Decline of Agrarian Economy in Palestine to 70AD

8/13/2019 Decline of Agrarian Economy in Palestine to 70AD

1/45


2/45

286 MOSHE GIL

Romes role in the difficulties besetting agriculture in Palestine was mainlythat of settling the land with discharged soldiers. I will show that the agricultural decline in Palestine was primarily caused by internal processes, especiallythe laws of inheritance. It was, indeed, expected that a population that revoltedagainst Rome would be sold into slavery. Yet the period of the revolt spreadonly over a few years of the hundreds of years of Roman rule in Palestine. Bylaw, the lands of the conquered peoples, the dediticii, were transferred to thstate, but it seems that in actuality this was often no more than an abstract legarule. Rather, normally the vectigalia that grew out of a lease of land from thregime were absorbed into a long list of taxes that were already a burden onthe population. Rostovtzev viewed Roman agrarian policy as a process of the

development of a class of private agricultural proprietors, who were heavilytaxed, as well as required to work state lands, i.e., royal lands, and to fulfilall sorts of personal services, liturgies. It may be that these added obligationevolved as an alternative, or transformation of lease payment for a domain originally private property.1

Rostovtzev compiled a general survey about the types of lands developed inRoman law, based on what is recorded mainly in Egyptian inscriptions andpapyri. In general, in the conquered territories, Rome sought to maintain thelarge estates, especially if they were in the states domain before the conquestIn Egypt, this was expressed in the preservation of the judicial status of royalands, the g basilik, i.e., belonging to the king or emperor. The possessionof private land passed on through generations was subject to expropriationRoman policy led to the development of large estates, by way of leasing tractof land to the Roman cream of society, called lands bestowed: g n dvreor n suntjei (literally: regulated lands, actually, the right to receive incom

from land worked by others). This was a kind of reversion, perhaps unawaresto the system that existed in the third century BC, when huge farms and evenentire villages were granted to those close to the king.2 In a papyrus from 47BC, there is mention of pleonasmo basilikw, apparently denoting vast, richestates with a great many slaves and beasts, worked by tenants with small holdings nearby which were theoretically leased: misyoforik g, the right to holdthem entailing the obligation to work in the large estate.3 It is still possible to

1 Rostovtzev (1910: 199 203)


3/45

THE DECLINE OF THE AGRARIAN ECONOMY 28

find information about an intensive policy of estate sales, a policy perhapmeant to remove the previous regimes concessionaires, higher officials anarmy commanders. Indeed, this policy was not comprehensive and absolute, becausRome required the services of a section of the officials of the previous regimeIt may be that these sales were mainly of desolate lands abandoned by theiowners.4 The purchasers of these estates were required to make perennial payments, the anpart in talmudic sources;5 if they did not pay, the praefectu

would sell the land. In Egypt, a system of oppression and exploitation developed, which led Rome to enact laws to alleviate the difficult situation of smalfarmers; the administration was empowered to demand only the regular taxesthe kaykonta, from them, and to relinquish the leasing fees, the kfrion

While the land was definitely considered to belong to the state under thPtolemies, the Romans did not long continue this system of lease payments, anthe relationship between the tenants and the regime was expressed in a land taxembedded within the general tax system. It appears that Rome developed more positive policy towards the cultivators with the intent of giving thesfarmers a sense of direct ownership.6 On the other hand, it was easy for the richto buy the large estates.7 Romans who settled in Egypt became owners of largestates (patrimonia, osai), which were administered by loyal procuratorsRostovtzev presents a list of 30 such large estates whose owners had Romanames, including members of emperors families such as Antonia daughter oClaudius; Agrippaapparently Postumus, Augustus friend; Titus; and familieof senators, such as Petronius, Seneca, Maecenas and other protgs of themperors also owned such estates. There are no Egyptian names among thesestate owners.8

Thus Rome sought to maintain the vast estates, but with a change of owner

ship. In a similar way, the status of the g flra, vast tracts of temple land helin Egypt, was also maintained. The matter of the Temple in Jerusalem has no

4 Rostovtzev (1910: 112f.).5 Anprt: from nafor, payment, or perhaps from: kfria. See: PT Ketubbt x, 34

(Jer. 1004), where the meaning is shown. See also below, 296. Cf. Gulak (1938: 97f.). Thtalmudic sources distinguish, from a juridical point of view, between regular taxes owed tthe treasury, as listed in official documents, and the land tax, the anprt: if ones granar

was confiscated by the kings house: if for his debthe (still) owes the tithe (maasr); for anprt, he is exempt from the tithe (BT Giflfln 44a; ulln 131a).6 Rostovtzev (1910: 114) When Egypt was conquered by the Arabs they did not find pay


4/45

288 MOSHE GIL

been clarified; it may not have had lands, and if there were lands dedicated tothe Temple they would have had to be sold, though there is mention of a fieldof heqdsh, i.e., consecrated to the Temple. It may be that the Temple treasurers were the first to buy consecrated land.9

In Roman times, the great estates, the osas, were composed of differentypes of land. From the time of Nero, there was a continuous expropriation olarge estates by the osiakw lgow, the emperors estate administration. Thestate was administered by the custodian, the ptropow osiakw. Later title

were the frontista and pronohta. An important function of the estate custodian, in an earlier time, was collecting the land rent, the prsodow.10 The sharof land owned by the emperors thus kept growing. As prophesied to Vespasian

by the priest Basilides: Be your plans what they may, Vespasian. Be it building a house, increasing your holdings, or increasing the number of slaves, agreat house will be given to you, vast borders, many people. The best of thefertile lands belonged to the Roman state, or the emperor, and were availablefor lease.11

The emperor could obtain estates in various ways: by expropriating lands inthe provinces, by new conquests, and through inheritance. Thus did Augustuobtain lands in occupied Egypt after his victory, lands that had been the property of Cleopatra, but also land that he wanted to have, such as derelict landAt first they were registered under his wifes name, or the names of his closeunderlings during the war, but he later inherited them. Tiberius continued in thivein, and all the succeeding emperors also had lands in Egypt, as well as inother provinces. Mainly, these were lands that had previously belonged to locarulers.12

State lands and their administration belonged to the emperor; they were con

sidered manubia, booty property. The mines were most important in this procesas an important source of the empires income. The main instrument in concentrating this property was the treasury. This institution was founded byAugustus (apparently in 21-20 BC), and entrusted with managing the propertyof the emperor and of the state. According to Seneca, who formulated thesfacts in the form of a paradox, the two became gradually identical: the emperohad ownership of his private property, but even that which was not in his pos


5/45


6/45

290 MOSHE GIL

Seleucids, and the Hasmonaean dynasty afterwards. Second, the Roman regimeexpropriated land during the time of the revolts and afterwards.

Alt noted especially the area of Megiddo, which from Assyrian times belongedto the different royal houses that ruled Palestine. According to him this was thkings land and remained as such under Rome.19 Herz, basing himself on thZenon papyri, lists a number of large estates that existed during Ptolemaictimes in the coastal region, Judaea, Galilee, Trans-Jordan, and one may indeedsuppose that what changed over generations were only the owners.

It is difficult to determine the extent to which those great estates in Palestinin Roman hands were the result of expropriating rural dwellers during the waand afterwards. Josephus Flavius describes the journey of the wife of Ptolemy

the overseer (ptropow) of the king to the Roman area (perhaps Caesarea)While passing through the Great Plain, meglon pedon, perhaps the JezreeValley, she was waylaid by young men from Dvert (Dabartta). This arepaid taxes to the king. The very fact of actually defining this area as that opaying taxes to the king, plus the fact that the Jezreel Valley was found to havso few of the habitations that existed in Roman times, leads us to think that thi

was an area of the kings land (g basilik).20

Augustus gave Herod the Trachonitis, the Bashan and the Hauran, whichwere taken from Zenodoros as punishment for acts of robbery in the area of hirule (the land of Itur, Hulata, Banias (Paneas) and their environs). In all probability, this was not an administrative appointment, but the actual granting oestates; some of the income was certainly meant to reach the emperors treasury.21 Herod Antipas (the tetrarch) also granted parcels of land to new settlers when about to found Tiberias.22

Bchler has already dealt with the Pompey-Julius Caesar period. Pompey

when conquering Jerusalem, turned Judaea into the property of the Roman people. Julius Caesars order granting rights to the Jews and especially to theHasmonaean dynasty, shows that land as leased to the inhabitants, who had topay the rental fee in the second year after the rental. The senate decision (thesenatus consultum) upon which Julius Caesar based his action released the tenants from payment in the sabbatical year, but required them to bring a fourth

19 Alt (1937: 65-76).20 See: Herz (1928: 100), who calculated the dimensions of the possessions in the parablof the steward who wasted the owners goods the debt being 100 measures (btoi) of oi


7/45


of the grains in the second year to Sidon, apparently the base of the Romastores. Bchler believed, following Grtz, that this was the annona militariadded to the lease of the land. However, in that period the annona militaris hanot yet been developed. Rather, this was an agricultural tax at the beginning oRomes rule in Palestine. In accordance with a system that would be perpetuated for hundreds of years, Rome would not collect the taxes directly, buthrough local corporations and rulers. The nature of these changed over time.2

