In this chapter, as complex and layered as it may be, some important and interesting ideas are hidden. "Great" refers to the expropriation of lands after rebellions in Judea (73, 135 and 194 AD) by Jewish, Roman and Hellenistic parties, those who answer to the dubious title, i.e. "Sikrikon", and the matter of returning them to the original, legal owners
In this chapter, as complex and layered as it may be, some important and interesting ideas are hidden. "Great" refers to the expropriation of lands after revolts in Judea (73, 135 and 194 CE) by Jewish, Roman and Hellenistic parties, those who answer to the dubious title, i.e. "Sikrikon", and the matter of returning them to the original, legal owners.
The laws in this regard explain, clearly and concisely, a whole range of issues such as socio-economic, political, cultural and moral. The handling of the matter by the Sanhedrin and headed by the Presidency was very careful because behind it was hidden the question of the relationship between the Jews and the Romans and no less important than that: what was the position of the Sanhedrin and the Presidency towards the revolts against the Romans and their varied consequences.
Moreover, the treatment of this issue went through several stages, as it evolves between full recognition of the expropriation, and the partial and even full one, although the latter was intended for only an hour, and this when each step in the presidential/Sanhedra debate on this issue reflected the chronological-historical unfolding of the period in question and the last stage in his days of President Rabbi Yehuda, when the legality of the operation of the Sikrikon was recognized, and even for an hour, this reflected Rabbi Yehuda the President's close relations with the Romans on the one hand and his financial dealings on the other. Although the Sanhedrin requested to correct and restore the situation of the Jewish public, it acted in quite a few cases for itself and its own interests.
However, it is worth noting, as I have repeated several times: that we do not get confused and think that the ability of the Sanhedrin to enforce its laws was great. It was only partial and the degree of partiality increased over the years.
This issue was discussed and addressed by my teacher and rabbi, Prof. Shmuel Safrai, in his groundbreaking article "Sikrikon", (Zion, 56, 122, pp. XNUMX ff.), following his teacher and rabbi Gedalhiu Alon (The history of the Jews in the Land of Israel during the period of the Mishnah and the Talmud, XNUMX, XNUMX p. XNUMX), which seems to hold to this day in the agricultural-social context of this term. And I, "hedel bammansha" will try to air the term a little and offer a slightly different interpretation than the one stated by the aforementioned Prof. Sefrai.
Well, in the Babylonian Talmud the following verse is written: "If they collected their debt (a foreigner who collected from Israel a Canaanite slave for a debt he owed him), or if they took a Sikrikon, he did not go free" (Gittin Med Rosh p. 56), "for our manus was taken into the possession of a foreigner, and he is not It is appropriate to be fined according to the law who sold his slave to a Gentile, who came out as a free man" (the above-mentioned book, p. XNUMX).
It is clear that the term "sicrikon" involves a problem that is a semantic genesis: is the reference to Roman law? According to the law that sages ruled in relation to property that was expropriated according to this law? to purchase himself? To the person who seized the property? And perhaps there is a certain degree of mixing of disciplines in the terms of sages?
The term "sicricon" is derived from the Greek and Latin ("sicarios"), and means murderer due to its use of "sica" (murderer's dagger) for its practical and even political benefit. This term is also associated with the meaning of a bandit who takes over agricultural property and property in general, as we learned from Yosef ben Matthiyahu who testifies to the unimaginable atrocities committed by the Sikriim in besieged Jerusalem during the days of the Great Revolt. And God-fearing, not only did they murder, but they robbed and looted the murdered, including everyone who stood in their way and with great cruelty. This phenomenon, which shocked the Sifites in Jerusalem during the Roman siege, and which was carried out as if without noticing that the Romans were all around and were gradually carrying out the process of breaching the walls and breaking into Jerusalem, found an expression, Hada in the Sage literature, where it is told about "Abba Sikra", the head of the Sikri fanatics who was, "not on us", the sister's son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakhai. And in the Sage source (Avot Darbi Natan and others) this Talmud reflects the cruel and terrible actions of the Sikri fanatics.
