The Jewish Cultural Nature of Galilee in the First Century

How to cite this article: Shmuel Safrai, “The Jewish Cultural Nature of Galilee in the First Century,” Jerusalem Perspective (2010) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/4452/].

There is a great deal of literature describing the Jewish cultural nature of Galilee in the first century C.E. Several scholarly fields are involved.

The issue is discussed by scholars of Jewish history and of the history of the Oral Torah for subsequently, during the second to fourth centuries and even later, Galilee was the living center of the Jewish people and its leadership, and the place in which the Oral Torah was collected and in large degree created. It also is extensively dealt with by scholars of the beginnings of Christianity, since Jesus grew up in Nazareth in Lower Galilee, and his activity was centered mainly within the bounds of Galilee. Conversely, Jewish scholars of the history of the Halakhah or of talmudic literature in general, when discussing the cultural image of Galilee, refer in some degree to the history of Christianity or to the background of the beginnings of Christianity.

Furthermore, the issue has been discussed in the general literature of Jewish history and of the history of the Land of Israel. Similarly, many scholars, especially Christians, deal with it extensively both in general works on the life of Jesus and in studies devoted to Galilee and its Jewish cultural image.^[212]

• ^[1] G. Alon, Toledot ha-Yehudim be-Eretz Yisrael bi-Tekufat ha-Mishnah we-ha-Talmud (“The History of the Jews in the Land of Israel During the Period of the Mishnah and the Talmud”; Tel Aviv, 1953), 1:318-323. Regarding the Torah sages in Galilee before the revolt, see also A. Büchler, Am ha-Aretz ha-Galili (“The Galilean am ha-aretz”; Jerusalem, 1964), 193-240 (the pagination is according to the Hebrew translation; I did not have access to the German original during the writing of this article). See also A. Oppenheimer, The Am ha-Aretz (Leiden, 1977), 2-7, 200-217; and “Ha-Yishuv ha-Yehudi ba-Galil bi-Tekufat Yavneh u-Mered Bar Kokhba” (“The Jewish Community in Galilee During the Period of Yavneh and the Bar Kokhba Revolt”), Katedra 4 (1977): 53-66; Z. Safrai, Pirqei Galil (“Chapters on Galilee”; Ma’alot, 1972), 19-26. ↩
• ^[2] m. Shabbat 16:7; 22:3. ↩
• ^[3] See Alon, loc. cit., 53-71 and his articles “Halikhato shel Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai le-Yavneh” (“Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai’s Going to Yavneh”); “Nesiuto shel Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai” (“Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai’s Term as Nasi”), in Mekhkarim be-Toledot Yisrael (“Studies in Jewish History”; Tel Aviv, 1957), 1:219-273. ↩
• ^[4] See especially Genesis Rabbah 6:84. ↩
• ^[5] Matt. 15:1; Mark 3:22; 7:1; Luke 5:17. ↩
• ^[6] The 18 years stated by the Amora Ulla (see below) is not necessarily an exact number. ↩
• ^[7] See the mishnaic references in note 3. It becomes clear in b. Shabbat 121^b that the sages who permitted this, and the pietists who were not pleased by it, disagreed on this issue. See below. ↩
• ^[8] When, during the period following the destruction of the Second Temple, a person wished to say that he had sinned, he would write on his board: “Ishmael ben Elisha trimmed the lamp on the Sabbath, when the Temple shall be rebuilt he shall bring a hatat (sin-offering)” (t. Shabbat 1:13 and the parallels in the Talmuds). ↩
• ^[9] j. Shabbat 16:15^d. ↩
• ^[10] See especially Sifre Deuteronomy 357:425-427. ↩
• ^[11] j. Pesahim 5:32^a. A similar passage also appears in b. Pesahim 62^b. ↩
• ^[12] j. Sanhedrin 1:18^c. ↩
• ^[13] See, e.g., j. Eruvin 6:23^c; b. Hullin 132^b Pesiqta Rabbati 29 (138^b) and many other passages. ↩
• ^[14] j. Ta’anit 4:69^b; j. Moed Katan 3:82^d; j. Shevi’it 5:35^d and many other passages. See S. Lieberman, Sifrei Zuta (New York, 1968), especially pp. 92-94. ↩
• ^[15] j. Ta’anit 3:66^c. ↩
• ^[16] b. Shabbat 121^b; see S. Safrai, “Teaching of Pietistics in Mishnaic Literature,” Journal of Jewish Studies 16 (1965): 15-33. ↩
• ^[17] m. Avot 2:5. See S. Safrai, “Hasidim we-Anshei Ma’aseh” (“Pietists and Miracle-Workers”), Zion 50 (1985): 152-154. Regarding Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai, see Avot de-Rabbi Nathan, A:12 (28^b), B:27 (40^b). See Safrai, ibid., 132-136. ↩