Josephus Flavius relates how Ynn of Gsh lv asked him to ballowed to expropriate the emperors wheat, kept in the rural granaries of UppeGalilee.24 Elsewhere, he writes of the estates the emperor gave Salom, Herodsister: a palace in Ashkelon, as well as Yavne, Ashdod, and Phasalis, whic

her brother had bequeathed to her in his will.25 Salom, in her will, bequeatheYavne along with Phasalis and Archelas to Julia, Augustus wife.26 Pliny thElder, in writing about balsam, notes that it only grew in two gardens in thland of Judaea, which belonged to the king. These were transferred to Romanownership and in Plinys day were administered by the fiscus.27

When he became a Roman citizen, and when his lands near Jerusalem werabout to serve as a camp for the Roman guard, Josephus Flavius received fromTitus land in the coastal plain.28 This grant should be understood against thbackground of Vespasians order to divide the land of Emmaus among 8,00discharged troops.29 Berenice, sister of Agrippa II, heldas it seemsvillagein the area of Bt Sherm (Besra).30 In Palestine the term kings land coulinclude all types of land, including plantation land, as we have seen above withthe balsam; one may also find validation for this in the talmudic sources: th

wicked Hadrian, who had a large vineyard . . . 18 miles by 18 miles, like [thdistance] from Tiberias to ippr, and which was surrounded by a fence mad

of those killed in Betar, etc.31

From what Titus said to the rebels in Jerusalemone may learn (according to Josephus Flavius) that those great royal estates di

23 Bchler (1956: 20ff.).24 Vita Josephi, 71; cf. the article by Alt (1937), and see: Antiquitates, XIV.203; there,

quarter of the harvest is meant, and not of the seeds, as it is usually interpreted.25 Antiquitates, XVII.188, with additional details about land granted by Herod to th

emperor in his testament; ibid., and 321, grants to Salom. See also: Bellum Jud., I.98.26

Antiquitates, XVIII.31; Bellum Jud., II.167. See on Archelas and Phasalis: Avi-Yona(1984: 109f.); to the north of Jericho.27 Plinius Hist Nat XII 111 112; cf Hirschfeld (1902: 305) on some of these estates


8/45

292 MOSHE GIL

not include all the lands of Palestine, and that parcel tenants continued to holdthem as if they were their property in every respect. It seems the Romans lefthe land under Jewish ownership. Titus speaks about the Romans humanity, thefilanyrvpa. To begin with, we allowed you to keep this land.32

In the Judaean Desert papyri, P. Lewis 11 is a document dealing with a loanon mortgage, from 6 May 124. Judah b. Eleazar, Babathas second husbandborrowed 60 dinars from the centurion, Magonios Valens, for a period of eighmonths, and as pledge pawned to him his fathers apartment house in EinGedi. Ein Gedi is there referred to as the village of our lord the emperorkmh kurou Kasarow.33 Two and a half years later, 2 and 4 December 127, record of Babathas property was made in the context of a census, documented

in P. Lewis 16. There, Babathas private lands (fidoi) are mentioned; in closproximity to them is a royal plant nursery (as I interpret mosxantik). We therefore find adjacent imperial lands and private tax-paying lots; mentioned there ialso the stefanikn, the kell tax of the talmudic sources (below, p. 301)However, Ein Gedi is referred to as a village of the emperor, thus displayingthe duality of the land situation, where an entire area is declared the emperorproperty. Cotton mentioned the continuity of ownership in the area by royahouses prior to Roman rule. In two as yet unpublished papyri, Yadin no. 2 andno. 3, from AD 99, there is mention of the sale of a date grove, the propertyof marn rabl malk, king of the Nabataeans. From these it is clear that evenland considered the kings property was sold and even willed; and the rentafees mentioned in the documents belonging to Babathas archive were actually a kind of tax. Cotton even assumes that one of Bar Kokhbas acts waexpropriating the lands of the emperor.34

A reflection of this reality in talmudic sources was studied in depth by

S. Krauss and S. Klein; the latter providing a geographic analysis of the sources

32 Bellum Jud., VI.333.33 P. Lewis 11, and see the preamble to this document.34 P. Lewis 16, and see the editors note on p. 70, to line 24; see the document also in

Cotton-Yardeni (1997: 181-194); see also: P. Lewis 11. See: Bowersock (1991: 338). On EinGedi having been the property of the Hasmonaean kings and thereafter of Herod and his successors, see: Mazar et alii (1966: 5); and see: Isaac (1992: 62); see on Ein Gedi and balsam

Safrai (1994: 147ff.). See also: Lewis (1994: 244). The estate of Marn rabl malk imentioned by Yadin (1962: 240f.). See the articles by Cotton (1997: 2-8ff.; 1999: 229); anof Hirschfeld (2000: 29f ) See more on the problem of ownership of the estates in Ein Gedi


9/45


In a 1912 article, he discussed lands granted by the emperor Antoninus Piu(AD 138-161) to Rabbi. According to a source in the Palestinian Talmud, Antoninugave Rabbi two thousand deshnm as lease. Apparently this matter is connected to the place name Yablona mentioned shortly before this sentence. S.YRapoport has already suggested that Yablona be read: Gabalena, an ideaccepted by Grtz and Krauss; the latter even connected Gabalena with thArabic jabal (mountain).

Let us now clarify the meaning of har ha-melekh, the kings mountain, term often found in talmudic literature. Many scholars have dealt with it, trying to find the defined place of this mountain, whether in Jerusalem, in thEphraim hills, or in the faraway south.35 In 1967 Applebaum already expresse

the opinion that the kings mountain means royal lands, xra basilik.36There are three types of relevant references. The first is topographic; fo

example: what is the name of the mountain in Judaea: it is har ha-melekh . .and the mountain (in the Lydda shefl (lowland), or the southern shefl (hathe same halacha) as har ha-melekh. Also: The valley of har ha-melek(extends) from Ein Gedi until Jericho.37 In har ha-melekh there were 10,00townships . . . and Rabbi Eliezer b. arsom had a thousand of them all; a similar version is in the barayt of the Babylonian Talmud, but there the owner isaid to have been King Yannai, which may be evidence of the fact, supportedby other sources as well (above, p. 289), that the term har ha-melekh alreadexisted at the time of the Hasmonaean dynasty.38

The second type of source involves the many non-Jewish settlers in properties of the Roman state, and it may be that Jews there became a minority. I

35

Krauss (1910: 17ff.); Klein (1912: 545ff.). PT Shevtvi:36d(Jer. 199); Rapoport (1843225); Grtz (1885: 441, n. 1); Krauss (1910: 17ff.); see the studies of Klein (1934, c: 3; 1936d: 109), who endeavoured to find connections between details in the Zenon Papyri and thinformation on the estates of Toubias, and the talmudic sources. Estates of Rabbi are mentioned also in PT Maasr shn iv:54d (Jer. 297); see: Lieberman (1956: II, 530-536), whdiscussed the various readings of the toponyms mentioned in connection with such estateSee: Alon (1961: II, 246) with additional references. It is worth quoting Klein (1930: 143I know that I am expected to still explain the terms har ha-melekh and bt ha-melekh, oto at least propose some conjecture about when and why this appellation was given to mountain and citadel in the land of Judaea even before the Hasmonaeans; but since I do no

find any foothold for explaining this name, which might date even from the period of thFirst Temple (although there is no trace of it in the Bible), I shall rather give it up; seibid also his appendix See the discussion on har ha melekh in Mor (1986: 96ff )


10/45

294 MOSHE GIL

these sources there are matters dealing with tithes and priestly gifts; consider statement ascribed to R. Abahu, quoting R. Yos b. anna, that kulkusn soldin Caesarea are forbidden, since most of them come from har ha-melekh; haha-melekh was part of the Land of Israel and tithes and priestly gifts wermandatory, but apparently not always properly collected, which made the produce ritually forbidden.39 Regarding the increase in numbers of gentiles and thegradually reduced Jewish character of those areas where the emperors greaestates were, i.e., the har ha-melekh, there is the tradition about the two sonof Simeon the Just (ha-addq), who for 40 years served the Jews in the highpriesthood, one of whom had to escape (one version has Nenyn, and onereads Simeon) because he adorned himself with objects of the Temple. He

escaped to Alexandria by way of har ha-melekh, perhaps because it was in anarea where the population was gentile.

Finally, there are traditions linking the har ha-melekh to the struggle againsthe transfer of lands to gentiles, like the story of R. Simeon, who had fields inhar ha-melekh. R. Ynn said to him: leave them desolate, only do not renthem to a gentile. R. Joshua b. Levi permitted it, reasoning that the law regarding har ha-melekh was identical with the laws regarding lands in Syria.

