Rabbinic traditions about Roman persecutions of the Jews: A reconsideration

Journal of Jewish Studies

Volumn 54, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 21-50

  Kalmin, Richard ^a  

^a JEWISH THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 70450003273     PISSN: 00222097     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.18647/2454/JJS-2003     Document Type: Article

References (197)

1. This study is based on examination of the Bavli and the following Palestinian compilations: (a) the Mishnah; (b) the Tosefta; (c) the Mekhilta de-R. Yishmael; (d) Sifrei Deuteronomy; (e) the Yerushalmi; (f) Vayikra Rabbah; and (g) Kohelet Rabbah. Throughout this study, quotations from the Mishnah are introduced by a lower-case 'm.', from the Tosefta by a lower-case 't.', from the Yerushalmi by a lower-case 'y., and from the Bavli by a lower-case 'b'
2. The one exception is probably the prohibition of circumcision. See the discussion below. See Peter Schäfer, Der Bar Kokhba-Aufstand: Studien zum Zweiten Jüdische Krieg Gegen Rom (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1981)
3. and idem, 'Hadrian's Policy in Judaea and the Bar Kokhba Revolt: a Reassessment', ed. Philip R. Davies and Richard T. White (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), pp. 281-303 (= Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Series 100)
4. For other detailed treatments of rabbinic sources about Bar Kokhba, see, for example, Yizhak Halevy, Dorot ha-Rishonin (1897-1939; reprint. Jerusalem: n.p., 1967), vol. 4, pp. 579-85, 605-06, 640-72, 706-45 and 775-81
5. Gedalyahu Alon, Toldot ha- Yehudim be-Erez- Yisrael bi-Tekufat ha-Mishnah ve-ha-Tahmud (Tel Aviv: Ha-Kibuz ha-Me'uhad, 1957), vol. 2, pp. 43-47, 56-57 and 60-61
6. Saul Lieberman, 'The Martyrs of Caesarea', Annuaire de I'Institut de Philologie et d'Histoire Orientales et Slaves 7 (1939-44), pp. 395-46
7. and idem, 'Redifat Dat Yisrael', Sefer Yovel li-Kevod Shalom Baron (Jerusalem: The American Academy for Jewish Research, 1975), Hebrew section, pp. 213-45
8. and Yehoshua Efron, 'Milhemet Bar-Kokhba le-Or ha-Masoret ha Talmudit-ha-Erezyisre'elit ke-Neged ha-Bavlit', in Mered Bar-Kokhba: Mehkarim Hadashim, ed. Aharon Oppenheimer and Uriel Rapaport (Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi, 1984), pp. 47-105
9. Compare Benjamin Isaac and Aharon Oppenheimer, 'The Revolt of Bar Kokhba, Ideology and Modern Scholarship', in Benjamin Isaac, The Near East Under Roman Rule: Selected Papers (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1998), pp. 250-51, who claim that the tendency of the Romans 'was not the suppression of Jewish religion as such
10. Their tendency was to suppress those elements in the Jewish religion which were of national significance and to abolish the autonomy of the Jewish people,' See also Lieberman, 'The Martyrs of Caesarea', pp. 426, 428 and 531-32
11. and idem, 'Redifat Dat Yisrael', pp. 214-18 and 227
12. and M. D. Herr, 'Persecutions and Martyrdom in Hadrian's Days', Scripta Hierosolymitana 23 (1972), pp. 94-102
13. Schäfer argued, for example, that several traditions which earlier scholars assigned to the Bar Kokhba era might refer to the Jewish rebellion during the reign of Trajan, which is often described by modern scholars as a diaspora rebellion but which may have involved the Jews of Palestine as well. Compare Fergus Millar, The Roman Near East, 31 B. C.-A.D. 337 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993), p. 103, who writes: 'There is as yet no concrete evidence of a Jewish revolt in Judaea, parallel to that in Egypt, Cyrene, and Cyprus.'
