (here the term means the Patriarch, most probably Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel, circa 150 CE) sent him three letters with R. Isaac and R. Nathan. In one he wrote: 'To his holiness Hananiah', in one he wrote: 'The lambs you left behind have become rams', and in one he wrote: 'If you do not accept upon yourself (our authority), go out to the desert of Atad and there be a slaughterer, and Nehunion a sprinkler.' He read the first and honored them, the second and honored them, the third— and wished to dishonor them. They told him: You cannot, for you have already honored us. R. Isaac stood up and read in the Torah: 'These are the festivals of Hananiah the nephew of R. Joshua!' They said: 'These are the festivals of the Lord!' (Lev. 23.4). He replied: By us! R. Nathan arose and completed (read the haftarah from the prophets): 'For out of Babylonia shall come Torah and the word of God from Nehar Pekod.' They said: 'From out of Zion shall come Torah and the word of God from Jerusalem' (Isa. 2.3). He said to them: By us! He (Hananiah) went and complained about them to R. Judah b. Bathyra at Nisibis. He (Judah) said to him: After them, after them...He (Hananiah) rose up and rode on his horse. Whither he reached he reached (and corrected the local calendar), and whither he did not reach—they observe in error.

The salient points of this version can be found in the intimation that Hananiah's act is tantamount to the establishment of an alternative cultic center, possibly alluding to the act of Jeroboam (1 Kgs 12.32) who also introduced a separate festival day 'in the montii which he had devised in his own heart' (1 Kgs 12.33) at a center other than Jerusalem (Beth-el), thereby shredding the unity of the nation. The other point lies in the prooftexts which serve as the basis for the argument against Hananiah: assuming responsibility for the calendar outside the Land is a violation of Scripture, which unequivocally assigns the word of God and Torah to Zion and Jerusalem regardless of any shift in the relative preponderance of Torah scholarship between the Land and the communities of the diaspora. The version recorded in the Babylonian Talmud {b. Ber. 63a-b) contains, to my mind, some highly significant differences:

5. Babylonia and the Land of Israel

109

When R. Hanina the nephew of R. Joshua went down to the Golah, he would intercalate years and determine the months abroad. They sent after him two sages, R. Yosi b. Kefar and the grandson of Zechariah b. Kevutal. When he saw them he said to them: Why have you come? They said to him: We have come to study Torah. He proclaimed concerning them: These men are the great men of the generation, and their fathers served in the sanctuary.. .He began to declare 'unclean' and they declared 'clean', he forbade and they permitted (i.e. they conspicuously disputed legal matters with him). He proclaimed concerning them: These men are worthless, they are void. They said to him: You have already built and you cannot destroy, you have already fenced in and you cannot break down. He said to them: On what account do I declare unclean and you clean, I forbid and you permit? They said to him: Because you intercalate the years and determine the months outside the Land. He said to them: And did not Akiva ben Joseph do so abroad? They said to him: Ignore (the case of) R. Akiva b. Joseph, for he did not leave his equal (in learning) in Eretz Israel. He said to them: I too did not leave my equal in Eretz Israel. They replied: The lambs that you have left behind have become rams with horns, and they sent us to you, and thus did they say to us: Go and say to him in our name: If you hearken—well and good; and if not—be excom­ municated. And tell our brethren in the Golah: If they hearken—well and good; and if not—let them go up to the mountain, Ahiah will build an altar and Hananiah will play the harp, and let them all become renegades and say that they have no part in the God of Israel. Forthwith all the people broke out weeping and said: God forbid! We have a portion in the God of Israel. Why all this fuss? For it is written: 'For out of Zion shall come Torah and the word of God from Jerusalem' (Isa. 2.3).

While the Babylonian Talmud concludes with the same prooftext found in the Palestinian Talmud, other portions of this version apparently allude to different biblical precedents of suspected communal breakaways. The accusation here that the Babylonians 'have no part n the God of Israel' and so may as well build their own shrine, brings to mind the attack on the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and Menashe, who indeed built an altar in the trans-Jordan (Josh. 22.10) and are also fearful of the accusation that they have 'no part in the Lord' (Josh. 22.25, 27). More importantly, how­ ever, the Sitz im Leben of the story, as well as the rationale of the argu­ ments on both sides, are significantly different. To begin, the Babylonian Talmud places the whole affair within the context of the rabbinic academy. The Palestinian messengers have 'come to study Torah', and the fights they pick with Hananiah sound like disputes we might expect to hear in an academic (or court) environment. This contrasts nicely with

110

Land, Center and Diaspora

the atmosphere suggested in the Palestinian version, where scriptures are read out before a general audience in what would appear to be the con­ fines of a synagogue. I would venture to suggest that both story-tellers imagine the great clash taking place in the central communal institution of their particular milieu: for the Palestinian this would be the syna­ gogue, whereas for the Babylonian this could only take place in the talmudic academy.-^^ But more important for our present discussion is the nature of the exchange between Hananiah and the messengers in the Babylonian ver­ sion. Not only does Hananiah cite R. Akiva as a precedent for his actions, but the messengers themselves seem to accept the fact that Akiva was right to intercalate in the diaspora because 'he did not leave his equal (in learning) in Eretz Israel'. For just these few lines the Babylonian version seems to suggest that everything hinges on the relative degree of erudition among the sages of the two lands: Hananiah claims that he too has no peer in Palestine, only to be rebuffed by the revelation that a new generation of scholars has grown up there: the lambs have grown into rams with horns! For the Babylonian story-teller halakhic authority is vested in whatever community enjoys recognition as the most learned within the rabbinic world at any given time; for the Palestinian story­ teller the status of the Land of Israel is immutable, based as it is on Scripture rather than the vagaries of a changing historical reality. This point would be articulated succinctly in a late Palestinian midrash, which addresses precisely the issue at hand: Even when there are sages and righteous outside the Land, and only a shepherd or a herdsman in the Land, it is the shepherd or the herdsman who is to declare the new year. And even if you have prophets outside the Land of Israel, authority to proclaim the calendar rests with the com­ moners in the Land of Israel {PRE 8).

Ultimately the Babylonians—in the Hananiah story as well as histori­ cally—would accept Palestinian authority regarding tfie calendar, at least for the duration of the Talmudic period. But the seeds of the later 27. The synagogue appears to have played a far more central role in the life of the Palestinian Jewish community than in that of their Babylonian counterparts; other than prayer and Torah-reading we find little of the broad range of community activities connected with Palestinian synagogues in the Babylonian traditions about synagogue life. In Babylonia these functions were apparently carried out in connec­ tion with the Exilarchate or the rabbinic circles; see Gafni, The Jews of Babylonia, pp. 109-17.

5. Babylonia and the Land of Israel

111

opposition had now been sown, for even in defeat the criteria for author­ ity recognized by the Babylonian sages was the relative status of legal knowledge within the rabbinic world, and not a fixed primacy for the Land of Israel. Even temporary defeat did not prevent intimations by certain Babylonians that their knowledge of the heavenly bodies, and consequently their competence to regulate the calendar, did not lag behind that of the Palestinians. The most significant of these proclama­ tions is attributed to the third-century amora Samuel {b. RoS HaS. 20b; b. Hul. 95b), and the sages of Palestine clearly sensed m such statements, as they did in the Hananiah episode, the first stirrings of a Babylonian quest for greater autonomy vis-a-vis the Palestinian center.^* It is pre­ cisely this suspicion that caused the anonymous Palestinian Talmud to link the two Babylonians, in what is otherwise a somewhat enigmatic reference connecting tiie captivity of the daughters of Samuel (possibly during the Palmyran campaigns of the mid-third century) to 'the sin of Hananiah the nephew of R. Joshua, who intercalated the year outside the Land' Cv. Ket. 2.26c). To be sure, Babylonian sages could never ignore the historical prece­ dence of Palestinian tradition, a feeling reinforced by the very fact that h was Judah the Patriarch's Mishnah that served, in the final analysis, as the basis for all amoraic activity, including tiiat of the Babylonians. Not only could this enhance the sense of Palestinian centrality, but it also explains the recurring allusions to sages arriving in Babylonia from Eretz Israel in possession of some authoritative information, seemingly 'closer to the source', on some aspect of halakha. As noted by Alon,^' this flow of information is predominantly projected as unidirectional, issuing from the Land of Israel to Babylonia, as are the various lett;ers (iggarta) also sent from the Land, notwithstanding the fact that rabbis constantly traveled the road between the two communities in botii directions. 28. Hananiah in fact is frequently quoted by Babylonian sages in the Babylonian Talmud, and while he is not mentioned at all in the Mishnah and only sporadically in the Palestinian Talmud, he seems to have served as one of the first conduits for the transfer of halakhic tradition from Eretz Israel to Babylonia. One can only speculate if the legends alluding to the less than honorable circumstances that led to his emigration {Eccl. R. 1.8; cf. M. Hirshman, 'Midrash Qohelet Rabbah' [PhD disser­ tation, Jewish Theological Seminary, New York, 1983], part 2, pp. 60-61) were not in retaliation to the suspicion that Hananiah indeed attempted to end Babylonia's dependence on the Palestinian leadership; cf. Gafni, The Jews of Babylonia, p. 80 n. 113. 29. Alon, The Jews in their Land, I, pp. 10-12.