In light of the above, I conclude that the term har ha-melekh did not specifya precise location, but referred to a number of areas in Palestine. I believe thait usually meant the kings lands. It is also well-known that the words harflr, sad, and gevl represent a semantic spectrum in Semitic languages swinging between field, border, and mountain. This spectrum also exists in Greekthen the language of the authorities; row means mountain; row, orow, rionmean border, border marker. But orow also means mountain. Border stonefound on the shore of the Sea of Marmara, contain the inscription: the borde

of the royal estates of Sosandra: row basileikn Svsndrvn. It is reasonablto think that har ha-melekh is parallel, by both phonetic and semantic similarity, to row basilikw.40

39 PT Demy ii:22c (Jer. 121); kulkusn; there are about it variae lectiones; should perhapbe bulbusn; Arabic bulbs is the wolfs onion, see Meyerhof (1940: 54 n. 61); cf. Dozy(1927: I, 108). See also: PT Demy iv:24d (Jer. 134); cf. Alon (1961: II, 246); Oppenheime(1978: 282). PT Shabbt i:3d (Jer. 372) and Avd zr ii:41d (Jer. 139); Mishn Maas

shn i:2; PT Maasr shn i:52d (Jer. 287), where the version is: it may be used foredeeming (the tithe), whereas the Tosefta Maasr shn i:6, has it may not. ToseftDemy i:11 and cf Lieberman ad locum (1956: 199) See on the terms: widdy hdyat ha


11/45


The issue of har ha-melekh serves to illustrate the conflict between the twopposing laws, the Roman and the Jewish; whereas Rome considered the landof Palestine conquered lands, Jewish law continued to consider the lands thproperty of the Jewish people. The same disregard for alien law may be seein discussions about the sabbatical year. Rabbis policy apparently tendetowards leniency, from an economic standpoint, in agrarian matters in PalestineWe do not know if Rabbi intended to make matters easier for the farmers, who

were subjected to a heavy tax burden, or whether the ruling was a strictly theoretical one, without any actual application. The lands of har ha-melekh, i.ethose of the emperor, were taken during the Bar Kokhba rebellion and becamlands of the ns, i.e., of Bar Kokhba. The official he appointed to represent him

was Hillel b. Gris, who issued five-year leases under the obligation to pay thtithes.41

2. TAXATION

The conquest included, as one would expect, a heavy tax burden paid to thforeign regime. In a number of sources we find mention of the types of taxessuch as this statement of R. Abba (towards the end of the third century): i

you pay for charity, the Almighty will guard you of payyisn and zimiyt angulgoliyt and arnnt;42 or, from the same period, a comment of R. annb. Papa: the world gets all blessings for our sake; still, you do not say to uscome and take some of these blessings for yourself; more than that; you imposon us payyism and zimynt and gulgliyt and arnniyt.43

seen from what was said above, I disagree with him in this matter. See also the article bApplebaum (1986: 78f.), who also pointed out that it is impossible to geographically definthe har ha-melekh, and singles out the Hasmonaean era (King Yannai) as the period in whicthe term was born. See also: Shahar (2000: 275-306) who tries to locate the har ha-melekin Western Samaria. Dalman (1924: 57) related the term har ha-melekh to rein (the mountainous area of Jerusalem). See: Rostovtzev (1910: 287). Parallel to Hebrew har, the use ojabal (mountain) with the meaning of patrimonium, lands, can be found in the Arab traditions about the origin of the Jewish tribes of al-Madna. The Ban Nar were named aftea jabal called Nar, as were the Ban Quraya, after a jabal named Quraya. See: YaqbTarkh, II, 49, 52; cf. Gil (2004: 11), with more references ibid. in note 10.

41 PT Demy ii:22d (Jer. 122); see the insightful discussion of Bchler (1956: 179ff.) othe attitude of Rabbi towards the Greco-Roman cities in Palestine, and also the article bSafrai (1967: 1) See also the documents of lease in: Benoit et al (1961: 122 134 no 24


12/45

296 MOSHE GIL

C. Herennius Capito was Livias (Augustus wife) procurator, then oTiberius and of Caius Caligula, and was in charge of tax collection in Judaeahis base was in Yavne.44 The taxes in the provinces were not divided uniformlyand the division was a consequence of the circumstances of the conquest andthe influence of policies developed over the years. Roman citizens in thcolonies were exempt from the tax. In order to properly collect the tax, thRomans carried out intensive land and cartographical surveys. A survey operation in the eastern provinces lasted 13 years, from 44 to 30 BC. A basic taxreform was introduced under Diocletian in the fourth quarter of the third century AD. In his time the division by caput (capitatio; poll tax) and the iugum(a measure of land; iugatio), i.e., the land tax, were introduced. The standard

measure of tax calculation included five iugera (sing.: iugum; about an acre) ovineyard; 20 iugera of rich soil land; 40 of semi-rich; 60 of poor quality; 225olive trees; or, 450 planted trees of inferior quality. The states income was collected from the provinces by stipendium, the sum of taxes from every provinceand was in principle collected in the form of tributum capitis (poll tax) andtributum soli (land tax).45

The particular treasury responsible for the taxes of Jews (the fiscus judaicusdealt with the special tax cast on the diaspora; it was apparently instituted athe time of Vespasian. This was the didrachmon tax, half a sheqel (twodenarii) that the Jews were required to pay to the temple of Jupiter CapitolinusLater the tax was applied to women and children as well, and increased foufold, to eight drachmas (two sheqels) and was also applied to slaves. There ino source pointing to any involvement of the fiscus judaicus in taxes in Palestine, and it is virtually certain that it dealt with the taxes of diaspora Jews. 46

The land tax, the anparat, was at the time of the sages of the Mishn, one

of three major taxes, if we can rely on the Palestinian Talmud; Rabbi ruled thain arnna, gulglet and anparat, one should follow Ben Nanns. This apparently referred to the view expressed by b. Nanns when challenging theaccepted halacha regarding guarantors (when the receiver of the guarantee doenot make good his pledge): one has to collect it from free (i.e., not pledgedproperties, said R. Ishmael, whereas Ben Nanns: one does not collect frompledged nor from free (properties). The essence of the matter is apparently

44 See: Pflaum (1960: I 27ff ); Gil (2002: 37)


13/45


14/45

298 MOSHE GIL

barayt in the Babylonian Talmud, in the name of Resh Laqish: As if a mandid flee from a lion, and a bear met him, or he went into the house, and leanedhis hand on the wall, and a serpent bit him (Amos 5:19); now Ill give you contemporary example: when a man goes out to his field and is struck by sinflr (a guardian), it is like being attacked by a lion; he goes to town and iattacked by a tax collector, it is like being attacked by the bear; he goes homeand finds his sons and daughters wasting away from hunger, that is like beingstruck by snake; or rather as it is written: Ask ye now, and see whether a mandoth travel with child? Wherefore do I see every man with his hands on hiloins, as a woman in travail, and all faces are turned into paleness? (Jer30:6).53 From here one can understand the wish to run away that is noted in

various places in the sources (below, p. 313f). The regime was perceived amonstrous where a persons life had absolutely no worth: just as the snakcoils up to strike, so are the ways of the regime coiled. It tells someone: whaare you, a good or a bad person: and he says: Im a good person; they askhow many people have you killed: and he says: I havent killed. So he says tohim, and who was with you and how did you kill him, with a sword, or a stickor a stone? He doesnt give up until he gives him an aporesia (prhsiw; apparently: a decision that he is suspect) and kills him.54 In the fourth century wsee an attempt to confront the problem of whether to pay the priestly giftbefore calculating the arnna or after its deduction. The matter at hand wathe domestic animal of the arnna, whether one is obliged to hand the firstborn over to a priest or whether there was an exemption.55 Some Sages believedthat the tax burden made farmers plant even in sabbatical years, as R. Yannasaid: go out and sow on the seventh (year, i.e., the sabbatical), because of tharnna.56

Leading the taxes in the talmudic sources is the arnna. As has already beenclarified, the arnna is nothing but the annona. The arnna was the agriculturatax par excellence, collected in natura, in food products, and the farmer wa

53 BT Sanhedrin 98b; sinflr, probably sunthrhtw, sunthrhtikw, Lampe (1961: 1341); Kraus(1899: 403).

54 Bersht rabb xxxviii:2 (345); what is said there fits what Lactantius wrote concerninthe days of Diocletian (below, p. 314).

55

BT Pesm 26a.56 See the comprehensive article by Safrai (1967) on the matter of the Sabbatical year during the period with which we are dealing In the PT Shevt iv:35a (Jer 189); Sanhedri


15/45


therefore required to directly set aside the fruit of his just-gathered labor. It iappropriate to survey the development of this tax and the impression it left inthe talmudic sources.

As early as 89 BC, all the inhabitants of Italy were exempt from taxes. Thburden of financing the state apparatus and the army was transferred to the conquered countries.57 Here is where the institution of the annona, meaning thannual supplying of consumer goods to Rome developed. At first it was onl

wheat, frumentum. Bread would be baked in a kind of public operation, coctioThere were the annonae publicae, which were under the supervision of a special apparatus, the cura annonae. The Greek equivalent to annona was ethnaa word whose primary meaning was: welfare, abundant, proper supply. Whe

this word became a synonym for annona, in Palestine it was apparently pronounced: avtinia, a word which came to mean, district, by the fact that it waimplemented by a special district tax collecting apparatus.58 Augustus renewethe post of general commissioner of the annona, the praefectus annonae, wh

was aided by a special apparatus; his commissioner dealt also both in organizing the collection of consumer goods and their distribution, and a fund, or special treasury, the fiscus frumentarius as well as food stores: horrea, were ahis disposal. Caius Gracchus was the first to introduce the lex frumentaria, tregulate the obligatory distribution of food for a small sum of money. Eventually, the number of recipients of the frumentum reached into the hundreds othousands; this became a difficult economic and political problem. The maimeaning of annona was distribution of consumer goods; when wanting to saythe commodity index, one would say: modus annonae. This meaning of annon

was preserved for generations. The annona then had a dual meaning: collectioof commodities in the occupied provinces, but also: distribution of consume

goods: (donativa, grants) in Rome; to its citizens, soldiers, its office-holders, athe midrash states: (quoting Simeon b. Azai: beginning of the second centuryAD): a flesh and blood (i.e., human) king, as long as people pay him irequired to give them the donativa, distribute annonae, and he needs their livesbut if they rebel against him he needs nothing at all, but stops their annonae