14. See also M. D. Herr, 'The Participation of Galilee in the "War of Qitus" or in the "Bar Kosba Revolt" ', Katedra 4 (1971), pp. 67-73
15. Lieberman, 'Redifat Dat Yisrael', pp. 213-14
16. E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews Under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976), pp. 421-27
17. Glen W. Bowersock, 'A Roman Perspective on the Bar Kokhba Revolt', in Approaches to Ancient Judaism, vol. II, ed. William Scott Green (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980), pp. 132-34
18. Isaac and Oppen-heimer, 'The Revolt of Bar Kokhba', pp. 239-41, especially the sources cited in n. 10 there
19. Compare the lists compiled by Herr, 'Persecutions and Martyrdom', pp. 94-98
20. See the critical evaluation in Schäfer, Der Bar Kokhba-Aufstaud, pp. 194-235
21. I do not discuss several traditions mentioned by Herr and Lieberman because I am persuaded by Schäfer's arguments against their relevance to our topic. See, for example, t. Megillah 3 (4):30; y. Megillah 4:12 (75c); b. Menahot 32b; Schäfer, ibid., pp. 202-03
22. and Isaac and Oppenheimer, 'Judaea Under Roman Rule', p. 251
23. See also Yosef Geiger, 'Ha-Gezerah al ha-Milah u-Mercd Bar-Kokhba', Zion 41 (1976), pp. 143-44
24. See Lieberman, 'The Martyrs of Caesarea', pp. 427-28
25. and Schäfer, Der Bar Kokhba-Aufstand, pp. 195-235
26. See, for example, m. Shabbat 19:1
27. See, for example, Halevy, Dorot ha-Rishonim, vol. 4, pp. 579-80, 706-17, 730-44 and 775-81
28. and Alon, Toldot ha-Yehudim, vol. 2, pp. 49-50 and 53-63
29. See also Heinrich Graetz, Geschichte der Juden (1853-75; reprint. Leipzig: O. Leiner, 1893), vol. 4, pp. 190-93
30. Regarding the evidence for a 'Jewish revolt' under Antoninus Pius, see the brief, cryptic reference in Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1980), vol. 2, pp. 622-23 (Scriptores Historiae Augustae)
31. See also the parallel in b. Ta'anit 18a
32. Alon, Toldot ha-Yehudim, vol. 2, p. 58, n. 36, and pp. 60-61
33. and Herr, 'Persecutions and Martyrdom', pp. 85-87
34. Dikdukei Soferim, ed. Rafael Rabbinovicz (1868-97; reprint. Jerusalem: Ma'ayan ha-Hokhmah, 1960), n. yud, on b. Rosh Hashanah 19a, records several versions reading, 'The evil kingdom decreed a persecution (shemad) against Israel.' The London manuscript reads 'the evil Greek kingdom', but the word 'Greek' is apparently a mistake given the reference to 'all the greats of Rome' later on in the story. Vered Noam, 'Le-Nusahav shel ha-"Skolion" le-Megillat Ta'anit', Tarbiz 62 (1993), pp. 80-83, records several versions which read 'the Greek kingdom decreed', or 'the wicked Greek kingdom decreed', and argues persuasively that the Oxford manuscript of Megillat Ta'anit made no mention of the Romans or the story involving Yehudah ben Shamua. According to this version, she claims, the scholion to Megillat Ta'anit dates the wonderful event which occurred on the 18th of Adar to pre-Roman times, and in all probability refers to the suspension of the decrees of Antiochus IV
35. Shmuel Krauss, Paras ve-Romi be-Talmud u-va-Midrashim (Jerusalem, 1948), pp. 120-22 and 128, argues persuasively that the term 'the greats of Rome' (gedolei Romi) sometimes refers to Roman aristocrats living in the land of Israel. This is most likely the case here
36. Megillat Ta'anit is a list of days on which great things happened to the Jewish people, in memory of which it is forbidden to fast and sometimes to deliver funeral orations
37. Noam, ibid., pp. 55-99. She concludes that the Oxford manuscript is the other relatively early and reliable version of Megillat Ta'anit
38. See above, n. 5
39. See above, n. 10
40. The parallel in t. Kelim Baba Batra 7:9 also has Yehudah ben Shamua quoting R. Meir