112

Land, Center and Diaspora

The sense of Palestinian centrality was enhanced even more by the talmudic stipulation that ordination of rabbis could only be granted in the Land. But here again the two opposing tendencies—rabbinic democ­ ratization and hierarchial concentration of authority—effect some inter­ esting changes in the nature of the institution of ordination. While the earliest known stages of the practice clearly suggest it as the means by which a sage granted his disciple some sort of recognition ('In the begin­ ning each and every one [of the sages] would appoint his disciples...'; y. Sanh. 1.19a), the practice subsequently became the prerogative of the Palestinian Patriarch, who could use the granting of ordination, or con­ versely its denial, as leverage in maintainmg his control over the rabbinic class.^" While this development contributed to the consolidation of patri­ archal power within the Land, the enhanced status of the Babylonian rabbinic class required the Palestinian leadership to set up yet another hmitation. And so, just as in the case of intercalation, the third-century sages of Palestine again introduce 'the Land' into a process that origi­ nally was intended to confer individual recognition, based on merit and not geography: 'R. Joshua b. Levi said: There is no ordination outside the Land' {b. Sanh. 14a). It is striking that in the case of ordination no biblical prooftexts are cited in the Babylonian Talmud for this limitation, while in the parallel discussion in y. Bikk. 3.65d, all the prooftexts are clearly of a secondary, supportive nature (t^nDf3Dl<), and obviously did not serve as the source for the ruling. Even more remarkable is the fact that while Moses' appointment ('laying of the hands') of Joshua (Num. 27.23) was frequently cited as the earliest example of ordination (e.g. b. Sanh. 13b), no one saw fit to mention that the biblical precedent took place in the desert and not in the Land of Israel! Nevertheless, the limitation of ordination to the Land had practical consequences: a whole corpus of legal activity, defined by the rabbis as 'penalties' (mc]p i.e. the imposition of fines either in fixed sums or not equal to the damage inflicted), was precluded from the jurisdiction of the unordained Babylonians. One well-known incident has Rav Hisda inquiring of Rav Nahman regarding precisely such penalties, only to be scolded by the latter: 'Hisda, Hisda, are you imposing fines in Babylonia?!' {b. B. Qam. 27b). Similarly, when another case, in which a certain 30. See L.I. Levine, The Rabbinic Class of Roman Palestine in Late Antiquity (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1989), pp. 139-46.

5. Babylonia and the Land of Israel

113

Yirmiyahu inflicted some unspeakable deed upon Ukban the Babylonian (one commentator interprets this as castration), found hs way to a Jewish court in Babylonia, it was referred to a tribunal in Tiberias. Rav Ashi explains that 'this was a case of penalties, and these are not adjudicated in Babylonia' {b. Sanh. 31b). Nowhere does the Babylonian Talmud attempt to deny this Palestinian advantage. But this could not prevent the raising of questions regarding not only the relative state of Torah-knowledge in the two communities, but, more importantly, the growing need that must have been felt in Babylonia to establish a viable, self-sufficient community, capable of dealing with all aspects of communal life, including an all-embracing judicial system. Indeed, for such a system to perform its duties while being prevented from dealing with a broad spectrum of legal sanctions, such as die penalization of offenders, is unthinkable. In fact, a number of Babylonian talmudic passages seem to suggest the application of anoflier legal principle as a means of overcoming the Babylonian judiciary's hmited jurisdiction. The principle that a court may declare a person's property ownerless, and then grant title of the prop­ erty to another person,^' found its way into a number of Babylonian talmudic discussions.^^ In general it serves as an example of the extraor­ dinary powers that rabbinic courts claimed for themselves even when their action was not supported by the strict letter of the law,^^ and as such the principle may have been applied precisely when technical limita­ tions on the Babylonian courts, such as the power to impose penalties outside the Land of Israel, existed. Be that as it may, the Babylonians found themselves in the difficuh position of adhering—in principle—to the idea of subservience to Eretz Israel, while concurrently creating an 31. " I p a n I'T P'D npsn; the principle already appears in one tannaitic source, t.^eq. 1.3 (ed. Lieberman, p. 200). In subsequent halakhic development it was applied almost exclusively to monetary laws, rather than as a means of punishing transgressors of religious law. The halakhists of the medieval period considered it a powerful tool for the regulation of communal affairs by the recognized Jewish judiciary; see S.J. Zevin (ed.), Talmudic Encyclopedia, X [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Talmudic Encylopedia Publishing, 1961), pp. 95-110. 32. E.g. b. Yeb. 89b; b. Git. 36b. 33. Esp. b. M. Qat. 16a: 'Whence do we derive that his property may be forfeited (in the case of disobedience to the court)? From the text: "And whosoever come not within three days, according to the counsel of the princes and the elders, all his substance should be forfeited and himself separated from the congregation of the captivity'" (Ezra 10.8).

114

Land, Center and Diaspora

independent communal structure that might assert itself to its fullest potential. If it were only a matter of Babylonia demonstrating a formidable rabbinic class, the issue would have been resolved forthwith. But, as we have seen, the Talmudic era ushered in a new concept for justifying Palestinian control: by virtue of its scriptural and theological position, 'the Land' must maintain its central role in Jewish life. Circumventing this barrier brought out true Babylonian ingenuity. A simple solution to the plight of the Babylonians might have been the one suggested in a court-case recorded in b. B. Qam. 84a-b. A long discussion there revolves around the jurisdiction of a Babylonian court dealing in the damages to be paid by the owner of an ox which chewed the hand of a child. At the outset this case is assumed to require ordained judges, hence is considered beyond the jurisdiction of Babylonian Jewish courts. But, the talmudic sages (or anonymous redactors^'*) suggest in the midst of their deliberations, it just might be possible for the Babylonian court to adjudicate even such a case, because 'we (in Babylonia) serve as their agents' (i.e. agents of the judges in Eretz Israel). This notion of agency might have served as the ideal solution. It formally recognizes the priority of Palestinian authority, while at the same time it removes the shackles from the hands of Babylonian judges, and in effect affords them a large degree of practical independence. But alongside this practical lip-service, which in any event seems to have been used sparingly in talmudic discussions, the Babylonians appear to have addressed head-on the theological underpinnings of Palestinian centrality, while at the same time never disputing outright the role of 'the Land' in Jewish hearts and minds. In collecting all the attributes of the Babylonian Jewish community as laid out in the Babylonian Talmud, a very interesting picture suggests itself. I have noted many of these in previous chapters, and so a brief summary should suffice to paint the complete picture. We have already discussed the fact that the recognized political leader of the Babylonian community, the Exilarch, was considered by Talmudic times (we know absolutely nothing about the Exilarchs before this era) 34. The text seems to have undergone certain post-talmudic emendations and glosses and is far from clear in determining when, in fact, the Babylonians may be considered agents of the Palestinian authorities. For a detailed analysis of the passage, see S. Friedman, 'Glosses and Additions in TB Bava Qamma VIII', Tarbiz 4 0 (1971), pp. 423-32.