57 Marquardt (1885: 110). The rhotacism, insertion of the r instead of the first n in th

annona (while probably feeling there the double n) is common in Aramaic. In the articlarnna in the Hebrew Encyclopaedia, its author (A. Shalit) had the impossible idea that thword stems from ranow; but this means a society for mutual help which is an ancien


16/45

300 MOSHE GIL

why? Because they denied his kingship.59 Also: R. Yudan in the name oR. Yehuda bar Simeon (second half of the third century AD): this is like someone who loves the king, whom the king would give the annona; said the kingI wish to double your annona, etc.60

Special rented boats were used to transport the annona goods to Romthrough the first two centuries AD; in the third, special boats were even builfor this hauling need. Since an abundance of goods was amassed, one used tosell part of them to the highest bidder.61 In the fourth century it became common to replace the annona by a cash payment.62

The annona underwent reorganization and accelerated development undeDiocletian (AD 284-305), who according to Lactantius, was especially oppres

sive to farmers and wiped them out with expropriations; fields became desolatedand cultivated land reverted to forest. He divided the provinces into small unitfor the purpose of tax collection and increased the number of appointed officialto supervise and manage the collection accounts; and used false accusations andexecutions in order to expropriate especially fertile land. It may be assumed thait was during his reign when the economy began a general decline, farmerbecame mired in debt, and turned into tenants who became more and moreland-bound.63

The annonas history in Palestine began after the great revolt, when L. Laberius Maximus was appointed procurator of Judaea (AD 71); he was the majocommissioner of the annona.64 The annona (arnna) is often mentioned in thtalmudic literature and it may be assumed that this was the most burdensomeof the many taxes pressing upon the people of Palestine. It would appear thathe term anns, annsm (the root ns is found in the Bible in the Book oEsther only), which was meant to express violence, came to mean among th

people the official who collected the tax, the annona, and there is more than jusa hint of this in the sources; the statement of R. Yehuda b. Ilai: hlekh (Ezr4:13; 7:24) means arnna;65 as the annsm became numerous; what does annsmmean? arnna.66

59 Shemt rabb, xli:4.60 Bersht rabb, xlvii:5 (Theodor and Albeck, 473).61 Frank (1959: 271); see also: Walbank (1953: 17f.).62

Marquardt (1885: 230-233); Wallace (1969: 23-25, 154f.) and see there his examples oannona documents; see also his list of pertinent papyri on p. 365.63 Ensslin the article on Valerius Diocletianus in RE VII and especially cols 2464 2468


17/45


The angariy, regime-demanded forced labor, was another tax, but this maalso be the labor and services tenants of small holdings were required to perform on nearby large estates, and this was apparently in a later period, that othe patrocinium. Such was the case of R. Zer: I was caught for angariy, tcarry myrtle to the palace.67 It is not clear whether he was apprehendebecause he owed the angariy, or he was detained arbitrarily. In the PalestiniaTalmud there is a discussion about a donkey taken for the angariy: if somebody hires a donkey from his fellow to work in angariy, if the donkey waexpropriated, or died, the hirer is required to give him a donkey instead.68 Thgentiles built big cities not for the sake of the Jews that they study Torah, buto do angariy in them.69 Other taxes are mentioned; the kell, which is th

stfanow, or stefanikn, the aurum coronarium, the crown tax, of which theris documentation, about the complaints of the residents of Phrygia and Pisidiyin Asia Minor.70

A law of May 429, in the name of the emperors Theodosius II anValentinianus III, ordered that the monies the nesm of the Jews (the patriarchae) used to collect, called aurum coronarium, now had to be turned directlover to the treasury.71 This tax began in Claudius time (about AD 50) andbecame a fixed tax at the end of the second century. Its origins lay in the sumdemanded of the population on special occasions, such as a victory, birthdayof the empires notabilities, etc. The emperor Severus Alexander (about AD230) promised he would annul this tax (but he did not). In the third century ibecame a tax on land.72 It is mentioned in a Judaean Desert document oDecember AD 127, in a declaration in the Babatha archive. Babatha declaredthat she had four date plantations and notes the regular tax (tlow) paid for eacplantation, and the kell tax paid in coin.73

annsm were sometimes used interchangeably, but that does not exclude the fact that thprincipal meaning of anns was a tax collector.

67 Krauss (1899: 63); its synonym was leitourgikn, cf. Wallace (1969: 70) and see morreferences in: Krauss (1899: 313). See also: Lewis (1983: 181f.); Alon (1961: I 20, 41). SePT Berkht i, 2d (Jer. 5).

68 Mishn, Bv me vi:3; Tosefta Bv me vii:7-8, and see: Lieberman (1956: 251253) ad locum. PT Bv me, vi:11a (Jer. 1231), which has bsylqy. In this case, he has treturn another donkey. By basilik, the authorities are meant here, while the words prope

meaning is a state building. In other words, this is a case in which the authorities seizethe donkey while it was working in angariy; in BT Bv me 78b: by the order of thkingdom


18/45

302 MOSHE GIL

Additionally, there was the aksniy, the obligation to vacate premises inorder to provide billeting for soldiers.74 Also mentioned are Roman soldierresiding with Jews by order of the regime, in connection with permission to eafrom the demy food, set aside for priests. Dio Cassius writes about the soldierof Caracala who used to spend the winter in houses of quartering residents (thejenodkoi) and to consume whatever the owners had as if it was theirs (in the

winter of AD 216/217).75

3. CREDIT; INTEREST; ROBBED LAND

Before dealing with interest issues in Palestinian agriculture, let us first sur

vey the laws and customs prevailing in this area, in general, in the RomanEmpire. Roman law sanctioned interest. A special contract was required delineating the conditions of the interest; a law existed regarding interest, the lex dcredita pecunia faenebris (the law of interest-bearing monetary credit).7

There were legal restrictions on the rate of interest allowed. In the imperiaperiod the official legal interest rate was usually to 12%. A far-reaching reformtook place under Justinian who lowered the permitted rate to 6% on regulaloans, 8% on business loans, and 4% on loans for senators;77 all indications arthat these laws were not usually honored, although there were cases where thelegal framework was indeed maintained. It would appear that conditions foborrowers were easier in Roman times than under the Ptolemies, where even

haps what occurred was rather the opposite, since this tax, as I already noted above, had beenimposed since the days of Claudius. That document from Babathas archive is authentic evidence about the burden of taxation imposed on the Jews of Palestine, and it may be counteamong the causes of Bar-Kokhbas revolt. This evidence should be added to what Safra

wrote (1963: 69f. n. 12), who assumed that our first knowledge about this tax came from thdays of Aurelianus (270-275).74 Sifr devrm par. 320 (Ish Shalom 137; Finkelstein, 367, and see his note there)

Mishn Demy iii:1; Tosefta Shevt v:21; cf. Alon (1961: II 124); PT rvn vi:23b (Jer478); Demy iii:23b (Jer. 125), referring to the Mishn mentioned above, which speaks abougentiles living in an aksniy; this word, also meaning inn, clearly comes from the Greejnow; see also: Lieberman (1956: 560, to Shevt).

75 Dio Cassius, Rom. Hist., 79.3.4; cf. Lewis (1983: 174). See more on various types otaxes: PT Giflfln vi:47c (Jer. 1079); Shevt iv:35b (Jer. 191). Avd zr iv:44b (Jer. 1405)Payysm, perhaps from pesiw, suffering; zimynt, perhaps from zhma, a fine. See: Liddell

Scott and Lampe s.v.; cf. on zimynt also: Sperber (1974: 97), zemia, a kind of tax; seibid. 240, for more references. See more mentions of these taxes: PT Bv batr i:12d (Jer1239); P viii:21a (Jer 111); from which one should not deduce that peys means charit


19/45


rate of 2% a month was acceptable;78 there are also documents showing thasuch interest rates were honored. Thus, for example, a document from Egyptof AD 94, contains information about an agreement regarding a loan of 3,50drachmas, with interest of one drachma per month for each mn (100 drachmas)i.e., an annual interest of 12%;79 we have before us Pliny the Younger, wh

when he was governor of Bithynia, sought advice from Trajan about what mabe done when there was no demand for the public funds available to citizens a12% interest, when money from private sources could be obtained at the samrate; he suggested lowering the rate, and Trajan agreed.80

There is no doubt that a total ban on interest was a hallmark of Jewish lifin ancient times. Talmudic sources show a stubborn struggle against giving way

to the customs of the surrounding peoples in this regard. What the Torah stateabout it undoubtedly belongs to a much earlier time, and was part of a matrixof social norms underlying the desire for justice in the context of the conceptof warring semi-nomadic tribes. The scholars reformulated and elaborated onthe interdiction against interest in the new conditions of an agricultural societ

where income came from intensive farming; farmers, however, required relatively large sums of money and a steady supply of various materials, especiallseeds and tools.

The talmudic scholars interpreted the Torah and added their own dicta, suchas defining interest and the difference between interest and usury. The halachforbade fictitious transactions devised to circumvent the ban on interest, andalso viewed someones making additional profit when his fellow needed his service, or his help, as interest.81

Usurers were placed in the category of those disqualified as court witnessesThe usurer was considered loathsome, such as the lady who saw R. Yehuda b

Ilai after he drank four cups of wine and his face was sparkling, and suspectehim of being either a pig farmer or a usurer.82 There are four reasons why Jew

78 Taubenschlag (1955: 342f.). Babatha paid one dinar and a half, on 100 dinars, apparently monthly, which is 18% for a year, in October AD 125; see Polotsky (1967: 47; docno. 12); Wolff (1980: 770, n. 16).