41. This modern scholarly claim is of dubious historicity, but its truth or falsity has no affect on the present discussion
42. See, for example, b. Sanhédrin 13b-14a, and the parallel tradition on b. Avodah Zarah 8b
43. See Ernst Bammel, 'Der Achtundzwangzigster Adar', Hebrew Union College Annual 28 (1957), pp. 109-13
44. Compare Lieberman, 'The Martyrs of Caesarea', pp. 418-20
45. See also Daniel Boyarin, Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1999), pp. 50-59 and passim
46. Regarding the obscure term, 'the House of Avidan,' see Boyarin, Dying for God, pp. 54 and 167, n. 44
47. See also Arukh ha-Shalem, ed. Alexander Kohut (1878-92; reprint. Vienna: Menorah, 1926), vol. 2, pp. 45-46
48. Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Babli, Yerushalmi, and Midrashic Literature (1886-1903; reprint. New York: The Judaica Press, 1971), p. 5
49. and Jacob Levy, Neuhebräisches und Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim, 2nd edition, revised by Lazarus Goldschmidt (Berlin: Benjamin Harz, 1924), vol. 1, p.9
50. See Dikdukei Soferim, ed. Rabbinovicz, n. yud
51. Boyarin, Dying for God, p. 57, notes that part D and part B present two accounts of Hanina ben Teradion's arrest
52. Ed. Louis Finkelstein, (1939; reprint. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1969), p. 346
53. See, for example, David Halivni, Mekorot u-Mesorot: Shabbat (Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1982), pp. 5-27
54. It is not entirely clear how 'robbery' is a good deed. Perhaps the meaning is that when committed against the wicked Romans, robbery is a good deed, whereas in the eyes of the Romans it was an offense punishable by death. In addition, the term bei avidan (translated above as 'the House of Avidan), is unclear, so it is difficult to know how this is a 'good deed'. See Maharsha, s.v., Ashrekha
55. With regard to part D, however, it is possible that the Baraita's (or, rather, the purported Baraita's) Babylonianization was attempted by post-Talmudic scribes, and even then only with partial success. To be specific, part D twice informs us why the Romans executed Hanina ben Teradion. The first time, according to our present versions, it is because Hanina 'sits and busies himself with Torah [study] [and gathers crowds in public] with a Torah scroll resting in his lap.' According to the manuscript of the Jewish Theological Seminary, however, Hanina 'gathers crowds in public with a Torah scroll resting in his lap, and sits and expounds.' In other words, according to the printed editions as well as the JTS manuscript, Hanina ben Teradion is involved with the study of Torah, but (1) the former mention only his Torah study (yoshev ve-osek ba-Torah) while the latter uses different phraseology to describe his Torah study and/or teaching (re-yoshev ve-doresh); and (2) the former place Torah study first while the latter places Torah teaching third. Furthermore, according to H. G. Enelow's edition of Menorat ha-Maor, Hanina 'gathers crowds in public with a Torah scroll resting in his lap'. While Menorat ha-Maor describes R. Yosi ben Kisma as rebuking R. Hanina ben Teradion for endangering himself by studying (or teaching) Torah in public, when he quotes the text of the Talmud itself he makes no mention of Torah study (or teaching). See R. Israel Ibn Al-Nakawa, Menorat ha-Maor, ed. H. G. Enelow (New York: Bloch, 1931), Part III, p. 401. It is conceivable, therefore, that the text originally made no reference to Torah study, and later scribes added the phrase on the basis of the preceding, Babylonian Amoraic discussion (part B), which as noted above states explicitly that the Romans executed Hanina ben Teradion because he 'occupied himself with Torah [study]'