5. Babylonia and the Land of Israel

115

to be a direct descendant of the House of David, with a pedigree equal— if not superior—to that of the Patriarch in Palestine. In later, geonic times, attempts will even be made to reconstruct ('fabricate' would be a more accurate description) a precise lineage connecting the Exilarch with the last kings of Judah.^^ The Babylonians also developed the idea of continuity with the ancient Land of Israel through the phenomenon of synagogues.-'* It was in the ancient synagogues of Huzal and Shaf ve-Yatib that the Shekhinah itself resided upon arrival in Babylonia, following the premise that God's very spirit accompanied the exiled people of Israel to their land of captivity {b. Meg. 29a). Again, geonic tradition would proceed a step further, claiming that these synagogues were actually built from the rubble of the destroyed Temple in Jerusalem." Synagogues in Babylonia are referred to as 'minor sanctuaries', and the Babylonian Talmud frequently alludes to Babylonian synagogues within the context of discussions about the Temple.^* Again, we have also noted the Babylonian self-image of being the 'purest' elements of world Jewry. This required the Babylonian Talmud to demarcate the precise boundaries of 'purer Babylonia', and a long section of the Talmud {b. Qid. 71b) actually goes about describing the geographical borders of Jewish Babylonia in all directions! This of course is striking, for what emerges is that just as one has to know the precise geographical boundaries of the Land of Israel for the fulfillment of cer­ tain commandments related to 'the Land', now we find the Babylonians going about this very same activity. And once we arrive at defined boundaries, we have already seen how the land within that territory assumed a sanctity of its own, with the 'fit ones of other lands' accepted for burial in the Land of Babylonia {b. Ket. 111a). Ultimately we read 35. The famous attempt is that of the anonymous ninth-century author of the chronicle known as 'Seder Olam Zuta'; see A. Neubauer (ed.). Mediaeval Jewish Chronicles and Chronological Notes, 11 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1895), pp. 7 3 75; cf. also B.M. Lewin (ed.), Iggeret Rav Sherira Gaon (Haifa, 1921), pp. 73-74. For the entire issue, see Neusner, A History of the Jews in Babylonia, 11, pp. 96-97; M. Beer, The Babylonian Exilarchate in the Arsacid and Sassanian Periods [Hebrew] (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1970), pp. 11-15. 36. See Oppenheimer, 'Babylonian Synagogues with Historical Associations', pp. 40-48. 37. Iggeret Rav Sherira Gaon (ed. Lewin, pp. 72-73). 38. E.g. b. B. Bat. 3b; b. Yom. 10a; see Gafni, 'Synagogues in Babylonia in the Talmudic Period', pp. 230-31.

116

Land, Center and Diaspora

that 'he who is buried in Babylonia—it is as though he were buried in the Land of Israel' {ARN, version A, ch. 26 [ed. Schechter, p. 82]). To all this, of course, we should add those descriptions of Babylonia as something of another 'homeland' for the people of Israel, inasmuch as thek Patriarch Abraham came from that land {b. Pes. 87b). In sum, there emerges over the years a Babylonia enjoying all the attributes of the historically central Land of Israel: Davidic leadership, remnants of the Jerusalem Temple, links with the Patriarchs, and even hallowed earth and sacred boundaries. Indeed, the statement attributed to a late third-century Babylonian sage: 'We have made ourselves in Babylonia the equivalent of Eretz Israel from the day Rav came to Babylonia' {b. Git. 6a; b. B. Qam. 80a) now took on a meaning far exceeding equality regarding knowledge of the laws of divorce, which was the issue at stake in tiiat particular passage. If the decisive factor in maintaining the subservience of the diaspora to Eretz Israel was considered to be the very essence of 'the Land' and its position in Jewish minds, the one way of overcoming this dependence was by refashioning the Babylonian community to be a precise copy of the original 'Land', inasmuch as all the criteria for the historical centrality of the Holy Land could now be located in Jewish Babylonia as well. If indeed Babylonian sages considered themselves to be the agents of the sages of Eretz Israel, than perhaps we have now encountered the most hteral apphcation of the weU-known halakhic principle: 'A man's agent is the equivalent to himself DIK Vit?^). In our case it appears tiiat the 'agent' has now rendered himself literally a clone or exact copy of the original Land of Israel. The process we have encountered here would repeat itself throughout Jewish history: new communities would rise up and assert themselves vis-a-vis their mother communities, and tills 'breaking away' would be painful for botii centers.^' If tiie process I 39. This ongoing process, wherein new communities assume the attributes of the mother country as part of the process of self-assertion, may be akin to the translatio scientiae that R. Bonfil identifies in the transmission of modes of learning and culture from Babylonia to Italy; see R. Bonfil, 'Myth, Rhetoric, History? A Study in the Chronicle of Ahima'az' [Hebrew], in R. Bonfil, M. Ben-Sasson and J.R. Hacker (eds.). Culture and Society in Medieval Jewry: Studies Dedicated to the Memory of Haim Hillel Ben-Sasson (Jerusalem: Mercaz Zalman Shazar, 1989), p. 103. See also R. Bonfil, 'Between Eretz Israel and Babylonia', Shalem 5 (1987), pp. 1-30; on p. 11 Bonfil discusses the motif of the hero who is forced to leave the old center, removes to the new one, and creates a new reality there. Interestingly, Hananiah also conforms to this motif. He too was advised by his uncle R. Joshua to leave Eretz Israel after

5. Babylonia and the Land of Israel

117

have described here was special, it was only due to the unique nature and historical significance of the particular mother-country from which Babylonia was ultimately required to assert its independence.

unfortunate circumstances (the minnim of Capemaum cast a spell on him and he was discovered riding a donkey on Shabbat); cf. Eccl. R. 1.8, and see Hirshman, 'Midrash Qohelet Rabbah', part 2, pp. 60-61; Gafni, The Jews of Babylonia p. 80, andnn. 111-12.

CONCLUSIONS

The work I have presented on these pages barely constitutes a sub-chap­ ter within the far greater question of Jewish self-identity in Late Antiquity. Even the topics of dispersion and 'local patriotism' that I addressed in the first chapters of this work lend themselves to far more comprehen­ sive inquiries. Indeed, the topic of diaspora has been the subject of a renewed scholarly interest in recent years,' and a flurry of studies on the topic has enabled me both to build upon earlier results as weU as concen­ trate on very specific issues. Thus, for example, the recent posthumous work by W . C . van Unnik^ on the uses of die word 'diaspora' freed me from carrying out a similar examination. Yet another issue I might have taken up was the degree to which the use of particular names might reflect the self-identity of a diaspora community, but this question has been admirably addressed by Sylvie Honigman,^ and so I need only recommend that the reader examine her conclusions. 1. See, for example, H. Hegermann, 'The Diaspora in the Hellenistic Age', in W.D. Davies and L. Finkelstein (eds.). The Cambridge History of Judaism. II. The Hellenistic Age (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 115-66; J.A. Overman and R.S. MacLennan (eds.). Diaspora Jews and Judaism: Essays in Honor of, and in Dialogue with, A. Thomas Kraabel (South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism, 41; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992); Kraabel himself has con­ tributed major studies on diaspora synagogues: see his recently reprinted article: 'The Diaspora Synagogue: Archaeological and Epigraphic Evidence since Sukenik', in D. Urman and P.V.M. Flesher (eds.). Ancient Synagogues: Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery, I (SPB, 47; Leiden: Brill, 1995), pp. 95-126, and his own list of studies on this issue at the end of his article: 'Unity and Diversity among Diaspora Synagogues', in L.I. Levine (ed.). The Synagogue in Late Antiquity (Philadelphia: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1987), pp. 49-60. 2. W.C. van Unnik, Das Selbstverstdndnis der jUdischen Diaspora in der hellenistisch-rdmischen Zeit {AG}V, 17; Leiden: Brill, 1993). 3. S. Honigman, 'The Birth of a Diaspora: The Emergence of a Jewish SelfDefinition in Ptolemaic Egypt in the Light of Onomastics', in S.J.D. Cohen and E.S. Frerichs (eds.), Diasporas in Antiquity (BJS, 288; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), pp. 93-127.

Conclusions

119

The small comer I chose to explore atfirst—^theJewish understanding of dispersion—evolved into a slightiy broader discussion, namely on how different Jewish communities perceived their particular position within a range of contexts. As we noted, certain Jewish authors attempted to explain thek community's role within the broad sweep of Jewish history, in most cases by examining the extent to which biblical events—such as the misdeeds of the nation's ancestors—were still relevant to contempo­ rary diaspora Jews. At least a few Jewish thinkers within the GraecoRoman world took note of the ongoing phenomenon of dispersion, and attempted to explain not only its religious significance but its practical imphcations as weU. The second context in which this self-examination was noted was vis­ a-vis the countries and societies in whose midst each Jewish community functioned. It was here that we were able to discem a major distinction between the sense of 'belonging' evinced by Jews in the Graeco-Roman world, and a totally different sort of familiarity with the local surround­ ings feh, and indeed nurtured, by the Jews of Babylonia. No doubt the varying degrees of assimilatory pressures felt by different Jewish communities, as well as the different attitudes displayed towards the local Jewish population by Hellenistic-Roman society on the one hand and the eastem communities of Iran on the other, all played a role in shaping the Jewish feelings of either 'local patriotism' or ahenation. These communal self-images, however, were influenced in no small way by events of the immediate past, and without a doubt the destmc­ tion of the Temple and Jerusalem in 70 CE placed the general issue of dispersion, as well as the ongoing contacts between the various Jewish communities in a totally new context. In particular, the role of the Land of Israel—now without the religious center that served for so long as a major identifying factor in the lives of diaspora Jews—^underwent a major re-evaluation. In what might be considered at first glance paradoxical, it appears that the destmction in 70 CE and the Bar-Kokhba debacle of 135 CE served as catalysts for a systematic formulation by the sages in Palestine of the specific role that the Land of Israel should fill in Jewish behavior. For the first time we begin to encounter statements requiring a commitment to the Land that goes far beyond the keeping of certain agricultural laws witiiin its borders. The reasons for this enhanced awareness regarding the Land became apparent in the third chapter of this work. To begin, the demographic realhy within Palestine was radically changed as a result of the military