79 P. Oxy. 270; P. Hunt-Edgar 57.80 Plinius, Epist., 10.54-55; nevertheless, the emperor writes, one should not force peopl

who do not want the money, which would contradict the justice of our time.81 Mishn: Rsh ha-shn i:8; Bv me iii:4; v:1, 11, 13; Sanhedrn iii:3; Tosefta Bvme vi:14; PT Rsh ha shn i:57c (Jer 667); BT Bv me 61b; Sanhedrn 25b


20/45

304 MOSHE GIL

were delivered to the regime: because of withholding bills (i.e., after they werrepaid), because they lent money at interest, because they promise (to donatebut do not give, and because they are in a position to disapprove but do not.8

The term gezel, robbery, as we shall see, was used specifically for matters oproperty expropriation, especially land, by wealth-accumulating usurers, whos

worldview was in diametric opposition to that of the scholars.84 The usurerare heretics. R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: they not only are heretics, they evenfalsify the Torah, make it plasfleran and declare Moses a fool, saying: hadMoses known that this is how people would make a profit he would not hav

written it (i.e., in the Torah). A number of Babylonian Talmud barayts shedlight on the attitude towards interest. Acts with even the taint of usury were for

bidden, as were actions devised to directly circumvent the prohibition on usuryR. iyy said: there are matters that are permitted, but nonetheless forbiddenbecause they circumvent usury; how is that? If a man says: lend me a man(=25 selas); (the other) replies: I do not have a man, I have a man worth o

wheat that I will sell you; he gave him a man of wheat and bought it backfrom him for 24 selas, is it permitted? it is forbidden to do so because it circumvents interest.85 A way of cheating the law was by the legal fiction of thtransaction being carried out as it were by a gentile: The Holy Blessed Onsaid: it is I who in Egypt distinguished between a drop of a firstborn and thdrop of he who was not a firstborn, it is I who in the future will exact retribution from whoever makes his money seem to be of a gentile and then lends ifor interest to a Jew.86 This echoes real matters, where properties were fictitiously attributed to gentile ownership in order to lend them out, which led totheir loss.87 Only orphans were absolved from returning properties acquired bytheir father from money gained from interest, who did not know the source

of the money. However, if their father left them a cow or a garment or anyother thing, they had to return it for the sake of their fathers honor.88

There was, of course, a desire for monetary transactions to be made onlyaccording to accepted legal practice and not by mere personal contact between

83 Tosefta Sukk ii:5; cf. the Lieberman edition, 262, and idem (1956; 856).84 The idea that dispossessing a man of his land can be an act of robbery (gezel) is com

mon mainly in the Palestinian Talmud, which reflects the state of mind during the centurie

of Roman rule. See on robbers of land: mainly in PT Giflfln v:46d (Jer. 1073f.); see alsoSukk iii, 53c (Jer. 645), Orl i:61a (Jer. 333); Bikkrm I:63d (Jer. 349f.).85 PT Bv me v:10d (Jer 1230) and also: BT Bv me 71a; plasfleran (also


21/45


the parties. A major factor in this approach was certainly also the desire to prevent circumventing the ban on interest by imparting to the monetary transactionthe form of a land sale, with a fictitious contract of adrakht, transfer of property. A method of preventing such practices was also the refusal to recognizthe fictitious nature of the transaction and considering it as valid.

The apprehension that interest would be charged also dictated the rules of threlations between the land owner and the tenants; according to the Mishn, i

was forbidden to lend the tenant wheat that he needed for himself, for eatin(to be returned from the prospective harvest), in case the wheat rate changed tothe tenants detriment, but it was permitted for sowing. Here the tann brthe dissentient scholar, distinguished between two situations. If the wheat wa

given before the tenant began sowing, it was permitted, but it was forbidden tlend it to him after he began working; what is clear is that the halacha meanto obviate a price differential in the owners favor, for that would be interest.8

As in many other areas, contrasts developed that only grew between the ideand its implementation, with the reality being that the lenders at interest di

what they wanted and grew in wealth. At the beginning of the third century ADwe find R. Yannai defining usury thus: it is interest that can be retracted bthe judges. The scholars operated in a hostile environment, and economic circumstances were merciless. A farmer faced with the choice of not sowing hifield because he lacked seeds, or of paying his taxes and all the rest of his debtlest he lose his field, or even go to jail because of nonpayment of taxes, wouldof necessity look for some loophole in the halacha to save his farm and his lifeThis was certainly a widespread phenomenon, especially from the mid-thircentury AD, when economic straits grew narrower during the days of thinflation,90 when tax pressure ran wild, reaching its apogee by Diocletian

reform which regulated and even perpetuated the systematic skinning of tenantby fiscal means. There is no doubt that this capacity of the state had dubioupride of place in the economic decline of agriculture. Even the halacha had texecute an about-face, though not without a fight, as we shall see. The sociapolarization that occurred in Palestine inexorably drove the smallholders antenants into the clutches of poverty and a dependency upon the wealthy anpowerful. On the other hand, those with property were caught up in a struggl

89 BT Bv me 16b; see the Mishn Bv me i:6; cf Gulak (1930: 81) wh


22/45

306 MOSHE GIL

for survival; it appears that there were many who did not resist the temptationof engaging in interdicted shady dealings. A wealthy class developed whos

wealth was acquired through interest; these are those referred to as the bigones of Palestine. At the same time, the first retreat in the area of halachoccurred, for example: A deed stipulating charging interest is to be levied witha fine, and does not collect the capital or the interest, said R. Meir. And thscholars say: the capital is collected but not the interest.91 The earliest formof circumventing the ban on interest was mortgaging ones field to the lender

who, until the debt was paid, became the owner and the borrower his tenantThe act of mortgaging was done not by a deed (aptqhypothecation, and inBabylonian Aramaic: mashkant), but was given the form of a sale, fictitiou

in nature, until payment was due, which became absolute if the debt was nopaid.92 In this regard, there is a halacha in the Mishn: if a man was given aloan with the field as mortgage and told that if he does not give the money backbetween now and three years hence, it is the lenders, it is his. This is whaBaitus b. Znn did, based on the scholars.93 From this point on we find discussion on whether the fictitious buyer, i.e., the lender, was permitted to use thproduce, for it was like collecting interest. And in the barayt in the BabylonianTalmud we already see a lack of clarity, whether the prohibition of using theproduce does indeed apply to the buyer-lender, or to the seller-borrower; thereis no explanation for this phenomenon, except that the original intent of thehalacha, to prevent the receipt of interest by enjoying the produce of the fieldthat was fictitiously sold, was blurred:

Shemuel said: this (opinion) comes from R. Yehuda, who said: there is one party thamay (enjoy) the interest, since we have been taught: if he lent his fellow a man, fowhich the (latters) field was (proclaimed) as sold to him: if the seller eats (= enjoysthe produce, it is permitted; if the buyer enjoys the produce, it is forbidden; R. Yehud

said: if the buyer enjoys the produce it is also permitted. R. Yehuda said: there is thcase of Baitus b. Znn who declared his field as sold, and according to R. Eleazar bAzariah the buyer was enjoying the produce; they said (to R. Yehuda): (that case wathe opposite), it is the seller who enjoyed the produce, which proves (our point).94

A certain deviation from the halkht preventing interest is found in thTosefta, quoting R. Simeon b. Gamliel: (One may) profit from the field, how

91 PT Pesm ii:29a (Jer. 508); Giflfln iv:46a (Jer. 1069); Tosefta Bv me v:22.92 Gulak (1930: 81ff ) has a detailed discussion on the sources of this legislation concern


23/45


so? a man received a field from his fellow for ten krs of wheat and said thim, give me 200 dinar and I will cultivate it and give you twelve krs, this ipermitted.95 Clearly, this is a case of a tenancy agreement where the tenant receive200 dinar, i.e., he fictitiously sold his field, as it were (as mortgage, as abovefor a quantity of wheat and the above money, and pays the (fictitious) buyer greater quantity of wheat. The Palestinian Talmud presents the issue in slightly different version, adding explanations, with the question in the background of whether this is interest. The commentary in the name of two of thpillars of halacha in the third century, R. Ynn and Resh Laqish, providea kind of roundabout justification for taking interest, but within the special context of the relations between the land owners and the tenant, with the scholar

in all innocence believing that this was not interest; indeed there is a fine distinction. The Babylonian amram understood that this was actually interestbut interest with the intention of returning it.96

The interest ban did not apply to gentiles, thus a Jew could operate a moneybusiness with a gentile to his hearts content. You can borrow from them (fromthe gentiles) and lend to them with interest.97 Employing a gentile to intermediate interest carrying transactions, was something crying out to be done. If Jew appointed a gentile as his trustee or his sinflr,98 interest may be collectefrom him . . . a gentiles money deposited with a Jew cannot be loaned witinterest. A Jews money deposited with a gentile may be loaned at interest.9

Also: Can money be collected (by the court) for an absent person? R. Jeremia(a Babylonian amr, beginning of the third century) said: the answer is, thathe interest on the deed was growing; but does a court collect interest? thanswer is that it had a gentile as guarantor.100

Whether by this sort of circumventing the ban on interest or by directl

infringing the rule, it would appear that interest was widespread; moreover, ignawed away at the heart of agriculture. The fruit of the labor of myriad farmers, those pious, honest and humble people, as they are described in the sources

95 PT Bv me v:10b (Jer. 1226f.). Tosefta Bv me v:13; see Lieberman ad locum(1956: 216), where he also cites commentaries to this passage, by Rashi and others, as weas the text of the PT that follows.