56. The story features Tannaim, is entirely in Hebrew, and is introduced by a technical term indicative of Tannaitic provenance
57. For earlier discussion of this story, see Boyarin, Dying for God, pp. 102-05 and passim
58. Dikdukei Soferim, ed. Rabbinovicz, n. taf, records many versions which add the word shemad, 'a persecution', in this context. See the discussion below
59. Dikdukei Soferim, n. bet, records that the Paris manuscript and Beit Natan read 'sitting and expounding, and gathering crowds in public with a Torah scroll in his lap', and that the same basic reading is found in ms. Munich. In addition, Menorat ha-Maor, ed. Yehudah Horev and Moshe Katznelbogen (Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kuk, 1961), p. 526
60. Aggadot ha-Talmud; Sefer ha-Musar; and Ein Ya'akov read, 'He gathered crowds in public, and expounded (ve-darash)
61. See also the discussion of b. Avodah Zarah 17b-18a, above
62. See above, n. 30
63. In addition, in both cases the terms used to describe their activity are not uniform in the various versions. In some versions in both stories the term is 'sitting and expounding' (yosher ve-doresh), and in other versions the term is 'sitting and engaging in Torah study' (yoshev reosek ba-Torah), although in the Avodah Zarah story one version omits mention of Torah study altogether while I found no versions of the R. Akiba story which make no mention of Torah study
64. and Boyarin, Dying for God, pp 195-96, n. 40
65. This tradition is entirely in Hebrew and is probably a Baraita, even though it lacks a technical term
66. See, for example, Maharsha, s. v., Le-Yohai
67. and Herr, 'Persecutions and Martyrdom', p. 95, n. 32
68. The nature of the threatened denunciation is not clear: would Yohai charge Akiba with continuing to teach Torah, even while in prison, or would he invent an even more serious charge? For our purposes, it does not really matter
69. Compare Arukh ha-Shalem, ed. Kohut, vol. 3, pp. 448-49
70. and Peter Schäfer, 'R. Aqiva und Bar Kokhba', in Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie des Rabbinischen Judentums (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1978), pp. 101-08
71. The Statement is entirely in Hebrew and is identified as a Baraita
72. See also the statement attributed to Rav, quoted by Rav Yehudah, on b. Yevamot 105b, as well as the discussion of the parallel source in y. Yevamot 12:6 (12d), below
73. Lieberman, 'Martyrs of Caesarea', p. 424
74. and Herr, 'Persecutions and Martyrdom', pp. 96 and 100-01
75. Lieberman, 'Redifat Dat YisraeF, p. 215. See, however, n. 22 there
76. and Alon, Toldot ha-Yehudim, vol. 2, p. 58, n. 36, and p. 60
77. The discussion, much of which is in Hebrew, features Tannaitic rabbis, but is not introduced by a technical term indicative of a Baraita
78. The word 'Rome' was erased from later printed editions by scribes anxious to avoid the wrath of Christian censors. See also Shitah Mekubezet, n. vav
79. The printed text has an Aramaic phrase here (hakhim lei), and apparently so do Tosafot, s.v. hakhim. Compare Rashi, s.v. Hakhim lo ben Yohai. Mss. Oxford 726, Munich 95, and Vatican 120 all have the phrase in Hebrew (hakham lo)
80. R. Yosi is the father of R. Elazar bar R. Yosi
81. Section F is missing in ms. Munich 95
82. The traditional commentators explain this as an allusion to Hagar
83. To R. Shimon and Ben Talmion, or is R. Elazar bar R. Yosi still alive? Perhaps 'to them' is a scribal error, and the text should read 'to him'. See also the following line of the story
84. For further discussion of this story, sec Israel Levi, 'Légendes Judéo-Chrétiennes', and 'Encore un mot sur la légende de Bar Talmion', Revue des Éludes Juives 8 (1884), pp. 200-02