120

Land, Center and Diaspora

disaster brought about by the Bar-Kokhba uprising, a development that set into motion a process that ultimately called into question the role of the Jewish community as the dominant ethnic presence in Palestine. Far more significantly, it was precisely at this time that the Jewish commu­ nity beyond the Euphrates river realized the enormous potential for its own development that was created by the sweeping redefinition of Jewish religious values and expressions introduced by the sages of the Yavne period (70-132 CE) in their quest to fill the void left by the destruction. The emergence of a more spiritualized religious community, led by scholars rather than priests, encouraged a decentralizing process which not only had ramifications for the development of a new model of Jewish leadership, but by extension called into question the presupposi­ tion that all rabbinic guidance and authority emanates from Eretz Israel. The lines for the confrontation were now drawn, and in the final chapter of this work I tried to show how the rabbinic literary corpora of Palestine and Babylonia reflect a growing tension between the commu­ nities, based on totally different concepts of how, and under whose guidance, the religious life of the Jewish people should be run. Some Babylonians could accept the continuation of Palestine as something of a divinely endowed geographical realm, where people might wish to be buried and thereby partake of all sorts of promised advantages. But a distinction was made between this role for the Land and its position as a center of authority. The Palestinian sages most certainly did not roll over and accept their fate, and we were witness to all sorts of attempts to preserve some semblance of diaspora subservience. Ultimately the Babylonians seem to have redefined the essence of what constitutes 'Zion' or 'the Land', by attaching to themselves all the attributes previ­ ously linked to the Palestinian center. It was only left for the postTalmudic Babylonian leaders to go the extra distance, by claiming that Palestine had been bereft of true Torah for centuries. Pirkoi ben Baboi may have been the extreme exponent of this ideology, but the material that we encountered in numerous Babylonian Talmud statements makes it apparent that the seeds for Babylonia's final assault on Palestinian rabbinic supremacy were already sown hundreds of years before the geonic period.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alon, G., The Jews in their Land in the Talmudic Age, I-II (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1980-

1984; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2nd edn, 1989). —Studies in Jewish History, II (Tel Aviv: Hakibutz Ha-Meuchad, 1958) [Hebrew]. Amir, Y., 'Philo's Version of the Pilgrimage to Jerusalem' [Hebrew], in A. Oppenheimer, U. Rappaport and M. Stem (eds.), Jerusalem

in the Second

Temple

Period:

Abraham Schalit Memorial Volume (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1980), pp. 154-65. Amit, M., I.M. Gafni and M.D. Herr (eds.). Studies in Jewish History: The Second Temple Period (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak ben-Zvi, 1991), pp. 417-568. Avigad, N., 'Jewish Rock-Cut Tombs in Jerusalem and in the Judean Hill-Country' [Hebrew], Eretz Israel 8 (1967), pp. 119-25. Avigad, N., and B. Mazar, 'Beth She'arim', in E. Stem (ed.). The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological

Excavations

in the Holy Land,

II (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration

Society and Carta, 1993), pp. 236-48. Avi-Yonah, M., The Jews under Roman and Byzantine

Bacher, B.Z., Aggadot

Ha-Tannaim,

Beer, M., The Babylonian

Rule (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1984).

I-II (Jerusalem: Dvir, 1922-28).

Exilarchate

in the Arsacid

and Sassanian

Periods

(Tel Aviv:

Dvir, 1970) [Hebrew]. —'Notes on Three Edicts against the Jews of Babylonia in the Third Century CE' [Hebrew], Irano-Judaica, 1 (ed. S. Shaked; Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, 1982), pp. 25-37. Bloch, M., The Historian's Craft (New York: Knopf, 1962). Bohak, G., Joseph

and Aseneth

and the Jewish

Temple

in Heliopolis

(Atlanta, GA:

Scholars Press, 1996). Bonfil, R., 'Between Eretz Israel and Babylonia', Shalom 5 (1987), pp. 1-30. —'Myth, Rhetoric, History? A Study in the Chronicle of Ahima'az' [Hebrew], in R. Bonfil, M. Ben-Sassan and J.R. Hacker (eds.). Culture Studies

Dedicated

to the Memory

and Society

of Haim Hillel Ben-Sassan

in Medieval

Jewry:

(Jerusalem: Mercaz

Zalman Shazar, 1989), pp. 99-135. Brody, R., 'Judaism in the Sasanian Empire: A Case Study in Religious Coexistence', Irano-Judaica, II (ed. S. Shaked and A. Netzer; Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, 1990), pp. 52-62. Burstein, A., 'On the Problem of Proclaiming Leap Years outside the Land' [Hebrew], Sinai 38 (1957), pp. 33-46. Chavel, C.B. (ed.), Kitvei Rabbenu Bahya (Jerusalem: Mosad Ha-Rav Kook, 1970). Cohen, S.A., The Three Crowns:

Structures

of Communal

Jewry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).

Politics

in Early

Rabbinic

122

Land, Center and Diaspora

Cohen, S.J.D., 'Adolph Harnack's "The Mission and Expansion of Judaism": Christianity Succeeds where Judaism Fails', in B.A. Pearson, A.T. Kraabel, G.W.E. Nickelsburg and N.R. Petersen (eds.). The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), pp. 163-69. —'Was Judaism in Antiquity a Missionary Religion?', in M. Mor (ed.), Jewish Assimi­ lation, Acculturation and Accomodation: Past Traditions, Current Issues and Future Prospects (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1992), pp. 14-23. Collins, J.J., Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora (New York: Crossroad, 1983). Dalbert, P., Die Theologie der hellenistich-jiidischen Missionsliteratur unter Ausschluss von Philo und Josephus (Hamburg-Volksdorf: H. Reich, 1954). Davies, W.D., The Gospel and the Land (Berkeley: University of Califomia Press, 1974). —The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964). Elon, M., Jewish Law, II (New York: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1994). Eliav, Y.Z., Sites, Institutions and Daily Life in Tiberias during the Talmudic Period [Hebrew] (Mi'tuv T'veria, 10; Jerusalem: The Center for the Study of Tiberias, Bar-Ilan University, 1995). Feldman, L.H., Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993). Fraenkel, J., Darkhei Ha-Aggada VeHa-Midrash, I (Yad La-Talmud; Givatayim: Masada Press, 1991). Friedman, S., 'On the Historical Aggada in the Babylonian Talmud' [Hebrew], in idem (ed.), Saul Lieberman Memorial Volume (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1993), pp. 119-64. Gafni, I.M., 'Concepts of Periodization and Causality in Talmudic Literature', in K.R. Stow (ed.), Jewish History, X (Haifa: Haifa University Press, 1966), pp. 21-38. —'Expressions and Types of "Local-Patriotism" among the Jews of Sasanian Babylonia', Irano-Judaica, II (ed. S. Shaked and A. Netzer; Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Instimte, 1990), pp. 63-71. —'The Hasmoneans in Rabbinic Literature' [Hebrew], in D. Amit and H. Eshel (eds.), Yemei Beit Hashmonay (Idan, 19; Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1995), pp. 261-75. —The Jews of Babylonia in the Talmudic Era: A Social and Cultural History [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 1990). — ' "Pre-Histories" of Jerusalem in Hellenistic, Jewish and Christian Literature', JSP 1 (1987), pp. 5-22. —'Public Sermons in Talmudic Babylonia: The Pirqa' [Hebrew], in S. Elizur, M.D. Herr, G. Shaked and A. Shinan (eds.), Knesset Ezra: Studies Presented to Ezra Fleischer (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi and the Ben Zvi Institute, 1994), pp. 121-30. —'Reinterment in the Land of Israel: Notes on the Origin and Development of the Custom', The Jerusalem Cathedra 1 (1981), pp. 96-104. —'"Staff and Legislator": On New Types of Leadership in Eretz-lsrael and Babylonia' [Hebrew], in I. Gafni and G. Motzkin (eds.). Priesthood and Monarchy (Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 1987), pp. 79-91. —'Synagogues in Babylonia in the Talmudic Period', in D. Urman and P.V.M. Flesher (eds.). Ancient Synagogues: Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery, I (SPB, 47; Leiden: Brill, 1995), pp. 221-31.