• ^[18] m. Ta’anit 2:5; see also t. Ta’anit 2:13; b. Ta’anit 16^b; b. Rosh Ha-Shanah 27^a. ↩
• ^[19] t. Shabbat 13:2; b. Shabbat 115^a.; j. Shabbat 16:15^c brings the event involving Rabban Gamaliel the Elder at the Temple Mount without the narrative regarding Rabbi Halafta’s visit to Tiberias. ↩
• ^[20] t. Ma’aser Sheni 1:13; t. Bava Batra 2:6 (= b. Bava Batra 56^b); t. Ahilot 5:7; t. Kelim Bava Metzia 1:5. ↩
• ^[21] He lived until the time of Rabbi Judah the Nasi, all of the traditions regarding whom are after the time of the revolt. See t. Sukkah 2:2; j. Sanhedrin 7:24^b. ↩
• ^[22] Thus the Commentary by Rabbi Simeon of Sens on the Mishnah 22:9 and in Yehusei Tannaim we-Amoraim, s.v. Haggai (Maimon ed., p. 234) and Hutzpit (ibid., p. 441). ↩
• ^[23] Thus in Rabbi Simeon of Sens, loc. cit. ↩
• ^[24] Thus in Rabbi Simeon of Sens, loc. cit. ↩
• ^[25] t. Kelim Bava Batra 2:2. ↩
• ^[26] See Alon, op. cit., 262. ↩
• ^[27] See note 19 above. ↩
• ^[28] b. Sanhedrin 32^b. ↩
• ^[29] t. Miqwaot 6:3. ↩
• ^[30] t. Kelim Bava Metzia 1:6 and Bava Qamma 4:17; b. Pesahim 62^b. ↩
• ^[31] According to the traditions in the Babylonian Talmud, Beruriah was the wife of Rabbi Meir; however, there is no allusion to this in the Jerusalem Talmud. Beruriah was years older than Rabbi Meir, who was active mainly after the revolt. See S. Safrai, Eretz Yisrael we-Hakhameha (“The Land of Israel and Its Sages”; Tel Aviv, 1984), 179. ↩
• ^[32] See Lamentations Rabbah 13:10; Semahot 12:13, 199-200; see also Alon, op. cit., (Tel Aviv, 1955), 2:1-2. ↩
• ^[33] j. Berakhot 4:7^d; b. Berakhot 27b-28^a. ↩
• ^[34] Sixteen, according to the Jerusalem Talmud; and eighteen, according to the Babylonian Talmud. ↩
• ^[35] Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, tract. 1 of pasha, sect. 16:59. ↩
• ^[36] j. Berakhot 1:3^d. ↩
• ^[37] See b. Bekhorot 53^b; b. Shabbat 54^b. Rabbenu Tam discussed this contradiction in b. Shabbat 54^b, capt. Hayah Ma’aseh. The “contradiction” came into existence only because Rabbenu Tam interpreted literally the statement that Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah was eighteen years old at the time of his appointment in place of Rabban Gamaliel. ↩
• ^[38] b. Megillah 26^a. The wording “Rav Eleazar ben Azariah” appears in all the MSS; in the commentary of Rabbenu Hananel in Ravayah, part 2, para. 590, 316; in Or Zaro’a, part 2, para. 385 (79^c); in Meiri, ad. loc.; in Teshuvot Maharam mi-Rotenburg, Crimona, para. 165; in t. Megillah 2 (3):17. In j. Megillah 3:71^d Rabbi Judah transmits that Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Zadok purchased a synagogue of Alexandrians in Jerusalem. It is possible that this is a different version of the same tradition or perhaps two different traditions. The same difficulty which was perceived by Rabbeinu Tam was also perceived by Lieberman, who proposed a forced answer (Tosefta Ki-Fshutah: Moed, p. 1162). He also was forced into this difficulty only because he accepted as historical fact the legend that Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah was appointed at the age of sixteen or eighteen. ↩
• ^[39] Genesis Rabbah 17:152-154; Leviticus Rabbah 34:802-806; j. Ketuvot 11:34^b. The narrative in the Jerusalem Talmud is related concisely, while Genesis Rabbah contains two versions, one long and the other short. This narrative is alluded to by the author of Seder Eliyahu Rabbah 139, as Ish Shalom has already seen, loc. cit., n. 30. ↩
• ^[40] And t. Sotah 15:3; b. Berakhot 57^b; b. Kiddushin 49^b; b. Shabbat 54^b. ↩
• ^[41] j. Yevamot 1:3^b. The tradition regarding his appointment in place of the deposed Rabban Gamaliel stresses that he attained this because of his lineage (Jerusalem Talmud) and his wisdom and his wealth (Babylonian Talmud). ↩
• ^[42] t. Sotah 7:10 (and parallels); Avot de-Rabbi Nathan A:18 (33^b), et al. ↩
• ^[43] m. Ma’aser Sheni 5:9; b. Sukkah 41^b; t. Betzah 2:12; Sifrei Numbers 43:94, et al. See also S. Safrai, “Biqqureihem shel Hakhmei Yavneh be-Roma,” Studies in the History of the Jews of Italy in Memory of U.S. Nahon, (Jerusalem, 1978), 151-167. ↩
• ^[44] Sifrei, ibid., 75; b. Makkot 24^a; Lamentations Rabbah 5:159. ↩
• ^[45] b. Yevamot 16^a. ↩