85. and 10 (1885), pp. 66-73 respectively
86. J. Halevy, 'Ben-Thymélion et Batholomée', Revue des Éludes Juives 10 (1885), pp. 60-65
87. Wilhelm Bacher, 'La Légende de l'exorcisme d'un démon par Simon b. Yohaï', Revue des Études Juives 35 (1897), pp. 285-87
88. and Meir Bar-Ilan, 'Gerush Shedim al-Yedei Rabanim: Mashehu al Isukam shel Hakhmei ha-Talmud bi-Keshafim', Da'at 34 (1995), pp. 21-24
89. A later version of the story, published by Adolph Jellinek, Beit ha-Midrash (1853-77; reprint. 3rd edition Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1967), part 6, pp. 128-30, weaves the two stories together in a more sophisticated fashion
90. Compare Bar-Ilan, 'Gerush Shedim al-Yedei Rabanim', p. 23
91. The 'letter' referred to in part J apparently contains the text of the emperor's decree
92. The legend survives in Persian. See M. Schorr, 'Ma'amarei Aggadah she-Navu mi-Makor ha-Parsi'im', He-halutz 8 (1869), p. 23
93. Levi, 'Encore un mot sur la légende de Bartalmion', pp. 68-69
94. See also Bacher, 'La légende de l'exorcisme d'un démon', p. 286
95. See, for example, Smallwood, The Jews Under Roman Rule, p. 470
96. Y. Shevi'it 9:1 (38d)
97. Bereshit Rabbah, ed. J. Theodor and H. Albeck (1903-39; corrected reprint. Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1965), pp. 941-45
98. Kohelet Rabbah 10:8
99. Esther Rabbah 3:7
100. Midrash Tehillim 17:13
101. and b. Shabbat 33b
102. The printed edition of b. Meilah 17a reads: 'the kingdom decreed a decree' (gazar gezerah). However, mss. Munich 95 and Vatican 120 read 'the wicked kingdom decreed a persecution'. In addition, the word sha 'ah in ms. Oxford 726 is most likely an error for shemad
103. See also b. Shabbat 130a (R. Yehudah, quoting R. Eliezer)
104. As Peter Schäfer observes, if the attributions are trustworthy and R. Eliezer authored the statement, the term 'danger' here cannot refer to the Bar Kokhba war, since according to all available evidence Eliezer died prior to the outbreak of hostilities. It is conceivable, however, that R. Yehudah, the tradent according to the Bavli's version, originated (B) and attributed it to his teacher. Such pseudepigraphy was common in antiquity, when students routinely attributed to their teachers statements they never made, convinced that the statement does justice to the teacher's opinion. And if R. Yehudah authored the statement, it is very likely that the reference is to the Bar Kokhba war. Even if R. Eliezer authored the statement, furthermore, it is possible that he refers to events leading up to the Bar Kokhba war, which qualifies as 'the bar Kokhba period' as I defined it above. In short, the term 'danger' here may, but does not necessarily, refer to the period of Bar Kokhba. Compare Herr, 'Persecutions and Martyrdom', p. 98, n. 51
105. Der Bar Kokhba-Aufstand, p. 218
106. Mekorot u-Mesorot: Nashim (Tel Aviv: Devir, 1968), pp. 587-88
107. B. Berakhot 61a
108. b. Pesahim 112a-b
109. b. Avodah Zarah 17b-18ab
110. and possibly Rosh Hashanah 19a (and parallel)
111. and b. Yevamot 108b
112. B. Shabbat 130a (twice)
113. b. Rosh Hashanah 19a (and parallel)
114. and b. Meilah 17a-b
115. B. Rosh Hashanah 19a (and parallel)
116. B. Shabbat 130a (a statement attributed to R. Shimon ben Elazar, a student of R. Meir)
117. and possibly b. Shabbat 130a (and parallel) (a story about Elisha Ba'al Kenafayim)
118. B. Meilah 17a-b
119. B. Eruvin91a
120. B. Avodah Zarah 17b-18a
121. B. Baba Batra 60b
122. The printed edition adds: 'and some say, "for the salvation of the son."; See Dikdukei Soferim, ed. Rabbinovicz, n. taf
123. and Y. N. Epstein, Maxo le-Nusah ha-Mishnah (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1964), p. 691