Bibliography

123

Gager, J.G., The Origins of Anti-Semitism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985). Ginzberg, L., A Commentary on the Palestinian Talmud, I [Hebrew] (New York: Ktav, 1971). —Genizah Studies, II (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1929). —Legends of the Jews, V (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1947). Goldstein, J.L., 'The Message of Aristeas to Philokrates', in M. Mor (ed.), Eretz Israel, Israel and the Jewish Diaspora,

Mutual Relations

(Lanham, MD: University Press

of America, 1991), pp. 1-23. Goodblatt, D., 'Josephus on Parthian Babylonia', JAOS 107 (1987), pp. 605-22. —The Monarchic Principle (TSAJ, 38; Tubingen: Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1994). —'The Poll Tax in Sasanian Babylonia—The Talmudic Evidence', Journal for the Economic

and Social

History

of the Orient 22 (1979), pp. 233-94.

—Rabbinic Instruction in Sasanian Babylonia (SJLA, 9; Leiden: Brill, 1975). —'Towards the Rehabilitation of Talmudic History', in B.M. Bokser (ed.). History of Judaism: The Next Ten Years (BJS, 21; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981), pp. 3144. Goodman, M., 'Jewish Proselytizing in the First Century", in J. Lieu, J. North and T. Rajak (eds.). The Jews

among

Pagans

and Christians

in the Roman

Empire

of the Roman

Empire

(London: Routledge, 1992), pp. 53-78. —Mission

and Conversion:

Proselytizing

in the Religious

History

(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994). —'Proselytising in Rabbinic Judaism', JJS 40 (1989), pp. 175-85. —'The Roman Identity of Roman Jews', in I.M. Gafni, A. Oppenheimer and D.R. Schwartz (eds.). The Jews in the Hellenistic-Roman

Menahem 85-99. —State

Stem

and Society

World: Studies

in Memory

of

(Jerusalem: Mercaz Zalman Shazar, 1996), English section, pp. in Roman

Galilee,

A.D. 132-212

(Oxford Centre for Postgraduate

Hebrew Studies; Towota, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld, 1983). Graham, A.J., Colony

and Mother

City in Ancient

Greece

(Manchester: Manchester

University Press, 1964). Green, W.S., 'What's in a Name?—The Problematic of Rabbinic "Biography"', in W.S. Green (ed.). Approaches

to Ancient

Judaism:

Theory and Practice

(BJS, 1;

Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978), pp. 77-96. Gruen, E.S., 'The Use and Abuse of the Exodus Story' (forthcoming article; an earlier version was delivered as a paper at the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, 1996). Guttmann, M., 'The Land of Israel in Talmud and Midrash' [Hebrew], in Festschrift zum

75 jdhrigen

Bestehen

des judischtheologischen

Seminars

'Fraenkelscher

Stiftung', I (Breslau, 1929; New York: Amo Press, 2nd edn, 1980), pp. 1-148. —Mafte'ah Ha-Talmud [Hebrew], 1II.2 (Breslau, 1930), pp. 1-148. Hagermann, H., 'The Diaspora in the Hellenistic Age', in W.D. Davies and L. Finkelstein (eds.). The Cambridge

History

of Judaism.

II. The Hellenistic

Age

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 115-66. Halpern-Amaru, B., 'Land Theology in Josephus' Jewish Antiquities', JQR 71 (1981) pp. 201-29. —'Land Theology in Philo and Josephus', in L.A. Hoffman (ed.). The Land of Israel: Jewish Perspectives (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1986), pp. 65-93.

124

Land, Center and Diaspora

—Rewriting

the Bible:

Land and Covenant

in Postbiblical

Jewish

Literature

(Valley

Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1994). Hamack, A., Die Mission

und Ausbreitung

des Christentums

in den ersten

drei

Jahrhunderten (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1902). Heinemann, I., Darchei Ha-Aggadah [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2nd edn, 1954). —'The Relationship between the Jewish People and their Land in Hellenistic-Jewish Literature' [Hebrew], Zion 13-14 (1948-50), pp. 1-9. Herr, M.D., 'The Calendar', in S. Safrai and M. Stem (eds.). The Jewish People in the First Century, II (CRINT; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1976), pp. 834-64. —'The Conception of History among the Sages' [Hebrew], in A. Shinan (ed.). Proceedings

of the Sixth World Congress

of Jewish Studies,

III (Jerusalem: World

Congress of Jewish Studies, 1977), pp. 129-42. —'The Sages' Reaction to Antisemitism in the Hellenistic-Roman World', in S. Almog (ed.), Antisemitism through the Ages (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1988), pp. 27-38. Hirshman, M., 'Midrash Qohelet Rabbah' (PhD dissertation, Jewish Theological Seminary, New York 1983). Holladay, C.R., Fragments from Hellenistic

Jewish Authors.

I. Historians

(Pseudepigrapha

series, 10; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983), II. Poets (Pseudepigrapha series, 12: Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989). Honigman, S., 'The Birth of a Diaspora: The Emergence of a Jewish Self-Definition in Ptolemaic Egypt in the Light of Onomastics', in S.J.D. Cohen and E. Frerichs (eds.), Diasporas in Antiquity (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), pp. 93-127. Horbury, W., and D. Noy, Jewish

Inscriptions

of Graeco-Roman

Egypt

(Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1992). Kaplan, Y., The Archaeology and History of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa (Tel Aviv: Masada, 1959). Kasher, A., 'Jemsalem as a "Metropolis" in Philo's National Consciousness' [Hebrew], Cathedra 11 (1979), pp. 45-56. —The

Jews in Hellenistic

and Roman Egypt:

The Struggle

for Equal Rights

(TSAJ, 7;

Tubingen: Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1985). —'Jewish Migration and Settlement in the Hellenistic-Roman Period' [Hebrew], in A. Shinan (ed.), Emigration

and Settlement

in Jewish

and General

History

(Jerusalem: Mercaz Zalman Shazar, 1982), pp. 65-91. —'Political and National Connections between the Jews of Ptolemaic Egypt and their Brethren in Eretz Israel', in M. Mor (ed.), Eretz Israel, Israel and the Jewish Diaspora, Mutual Relations (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1991), pp. 24-41. Kimelman, R., 'Rabbi Yohanan and Origen on the Song of Songs: A Third-Century Jewish-Christian Disputation', HTR 73 (1980), pp. 567-95. Klein, S., Sefer Ha-Yishuv [Hebrew], I (Jerusalem: Dvir, 1939). Kon, M., The Tombs of the Kings [Hebrew] (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1947). Kraabel, A.T., 'The Diaspora Synagogue: Archaeological and Epigraphic Evidence since Sukenik', in D. Urman and P.V.M. Flesher (eds.). Ancient Synagogues: Historical

Analysis and Archaeological

Discovery,

I (SPB, 47; Leiden: Brill, 1995),

pp. 95-126. —'Unity and Diversity among Diaspora Synagogues', in L.I. Levine (ed.). The Synagogue in Late Antiquity (Philadelphia: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1987), pp. 49-60.