• ^[46] t. Yoma 1:12, also 1:4; Sifrei Numbers 141:222; j. Yoma 2:39^d; b. Yoma 23^a. ↩
• ^[47] b. Gittin 56^b; Lamentations Rabbah 1:68. According to the Babylonian Talmud, he fasted for forty years so that Jerusalem would not be destroyed. It is stated in Lamentations Rabbah, according to the printed versions, that Vespasian asked Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai why he arose before “this shrivelled old man.” This is the source of the prevalent opinion that Rabbi Zadok was very advanced in years at the time of the destruction of the Temple. In order to match this fact with the other traditions regarding Rabbi Zadok, two “Rabbi Zadoks” were created, a grandfather and a grandson. But there is not necessarily a chronological difficulty. Even if we were to receive as historical fact the tradition which transmits that Rabbi Zadok fasted for forty years, there is no justification to our accepting as fact that he actually fasted for forty years, for “forty years” is a round number which appears in many places—that is, if he had fasted for only five years or less, the tradition would have related that he had fasted for forty years. Regarding the “shrivelled old man (sabba tzurata),” the word sabba (old man) does not appear in the Buber edition, nor in He-Arukh, s.v. Tzaitor (vol. 3, p. 15). Lamentations Rabbah does not state that he fasted for forty years, only that he was shrivelled from the fasts. ↩
• ^[48] t. Sanhedrin 8:1; j. Sanhedrin 1:19^c. ↩
• ^[49] Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Yitro, tractate of Amalek, 1:195; Sifrei Deuteronomy 38:24; b. Kiddushin 32^b. See also b. Pesahim 37^a and 49^a. ↩
• ^[50] t. Sukkah 2:3; t. Eduyot 2:2; b. Yevamot 15^b. ↩
• ^[51] t. Niddah 4:3-4. See m. Eduyot 8:4; t. Eduyot 3:3; t. Arakhin 11:2. ↩
• ^[52] m. Makhshirin 1:3 and the interpretation of halikopri: a metal merchant (χαλκωπώλης). ↩
• ^[53] See m. Eduyot 8:4; t. Eduyot 3:3; t. Arakhin 11:2. ↩
• ^[54] Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai also was in Galilee on his missions. See Avot de-Rabbi Nathan A:12 (28^b) and B:13 (ibid.). ↩
• ^[55] t. Betzah 3:8; j. Betzah 3:62^b. ↩
• ^[56] t. Megillah 3(4):15; Semahot 12:5; b. Sukkah 41^a; b. Pesahim 116^a; b. Bava Batra 14^a; b. Menahot 40^a. He is the sage who spoke the most extensively about Jerusalem and the Temple. ↩
• ^[57] t. Megillah 2(3):17; j. Megillah 3:1^d. ↩
• ^[58] t. Ketuvot 5:10; j. Ketuvot 5:30^c; b. Ketuvot 67^a; Lamentations Rabbah 1 (43^b); Pesiqta Rabbati 29 (140^a). The city of Acre is not mentioned in all the parallels. ↩
• ^[59] t. Hagigah 2:3; j. Hagigah 2:77^b-c; b. Hagigah 15^a-b; Ruth Rabbah 6; Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7. ↩
• ^[60] Thus in the Jerusalem Talmud and in Ruth Rabbah, Kohelet Zuta 135 and Yalqut Makhiri on Psalms 90:84. ↩
• ^[61] In MS Oxford 164. See the edition by M. B. Lerner (dissertation, Hebrew University, 1971), 2:174 and the notes, 3:61. ↩
• ^[62] b. Moed Katan 20^a; b. Nazir 44^a; Semahot 12, 2:194. ↩
• ^[63] Thus in the baraita in b. Nazir. ↩
• ^[64] This interpretation was already offered by Rabbi Jacob Emden in his annotations on b. Moed Katan 20^a and by many scholars after him. They raised this only because they followed the version in Babylonian Talmud, understanding it literally. According to this it follows that he already was very old during the time of the Temple. As we have clarified, however, there is no basis for this determination. See note 48 above. ↩
• ^[65] We can learn of Elisha ben Avuyah’s uniqueness from his aggadic dicta (m. Avot 4:20; Avot de-Rabbi Nathan A:24 and B:34) and from the fact that one of the outstanding sages, Rabbi Meir, a central figure in the Mishnah, remained loyal to Elisha ben Avuyah even after he “went forth from his world.” See the sources listed in note 60. ↩
• ^[66] j. Berakhot 4:7^c-d; b. Berakhot 27^b-28^a; see also b. Bekhorot 36^a. ↩
• ^[67] b. Avodah Zarah 18^a. ↩