124. According to this tradition, R. Yishmael ben Elisha asserts that the 'evil decrees' issued by the Romans 'nullify from us Torah and commandments (mizvot), vague references which indicate that the Romans made the free observance of Judaism impossible. The only specific observance mentioned, 'the week of the child', is interpreted by most commentators to refer to circumcision, but Lieberman, Tosefta ki-Feshutah (1973; reprint. Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1995), pp. 771-72, argues convincingly that the reference is to celebrations held during the week following the birth of a baby boy or girl
125. R. Yishmael ben Elisha, incidentally, is the 'R. Yishmael' mentioned throughout rabbinic literature as a contemporary of R. Akiba. See Aharon Hyman, Toldot Tannaim ve-Amoraim (London: Ha-Express, 1910), pp. 119-24. R. Yishmael may have died before the Bar Kokhba revolt, but not necessarily before the build-up of tensions between the Romans and the Jews
126. B. Sukkah 14b
127. B. Ketubot 3b
128. B.Shabbat 130a
129. B. Shabbat 21b
130. B. Sanhedrin 13b-14a (and parallel). This tradition is reported by Rav, quoted by Rav Yehudah, early Babylonian Amoraim who transmit much Palestinian Tannaitic material
131. B. Yevamot 122a. See the discussion, above. See also b. Gittin 66a
132. See Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, especially vol. 2, p. 619 (Scriptores Historiae Augustae), and Stern's discussion on pp. 619-21
133. See also vol. 1, pp. 296, 300, 312 (Strabo); 415 (Apion); 442 (Petronius); 525-26 (Martial); vol. 2, pp. 19, 26 (Tacitus); 102-03 (Juvenal); and 662-63 (Rutilius Namatianus)
134. Bowersock, 'Roman Perspective', pp. 135, 138 and 140-41, n. 28
135. Schäfer, Der Bar Kokhba-Aufstand, p. 234, n. 159
136. and idem, 'Hadrian's Policy in Judaea and the Bar Kokhba Revolt', pp. 281 and 298, n. 3
137. Lieberman, 'Redifat Dat Yisrael', pp. 214 and 228, especially the references cited in n. 4, there
138. Geiger, 'Ha-Gezerah al ha-Milah', pp. 139-47
139. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, vol. 2, pp. 619-21
140. Alfredo Mordechai Rabello, 'Gezerat ha-Milah ke-Ehad ha-Gormim le-Mered Bar-Kokhba', in Mered Bar-Kokhba: Mehkarim Hadashim, pp. 27-46
141. and idem, 'The Ban on Circumcision as a Cause for Bar Kokhba's Rebellion', Israel Law Review 29 (1995), pp. 176-214, especially the bibliography cited on pp. 187-88, n. 37, there
142. Isaac and Oppenheimer, 'The Revolt of Bar Kokhba: Ideology and Modern Scholarship', pp. 234-36, and the secondary literature cited there
143. See also b. Yoma 11a (Abaye; hanging a mezuzah in public)
144. b. Gittin 64a (Rav; a divorce bill)
145. and b. Hullin 101b (Rava, Rabin, and 'all who go down to the sea'), where Amoraim, motivated at least in part by exegetical concerns, claim that a Tannaitic statement describes a practice which was done differently because of 'danger' or 'persecution'
146. See David Goodblatt, Rabbinic Instruction in Sasanian Babylonia (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975), pp. 199-238, especially p. 221, n. 1
147. Yeshayahu Gafni, Yehudei Bavel bi-Tekufat ha-Talmud (Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar le-Toldot Yisrael, 1991), pp. 200-03 and 274-79, especially p. 200, nn. 99-101
148. and Richard Kalmin, Sages, Stories, Authors, and Editors in Rabbinic Babylonia (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), pp. 193-212 and 303-04
149. In addition, for the two cases (the ba' al keri and the quaestor) to be truly equivalent according to Schäfer, there should be a prohibition against someone who is ritually clean chanting the shema loudly enough for the unclean ba'al keri to hear, just as the ritually clean rabbis chanted the shema softly so the unclean quaestor could not hear. Neither R. Meir nor any other rabbi hold that position, however, and the two cases are therefore not equivalent