Bibliography

125

Kraemer, D., 'On the Rehabihty of Attributions in the Babylonian Talmud', HUCA 60 (1989), pp. 175-90. Kraemer, R.S., Her Share

and Christians 1992). Krauss, S., Griechische

of the Blessings:

in the Greco-Roman und Lateinische

Women's

Religions

among

Pagans,

Jews,

World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, Lehnworter

im Talmud,

Midrash

und

Targum,

I-II (Berlin: S. Calvary, 1898-99). Kugel, J., 'The Ladder of Jacob', HTR 88 (1995), pp. 209-27. Levine, L.I., The Rabbinic

Class of Roman Palestine

in Late Antiquity

(Jerusalem: Yad

Izhak Ben-Zvi; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1989). Lewin, B.M., 'Geniza Fragments' [Hebrew], Tarbiz 2 (1931) pp. 383-410. —(ed.), Iggeret Rav Sherira Gaon (Haifa, 1921). Lewy, H., 'Cicero on the Jews in his Speech for the Defense of Flaccus' [Hebrew], Zion 7 (1941^2), pp. 109-134. —Studies in Jewish Hellenism [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1960). Lieberman, S., 'Emendations on the Jerushalmi' [Hebrew], Tarbiz 3 (1932), pp. 205-12. —Greek in Jewish Palestine (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1942). —Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1962). —'That is How it Was and That is How it Shall Be—The Jews of Eretz Israel and World Jewry during the Mishnah and Talmud Times' [Hebrew], Cathedra 17 (1980), pp. 3-10. —Tosefta Ki-Fshutah, Nashim, IV (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1967). Liver, J., The House of David [Hebrew]) (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1959). Mann, J., 'Les "Chapitres" de Ben Baboi" et les relations de R. Yehudai Gaon avec la Palestine', REJ 70 (1920), pp. 113-48. —'The Responsa of the Babylonian Geonim as a Source of Jewish History', JQR 11 (1921), pp. 433-71. M^lfeze-Modrzejewski, J., 'How to be a Jew in Hellenistic Egypt?', in S.J.D. Cohen and E. Frerichs (eds.), Diasporas in Antiquity (BJS, 288; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), pp. 65-92. — The Jews

of Egypt:

From Rameses

II to Emperor

Hadrian

(Philadelphia: Jewish

Publication Society of America, 1995) Mendels, D., 'Hecataeus of Abdera and a Jewish "patrios politeia" of the Persian Period (Diodorus Siculus XL,3)', ZAW 95 (1983), pp. 96-110. —The

Rise and Fall of Jewish

York: Doubleday, 1993). Meyers, E.M., Jewish Ossuaries: 1971).

Nationalism

Reburial

(Anchor Bible Reference Library; New

arul Rebirth (Rome: Biblical Institute Press,

Meyers, E.M,, and J.F. Strange, Archaeology,

the Rabbis

and Early

Christianity

(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1981). Momigliano, A., Alien

Wisdom:

The Limits

of Hellenization

(Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1975). —'Un documento della spirituality dei Giudei Leontopolitani', Aegyptus pp. 171-72.

12 (1932),

126

Land, Center and Diaspora

—On Pagans, Jews and Christians (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1987). Naveh, J., 'An Aramaic Tomb Inscription Written in Paleo-Hebrew Script', lEJ 23 (1973), pp. 82-91. Neubauer, A., Mediaeval Jewish Chronicles, II (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1895). Neusner, J., 'Evaluating the Attributions of Sayings to Named Sages in Rabbinic Literature', JSJ 26 (1995), pp. 93-111. —'The Formation of Rabbinic Judaism: Yavneh (Jamnia) from 70 AD to 100', ANRW II. 19.2 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1979), pp. 3-42. —A History of the Jews in Babylonia, I-II (SPB, 9, 11; Leiden: Brill, 1965-66). Noy, D., 'The Jewish Communities of Leontopolis and Venosa', in J.W. van Henten and P.W. van der Horst (eds.). Studies

in Early

Jewish

Epigraphy

(AGJU, 21;

Leiden: Brill, 1994), pp. 162-82. Obermeyer, J., Die Landschaft

Babylonien

im Zeitalter

des Talmuds

und des

Gaonats

(Frankfurt: I. Kauffmann, 1929). Oppenheimer, A., Babylonia

Judaica

in the Talmudic

Period

(Beihefte zum Tubinger

Atlas des Vorderen Orients. Reihe B, Geisteswissenchaften, 47; Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert, 1983). —'Babylonian Synagogues with Historical Associations', in D. Urman and P.V.M. Flesher (eds.). Ancient

Synagogues:

Historical

Analysis

and

Archaeological

Discovery, I (SPB, 47; Leiden: Brill, 1995), pp. 40-48. —Galilee in the Mishnaic Period [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Mercaz Zalman Shazar, 1991). —'Links between Mesene and Eretz Israel' [Hebrew], Zion 47 (1982), pp. 335-41. Oppenheimer, A., and M. Lecker, 'Burial Beyond the Euphrates' [Hebrew], Milet, I (ed. S. Ettinger, Y.D. Gilat and S. Safrai; Tel Aviv: Everyman's University, 1983), pp. 157-63. Overman, J.A., and R.S. MacLennan (eds.). Diaspora Honor of, and in Dialogue

Jews

with, A. Thomas Kraabel

and Judaism:

Essays

in

(South Florida Studies in the

History of Judaism; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992). Poppers, H.L., 'The Declass6 in the Babylonian Jewish Community', Jewish Social Studies 20 (1958), pp. 153-79. Pucci, M., 'Traiano, la Mesopotamia e gli Ebrei', Aegyptus 59 (1979), pp. 168-89. Rahmani, L.Y., 'Jason's Tomb", lEJ 17 (1967), pp. 94ff. Rajak, T., 'Inscription and Context: Reading the Jewish Catacombs of Rome', in J.W. van Henten and P.W. van der Horst (eds.). Studies

in Early

Jewish

Epigraphy

(AGJU, 21; Leiden: Brill, 1994), pp. 226-41. Rosenthal, E.S., 'For the Talmudic Dictionary—Talmudica Iranica' [Hebrew], IranoJudaica, I (ed. S. Shaked; Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, 1982), pp. 38-134. —'The Giv'at ha-Mivtar Inscription', lEJ 23 (1973), pp. 72-81. —'Ha-Moreh' [Hebrew], PAAJR 31 (1963), pp. 1-71. Safrai, S., Pilgrimage

at the Time of the Second

Temple

[Hebrew] (Tel Aviv: Am

Hassefer, 1965; Jerusalem: Academon, 2nd rev. edn, 1985). —'Pilgrimage to Jerusalem after the Destruction of the Second Temple' [Hebrew], in A. Oppenheimer, U. Rappaport and M. Stem (eds.), Jerusalem in the Second Temple

Period:

Abraham

Schalit

Memorial

Volume (Jemsalem: Yad Izhak Ben-

Zvi, 1980) pp. 376-93. —'The Practical Implementation of the Sabbatical Year after the Destruction of the Second Temple' [Hebrew], Tarbiz 35 (1966) pp. 304-328; Tarbiz 36 (1966), pp. 1-21.

Bibliography

ill

—'Relations between the Diaspora and the Land of Israel', in S. Safrai and M. Stem (eds.). The Jewish People in the First Century, I (CRINT, Assen: Van Gorcum, 1974), pp. 184-215. —'Sikarikon' [Hebrew], Zion 17 (1952), pp. 56-64. Sanders, E.P., Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International; London: SCM Press, 1990). — Judaism:

Practice

and Belief

63 BCE-66

CE (Philadelphia:

Trinity

Press

International, 1992). Satlow, M.L., Tasting

the Dish:

Rabbinic

Rhetorics

of Sexuality

(BJS, 303; Atlanta:

Scholars Press, 1995). Schaefer, P., 'The Exodus Tradition in Pagan Greco-Roman Literature', in I.M. Gafni, A. Oppenheimer and D.R. Schwartz (eds.). The Jews in the Hellenistic-Roman World:

Studies

in Memory

of Menahem

Stern (Jerusalem: Mercaz Zalman Shazar

and the Historical Society of Israel, 1996), English Section, pp. 9-38. Schalit, A., Antiquitates Judaicae [Hebrew]), I-II (Jerusalem-Tel Aviv: Bialik Institute, 1967). Schaller, B., 'Philon von Alexandreia und das Heilige Land', in G. Strecker (ed.). Das Land Israel

in biblischer

1983), pp. 172-87. Scholem, G., The Messianic Schurer, E., The History

Zeit (GTA, 25; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,

Idea in Judaism (New York: Schocken Books, 1971).

of the Jewish

People

in the Age of Jesus

Christ

(175

BC-AD

135), I-III (rev. and ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Black and M. Goodman; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973-87). Schwabe, M., 'On the History of Tiberias' [Hebrew], in M. Schwabe and I. Gutman (eds.), Commentationes

ludaico-Hellenisticae

In Memoriam

lohannis

Lewy

(1901-1945) (Jemsalem: Magnes, 1949). —'Tiberias Revealed through Inscriptions', in H.Z. Hirschberg (ed.). All the Land of Naphtali (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1967), pp. 180-91. Schwabe, M., and B. Lifshitz, Beth

She'arim.