• ^[68] b. Yevamot 96^b; j. Sheqalim 2:47^a. The Jerusalem Talmud does not mention Tiberias, but rather the synagogue of the Tarsians. This refers, however, to the mishnaic statement in Eruvin, in which Tiberias is mentioned. We may possibly conclude that this refers to a synagogue of Tarsians (after the name of the city Tarsus or after the profession—artistic weavers) in Tiberias. The passage in the Jerusalem Talmud does not mention the name of the city Tiberias because the incident in which the tradition is placed took place in Tiberias in a conversation among Rabbi Elhanan, Rabbi Eleazar ben Pedat, Rabbi Ammi and Rabbi Assi, all of whom were Tiberian sages in the second half of the third century. They, therefore, mentioned only that this occurred in the synagogue of the Tarsians. The Jerusalem Talmud version is also found in Yalqut Makhiri on Psalm 61:3 (156^a). ↩
• ^[69] Thus according to the emendation of the text in the two Talmuds. ↩
• ^[70] Tanhuma, wa-yishalah 8 (Buber ed., 83^b). This tradition is to be found also in b. Sanhedrin 98^a, but the latter source does not explicitly mention the name of the city Tiberias. We copy from the more complete version in Yalqut Makhiri on Obadiah, published by M. Gaster in Revue des Etudes Juives 25 (1892): 63-64. We find in the MSS that the passage is taken from Tanhuma. It was reprinted in Yalqut Makhiri, published by A. W. Greenup (London, 1909), p. 4. ↩
• ^[71] Song of Songs Rabbah 2; Semahot 11, 4:188; t. Megillah 2:8, et al. ↩
• ^[72] t. Peah 3:2; b. Pesahim 38^b, et al. ↩
• ^[73] t. Zevahim 2:16-17; b. Menahot 18^a. ↩
• ^[74] t. Sukkah 2:1 and parallels in the Talmuds. ↩
• ^[75] t. Pesahim 2 (1):15; j. Avodah Zarah 1:40^a; b. Eruvin 64^b. ↩
• ^[76] Sifrei Deuteronomy 16:26 (see note by Finkelstein, ibid.); b. Eruvin 41^a; Sifrei Deuteronomy 1:4, et al. ↩
• ^[77] t. Orlah 3:8; b. Kiddushin 39^a; t. Kelim Bava Qamma 6:3, et al. ↩
• ^[78] See above and note 21. ↩
• ^[79] t. Terumah 7:14; t. Sukkah 2:2. Regarding the formulation, see S. Safrai, “Beit Shearim ba-Sifrut ha-Talmudit” (“Beit Shearim in the Talmudic Literature”), Eretz Yisrael 5 (1959): 208 and n. 17. ↩
• ^[80] Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, ba-hodesh 2:210; Avot de-Rabbi Nathan A:32 (47^a), et al. ↩
• ^[81] b. Avodah Zarah 17^b. ↩
• ^[82] Tanhuma, Masai 1 (Buber ed., 81^a). ↩
• ^[83] Thus in the printed editions. This is also what may be assumed from the issue itself, for the question is when may a person who is persecuted by the non-Jews desecrate the Sabbath; the answer is that he may flee, and mention is made of the narrative regarding Rabbi Eleazar ben Parta, who hinted to them to flee. ↩
• ^[84] j. Gittin 7:48^d. ↩
• ^[85] See Büchler, 200. ↩
• ^[86] j. Sotah 1:16^c; t. Gittin 5 (7):4. ↩
• ^[87] j. Shabbat 1:5^d; b. Shabbat 123^a; b. Eruvin 71^b; Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, shirah 1:119. ↩
• ^[88] Tractate Derekh Eretz 1. In the Higger edition of the Tosefta, Derekh Eretz 3:267. Büchler, ibid., erroneously joined this to Rabbi Eliezer ben Tadai. Regarding the exchange Teradyon-Tadion-Taddai, see J. N. Epstein, “Perurim Talmudiyim” (“Talmudic Crumbs”), Tarbiz 3 (1932): 111. ↩
• ^[89] See below. ↩
• ^[90] See Shmuel and Ze’ev Safrai, “Beit Anat,” Sinai 40 (1976): 18-34, especially 21-22. ↩
• ^[91] Leviticus Rabbah 2:451. ↩
• ^[92] t. Shevi’it 4:11 (and parallels). The name “Katzra de-Galila” is found in all the parallels in the literature, including in the mosaic floor found in the Beit Shean valley near Tel Rehov. See Y. Sussman, “Ketovet Hilkhatit me-Emek Beit-Shean” (“A Halakhic Inscription from the Beit Shean Valley”), Tarbiz 43 (1973-4): 158. ↩
• ^[93] An archaeological report of relatively broad scope is to be found in V. Guerin, Description de la Palestine, Galilée (Paris, 1880), vol. 7, part 3, t. 2, p. 157. The main thrust of his comments are cited almost verbatim in the British Survey of Western Palestine, 1 (1981): 154. A short report on the site was also written by Tzvi Gitzov, in M. Yedayah ed., Ma’aravo shel Galil (“The West of Galilee”; 1961), 53. A more comprehensive description was written by Tzvi Ilan: Hurvat Galil—Zihuyehah u-Mimtza’ehah (“The Ruins of Galil—Its Identification and Finds”), in M. Yedayah ed., Kadmoniyot ha-Galil ha-Ma’aravi (“Antiquities of Western Galilee”; Haifa, 1986), 516-520. Even during later periods when Galilee was the center of Judaism and of Torah study, there were sages who were named after the city of Galil. See j. Shabbat 3:6^a, b. Shabbat 46^a, j. Berakhot 3:6^a, et al. ↩
• ^[94] m. Avodah Zarah 3:5; t. Gittin 7 (9):1; t. Miqwaot 7:11; t. Orlah 1:8; b. Moed Qatan 28^b, et al. ↩