96

PT Bv me v:10b-c (Jer. 1226-1229). BT Bv me 63a; also: Arkhn 21aMegill 27b. Possibly as a result of what was said in that barayt and the outstanding interpretation of R Yehuda bar Ilay for the case of Baitus ben Znn (above p 306); folklor


24/45

308 MOSHE GIL

who would usually respect the Torah and be knowledgeable in it, became morand more concentrated in the coffers and warehouses of the treasury, on the onehand, and in the pockets of the interest-taking operators, on the other. Thoscaught up in this process itself certainly did not estimate its total scope. It wathe scholars who grasped the danger of destruction inherent in interest-takingand struggled against it for generations.

As mentioned above, the Mishn states: if a man was given a loan with thefield as mortgage and told that if he does not give the money back between nowand three months hence, it is the lenders, it is his.101 I.e., land registered acoverage vis--vis a loan, according to what the borrower and lender agreedupon is expropriated. Did all those deliberations in the talmudic literatur

regarding actual land expropriation from debtors have a real legal basis? Without such legal validity it is doubtful whether those negotiations over creditransactions guaranteed by land properties would have developed. But it seemthat the legal basis was the custom; and Roman law recognized these mortgages

The halacha here was meant to protect the lender who had the deed (withproper documentation of his properties, aaryt nekhsm), against any trickyattempts to mortgage the land again to another party. The discussion over thiissue developed in connection with the prohibition about collecting from mortgaged properties. There was a general prohibition against using deeds tha

were not fortified; that is, that were not validated by the court, while on thother hand, the deed had to be heldliterallyby the lender.

From this one may learn that the arrangements in the area of court validations may not have been sufficiently rooted, and that there were cases of remortgaging of land. However, a degree of clemency existed towards proprietorof land who were forced to borrow money, or to lease their property. This mat

ter came before R. Ns and he disproved it: one says the house was mortgagedto a Roman; therefore he decided like R. Imi (i.e., it is unconceivable that heshould die of starvation).102

101 Mishn Bv me v:3. In this matter, it is worth considering documents from thJudaean Desert, like the deed of sale of land by Jacob ben Simeon to Yehuda for 7 selassee: P. Cot. Yard. 9; it might have been an act of mortgaging, via a sale valid until Jacob

repays the money. See also: P. Cot. Yard. 8 and 50; also: 8a, sale of a house by adad bYehuda to Eleazar b. Eleazar, for two selas, where a similar conjecture could be appliedi e of its being in fact an act of mortgaging but here the buyer is said to be allowed t


25/45


Another matter that may be learned from the sources concerns the power othe deed. If the lender had a properly executed deed with documentation oproperties, it was possible, according to one view, to collect even from properties mortgaged to another party. We do not know how all this was actually carried out. One may learn about the strength of the mortgage even from the facthat when only witnesses could confirm the claim, the rights of a borrower wercompared to those of heirs; both were legal proprietors. Rv stated: a heir ilike a mortgage. Just as a lender cannot collect a mortgage basing on witnesseonly, he does not collect from heirs (except when he has a deed).103 A readifficulty came up when the land had been given as a gift to a third party: ithe deed was written as a bill of sale, mortgaged land could not be included in

the gift; a deed of gift is the one which has added validity regarding mortgagedproperties, because a gift includes everything. Shemuel Yarna was the on

who presented the difficult problem (what if) the gift was written up in thwording of a sale of property deed? If it is sale there is mortgage and if a giftthere is no mortgage. Hence the conclusion that a distinction must be madbetween a gift deed and a deed of sale.

It appears that the Roman legislation in the mid-second century rather relateto the defense of the buyer, as the intent may have been to protect the wealthybuyer, or the lender (as against a fictitious sale). According to Ulpianus (beginning of the third century) Antoninus Pius enacted a law in this regard, whicallowed a fraud accusation against the seller: if an agreement was reached witthe parcel buyer (possibly: the lender) and the seller (i.e., the parcels ownerpossibly the borrower) appeals, the contention of fraud may be used againshim. For the divine (Antoninus) Pius had already set a law according to whichmatching rights of defense had to be given to the buyer as well; and since the

the buyer may argue, in the name of justice, that there was fraudulence on thpart of the seller of the parcel.104

One might impart to the term gezel, robbery, in the talmudic sources a modern meaning: a robbery with the use of violence and even weapons. However

claims that the influence of the Greek law reached Babylonia independently. See MishnShevt x:6; PT Shevt, x:39d (Jer. 212); Mishn, Bv batr x:8; see the discussion in th

PT Yevmt. See PT Peshm iv, 31b (Jer. 521); also: PT Bv me viii:11d (Jer. 1235The printed text has brtyh, his daughter (was mortgaged with a Roman) but this cannot banything but a mistake


26/45

310 MOSHE GIL

as we shall see, the talmudic sources give this term a special meaning. Gezeof land means appropriating a persons right to his land, in a way the halachadoes not recognize, and not necessarily involving violence.

Until this point we learn from the sources that when they speak of thgazln, they mean Jewish gazlnm. It appears that the concept of gazln ilinked to two factors: interest and the seizure of derelict lands. The halacha didnot recognize the legality of interest, it even considered interest as being forbidden by the Torah and a grievous transgression. In any case, land that passedout of the property of its owners because of interest debts was consideredrobbed land. The gazln holds it, enjoys its produce, but the court will neverecognize his right of ownership. And this is how the scholars of Babyloni

understood it: what means gazlnm? Those who lend for interest.105 I believthat this mainly suits the ever more severe economic reality from the middle othe third century on, when more and more people infringed the halacha.106

Along with the issues concerning gezel of land, we see that the borrower andthe victim of the robbery were obligated to appeal, which is the arrin the talmudic texts. R. Ys b. ann asked R. Ynn whether the appeal had tobe before a court, and the answer was negative, though there is R. iyyopposing view, also in the name of R. Ynn, which is positive. In a casthat occurred regarding Gidal b. Minymn, R. iyy bar Rv announced thahis father, Rv, had said: If one appeals during the first three years there is nolonger a need to appeal again. The continuation of the quotation shows that aissue was someone who took a loan with a mortgage of land for three yearsduring which the borrower had tenant status on his land. During that time, thelender enjoyed its produce, which was tantamount to collecting interest. Aftethree years, if the lender argued that he received the land as a gift, there wa

no doubt that he was a gazln; if he contends that he purchased the land, therewas cause for examining whether he took possession of the land (i.e. cultivatedit according to the rules of azq). Here, R. Ynns formula recurs, that iall property acquired by interest would be seized, the big ones of Palestine wilbe left with nothing.

If more than three years had passed and the ousted owners did not appealthe land was considered the property of those who had replaced them, and theowners transferred the land in a proper manner, as a gift, or through sale.107


27/45


4. LAND EXPROPRIATION; FLIGHT

From the second century, we encounter in Roman law the term sequester, thofficial in charge of seizure, who would receive the land in dispute until a judi

cial ruling was issued.108The status and importance of the sequesterexpanded along with the improve

ments in the property-seizing apparatus during the late empire. Only infrequently did collection involve any violence. Court orders no longer referred toall property (concursus bonorum), but only to mortgaged properties; this distinction was referred to as distractio bonorum.109

From the mid-second century, from the time of Antoninus Pius, Roman lawbestowed upon the cessionarius (the official entrusted with receivership, usuallthe sequester) to carry out the transfer of ownership in a way independent othe judicial process.110 This granted him right of use over properties where thpossession of the owner was terminated. The same increase in the power of thseizing apparatus in that period parallels the abrogation of the distinctiobetween relative ownership and absolute ownership. This process grew bdegrees until the end of the second century.111 It should be noted that from thstart depositing with the sequester entailed a deterioration in the status of th

borrower. In a direct deposit, ownership remained with the depositor, who depositeand willingly mortgaged his property, while a deposit with the sequester, whicwas done by force, left the borrower an equal chance of recouping or norecouping his land.112

We find information about the sequester in the writings of Paulus, Ulpianuand Calistratus. Paulus emphasized the public character of the sequester.11

ad locum (1956: 318); see also: in his comments regarding Bv qamm (1956: 127). Sesimilar opinions in: PT Sheqlm vii:50c (Jer. 629); see also: PT Bv qamm x:7c: thhalacha will never give up the demand for the return of robbed land, which fits what isaid in the Mishn (Bv qamm x:5): Whoever robbed a field from his fellow . . . if througa robber (i.e. or bought it from a robber) is obliged to procure another field for him. Bearinthis in mind, the PT is looking for an exact explanation of R. Ynns opinion; cf. Gulak(1939: 12f.).