11. The Greek

Inscriptions

(Jerusalem:

Rutgers University Press, on behalf of the Israel Exploration Society and the Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University, 1974). Schwartz, D.R., 'The End of the FH (Acts 1.8): Beginning or the End of the Christian Vision', JBL 105 (1986), pp. 669-76. —'On Abraham Schalit, Herod, Josephus, the Holocaust, Horst R. Moehring and the Study of Ancient Jewish History', Jewish History 2 (1987), pp. 9-28. —Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity (WUNT, 60; Tubingen: Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1992). Schwartz, J., Jewish

Settlement

in Judaea:

After the Bar Kokhba

War until the

Arab

Conquest, 135 CE-640 CE [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986). —'Judea in the Wake of the Bar-Kokhva Revolt' [Hebrew], in A. Oppenheimer and U. Rappaport (eds.). The Bar-Kokhva Revolt (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1984), pp. 215-23. —'Tension between Palestinian Scholars and Babylonian Olim in Amoraic Palestine', 757 11 (1981), pp. 78-94. Schwartz, S., Josephus and Judaean Politics (Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition, 18; Leiden: Brill, 1990). Sevenster, J.N., The Roots of Pagan Anti-Semitism

Leiden: Brill, 1975).

in the Ancient

World (NovTSup, 41;

128

Land, Center and Diaspora

Shatzman, I., The Armies

of the Hasmoneans

and Herod:

From Hellenistic

to

Roman

Frameworks (TSAJ, 25; Tubingen: Mohr, 1991). Shilo, S., Dina De-Malkhuta Dina [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Jerusalem Academic Press, 1974). —'The Hasmoneans in Greco-Roman Historiography', Zion 57 (1992), pp. 5-64. Shochet, A., 'Josephus' Outlook on the Future of Israel and its Land' [Hebrew], in M. Ish-Shalom, M. Benayahu, Y. Press and A. Shohet (eds.), Yerushalayim, I (Jerusalem: Mosad Ha-Rav Kook, 1953), pp. 43-50. Smallwood, E.M., The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey

to Diocletian.

A

Study

in Political Relations (SJLA, 20; Leiden: Brill, 2nd edn, 1981). Sperber, D., Minhagei Yisra'el [Hebrew], I (Jerusalem: Mosad Ha-Rav Kook, 1989). —Roman

Palestine

200-400:

Money

and Prices

(Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 2nd

edn, 1991). Spiegel, S., 'On the Affair of the Polemic of Pirkoi ben Baboi' [Hebrew], in S. Lieberman (ed.), H.A. Wolfson Jubilee Volume (Jerusalem: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1965), Hebrew Section, pp. lAJi-lA. Stem, M., 'Antisemitism in Rome', in S. Almog (ed.), Antisemitism through the Ages (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1988), pp. 13-25. —'The Expulsions of Jews from Rome in Antiquity' [Hebrew], Zion AA (1979), pp. 1-27. —Greek

and Latin Authors

on Jews and Judaism,

I-III (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of

Sciences and Humanities, 1974-84). —'The Jewish Diaspora', in S. Safrai and M. Stem (eds.). The Jewish People in the First Century, I (CRINT; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1974), pp. 117-83. —'The Jews in Greek and Latin Literature', in S. Safrai and M. Stem (eds.). The Jewish People in the First Century, 11 (CRINT; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1976), pp. 1101-59. —'Sympathy for Judaism in Roman Senatorial Circles in the Period of the Early Empire' [Hebrew], Zion 29 (1964), pp. 155-67. Stem, S., 'Attribution and Authorship in the Babylonian Talmud', JJS 45 (1994), pp. 28-51. —Jewish

Identity

in Early Rabbinic

Stone, M. (ed.), Jewish

Writings

Writings

(AGJU, 23; Leiden: Brill, 1994).

of the Second

Temple

Period

(CRINT; Assen: Van

Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984). Strickman, H.N., 'A Note on the Text of the Babylonian Talmud Git. 6a', JQR 66 (1975-76), pp. 173-75. Sussman, Y., 'A Halakhic Inscription from the Beth-Shean Valley', Tarbiz 43 (197374), pp. 88-158. Tcherikover, V.A., Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, I, II (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press and Magnes Press, 1957, 1960). —Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1959). —'Jewish Apologetic Literature Reconsidered', Eos 48 (1956), Fasc. 3, pp. 169-93. —The Jews in Egypt in the Hellenistic-Roman

Age in the Light of the Papyri

[Hebrew]

(Jerusalem: Magnes, 1963). Tcherikover, V.A., A. Fuks, and M. Stem, Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press and Magnes, 1960-64).

I-III

Bibliography

129

Torczyner, N., 'R. Yohanan said: B'regel Redufim Shanu', in M. Schwabe and I. Gutman (eds.), Commentationes ludaico-Hellenisticae in memoriam lohannis Lewy (1901-1945) (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1949), pp. 59-64. Trebilco, P.R., Jewish Communities in Asia Minor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991). Trifon, D. Ben-Haim, 'The Jewish Priests from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Rise of Christianity' (PhD dissertation, Tel-Aviv University, 1985). Unnik, W.C. van. Das Selbstverstandnis der judischen Diaspora in der hellenistichenromischen Zeit (AGJU, 17; Leiden: Brill, 1993). Urbach, E.E., 'Halakha and History', in R. Hammerton-Kelly and R. Scroggs (eds.), Jews, Greeks and Christians: Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity (Essays in Honor of W.D. Davies) (SJLA, 21; Leiden: Brill, 1976), pp. 112-28. —The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1975). Weitzman, S., 'Allusion, Artifice and Exile in the Hymn of Tobit', JBL 115 (1996), pp. 49-61. Widengren, G., 'Iran, der grosse Gegner Roms; Konigsgewalt, Feudalismus, Militarwesen', ANRW II.19.1, pp. 249-80. Wilken, R.L., The Land Called Holy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992). Zehavi, Y. (Goldenbaum), Midrashei Eretz Yisrael [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Mekhon Tehila, 1959). Zevin, S.J. (ed.), Talmudic Encyclopedia, X [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Talmudic Encylopedia Publishing, 1961). Zimmermann, F., The Book of Tobit (New York: Harper, Dropsie College, 1958).

INDEXES

I N D E X OF R E F E R E N C E S

BIBLICAL REFERENCES OLD TESTAMENT

Genesis 2.10-14 2.14 8.8-9 12.1 13.16 15.8 15.13 28.12 32.9 47.29-30 47.30 50.25 Exodus 12.12 12.29 13.4 16.25 Leviticus 23.4 26.33

54 90 30 22, 36 31 26 26 26 33 80 80 80

72 72 104 63

108 21

Numbers 9.6-14 14.1 23.9 27.23

58 27 61 81, 112

Deuteronomy 11.31-32 16.1 25.5-10

67 104 59

34.4

21 31 80, 82, 86, 88 64

Josliua 22.10 22.25 22.27

109 109 109

Ruth 1.1 1.19

67 67

28.63-64 28.65 32.43

1 Kings 11.16 12.32 12.33

32, 33 108 108

2 Kings 24.12-16 24.14 24.16

55 107 107

2 Chronicles 6.38 Ezra 9 10.8 Psalms 71.9 71.20

102.15 116.9

60 87

Song of Song! 1.3 36 2.7 74 8.9 76 Isaiah 2.3 33.24 42.5

108, 1( 86, 88 87, 88

Jeremiah 2.7 5.19 9.15 20.6 27.22 29.1 30.10 32.41

76, 82 21 21 88 74 106 27 70

Lamentations 1.3 1.7

30 78

Ezekiel 37.12-14 37.14

88 87

Hosea 2.25 6.7

36 25

69

54 113

24 24

Index of References Amos IM

80, 93

Zechariah 2.11

77

Tobit 1.18 3.4 13 13.3-4

13.8 13.13 14

35 35 35

131 2 Maccabees 1.27-29 77 NEW TESTAMENT

23 24 35 35

Judith 5.18

24

Acts 1.8 4.36

Ecclesiasticus 48.15

24

Romans

64 44

1 1

38

b. Ber. 27b-28a 42b 57b 63a-b

99 91 54 71, 108

b. B. Qam. 27b 80a 84a-b

112 116 114

b Git. 6a 36b 88a

92, 116 113 107

b. Hul. 18b 95b

101 111

b. Hor. lib

101

OTHER ANCIENT REFERENCES PSEUDEPIGRAPHA

Ass. Mos. 3.12-13 2 Bar. 1.2-4

T. Dan 5.8

24

T. Levi 10.3-4

24

24

24 MISHNAH

Ep. Arist. 6 12-14 12 13 14 24 249 36

50 28 50 46 50 50 22 46

'Ed 1.1

103

Git. 5.6

68

RoS Has.