• ^[95] Sifrei Numbers 118:141. In his commentary on Isa. 8:14, Jerome includes Rabbi Jose ha-Galili in his short list of the greatest Tannaim. See A. Geiger, “Über Judentum und Christentum,” Jüdische Zeitschrift 5 (1867): 273. ↩
• ^[96] Regarding this issue, see b. Hullin 116^a. Rabbi Jose ha-Galili’s opinion is also held by a sage named Apikulos in t. Hullin 8:2 (he is not mentioned elsewhere in our literature). ↩
• ^[97] b. Hullin 116^a; Yevamot 14^a. ↩
• ^[98] See S. Safrai, “Ha-Hakhra’ah ke-Veit Hillel” (“The Decision in Accordance with Beit Hillel”), in Proceedings of the Seventh World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem, 1981), 27-44. ↩
• ^[99] m. Hullin 5:1; m. Eduyot 5:2. ↩
• ^[100] b. Eruvin 53^b. ↩
• ^[101] In the same passage in b. Eruvin 53^b. It should be mentioned once again that the expression “foolish Galilean,” in its Aramaic form, was applied to a merchant who came to sell his wares in Judea and said “amar to someone.” It was not clear whether he meant hamar (for in the Galilean accent there was no distinction between the letter ח "het" and the letter א "alef") for drinking (wine) or hamar (ass) for riding or amar (with the initial letter ע "ayin", wool). It is possible that the later passage used Beruriah’s expression, but it is also possible that this was an expression in general use. We can learn nothing from this, because the lack of differentiation between the letters alef, ayin and het prevents us from learning about a poor cultural state (see below). See J. N. Epstein, Mavo le-Nusah ha-Mishnah (“Introduction to the Text of the Mishnah”; Jerusalem, 1948), part 1, 183-185. ↩
• ^[102] Sifrei Deuteronomy 41:85. See notes 90-91 above. ↩
• ^[103] With the assistance of my son Ze’ev. ↩
• ^[104] A portion from the Genizah published by J. N. Epstein in Tarbiz 1 (1930): 70. See ibid., n. 17 and the introduction, 52-53. ↩
• ^[105] t. Sotah 3:3; j. Sotah 9:24^b; b. Sotah 48^b. ↩
• ^[106] Ecclesiastes Rabbah 1; Song of Songs Rabbah 1. ↩
• ^[107] b. Sanhedrin 32^b; t. Sukkah 2:1; Midrash on Psalm 25:13 (107^b), et al. Regarding his property in the region, see t. Ma’aser Sheni 5:16. ↩
• ^[108] t. Hullin 2:24; b. Avodah Zarah 16^b. ↩
• ^[109] Thus in MS London and in the Rishonim. At any rate it seems that he was a sage, and the deed he performed of spreading a sheet over the sukkah against the sun corresponds to the statement in m. Sukkah 1:3; see also Tosafot 10^a, Pires alav sadin. ↩
• ^[110] In b. Sukkah 27^b: “In Upper Galilee, in the sukkah of Johanan ben Rabbi Ilai, in Kesari, or as some say, in Kesarion.” ↩
• ^[111] And in the parallel in b. Sukkah 27^b. ↩
• ^[112] b. Sukkah 27^a. ↩
• ^[113] See ibid., 27^b. Regarding his identification, see below. ↩
• ^[114] See above and notes 61-62. Regarding his identification, see below. ↩
• ^[115] b. Moed Qatan 16^a-b; see A. Büchler, “Learning and Teaching in Open Air in Palestine,” Jewish Quarterly Review 4 (1914): 485-491. ↩
• ^[116] t. Kelim Bava Batra 3:6. ↩
• ^[117] j. Ma’aserot 1:48^d. ↩
• ^[118] b. Eruvin 29^a; b. Sotah 48^a; b. Kiddushin 20^a; b. Arakhin 30^b. Cf. j. Bikkurim 2:65^a. ↩
• ^[119] Sifrei Zuta 302. Ibid., 305, there is an additional reference to the group of sages and “Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob sits and expounds regarding the [red] heifer in Tiberias.” This latter incident, however, occurred after the Bar Kokhba Revolt. ↩
• ^[120] t. Bava Qamma 8:17; b. Bava Qamma 80^a; j. Sotah 9:24^a. ↩
• ^[121] Thus as correct in MS Vienna, in first ed. of the Tosefta, and in MS Hamburg of the Babylonian Talmud and in Maharshal, citing other books; and similarly in the Jerusalem Talmud. ↩
• ^[122] Thus in the printed editions of the Babylonian Talmud, and MS Vatican and Maharshal, citing other books. Similarly, it seems that Shezor is on the boundary between Lower and Upper Galilee; Rabbi Simeon Shezori speaks of his family’s properties which were in Upper Galilee. ↩
• ^[123] See the passage in b. Sanhedrin 4^b-5^a and j. Sanhedrin 1:18^b. ↩
• ^[124] t. Yevamot 3:1. See G. Alon, Toledot ha-Yehudim be-Eretz Yisrael bi-Tekufat ha-Mishnah we-ha-Talmud (“History of the Jews in the Land of Israel During the Period of the Mishnah and the Talmud”; Tel Aviv, 1967), 1:174. ↩
• ^[125] m. Kelim 18:1; m. Taharot 3:2, et al. ↩
• ^[126] j. Demai 5:24^d. ↩