150. Shamma Friedman, 'Al Derekh Heker ha-Sugya', in Perek ha-Ihah Rabbah ba-Bavli (Jerusalem; Jewish Theological Seminary, 1978), pp. 7-45
151. and Halivni, Mekorot u-Mesorot: Shabbat, pp. 5-27
152. Mekhilta de-R. Yishmael, ed. H. S. Horowitz and I. A. Rabin (1931; reprint. Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1966), p. 227
153. Surprisingly, Lieberman, 'Redifat Dat Yisrael', p. 216, does not distinguish between Torah study and public reading of the Torah
154. Compare Schäfer, Der Bar Kokhba-Aufstand, p. 200
155. See also t. Megillah 1:3 and Saul Lieberman, Tosefta ki-Feshutah (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1962), vol. 5, pp. 126-27.I am restricting the discussion to usages of the noun form sakanah (danger), since only instances in which the noun form is used provide firm evidence that the period of Bar Kokhba is under discussion
156. See Saul Lieberman, Tosefta ki-Feshutah (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1962), vol. 4, p. 840
157. The statement is entirely in Hebrew. In all likelihood it is (or purports to be) a Baraita even though it is not introduced by a technical term indicative of Tannaitic provenance. As is well known, technical terminology is scarce in the Yerushalmi. See, for example, Baruch M. Bokser, 'An Annotated Guide to the Study of the Palestinian Talmud', in The Study of Ancient Judaism, II: The Palestinian and Babylonian Talmuds (New York: Ktav, 1981), pp. 191-93 and 208
158. The ceremony of removing the levir's shoe which releases the childless widow from her levirate obligations and permits her to marry someone other than her dead husband's brother
159. In an earlier part of the statement, not translated here, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel refers to the destruction of the Temple. The first Shimon ben Gamliel is most likely not intended as the author, therefore, because according to all available evidence he did not survive the destruction. The only other R. Shimon ben Gamliel whose statements have survived flourished after the Bar Kokhba war. See Hyman, Toldot Tannaim re-Amoraim, pp. 1162-71
160. and David Goodblatt, The Monarchic Principle: Studies in Jewish Self-Government in Antiquity (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1994), pp. 143-44, and the references cited in n. 53 there
161. Der Bar Kokhba-Aufstand, p. 199. Schäfer suggests that the Vienna manuscript may have been altered by scribes in conformity with b. Baba Batra 60b (see above), but it is also possible that the Erfurt manuscript was changed by a scribe who interpreted Vienna's vague reference to 'uprooting the Torah' as a specific reference to Torah study. We have already observed this phenomenon in our discussion of the citation from Megillat Ta'anit, above. Compare the phrase 'cease from the Torah' in the Aramaic substratum (designated as 'A' in our discussion above) on b. Rosh Hashanah 19a (and parallel) and in Megillat Ta'anit with the specific interpretations of this phrase found in the scholion (designated as 'B'). Lieberman, Tosefta ki-Feshutah, vol. 8, p. 771, overstates matters when he claims that it is 'nearly certain' that the Vienna manuscript is correct and that the Erfurt manuscript is the result of emendation by scribes who 'did not understand' this version
162. Ed. Finkelstein, p. 141
163. Arukh ha-Shalem, ed. Kohut, vol. 4, p. 332
164. Jastrow, Dictionary, p. 671
165. and Levy, Wörterbuch, vol. 2, p. 410