Jub. 1.9-13

24

1-2 2.5 2.7 2.8-9 4.4

3 Mace. 2.21-24

23

Sanh. 1.2

102

Pss. Sol. 9.1 17.44

24 77

Yeb. 16.7

105, 106

Yom. 6.4

44

Sib Or. 267-76

102 103 103 103 103

b. Ket. 103b llOb-lla 110b 111a

112a

84 74 67 73-77, 83, 87, 92-94, 115 60, 61

b. Meg. 5a-b

70

24 TALMUDS

T. Ash. 1.1-1

24

b. B. Bat. 3b

115

Land, Center and Diaspora

132 29a

56, 115

10a 66b

b. M. Qat. 16a 25a

113 83

y. B. Mes. 2.8

26

y. Ber. 1.2

b Ned. 32a b Pes. 51a 87b

b Qid 69b 70b 71b

100 31, 34, 36, 39, 54, 63, 116

73a

54, 94 55 54, 55, 75, 115 55

b RoS HaS. 20b 23b 25a

107, 111 107 104

y. BikL 3.65 y- Hag. 3.78 y. Ket. 2.26 12.35 y. Kil. 9.32 9.33 y. Ma'as. S. 5.56 y. Meg. 1.70

b. Sanh. lib 13b-14a 13b 14a 31b 32b 38a-b 97b

104-106 81 112 112 113 107 55 72

b. Suk. 20b

107

b. Ta'an. 29a

27

TOSEFTA

b Yeb. 89b

113

'Abod. Zar. 1.19 4

b Yom. 9b

76

115 44

4.5

14, 70

Ber. 3.15

69

B. Qam. 7.3

63

Ket. 12.5

68

RoS Has 2.1

103

Seq. 1.3

113

Sanh. 2.1 2.3 2.6 2.13

102 105 104 105, 106

Ta 'an. 10

60

Yom. 3.13

44

39

72

112

105

73, 111 82, 83

76, 82, 83, 87, 88 93

104

70 MIDRASHIM

y. M. Qat. 2.81 3.81 y. Sanh. 1.18-19 1.18 1.19

4.3 4.4

84 59

105 104, 106 71, 105, 107, 108, 112

ARN 26 42

76, 116 25

Cant. R. 1.3 2.7 8.9 8.10

37 74 76 34

Der Er. Rab. 11 72 72 65 66, 71, 83, 89 67

Eccl. R. 1.8

111, 117

Exod. R. 15.20

104

133

Index of References 52.3 Gen R. 16.3 16.4 16.5 17.4 22.13 33.3 33.6 38.13 39.9 40.9 74.1 78.3 96

69

90 60 25 25 25 83 31 54 22 31 60, 87 33 82

80 316 333

61, 66, 107 60 71, 86

Vit. Mos. 1.36 2.232

Sifre Num. 136

64

Ant. 4.115-16 4.115 12.8 12.11-33 12.149 14.124 14.131 16.361 20.34 20.95

62 29 46 28 46 84 48 66 38 85

Apion 1.186-87 . 1.194 1.240 2.35-36 2.38 2.39 2.65

28 28 52 46 44 45 44

War 1.184 1.190 1.539 2.487 7.218 7.421-36

84 48 66 46 23 48

JOSEPHUS

r. d Eliyy. 1

25

Tanh. 3 5

57, 97, 107 31

PHILO

Abr. 64

22

Lam. R. 1 1.28

78 30

Conf Ling. 120-21 197

22 22

Uv. R. 29.1

27

Deus Imm. 17

47

Flacc. 45 46

58 46

Leg. Gai. 150 194 214 281-83 349

45 45 20, 58 20 45

Mek. SbY. Exod. 72 12.29 Midr. Pss. 71.4

25

Midr. Teh. 4.4

103

Pes. R. 1 33

82, 87 69

PRE 8 12 21 Sifre Deut. 29 32.43 37-40 38 41

70 86 64 65 25

CHRISTIAN AUTHORS Eusebius,

Mut. Nom. 40 110 25 25

63 29, 58

47

Praem. Poen. 115 29 164 60 Somn. 2.250

29

Spec. Leg. 4.178

29

Praeparatio 9.27.4 9.27.5

Evangelica 40 52

Origen,

Contra Celsum 1.55 37 52-53 37

Land, Center and Diaspora

134 CLASSICAL AUTHORS

Diodorus Siculus,

Tacitus

Cicero,

Bibliotheca Historica 4.1-2 61 18.28 86 34-35 61 40.3.8 58

Historiae 5.5.3

Pro Flacco 28.69

23

58

I N D E X OF A U T H O R S

Alon, G. 64, 66, 70, 85, 103, 105, 106, 111 Amir, Y. 62 Amit, M. 11 Avigad, N. 85, 89 Avi-Yonah, M. 66,72

Goldstein, J. 50 Goodblatt, D. 16, 53, 57, 99, 100 Goodman, M. 15, 36-38, 43, 58 Green, W.S. 15 Gruen, E.S. 21 Guttmann, M. 62

Baumgarten, A.I. 105 Beer, M. 53,55, 115 Bloch, M. 17 Bohak, G. 51 Bonfil, R. 116 Brody, R. 53 Burstein, A. 106

Halpern-Amaru, B. 62 Hamack, A. 39 Hegermann, H. 118 Heinemann, I. 79 Herr, M.D. 11, 15, 33, 102, 106 Hirshman, M. I l l , 117 Holladay, C.R. 2 8 , 3 9 , 5 2 Honigman, S. 45, 118

Chavel, C.B. 39 Cohen, S.A. 99 Cohen, S.J.D. 38,39 Collins, J.J. 43 Dalbert, P. 37 Davies, W.D. 65 Eliav, Y.Z. 81 Elon, M. 81 Eshel, H. 15 Feldman, L.H. 38, 43, 58 flusser, D. 35 Fraenkel, J. 15 Friedman, S. 83, 114 Fuks, A. 45 Gafni, I.M. 11, 16, 25, 27, 53-56, 73, 81-83, 92, 100, 107, 110, 111, 115, 117 Ginzberg, L. 17, 25, 79, 96, 97

Kaplan, Y. 90 Kasher, A. 28,45-47 Kimelman, R. 34 Klein, S. 90 Kon, M. 85 Kraabel, A.T. 118 Kraemer, D. 15 Kraemer, R.S. 51 Krauss, S. 32 Kugel, J. 27 Levine, L.L 15, 112 Lewin, B.M. 97, 115 Lewis, D.M. 47 Lewy, H. 23 Lieberman, S. 3 1 , 3 2 , 6 8 , 6 9 , 7 5 , 8 1 , 83 Lifshitz, B. 89, 90 Liver, J. 55 MacLennan, R.S. 118

136

Land, Center and Diaspora

Mann, J. 92,96 Mazar, B. 89 M616ze-Modrzejewski, J. 21,28,29, 43, 45, 51 Mendels, D. 4 2 , 4 6 Meyers, E.M. 65, 84, 85 Moffatt, J. 39 Momigliano, A. 40, 41, 48, 50, 51 Naveh, J. 85 Neubauer, A. 115 Neusner, J. 1 5 , 5 3 , 5 5 , 6 9 , 115 Nickelsburg, G.W.E. 35 Noy, D. 4 7 , 4 9 Obermeyer, ] . 91 Oppenheimer. A. 56, 66, 75, 90-92, 115 Overman, J.A. 118

Schurer, E. 1 1 , 2 3 , 4 8 , 5 1 , 102 Schwabe, M. 8 5 , 8 9 , 9 0 Schwartz, D.R. 29, 35, 43, 64 Schwartz, J. 66, 75 Schwartz, S. 99 Shatzman, I. 23, 46 Shilo, S. 53 Shochet, A. 30 Sperber, D. 67, 81 Spiegel, S. 96, 97 Stem, M. 11, 23, 28, 37, 38, 44-46, 48, 58, 59 Stem, S. 15,43 Stow, K.R. 15 Strange, J.F. 65 Sussmann, Y. 66 Tcherikover, V.A. 23, 28, 38, 45, 48 Torczyner, N. 34 Trebilco, P.R, 49 Trifon, D. Ben-Heim 99

Poppers, H.L. 55 Rahmani, L.Y. 84 Rajak, T. 37, 50 Rosenthal, E,S. 15,84 Safrai, S. 1 1 , 6 8 , 7 8 , 8 5 Sanders, E.P. 102 Satlow, M.L. 15 Schaefer, P. 22 Schalit, A. 29 Schaller, B. 62 Scholem, G. 72

Unnik, W.C. van 118 Urbach, E.E. 27, 32, 33, 71, 73, 74, 83 Weitzman, S. 35 Widengren, G. 52 Wilken, R.L. 20,30 Zehavi, Y. 62 Zevin, S.J. 113 Zimmermann, F. 35