• ^[127] t. Shevi’it 2:5; b. Rosh Ha-Shanah 13^b. Rabbi Jose ben Kippar was sent, shortly after the Bar Kokhba revolt, to persuade Hananiah, the nephew of Rabbi Joshua, to stop independently intercalating years and proclaiming new months in Babylonia, but instead to rely upon the sages in the Land of Israel (b. Berakhot 63^a). By that time he already was a sage whose opinion was heeded. ↩
• ^[128] See Alon, Toledot ha-Yehudim, 19. ↩
• ^[129] Alon, ibid., 321, et al. ↩
• ^[130] m. Ketuvot 4:12; j. Ketuvot 29^b. Regarding other wedding practices in which the Galileans followed the practices of the Jerusalemites, see t. Ketuvot 1:4, j. Ketuvot 1:29^a, b. Ketuvot 12^a. All the practices of Galilee are more refined and better than those in Judea. ↩
• ^[131] Semahot 3:6 111-112. ↩
• ^[132] b. Shabbat 153^a; see the commentary by Rashi, loc. cit. ↩
• ^[133] See S. Klein, Eretz ha-Galil (“The Land of Galilee”; Jerusalem, 1967), 169-176; S. Safrai, Ha-Aliyah la-Regel bi-Yemei ha-Bayit ha-Sheni (“Pilgrimage in the Days of the Second Temple”; Tel Aviv, 1965), 50-53. ↩
• ^[134] t. Yoma 1:4; j. Yoma 1:38^c; b. Yoma 12^b and in the parallel 9^b. ↩
• ^[135] Antiq. 17:165. See S. Lieberman in Tosefta Ki-Fshutah: Moed, 723-726. ↩
• ^[136] m. Yoma 6:3. ↩
• ^[137] Thus in the Mishnah of the Jerusalem Talmud, MS Cambridge A and B, Naples printing, et al. ↩
• ^[138] t. Sotah 13:8; j. Yoma 6:3^c; b. Yoma 39^a; b. Kiddushin 53^a. ↩
• ^[139] j. Ta’anit 4:69^a; Lamentations Rabbah 2. ↩
• ^[140] See above and note 107. ↩
• ^[141] See m. Yoma 3:4; t. Yoma 2:2-4. ↩
• ^[142] See Safrai, loc. cit. (note 128). ↩
• ^[143] j. Ma’aser Sheni 5:56^a; Lamentations Rabbah 3:63^a-b. ↩
• ^[144] Regarding the inscriptions, see Safrai, loc. cit., 53. ↩
• ^[145] b. Menahot ch. 8; t. Menahot ch. 9. ↩
• ^[146] m. Menahot ch. 8 and t. Menahot 8:5. This is undoubtedly the Tekoa in Galilee and not the one in Judea, for it also was listed among the places in which olives were grown in Galilee regarding the matter of shemittah (the Sabbatical year: t. Shevi’it 7:15, b. Pesahim 23^a). The Judean Tekoa, which borders the Judean Desert, was not known for its oil. The Babylonian Talmud (b. Menahot 85^b) understood from the statement of Rabbi Johanan that this was the Galilean Tekoa. The Jerusalem Talmud, on the other hand (Hagigah 3:79^b), understood that this was the Judean Tekoa: see S. Lieberman, Tarbiz 2 (1931): 110. ↩
• ^[147] Teshuvat ha-Geonim (Leck), sec. 104. The responsum was printed in Otzar ha-Geonim on Shabbat, the section of responsa, p. 23; see addenda on p. 163. Several of the Rishonim cite this tradition in the name of the Jerusalem Talmud. This does not appear in our editions of the latter, and it seems that it appears chiefly in a midrash that is not extant. See G. Alon, Mehkarim, section 2, 24 n. 16. ↩
• ^[148] Life 188. See also S. Klein, Eretz ha-Galil (“The Land of Galilee”; Jerusalem, 1967), 39 ff. He was preceded by A. Schlatter, Die Hebräischen Namen bei Josephus (photocopy ed., Darmstadt, 1970), 82-83; see below. ↩
• ^[149] See note 139. ↩
• ^[150] These things are not explicitly stated in a halakhic ruling, but they can almost certainly be learned from talmudic literature, with assistance being provided by the Christian tradition and the Apocalypse of Baruch. See m. Sheqalim 8:5 and the exposition of S. Lieberman in Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York, 1950), 167; S. Safrai, Ha-Aliyah la-Regel, 28 n. 94. ↩
• ^[151] See Klein, loc. cit., 52. ↩
• ^[152] t. Yoma 1:23; 1 Mac. 3:49. See Safrai, loc. cit., p. 78, n. 96. ↩
• ^[153] It would seem that this contradicts the statement of the Mishnah (Hagigah 3:4), which states that the people of Judea, both haverim (who maintained the ritual cleanness of the terumah) and amei ha-aretz, were regarded as reliable concerning the cleanness of the wine and the oil used in the sacrifices in the Temple all the days of the year, while the Galileans were not regarded as reliable. The two Talmuds offer a reason for the unreliability of the Galileans: because “a strip of the Cutheans separates,” and sacrifices were not brought through the Land of the Cutheans (Samaria). In another place (Ha-Aliyah la-Regel, 44-46 and nn. on p. 25) I have shown that this is not in accordance with the Halakhah and the reality of the Temple period, in which sacrifices were brought from Galilee. Rather, those who prepared the wine and oil in Judea were more aware of the possibility that their wine and oil would go to the Temple, and, therefore, there were many people who were particular to maintain their cleanness, while the Galileans ordinarily were not aware of this, and, therefore, whoever was not a haver was not regarded as reliable for this matter. But there were people who prepared these items for the Temple as well and brought them to Jerusalem through the Land of the Cutheans. ↩