108 Kaser (1955-59: I 329); and see on the severity of Roman law concerning non-paymenof debts: Finley (1985: 40).

109

Kaser (1955-59: II 241).110 Kaser (1955-59: I 547).111 Kaser (1944: 389f )


28/45

312 MOSHE GIL

Calistratus adds that the purpose of this deposit was saleif the debt was nomade good after an additional extensionof the mortgaged properties.114

About the post of sequester being given to a judge, there is the evidence ina papyrus of the second century AD from the Fayym, According to Mitteisthe papyrus data show that in Egypt the krita ka mestai usually dealt withthe implementation of the wills deposited legally, the return of property, and the

jailing of the debtors.115 This is how the sequesterwas defined by Isidor oSeville (beginning of the seventh century): sequester dicitur qui certantibumedius intervenit, qui apud Graecos msow dicitur, apud quem pignera deponsolent (sequesterwas how the mediator between the rival sides was calledknown by the Greeks as msow with whom they would deposit mortgages).11

Such legal arrangements are not mentioned in the talmudic halkht, in thPalestinian sources. We do not encounter cases where land is deposited with thecourt because of disputes. There were exceptional cases where the system oselling the land by proclamation by the court was preserved: the sale of consecrated land of the heqdsh, the Temple; or of orphans; the land of orphan

would be proclaimed for 30 days, and that belonging to the Temple for 60days.117 In such cases, the judges were given the authority to add to the priceor to reduce it; the Mishn uses general statements and one may get the impression that all kinds of creditors could also receive the equivalent of the land bycourt expropriation, and sell under its auspices by proclamation.118 In all eventsthe halacha and the customs in Palestine were totally different from those inRoman law.

Until now we have discussed the expropriation of land for debt. Violenexpropriations certainly occurred during the period under discussion because opolitical and military events and also as a consequence of tax debt. Even though

we have no outright proof, we may assume that the regime gave backing to thexpropriation of mortgaged land.A term found in the talmudic sources in the period under discussion, is th

field which is hevqr (or hefqr). As can be seen in the root of the term, bqrit emerged from the permission given for cattle to enter a field and graze on thstubble left after the harvest. At first one would uproot and throw it to them(to the cattle); when the numbers of infractors increased, one would uproot i

114 Dig 42 1 31


29/45


and throw it on the roads; at last one made a rule that the entire field be (considered) hefqr.119 Also relevant to the issue at hand is hefqr annsm, whichI think, should be interpreted: dereliction of land because of the pressure applieby the annona (arnna) collectors; this dereliction is not recognized, since wdo not give legal rights to swindlers.120

The idea of a derelict field was unacceptable to the regime, for Rome wainterested in the production of the food it needed, and tried to assure that eacparcel of land in the provinces be cultivated and, as such, wanted abandoneland to be settled. In the words of Festus: occupaticius ager dicitur, qui desertus a cultoribus propriis, ab aliis occupatur (an occupaticius field is called field abandoned by its owners, and which was taken by others).121 To th

emperor Aurelianus (270-275) is ascribed the order by which the local councilreceive all derelict land, and if the owners did not return within three years, thcouncils would have to pay the tax on this land.

We may assume, by way of analogy, that in Egypt, North Africa, anPalestine, the regime sought to have abandoned land settled and cultivated. Sdoing, which in Egypt, or North Africa, involved great difficulties, was certainlnot difficult in Palestine, with its relatively high density and assiduous agricultural population, and whose farms were less dependent on slave work.122

It would appear that the main reason for abandoning land was tax collectionSome most important personages of the Roman aristocracy were appointed aoverseers of its collection in Palestine, such as what we find at the time oSeverus Alexander (222-235). C. Furius Sabinus Aquila Timesitheus was procurator in charge of the collection of the annona remainders of the holy campaignRecounted are a number of honored positions he held before and after Palestine

119 PT Ketubbt xi:34c (Jer. 1007); BT Ketubbt 100b, cf. Gulak (1939: 122), see hidetailed discussion on this subject, ibid. 118f. In the times of the geonim, the poor weradded to the list of those who would have their sales made by the court, since it was thpoor who were the main object of heqdsh, consecration of properties. Of course, it was thcourts that dealt with the property of orphans, either directly of through a trustee; see: BTBv qamm 37a, our Lord Gamliel and his court are the father of the orphans. See: aha-genm to Ketubbt, 353: the text of Rav Nashn, gaon of Sura (around 872-879); sealso, for a case, Gil (1976: 79): lease of agricultural properties by the court, and see ibid. great number of documents referring to real estate of the heqdsh (the pious foundations

dealt with by the court or its trustees. Mishn Sheqlm i:2; see the presentation in BT Moqfln 6b: at the beginning, one used to eradicate and throw it to the cattle, and the proprietors had double enjoyment the one that one weeded their fields for them and the other tha


30/45

314 MOSHE GIL

the sacra expeditio, the holy campaign was, apparently, Severus war againsPersia.123

Tax collection was of a centralized nature, and the local leaders were responsible for orderly and full payment. These were the bouletai (= curiales) andthe decemprimi in the big towns.

The flight of farmers from their villages was a widespread phenomenon inthe Roman world, as can be gleaned from a number of Egyptian papyri. Theresidents of the island Soknopaios leave their village because of the difficulconditions, in the afigialw, the region of the bank of the Nile, when sufferingfrom years of drought without water to irrigate their fields, and making theiliving from pasture only. In their place appeared a certain Orsouw with hi

family, who took it upon himself to lease all the village lands (end of the second and beginning of the third century).124 Because of the tax pressure, farmertried to get off their land, which was a factor in their enslavement, and theythreaten to emigrate and attempt to sell the land. In order for me to be able tostay on my land with my wife and children and work the land of the state ahas been determined for me, the taxes (dhmsia) set for me must be abrogated.125 In an inscription from Gasr Mizwar(?) farmers threaten to abandontheir location, and we will head towards a place were we may live as free people.126 The petition of the residents of Scaptopara (today in Bulgaria) toEmperor Gordianus III, in 238, says: we shall run away from our homes andgreat harm will be done to the treasury.127 And the text of Lactantius readsBecause of the enormity of the expropriations, in the wake of which the farmers (coloni = tenants, but it seems that he meant farmers in general) were berefof means, the fields were abandoned and cultivated land reverted to forest; thi

was in the time of Diocletian (284-305).128

This reality of distress and flight is also reflected in the laws of the latempire, such as this order of Emperor Constantine I (7 October 325): Sincethere are people who escape from (serving on) the councils (ad militiae praesidia confugiunt) and seek refuge in army units, we command that all offenderas yet not uncovered by the commander of the unit, be fired from the army andreturn to the council. Only those appointed in charge of supply are to remainin the army, in their status and rank.129

123 Stein, RE VII.1, col. 365 (on C. Furius Sabinius); see ILS 1330.124 Rostovtzev (1910: 166 168)


31/45


The emperors Valentinianus I and Valens (in 366) decreed: All the governors of the provinces will require all the serfs, both tenants (coloni, i.e., apparently: those who are permanent) and the temporary, who ran away, without differences in gender, occupation, or status, to return to their previous location

where they were listed in the census and where they were born and raised.13

Up to now, we have seen to what extent the problem of abandonment, bothof serfs and tenants, but also of members of the local councils, was of concerto the central authority. This general reality was reflected in the talmudisources. R. Ynn issues a warning that even if they do abandon, they shouldnot cross to the other bank of the Jordan, perhaps so that their lands not be considered deserted and seized by others with no possibility of appeal. The fligh

of the men of Tiberias and environs, when the crown tax, aurum coronariumwas hoisted upon them is in a barayt in the Babylonian Talmud:

A sum of kell was imposed on Tiberias; so they (the People of Tiberias) came tRabbi and said to him: may (you) our Lords, sit (and discuss) this matter. He said tthem: no; then they said: we flee; he said: flee; half of them fled, so that the tax woulhave been (only) half; then that half came to Rabbi and said to him: may (you) ouLords sit (and discuss) this matter; he said to them: no; we flee; all fled, except onfuller (kvs); they impose on him; the fuller fled and the kell was abolished.131

The phenomenon of flight raised, of course, difficult halachic problems, anwe now see the abyss separating Roman law and halacha. At issue is seizurof derelict land.