A kind of etiological, matter-of-fact bridge was thus created between the Sikriite Hasmanism in Jerusalem during the days of the rebellion, and the "Sikrikon" Hasmanism after the Great Revolt and Ben Kusva's Rebellion, when both were denounced by Chazal, but it was the post-rebellious reality that finally tipped the scales. And it was expressed in the rulings of the Sanhedrin, as will immediately be seen.
And for our purposes - the "sicricon" was nothing but someone who expropriated assets by force, sometimes on behalf of the authorities (in this case the Romans), or while taking advantage of the existing situation after the rebellion of Ben Khosva, with the approval of the Romans as part of the extermination decrees they imposed on the Jews at the end of the rebellion (it was said to those who kept the commandment of circumcision) and later the confiscation was extended also against those who did not pay land taxes for example to the Romans) and in Alon's version: this is expropriation of assets from the taxes, referring to the land taxes that were not paid on time or in full.
Regarding the expropriation, the opinions are divided: according to the halachic tradition in the above-mentioned Bariata in Gitin, the expropriation of the land for the same reason is not considered a sale, even though he did not knowingly pay taxes and according to the tradition in the Tosefta, since he did not pay the taxes to the Roman authorities, he was judged as a debtor who did not pay his debt and was sentenced as a seller Conscious and fined by the loss of his servant, as we discussed in the above-mentioned Bariata. And the question arises: Is the confiscation of the grain from the hands of the authorities in the aforementioned ways condemned as a deliberate sale (according to the fact that he had to pay his dues to the government) or not? (the aforementioned librarian).
We will turn to the source of the condition, to the mishna, to find out and clarify the problem and its solution. Well, according to the Mishnah: "There was no sikrikon (expropriation of property from the owners by decree of the government in Judah) for war dead (there was no practice of the law of expropriated lands for those killed in the Great Revolt, and their land bought by Jews from the sikrikon was an existing land, so that the land would not fall into the hands of foreigners), (But) from the dead of war onwards, there is a Sikrikon in it (we discussed the law of the Sikrikon). (E) How (Din Sikrikon)? He took from Sikrikon (bought land from the Sikrikon that they expropriated from the owners) and returned and took from the owner of the house (the owner of the land), his purchase (action) is void. (that the sale of the owner of the house is not recognized, according to the fact that he did not sell of his own free will but out of fear of the government) (took) from the owner of the house (and if he took the land first from its owner) and returned and took from Sikrikon, a valid taking... this is the first year. (Members of) a court after them said: The one who takes from the Sikrikon gives the owner a quarter (a quarter of the value of the land). When did (the one who took the land of the Sikricon win)? While they don't have it (that the first owners don't have enough money to purchase the land) he will take it. But there is a taker in their hand, they are a predecessor to every person (and pay the taker his money). Rabbi (Yehuda the President) convened a court (convened the Sanhedrin in particular) and enumerated (and decided) that if the land remained before (in my possession) Sikrikon for twelve months - the first to take (acquire) a beneficiary (profitable) (so that the land would not remain in my possession) Foreigners" (Gittin 6:XNUMX).
Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi's significant regulation that eased the "Sikrikon" law was intended to normalize property on land. And this is exactly what the Jerusalem Talmud dwells on and misleads because "At first (in the days of the great rebellion) they decreed destruction on Judah... and they would go and enslave them and take their fields and sell them to others, and they would own houses for nothing and turfin, and the land would be khlota (occupied and enslaved) by the hand of Sikrikon. (As a result) (the Jews) refrained from buying land. They decreed (enacted in the Sanhedrin) that there should not be (practiced) the law of the Sikrikon in Judah. What are things supposed to be? In war dead before the war (the rebellion), but dead who were killed from the war and after (and after), there is no sikrikon in them" (Yerushalmi Gitin, Chapter XNUMX, Mez, p. XNUMX).