• ^[154] See H. Graetz, 2:749-752 n. 19. ↩
• ^[155] Genesis Rabbah 10:84. ↩
• ^[156] Rabbi Eliezer repeats his opinion in m. Hallah 2:8. Similarly, Rabbi Ilai cites in his name that they would give terumah from the clean for the unclean, even from wet produce (t. Terumah 3:18). ↩
• ^[157] Thus in MS Vienna; this was distorted in MS Erfurt. It refers to “threshing-floors” in the plural and similarly in Melekhet Shelomo on m. Terumah 2:1: In the threshing-floors of Kefar Signah. ↩
• ^[158] See m. Hagigah 3:8. ↩
• ^[159] MS Erfurt has in the Tosefta tanur (sing.), but MS Vienna has tanurim (pl.). ↩
• ^[160] F. Rosenthal, in Sefer Yovel le-David Tzvi Hoffmann (Berlin, 1914), 367. ↩
• ^[161] t. Miqwaot 6:2. ↩
• ^[162] t. Makhshirin 2:5. ↩
• ^[163] t. Kilayim 1:4; j. Kilayim 1:24^d. ↩
• ^[164] See J. N. Epstein, “Mi-Dikdukei Yerushalmi,” Tarbiz 5 (1934): 269-270. ↩
• ^[165] The Babylonian Talmud also includes the poor of Kefar Hananiah; this was written only as a slip of the tongue from other places in which Kefar Hananiah is mentioned together with Kefar Shihin (b. Shabbat 120^b; b. Bava Metzia 74^a), for Kefar Hananiah is much farther than the distance of two “Sabbath bounds” from Rumah, and it was not possible to go from Kefar Hananiah to Rumah on the Sabbath: see S. Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-Fshutah: Moed, 361. ↩
• ^[166] t. Eruvin 3 (4):17; j. Eruvin 4:22^a; b. Eruvin 50^b. ↩
• ^[167] War 3:233. ↩
• ^[168] Regarding the identification of Shihin, see Lieberman, loc. cit., 360-361, following those who preceded him; see also the critical comments by Ze’ev Safrai, Pirqei Galil, 69-71. ↩
• ^[169] See S. Klein, Eretz ha-Galil, 32. ↩
• ^[170] t. Ahilot 16:13; j. Pesahim 1:26^c; b. Pesahim 9^a; b. Avodah Zarah 42^a. ↩
• ^[171] Thus in the version of MS Vienna and in the Rishonim, and not Rimon, as in our text. It is in the bounds of Tiberias; see the narrative also in t. Miqwaot 6:2. ↩
• ^[172] See Sifrei Deuteronomy 327:425-426. ↩
• ^[173] t. Shabbat 13 (14):9; j. Shabbat 16:15^d; b. Yoma 8:5^b; j. Nedarim 4:38^d; b. Shabbat 121^a; Deuteronomy Rabbah, Lieberman ed., p. 20. ↩
• ^[174] Judah and Hillel were the sons of Rabban Gamaliel of Yavneh. See above and note 91. ↩
• ^[175] A bench upon which merchandise is sold. ↩
• ^[176] t. Moed Katan 2:15; j. Pesahim 4:30^d; b. Pesahim 51^a. ↩
• ^[177] See note 177. ↩
• ^[178] See note 177. ↩
• ^[179] t. Shabbat 7 (8):17; Semahot 8:4, 150. The addition appears only in Semahot. See Maimon ed., Sefer Yihusei Tannaim wa-Amoraim (Jerusalem, 1963), 153 and n. 172a. ↩
• ^[180] This is Beit Anat. See the article mentioned in note 91 above. ↩
• ^[181] t. Ahilot 16:13. ↩
• ^[182] Regarding sitting on benches on the Sabbath, it was stated explicitly (t. Moed Katan 2:14) that they were accustomed to be stringent until Rabbi Akiva came and taught that it was permitted. ↩
• ^[183] t. Pesahim 2(1):15; j. Avodah Zarah 1:40^a; b. Eruvin 64^b. ↩
• ^[184] t. Terumot 2:13. ↩
• ^[185] See my articles cited in notes 17 and 18 above. ↩
• ^[186] See t. Megillah 2(3):18 and parallels. Matters connected with the synagogue are not mentioned in the first chapters of Tractate Berakhot, which deal with matters relating to prayer, but rather in the last two chapters of Tractate Megillah, which deal with the reading of the Torah. See S. Safrai, “Gathering in the Synagogues on Festivals, Sabbaths and Weekdays in Ancient Synagogues in Israel,” in Ancient Synagogues in Israel Third-Seventh Century C.E.; Proceedings of Symposium, University of Haifa, May 1987., (ed. Rachel Hachlili; British Archaeological Reports International Series 499; Oxford: 1989), 7-15. ↩
• ^[187] Matt. 4:23 and 9:35; Mark 1:21, 39 and 6:1; Luke 4:15, 16, 31; 6:6 and 13:10; John 6:59. ↩
• ^[188] Mark 1:21 and 6:1; Luke 4:21; John 6:59. See the references in the preceding note. ↩
• ^[189] Luke 4:16-17. ↩
