Until the time of the emperor Hadrian (138-117 CE) we witness the reality of tax tenants who were responsible for collecting the taxes. Whereas from then on, imperial officials were appointed who were subordinate to Rome and were responsible for the issue of collection. And for this we find quite a few proofs from the books of the Sages
Taxes
In the Mishna we read as follows: "The gabbain who entered (it is said to take a pledge) into the house (who are in the category of the peoples of the land), as well as the thieves who returned the dishes, are faithful to say: We did not touch (that is, we did not defile the dishes..." (Haghigah 6:6). An ugly image that compares the tax collectors to thieves. In another Mishnah it is stated that "the tax collectors who entered the house, the house is unclean. If there is a foreigner with them (a tax collector), they are faithful to say: We did not enter, but there is no faithful to say - we entered but did not touch, and likewise the thieves who entered the house... ” (Taharot XNUMX:XNUMX).
It is interesting to compare the above with the Tosefta, which is the product of the later period to the Mishnah, where the picture changes as follows: "The gabain who entered the house, if they said - we entered but did not touch, then they are faithful, that the mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted. If there were others from Idin in them who entered even though they said - we did not touch, there is no faithful...: (Tosefta Taharot 5:6). And as for thieves, the Tosefta rules that "the thieves who entered the house, the whole house is unclean." The words of Rabbi Meir and sages say (with the majority) - it is not impure except to the extent that they can lay their hand on it..." (ibid. XNUMX).
To this comparison we can add a Talmudic text later in the Gemara there and in other places to show a certain change that took place in relation to the tax collectors of various kinds. Admittedly, it is very difficult to build on the complex halacha here strings of conclusions from one thing and hypotheses from another. However, with great caution, I say that the aforementioned change may be interpreted and understood against a certain historical background, and this in light of imperial economic aspects.
It must be assumed that before us is a certain confirmation of the compatibility between the Land of Israel Halacha and the Roman imperial economic policy. That is, it is possible to interpret the problem and solve the difficulty caused by the change of the collection method on behalf of the Roman Empire. That is, until the time of the emperor Hadrian (138-117 AD) we witness the reality of tax tenants who were responsible for collecting the taxes. Whereas from then on, imperial officials were appointed who were subordinate to Rome and were responsible for the issue of collection. And for this we find quite a few proofs from the books of sages, such as: "How does he do it? He shows it as a denarin, and the Gentile signs it and uploads it to the archives (to the official documents, to the archive)" (Yerushalmi Talmud Moed Ketan chapter XNUMX PA XNUMX p. XNUMX). This text and similar ones indicate order and organization in the subject of collection, although, as expected, quite a few corruptions were discovered in this regard and this image is well supported by the papyriology treasure in Roman Egypt.
In this context, we will examine the following interesting text: "Gabain of idolatry, it is forbidden to give (give) them." If they were raising wages for the state (authorities, government), even though they are for the purpose of foreign labor, it is permissible to give them)" (Tosefta Avoda Zera 1 (XNUMX) XNUMX). The text is amazing in itself. The directive is usually understandable - the prohibition to enter into negotiations with foreign labor collectors, except when it comes to the legal and regulated activity of those bodies that are willing and even allow/recommend to set aside what is due to them, and this despite the fact that they are foreign labor activists. This is further proof of the legality of the Roman governmental activities, or on behalf of them.
Those collectors of taxes and other obligations towards the authorities, on behalf of the authorities, who were sometimes actually lessees of employment, what is known in Roman law as conductores, considering a system that operated in the Roman imperial estates, and lest the Jerusalem Talmud sends its arrows to this type of collectors when it claims that they take advantage of their position and collect taxes completely arbitrarily. And this is how we understand the introduction - "The leader of Rabbi Barnona, Calvary and Anferot Kahada (such as that of) Davan Neans" (Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot chapter 102 XNUMX p. XNUMX), and it has already been proven that the presidency in Israel was not responsible for the collection of all taxes in the province, with the exception of the areas of the imperial enclosures that were entrusted to her and it has already been proven that the halacha on behalf of Ben Nance, which Rabbi instituted as it is, is changed in the Mishna in the law of debts that have property liability, which are collected according to the Kadima law, and this can be paralleled to the Roman laws in this regard, where one can distinguish the general "aphotiki" that the treasury of the empire has over all human assets to pay the taxes imposed on him (A. Gulak, to the Roman tax systems in the Land of Israel, Sefer Magnes, Jerusalem, p. XNUMX). On the other hand, this can be paralleled precisely to the Roman law that enslaves only the properties of the conductoras, to the imperial treasury in order to ensure the collection on their part.
Due to the multiple needs of the army and the Roman officials in the country, as we have already seen in the previous chapters, we are witnessing the incidental phenomenon of collection, and it is - collection by the army units or the Roman officials with regard to the exceptional taxation, and this is how Rabbi Hanina bar Hama misleads: "You have no legs and feet , who did not come to Tiberias Agmon and Kamton (a Roman cantor and Baal Zemora)" (Talmud Babili Shabbat KmXNUMX p. XNUMX). That is, those with military positions on the one hand and administrative positions on the other, whose frequency of appearance in Tiberias was very distressing.