Prof. Safrai believes (above, p. 59) that the first step in the Sikrikon regulations involved, first, equalizing with the weaker party at this time, and not preempting and buying from the stronger party and offering the purchase to the weaker party as a kind of fait accompli, which might give its consent for lack of choice. And by virtue of the Sikrikon law, which does not recognize the purchase of the land that was purchased from the Sikrikon. And there were homeowners (perhaps urban Jews, bourgeois and affluent, from Greeks or Greek citizens of the Hellenistic cities. And if most of the homeowners were foreigners, then we have an interesting socio-economic phenomenon, the main of which is the revenge of the homeowners of the urban settlement on the rural settlement, which is seen from time to time in Sage sources. And this can be interpreted in such a way that the government that expropriated and sold the land and the owners of the houses were unable to purchase it) return and expropriate their land from the hands of the customers, and because of that they avoided taking it from the Sikrikon. And since the Sikrikon was numerous in those days, the land would be conquered and enslaved in the hands of foreigners. They stood and canceled the Sikrikon law for an hour, in times of danger, because of the settlement of the state and came back and established it afterwards. And after the "war dead" they returned and founded the Sikrikon law, one that does not recognize the power and legality of the purchase, unless the taker/purchaser first bought the land from its Jewish owner - according to the mishna - and after the first stage the members of the Sanhedrin became more familiar with its legality and did not demand that the transaction be canceled . But "a court after them said: Gives the owner a quarter (and according to the Tosefta: "a quarter in land and a quarter in land" (Tosefta Gitin 2-1-XNUMX).
However, the halacha also preserved the right of the land owner, that if he "has a liqah in his hand" (is able to purchase the land) he is first to any person who offers any amount in favor of buying the land. The main innovation of this law is therefore the legal recognition of the acts of the Sikrikon (the above-mentioned bibliography, p. 60), and it only emphasizes that the taker will not benefit from this act, and it no longer requires the previous consent of the landowner, or afterwards. And the last ruling, the one that was established in Rabbi's days, stated that if the land remained in the hands of the Sikrikon, the first to submit a financial offer for the purchase of the land, wins it, but is obligated to financially compensate the owner in that "Rabia".
We are therefore faced with a very interesting socio-economic phenomenon that is well immersed in the political aspect of the relationship between the Jewish public, and especially its leadership - the Sanhedrin, headed by the President - and the Roman authorities, when on the one hand tensions between the two sides arose, mainly after rebellions and riots, even though the Sanhedrin's position was never compromising with The Roman authorities (what will be formed and established during the Middle Ages in Europe by the ruling of the rabbis of the generation in the form of "Dina (law and justice) Damlakuta (of the authorities) - (is) - Dina (the law ... the justice ...)" in terms of distinct pragmatism - you can't beat them, join them if ) and on the other hand both parties agreed to reach a modus vivendi between them, each from his different pragmatic position.
In the first stage of the "Sikrikon Law" under the circumstances of the time that existed after the Great Rebellion, the purchase of the land from the Sikrikon was strictly valid, and this was for the pragmatic reason that, despite the loss of ownership of the land by the natural owners as a result of the Sikrikon's usurpation, the land would remain in the possession of Israel.
In the second phase, we were after the revolt of Ben Kosba, when the relations between the Jews and the Roman government were established and the system of relations between the Presidency of the Land of Israel and the Roman Empire was tightened, it was understood that the handing over of the land by the Sikrikon at the time was the result of fear of the phenomenon of usurpation and now, when the spirits of rebellion and riots subsided, it was decided to open the law of the Sikrikon and allow those who at the time purchased the land from the Sikrikon and now have to face the ownership requirement of the first owners. Based on this, the Sanhedrin allowed the buyer to sue the Sikrikon in order to get his money back. In other words, the Sanhedrin made the first purchase, the one that took place in the shadow of the fear of the Sikrikon, as arbitrary and illegal.