5. MARRIAGE LAWS AND INHERITANCE; DIVIDING ESTATES

The reigning picture in the talmudic sources regarding the pattern of agriculture in Palestine in this period is that of small, split, holdings. Below we shalsee that this reality is most authentically reflected in the Judaean Desert papyrIt is clear that this split derived from the way family property was constitutedand from the laws of inheritance to which those properties were subject.132

At the base of the economic relations that grew about the institution of marriage, there was the bride-money, a kind of recompense paid by the groom tthe brides family, which is actually the grooms investment in his new family.13

130 Cod. Just. 11.48(47).6.131 BT Bv batr 8a Cf Epstein (1962: 215); Safrai (1963: 69); Sperber (1978: 105


32/45

316 MOSHE GIL

From here the ketubb developed, a comprehensive document that includes alof the couples properties.134

The central issue is the wifes property. Even though nowhere explicitlystated, this issue is the focus of the agrarian reality in Palestine. It is clear thathere was a pervasive tendency to preserve the property of the wifes paternafamily.135 The husband, for his part, had a kind of tenant status and received theazq, possessio, for the use of the produce, meaning use of the income of thproperties to support his family. He did not have ownership of the propertiesbut his rights were protected if his wife died, as was his right of possession inregards to the consumption of the produce.136 The stability of this right was alsorecognized in Roman law. The wifes property (the peculium), was at the hus

bands disposal. This was explicitly written down towards the end of the thirdcentury (AD 294), in a ruling of the emperors Diocletian and MaximianusThere was a case where the husband sought to effect possession of land tha

was part of his wifes estate; his wife had first received the ownership from hemother, but not the right to the produce. This right was given by the mother toher daughter in lease, in lieu of a yearly payment, the daughter was thus considered her mothers tenant, conductrix. The daughter granted ownership to hehusband in the dowry, and the mother added the right to the produce. When hi

wife died, the husband sought to preserve the right of ownership over the produce, when the mother-in-law demanded that the right over the produce reverto her. The emperors ruled in the husbands favor.137

This right, to enjoy the produce of the estate brought by the wife, was a basiright in Roman law, and granted as a matter of course in the marriage contractHowever, the husband did not receive ownership of the estate. This was protected against any mortgage and it was impossible to collect it for covering

the husbands debts. But by the right to use and consume the produce the husband could use it as any other property and even sell it, i.e., lease the land asa sublet.138

The extent of the desire to preserve the fathers family property and nodeplete it when the daughters married was so pervasive that they could not brelinquished even when the wifes family had to pay compensation of any sor

wife); if the father of the woman refuses to give her to him into marriage, he shall pay thfather an indemnity (mhar)


33/45


to the husband: if a man inherited from his wife, her family would give himmoney and take properties from under his hand, for example, neither shall thinheritance remove from one tribe to another tribe (Num. 36:9).139 There is alsthe explicit restriction, of the fathers family being the inheritors only if she die

without having sons: one may write: if she died without having sons whateveshe had will revert to her father.140 The bride-money (the mhar) is under thazq of her husbands heirs; but properties which she brought with her anshe can take them with her are under the azq of her heirs.141 Also: if shdied, who are her inheritors? Her brothers inherit her.142 Thus we see how clear division was maintained between properties brought by the husband anthose brought by the wife. The division between the components when the wif

collects the ketubb is preserved: of the properties she brought with her fohim in her kettub (i.e., the bride-money), she collects from the last propertbut of the properties she brought for him as parafernn (i.e., as gift, in thdowry) she collects from any one she wants.143

Now let us see the components of the ketubb as developed through the generations, from the time of the Temple, from the tannim; Simeon b. Shaflfl

was the one about whom it was said that he was particularly involved in thformulation of the ketubb and its conditions: Simeon b. Shaflfl set threthings that a man would negotiate about his wifes ketubb; the details wernot preserved. And he set the rule of all his properties are responsible for heketubb.144

An example of a ketubb belonging to this period is a papyrus among thJudaean Desert findings, Yadin no. 10; this is the ketubb of Babatha baSimeon; there are a number of papyri belonging to her and her affairs: oBabatha daughter of Simeon. Because of the poor state of preservation, only

part of the ketubb data is available. The sum of the bride-money is preservedwhich is 400 zuz, of Tyre.145

139 So said R. Yehuda: Mishn Ketubbt viii:5. The dowry was under protection; it waforbidden to collect debts on account of the alimony; it only was permitted to collect themfrom the bride-money, the fern (garbled as: parns), the mhar; cf. the Targum, in Ginsburger (1899: 42): mefarnes yifarnas, corresponding to: mhr yimhrennh of Ex. 22:16another version, ibid., has mefarn yifran; obviously the root is Greek fern.

140

PT Bv batr viii:16b (Jer. 1255); Ketubbt ix:33a (Jer. 998).141 Mishn Ketubbt viii:6.142 PT Ketubbt ix:32d (Jer 997)


34/45

318 MOSHE GIL

Thus the ketubb was already known to have been divided into a number ocomponents from ancient times. Maimonides summarized the division: whatevethe woman brings is the dowry, which is written in the ketubb, even thoughthe ketubbs primary meaning is a deed listing only the bride-money. If theproperties belonged to the woman, she brings them as mlg properties. Thother part are properties called on barzel, iron sheep, over which she andher fathers house have full ownership and which she bequests to her own children, whereas the properties of her husband are inherited by all his childrenBelow I will elaborate on these terms; in the Greek papyri found in Egypt andalso in the Judaean Desert, we find the mhar, which is the fern or proj; thparferna which is the dowry; the prosfor (or prdosiw) which is a specia

addition to the dowry.146We have a marriage contract from Oxyrhynchus, where the fern, composed

of gold coins of one man (mnaaon) and the parferna composed of appareare mentioned; in the event of divorce, the husband shall return the dowryimmediately, and the mharwithin 60 days.147 The wife then activates her righof mortgaging all the properties held by the husband in order to cover what shehas coming to her according to the marriage contract (AD 186).148

Now let us turn to the meaning of the term mlg. The accepted view is thait means properties given to the husband to activate and receive their produceas he wishes, this in contradistinction to n barzel, iron sheep, properties ounchanging value, that are preserved in their entirety for the wife or for hepaternal family. Krauss assumed that the origin of the word mlg was frommolkion, property.149 Levy thought that the meaning of the root was perhapmilking or perhaps molgw, which is a cattle hide sack, as in the expressionmelg de-sheflr, i.e. (apparently) a sack where deeds were kept.150 Gordon

and Rin attributed it to the Akkadian and Ugaritic mlg, interpreted by them adowry.151

146 Maimonides, Code, shtxvi:1-2; cf. the article by Gans (1823: 419), esp. pp. 453, 460See concerning the comprehensive nature of the ketubb: Cohen (1966: I 353); see alsoFriedman (1980/81: I 291ff., 302); Cotton and Yardeni (1997: 205f.). I doubt whether mort

main, which I see in dictionaries, is really corresponding to n barzel, iron sheep.147 P. Oxy. 905.148 P Oxy 237 (vol II pp 141f )


35/45


In the talmudic sources there are attempts to explain the term using straighlogic: and she had a handmaid, an Egyptian (Gen. 16:1); she was a mlhandmaid and he was obligated to supply her food, and he was not permittedto sell her (i.e., she was the wifes property). R. Simeon b. Laqish was asked

what does it mean, which we come across, mlg slave, he said: pluck as mucas you can (mlg, [instead of mlq] having the meaning of plucking).152 The termmlg was in daily use, even receiving the meaning of a deed of debt the husband gives his wife as against her properties, also known as shvr, receipt.15

However, I believe the term mlg is but a corruption of the word mologaagreement; this is what marriage contracts were called, and the term is founin almost every Greek contract, also as a verb, mologv, I agree. It may b

assumed that despite the popular interpretations I cited above, the true linguistic derivation was then clear to the contemporaries and the interpretationoffered were a kind of play on words. The main use of the term was in: tenancy deeds, andas stated above (p. 316) the husband had the status of a tenant as regards the properties which his wife had placed under his control. In th

words of the Midrash: The behaviour of the Almighty is like the behaviour oa man; a man would write a tough amlgn and would change it into somethineasy; the Almighty would write a tough amlgn and change it into somethineasy.154 The mlg properties had an absolutely set status, and could not bsold, not by the wife who, after all, had agreed (or her fathers family haagreed) that they should be placed at the husbands disposal; nor by the husband, for the ownership was his wifes. A husband or a wife who sold mlproperties had not actually carried out any transaction, in other words, it waan invalid sale. The talmudic scholars emphasized the wifes exclusive ownership of the mlg properties.155

As for the sale of land, the husband was required to have a written approvafrom his wife. Thus we find a bill of land sale in the Judaean Desert documentsDostes the son of Eleazer sells land in AD 134. His wife, Shalom, daughter on bar Yehntn confirms: . . . I have nothing against this sale.156 On th

152 Bersht rabb xlv:16 (Theodor and Albeck 447); PT Yevmtvii:8a (Jer. 861), wher

the saying is ascribed to R. Mana.153 PT Mod qfln iii:82a (Jer. 812); Ketubbtix:33c (Jer. 1001). In these places, the termis: mlgiyy Gulak (1935: 2 11) discussed the term (die Homologie) but did not relate


36/45

320 MOSHE GIL

other hand, the husband was given a condition, that he declare that he had noclaims of property regarding the properties brought by his wife, before beingallowed to use the produce of the properties; I will have no account or argument over your properties.157 In light of all that was quoted, it is clear thamlg properties were those known as parferna; the parferna was said tocorrespond to the Latin term peculium; Ulpianus (beginning of the third centuryAD) attributed to Emperor Marcus Aurelius (161-180) the opinion that whathe Greeks (another version: the properties outside of the dowry) refer to aparferna, is what the Gauls (another version: others) call peculium. Howeverthe etymology of parferna is: an addition to the bride-money (mhar).

The early documents of the Hellenistic world also display the custom o

inheritance properties reverting to the paternal family of the wife. This is explicitly stated regarding the dowry, the parferna, such as, for instance, in a marriage agreement from AD 170, stating that in the event of divorce the husband

will immediately complete payment of the bride-money, the fern, while thdowry, the parferna, would be returned within 60 days. The husbands fathe

will be guarantor of the fern payment.158

At the beginning of the third century AD, Ulpianus writes: Frequently, thehusband is not interested in calculating the value of his property, so that he nobe responsible for their value, especially when he also received with the dowry(in dotem) animals, or apparel for her (the wifes) use. The value should, therefore, be determined (at the outset) so that even if the item of clothing becametattered, the husband would still be responsible for the value determinedI

Date post:	04-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ryan-hayes
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

Decline of Agrarian Economy in Palestine to 70AD

Documents