• ^[190] The earliest testimony is found in the Letter of Aristeas, 304-306. Yehudit goes forth and immerses. See ibid., 14:11-15. ↩
• ^[191] m. Eduyot 5:6. ↩
• ^[192] Mark 7:15-20; Matt. 15:17-20. ↩
• ^[193] Mark 7:1; cf. Matt. 9:1; Luke 11:37. ↩
• ^[194] Mark 7:20. ↩
• ^[195] m. Betzah 2:3; m. Ahilot 5:5, et al. ↩
• ^[196] Luke 1:59 and 2:21. ↩
• ^[197] Matt. 12:1; Luke 14:2-6 and 13:11-16; John 7:23. ↩
• ^[198] A general survey is provided by J. N. Epstein, Mevo’ot le-Sifrut ha-Tanna’im (“Introductions to the Literature of the Tannaim”; Jerusalem, 1957), 280-281; S. Safrai, "Religion in Everyday Life" in The Jewish People in the First Century (CRINT I.2; Assen, 1976), 804-807. ↩
• ^[199] Matt. 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:31. The name is connected to the narrative of the crucifixion, and it is possible that the appellation existed only in Jerusalem. ↩
• ^[200] The name is also to be found in Josephus, Antiq. 16:163. ↩
• ^[201] Luke 5:27-32; Mark 2:13-17; Matt. 9:9-13. ↩
• ^[202] Luke 6:1-5; Matt. 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-28. However, in his book Jesus in Selbstzeugnissen und Bilddokumenten (Reinbek bei Hamburg, 1968), 44, David Flusser argues that these Pharisees followed a stricter Halakhah on this point than the Galilean practice of the disciples of Jesus. ↩
• ^[203] Mark 14:3-9; Matt. 26:6-13; John 12:1-8. ↩
• ^[204] In the parallels, the entire narrative is inserted in a different context. ↩
• ^[205] In contrast with this statement, Rabbi Eliezer emphasizes in b. Sukkah 27^b that there is no tribe in Israel that has not produced a judge; in Seder Olam Rabbah 21 (Katner ed., 46a), that you have no city in the Land of Israel in which there were no prophets. ↩
• ^[206] Life 54. b. Shabbat 150^a states: “Rabbi Johanan said, ‘It is permitted to supervise matters of life and death and matters of communal urgency on the Sabbath, and it is permitted to go to synagogues to deal with communal affairs on the Sabbath.’” ↩
• ^[207] j. Ta’anit 3:67^a; j. Nedarim 8:40^d. ↩
• ^[208] War 4:87-102. M. D. Herr, in his article “Le-Va’ayat Hilkhot Milhamah ba-Shabbat bi-Yemei Bayit Sheni u-bi-Tekufat ha-Mishnah we-ha-Talmud” (“Regarding the Problem of the Laws of War on the Sabbath in the Days of the Second Temple and in the Period of the Mishnah and the Talmud”), Tarbiz 30 (1961): 255-256, holds that this statement by Johanan was only a ploy in order to escape, and that it was not an actual halakhic ruling. It is true that in the period under discussion the ruling had already been issued that it is permitted to engage in a defensive war on the Sabbath, and that a war which has been begun three days prior to the Sabbath is to be continued on the Sabbath; and wars were indeed waged on the Sabbath. Johanan as well fought on the Sabbath, and Josephus himself also fought on the Sabbath. Thus there is no justification for saying that it was not an actual halakhic ruling; some were lenient in the matter, while others were stringent. Johanan, however, indeed said this to Titus as a ploy in order to escape, as he did in fact do, but there was a basis for his statement. See the statements by J. N. Epstein and A. D. Melamed, which are cited by Herr, 256 and n. 62. ↩
• ^[209] Josephus, of course, accuses them of a desire to rob. ↩
• ^[210] See also Josephus’ comments at the beginning of ch. 16, ibid. Regarding the law and practice of giving ma’aser to the priests, see m. Yevamot 6:1-2; b. Ketuvot 26^a; b. Bava Batra 61^b; b. Hullin 131^b; t. Peah 4:5, et al. ↩
• ^[211] Joel 1:14; Isa. 58:3. ↩
• ^[212] This article was translated from Hebrew by Edward Levine. Recently published books that bear directly upon the subject of this article include: F. Malinowski, Galilean Judaism in the Writings of Flavius Josephus (Ann Arbor, 1973); G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew (London, 1977); E. M. Meyeres and J. F. Strange, Archaeology, the Rabbis and Early Christianity (Nashville, 1981); S. Freyne, Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian (Notre Dame, Indiana, 1987); R. Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer (Tübingen, 1987); M. Goodman, State and Society in Roman Galilee A.D. 132-212 (Totowa, New Jersey, 1983); W. Bosen, Galiläa als Lebensraum und Wirkungsfeld Jesu (Basel and Vienna, 1985). ↩