Later, during the presidency of Rabbi Yehuda (the end of the second century CE and the beginning of the third), the Sanhedrin, under his leadership, overturned the previous regulation and, under the circumstances of the time, allowed the legitimacy of the Sikrikon law. And what were the circumstances of the time? The fear of suing the Sikrikon and at the same time Jews in general were afraid to purchase land from the Sikrikon, since they might lose the land they had purchased to the benefit of the original, initial owner of that land. A kind of legal complication was created here that threatened the ownership of the land, land transactions and in general the economy of Israel, that many real estates would be left in the hands of the Sikrikon.
The Sanhedrin ruling established a limit that depends on a number of conditions, only the realization of which can trigger the Sikrikon law, and these are: first - the purchase of the property is granted first and foremost to the first owners before any other offer from Man Dehau; Second - if the first owners for one reason or another give up the right to buy, the buyer is obligated to compensate these owners with a "quarter", that is, a quarter of the land area or a quarter of the cost of the new purchase; Third - if the property has been in the hands of Sikricon for at least a dozen months and no purchase/repossession claim has been made by the first owners, or then the first to make a financial offer to purchase the property is awarded.
It is not for nothing that the Sikrikon law was changed for the second time after its enactment and at the time of Rabbi Yehuda the Hanasi. Such a move matched his brave and good relations with the Roman authorities and with the Hellenistic and Roman population in the Land of Israel on the one hand and the president's enormous land assets in various places in the country and perhaps even in terms of "capital and rule" at the time.
In the addendum (Gittin 2:XNUMX) it is emphasized that "the harisin and the leases do not have any meaning in them" and the Jerusalem Talmud (Gittin chapter XNUMX, p. XNUMX) changes the text and says "tenants of old people's homes". It is common to interpret that the lessee is allowed to lease land from the Sikrikon, and there are some who disagree, because this interpretation has no point in the differences in language between "leases" and "lessees of nursing homes". And from this, the Sanhedrin allowed "leases" and "lessees of old people's homes" to purchase the land that was leased in their hands, and the prohibition of taking land from the Sikrikon did not apply to them, nor did they have the obligation to pay tribute to its owners. These tenants who normally leased the land from an owner who owned a lot of land, or it was previously his land, and in the various circumstances, became a tenant only, and the members of the Sanhedrin allowed them to acquire the land from the Sikrikon, and there was no obligation on them to return it to the owner of the land. The Halacha saw these tenants, who have been cultivating the land for generations, as a kind of owners of the land, and when the land was expropriated by the government, even illegally, they are entitled to win the land wherever they sit on it (the above-mentioned books).
It can be said here in a framed article that the Sanhedrin wrestled well in the areas involving the sale and purchase of land, leases and leases, and various conditions of the responsibility of owners and buyers. And this is to teach us about the great importance that the members of the Sanhedrin saw in their work concerning land properties.
And once again at the end I will return and emphasize the matter of the Sanhedrin's deliberations, which revealed a rather deep gap between its theoretical work and the facts on the ground, i.e. the degree of enforcement of the Sanhedrin's laws and the summary of the deliberations therein. The degree of implementation on the one hand and enforcement on the other hand were very weak regarding the Jewish population that was scattered in the various settlements and partly in the urban settlements under the Hellenistic-Roman authorities. In other words, it was reality that dictated the conduct of society and the individuals within it, and the Halacha eventually had to come to terms with this reality, although it tried in different ways to impose its opinion on the one hand and its legitimacy on reality on the other.
More on the subject on the science website
One response
Apparently the author is knowledgeable in his field, but unfortunately is not educated to present the knowledge in an orderly manner. The writing is confused and the information necessary to understand the beginning is scattered and must also be collected between the middle and end lines.