During the aforementioned period of change, we witness the phenomenon of the responsibility for city taxes being assigned to the individuals, the rich, as well as the responsibility for the liturgies and the various forced labor. However, we must not forget the issue of levy, which was itself used for the liturgy, and often led to personal escape from public duties, and those responsible for appointing those who owed liturgies were the imperial officials, and therefore the Babylonian Talmud is misleading and calls this phenomenon the "art of the king" (Baba Batra KMG Yama' B).
customs
The Babylonian Talmud testifies as follows: "Rabbi Yehuda opened and said: How good are the deeds of this nation (referring to Rome) - buy (build, renovate) markets, buy bridges, buy baths. Rabbi Yossi was silent. Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai responded and said: Everything they buy they will not buy except for their own needs - they will buy markets for prostitutes to sit in, they will buy bridges to take toll from them, they will buy baths to purify themselves in (Shabbat XNUMX p. XNUMX). This passage is chronologically oriented to the eve of Ben Kusava's rebellion or to the period after the suppression of the rebellion, and it reflects three positions in relation to the Roman provincial government of acceptance and support, of sitting on the fence, and of fierce opposition to the very Roman presence. Beyond the fact that Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, the obnoxious zealot, presents, albeit with correct evidence, the results of the Roman construction projects, in this case in the province of Judah. However, this is a marginal, emotional result/implication, different from the pragmatic approach, represented by Rabbi Yehuda Bar Ilai. And in our case - taking the toll in connection with the passage between the two sides of the bridge, as the same bridge that Rabbi Emi later testified about on both sides of the Jordan River (Babylonian Talmud, Bekurot XNUMX p. XNUMX), ultimately eased the local economy, and from the toll money, Rome invested in the fields different throughout its province.
The problem of customs takes on a new significance mainly after the revolt of Ben Kusava when the Roman Empire engaged in important activities such as the construction and repair of public buildings that involved a normal trading life, and for this reason we witness various positive references from the sages regarding the issue of customs, in the port cities and on the roads and these are backed up by the treasure of the papyri in Egypt .
The topic of customs was mentioned during the period of President Raban Gamaliel, which preceded the rebellion of Ben Khosva, as one of the things in which the kingdom "devours" the people of Israel, and the sages of the Sanhedrin wax very graphic about the severe torture expected of customs in the world to come. However, from the aforementioned rebellion onwards, we are witnessing the first signs on the horizon of the changing attitude towards two factors: towards customs smuggling and its legality and towards the customs staff. These signs are pending in the companies surrounding a topic such as: "Datnia (as we both did in Bariata) - it is forbidden (explicitly) to smuggle the customs in it. Rabbi Shimon says because of (in the name of) Rabbi Akiva: It is permissible to evade the customs in it" (Talmud Babylon, Baba Kama KiXNUMX p. XNUMX). The conflict between the two sages stems from the difference between the pragmatic approach, the one that reflected the majority of the members of the Sanhedrin, and the evidence that this position is expressed casually, and the anti-Roman, rebellious, almost messianic view represented by Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. This difference of course reflects the position towards Rome, between the realistic one and the eschatological ideological one, and the one that ultimately prevailed was the realistic one, especially after and following the failures of the rebellion campaigns against the Romans and the imperial punishment that followed.
In another text taken from the Jerusalem Talmud, Rabbi Ishmael declares - "You shall not swear by my name to lie, I swear by (God) to destroy, and to extort, and to extort" (Vows, chapter 14, XNUMX, p. XNUMX). Whether this is a warning, a common situation, or a commandment for the future, it is impossible to know, and perhaps the creation in the Tosefta will clarify the issue a little: "He who swears in front of Gentiles and in front of a listin and in front of a publican is exempt, as it is said - he will sin if he does not say, he will be a sinner if he does not say, and let him not be a sinner When he says" (Shavuot XNUMX:XNUMX). The text is closed and difficult in itself, but the line of equality between customs officers and tax collectors clarifies the issue of the treatment of customs officers.
The ratio of the sources of the period to the taxes and duties
On the other hand, the Tosefta delivers to us as follows: "... He stood among the publicans and said: He is my son, (Rihu) is faithful! (He said:) He is my slave! And he repeated and said - he is my son, he is not faithful" (Bava Batra 3:9). That is, it is forbidden to evade the customs because a text was found that emphasizes that there is an exemption from customs for slaves. Another text is explicitly misleading because "the one who steals the customs is (as) a shedder of blood, and not only sheds blood, but as if he works idolatry and reveals adultery and desecrates the Sabbath. Stealing the boycott is shedding blood" (Shimchot XNUMX:XNUMX). The sharp parallels clearly show the Sage's war on thieves/customs smugglers. When on the one hand there is a warning sign of the authorities' punishment, and on the other hand, after every rebellion against the Romans, there is a widespread reference to put up with the actions of the Roman authorities so that they will benefit the Jewish public in Israel.