166. A brief story in y. Avodah Zarah 3:1 (42c) features R. Yosi, who also flourished immediately after the Bar Kokhba revolt: 'When R. Yasa bar Halfuta [=R. Yosi ben Halafta] died, channels of blood flowed in Laodicea. They said, "Because he gave his life for circumcision."; Schäfer questions the historicity of this source, pointing out that no other tradition speaks of Yosi having been martyred. In addition, he observes, Yosi could have only been executed long after the revolt, since he was one of the outstanding rabbis of the generation of R. Akiba's students. As noted above, however, my interest is in rabbinic attitudes, not in the historicity of traditions which record these attitudes. The storyteller's chronology may be inaccurate, but in all likelihood he viewed R. Yosi as the victim of disturbances which followed in the wake of the Bar Kokhba war. Compare Schäfer, Der Bar Kokhba-Aufstand, p. 209
167. and G. A. Wewers, Avoda Zara: Götzendienst (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1950), pp. 91-92, n. 13
168. Mekhilta, ed. Horowitz and Rabin, p. 227
169. y. Avodah Zarah 3:1 (42c)
170. Vayikra Rabbah 32:1, ed. Mordechai Margaliot (1956-58; reprint. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1993), p. 735
171. and Kohelet Rabbah 2:16
172. See also t. Shabbat 15 (16):19
173. Regarding the date of Kohelet Rabbah's redaction, see Yonah Fraenkel, Darkhei ha-Aggadah ve-ha-Midrash (Givatayim, Israel: Yad la-Talmud, 1991), p. 8
174. and Herman Strack and Günther Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (1991; reprint. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992), p. 345
175. T. Eruvin 5:24
176. and y. Eruvin 9:1 (25c)
177. Y. Hagigah 2:1 (77b)
178. Vayikra Rabbah 32:1, ed. Margaliot, p. 735
179. T. Ketubot 1:1 (see Saul Lieberman, Tosefta ki-Feshutah, New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1967, vol. 6, pp. 186-87; the reading, 'they ordained', is apparently a mistake)
180. and y. Ketubot 1:1 (24d)
181. and Vayikra Rabbah 32:1, ed. Margaliot, p. 735
182. T. Sukkah 1:7
183. T. Baba Mezia 2:17
184. and y. Baba Mezia 2:7 (8c). Compare, however, the version in b. Baba Mezia 28b
185. T. Berakhot 2:13
186. T. Megillah 2:4
187. M. Ma'aser Sheni 4:11. The usual phrase in Hebrew is bi-zeman sakanah. The term is shortened in m. Eruvin 10:1 to be-sakanah but the meaning appears to be the same
188. T. Ketubot 9:6
189. Y. Ketubot 1:5 (25c)
190. T. Sotah 15:10
191. and y. Yevamot 12:6 (12d)
192. It bears mentioning that in his letters, Bar Kokhba insisted on the observance of Shabbat, tithing, and the Sabbatical year. He also gave instructions regarding the supply of the four species for the mizvah of lulav. In addition, archaeological discoveries in the caves of the Judaean desert attest to the observance of the mizvah of tsitsit and shatnez (the prohibition of garments made of linen and flax). See Aharon Oppenheimer, 'Bar-Kokhba ve-Kiyum ha-Mizvot', in Mered Bar-Kokhba: Mehkarim Hadashim, pp. 140-46
193. Richard Kalmin, The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity (London: Routledge Press, 1999)
194. and idem, 'Jewish Sources of the Second Temple Period in Rabbinic Literature of Late Antiquity', in The Yerushalmi in Graeco-Roman Culture, vol. III, ed. Peter Schäfer (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, forthcoming)
195. For example, the order Kodashim prescribes rules for the conduct of the sacrificial system which the Mishnah claims were in force when the Temple was in existence, and, presumably, which will again be in force when the Temple will be rebuilt
196. This is not to imply the claim that the Mishnah was authoritative for anyone but rabbis during the period of its formation and redaction
197. The Mishnah and Tosefta appear to have been redacted in third-century Palestine and the Bavli in sixth- or seventh-century Babylonia