Full recognition of the operation of customs and customs officers is found in the appendix such as: "He who rents the donkey and charges (burdens it with) forbidden things, and does not levy embargoes or customs duties on him - is liable, if it is announced that he is customs duty by way of the customs officer - exempt" (Bava Metzia 12:19). Or in another place: "They shall not sell them to provoke, nor to kill, nor to boycott, because they incite others with them" (Tosefta Baba Metzia XNUMX:XNUMX), when in this text the place and status of the customs officer is absent.
The Mishnah mentions from Rabbi Yehuda the expression "Kesher Mochsin" in the text: "...the one who issues... paper to write a Keshner Moksin on it and the one who issues a Keshor Moksin must..." (Shabbat 2:11). A "customs bond" is a piece of paper (gum for example) on which two capital letters were written in Greek, in terms of a letter and an agreed sign that the customs payment has already been paid, i.e. a certified certificate. From this text we can click on the matter of customs and customs service. The Tosefta enters the thick of the beam in a special context, in relation to the controversy regarding the issue of the tax collector's bond on Shabbat, whether he is only obligated "until he has not shown it to the tax collector", according to the opinion of the Sages, or "even if he has shown it to the tax collector" according to Rabbi Yehuda, "because they kept (the sealed document) Show it to the customs officer" (Tosefta Shabbat XNUMX:XNUMX).
And the statement of the fanatic Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, which was extreme and unusual, still resonates - "If he (every person) has sinned, what has his family sinned?! To say - you don't have a family that has a tax collector, that isn't all tax collectors, and that has tax collectors, that aren't all tax collectors, because they hide (conceal, hide) him..." (Talmud Babili Shavuot XNUMX p. XNUMX).
And perhaps there is nothing more convincing than Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi's statement about sacred commandments in general, as the Gemara says - "Four things our holy Lord commanded his sons ... and do not run away from customs" (Talmud Babli Pesachim XNUMX p. XNUMX). We can argue on the one hand that Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi was very close to the Roman government and benefited greatly from his grace in many areas, including the economic, and that is why his above statement is emphasized, on the other hand, Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi's economic dealings caused huge payments in the field of taxation and therefore we would expect that he would prefer, for purely economic reasons, to evade of the customs payments, but he did not do so and acted as is evident from his above instruction to his sons.
The same recognition of the legality of customs and the positive attitude towards customs entails a question - did this change occur as a result of any Roman activity? Well, this change is folded into the same different Roman policy, which began to give its signals already in the days of the emperor Marcus Aurelius, from the second half of the second century AD. This emperor advocated a policy of developing the productive forces and basing the empire's economy on the idea of the "state".
At the end of the first century CE, during the era of Emperor Trianus, the customs collection was leased to "conductors" (lessees) in each customs area and they enjoyed a certain percentage of the amount of the collection assessment. This method continued to be used until the time of the emperor Marcus Aurelius, who then stripped off its old form and assumed another form. In other words - on the subject of customs, imperial officials were instructed, which is well documented in many sources, including the papyri treasure, and perhaps perhaps implied in the literature of the Sages, in the name of Rabbi Yochanan - "May I write (what is the meaning of the scripture) - for I, the Lord, love justice, hate robbery in the Ulah" Isaiah SA)?! A parable for a flesh-and-blood king (when referring to an appointed official, an emissary of the emperor), who was in charge of the customs house. He said to his servants: Give customs to the customs officials! They said to him: And isn't all the customs all yours. He said to them: All passers-by will learn from me, and they will not run away from customs...". It must be assumed that the inclusion and application of the new system was to bring more order and efficiency, and with it the attitude of the population changed for the better towards it and its creators. And if this reason, which was brought up at the beginning of the chapter about trade, is included, the picture will become clear in its entirety.
This imperial involvement was felt even more strongly in the southern Limes lines, when one of the functions of the Limes fortifications in the south of the country, in the northern Negev, focused on using it as a chain of trading stations and inventing an excellent defense and efficient organization in the trade of the rare products of the ancient world such as salts, perfumes , spices and even copper.
Customs rates were not fixed. They ranged from two percent to two and a half percent, and sometimes rose to between five percent and twenty five percent regarding luxury goods. However, an important right was granted to large and central cities to issue their own independent tariff for customs assessment, subject to negotiations between each city and the Roman authorities. The tariff of the city of Tadmor/Palmyra (the city of palms/dates) which climbed to determine the customs rate for hundreds of products and supplies was especially published.
A dramatic change took place during the third century AD, which earned the dubious nickname of the "period of anarchy" in Rome, and which manifested itself in the return of customs administration to the tenants. This bleak picture was expressed in the somewhat "colorful" testimonies that sink into the literature of the Sages, about the smuggling of customs and hiding it from the publicans, or the testimony of Rabbi Yanai ben Al-Yuka about many publicans who "have no allowance" (Talmud Babli Baba Kama KiXNUMX p. XNUMX ), and the one who understands will understand...
And it is clear that during periods of economic, political and security calm the taxes and duties were fair to a certain extent and this rule fell apart and disintegrated in the era of the gradual collapse of Rome and the great empire around it.
"Economy of the Land of Israel" series
More of the topic in Hayadan:
