This chapter, like the previous one, is not only a logical continuation of its predecessors, but brings together within it the connection between land intensity and capital and government.
See previous episodes in the series:
- The first chapter - Villas in the literature of the Sages
- Chapter Two - Agriculture: Capital and Government
- Chapter three - intensive farm: a real agricultural revolution
- Chapter Five - Ceramics as a sign of capital and rule
- Chapter six - the glass and the presidency
This phenomenon intensifies especially during the presidency of Rabbi Yehuda, who took advantage of his family's wealth much more than his predecessors, vast land-agricultural and industrial wealth of vineyards, orchards and production centers since the days of Hillel the father of the family. And as the sources indicate about "Tarin (couple or couples) Alfin Dashnin" as his marriages. Rabbi Yehuda did well to improve his wealth also on the background of his marriage to an extremely affluent family, namely the Elasha family, and he was even known as someone who forged strong ties with the Roman authorities and from this he became rich in unprecedented proportions and his estates were well managed by the method of intensive cultivation. And let's not forget that this figure who stood firmly at the head of the Sanhedrin was investigated by the Roman authorities in terms of dividing and ruling on the one hand and the realization of the saying that a righteous man's work is done by others on the other.
I am sorry that I am a decent fighter in the personal myth that has accumulated about this president, but the truth is given and must be told.
And this is to point out that Rabbi Yehuda the Hanasi is depicted in my opinion as an assertive, regal and even somewhat messianic figure and in general exceptional from all the members of the presidential dynasty since the days of the father of the dynasty, he is praiseworthy in his own right. And I would not commit a similar sin if I say that his accumulated and developing wealth allowed him to behave as he did. Modesty in any case was not characterized as one of his personal qualities and for good reason, unlike his predecessors to the presidency (with the exception of the rebellious-usurpatory title of Ben Khosva who called himself "president") he did not call himself "rabbi" but he was the first to add the title "president" to his name; Second, more than his predecessors he developed special and close ties with the Roman authorities; Thirdly, on the other hand, he forged secret and dangerous connections with the kingdom of Persia, who was the sworn and bitter enemy of Rome; Fourthly, he took an almost active side in the difficult struggle between the emperor Septimius Severus and the claimant to the crown and the competitor for the empire Pascanius Niger, which could have cost him his presidential crown and "was only satisfied" with the loss of many agricultural lands in the Lod area; Fifth, he was involved, and probably not only indirectly, in the elimination of senior officials in Rome, those who surrounded the emperor; Sixth, he made sure that the city of Tiberias was freed from the burden of taxes for the Romans and thus reaped huge profits due to his properties in the area; Seventh, what may seem strange on the face of it, but not so in my opinion, the whole enterprise of signing the sub-sign with his personal seal, is intended, among other things, to commemorate his works, as someone who "stares" well in the issues discussed in the Sanhedrin. And I would not be surprised if these served his economic and public-political goals.
It is not for nothing that in this context the amplified proverb was published as follows: "From the time of Moses to the time of Rabbi (Yehuda the President) we did not find (found) a great Torah in one place" (Talmud Babli Gitin net p. 1). In other words, there is an unprecedented comparison between the Torah and the Mishnah on the one hand and between Moshe and Rabbi Yehuda the Hanasi on the other. Perhaps there is nothing more appropriate than this metaphor to present the authoritarian and sanctified majesty of Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi. Moreover, it was not for nothing that long and detailed chapters were dedicated in the Mishnah about the second temple, its accessories, its priests, its order of work and more. This alludes to the hidden ambition of the aforementioned president to raise up the temple and stand at its head just as David and Solomon planned for the first temple.
The lands of Judah were expropriated by the emperors Vespasian and his son Titus at the end of the great rebellion (73-70 AD) and became Praedium Caesaris, that is, imperial property, as an inseparable part of the internal struggles in Rome between the empire and the senate, the main of which was political and economic, and we have already mentioned above, In one of the episodes of the current series, the phenomenon of the "troublemakers", who received shares in these former lands as absolute property - Optimo Iure - which were later acquired by Jews, and we also pointed out the nature of the imperial lands throughout the Roman Empire, through the Antonine period to the Syrian one, we were up to 235 AD. These were therefore the imperial estates that were given in cribs and became royal cribs, as the Sage literature puts it, and the workers in them were called "royal cribs."
After Shokh Mered Ben Kusaba (135 AD), there were still lands that were leased to those Arisi-Mishna, such as "the tenant of a field from the Kuthi (Samaritan) tithes (fulfills the obligation of tithes) and gives it to him, and weighs it for the (imperial or municipal) treasury, weighs it for Kitron (lest Shibush from a cantor - a senior military commander), tithes and gives to him" (Tosefta Demai 3:XNUMX). That is, they obliged him to tithe so that he would push himself and redeem her from the stranger.
Rabbi Yehuda referred to you by saying: "The one who receives the field of his ancestors (in an inheritance of many years) from (the harasser) who alienates tithe and gives it to him" (Demai 2:XNUMX).
However, land remained, which belonged to the property of the Roman Empire on the eve of the rebellion, and for some of it the president, Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi, received the rights of a senior contractor, and he used to supply vegetables and fruits to the Roman government, what is known as Usus Fructus, meaning the right to enjoy fruits, which was acceptable After land confiscation following rebellions.
In connection with this, it seems, the president used to meet with a senior Roman figure, whose nickname in the sources was "Antoninus". Perhaps the emperor or perhaps a high-ranking personage, and as a result he would provide radishes, zucchini and horseradish to that personage, and in another place we read about the provision of "firstborns for the kingdom" (Yerushalmi Meshar Shani chapter 4 nd p. 4) to that Antoninus.
He had at his disposal, no less and no more, a sort of police force that assisted him personally in the enforcement and execution of the sentences he passed on those who were brought to trial before him. The men of this force were called by the Sages by the terrible name "Katsuzi" and those who understand will understand. According to his orders, these were to beat those who were defined as those who refused justice, that is, who did not come to trial. This police force was given to him by the Roman authorities. In addition to this, the president had at his disposal a company bodyguards, perhaps in light of their German origin they came up with the name "Goths", and those who insulted the president and talked about him earned the support of those Law". In At'im, one of the greatest Amorites in Tiberias, he was Rish Lakish, was forced to flee from those bullets to the nearby Migdal or Kfar Hitit.
Moreover, the President had large tracts of land, such as in the Ein Gedi area, where they produced the very expensive persimmon perfume, and in this context the sources stated that "there is no blessing - 'creator of heavenly trees' - except for the persimmon of Beit Rabbi (Yehuda the President), and Persimmon of Caesar's House" (Berakhot 23 p. 1) to teach us about the wealth of the Presidential House, about its close ties with the Roman government and those that grew an interesting economic precedent of the production of the persimmon perfume, and which is known to be considered a highly guarded professional secret, one that was passed down from generation to generation (until the seventh century AD at least), in the possession of Jewish production workers. Furthermore, knowing that the Romans made sure that everything involved in the production of the persimmon perfume would be left in their possession as an imperial property, the above-mentioned move holds a first-rate economic and public significance.
It should be noted that the president had other estates in Beit Govrin, Beit Shaarim, Keneth (Kenuta) in Horan, in Lod, in the Tiberias area and in Bnei Brak, which he would visit from time to time for the purpose of supervision and audit. The sources tell about the president's "24 kiriots". These are probably estates or agricultural villas.
Those territories of the president's residences were adjacent to Roman colonies, some of them military, which teaches about the dimensions of supervision exercised by the Roman authorities in the country and to the same extent this proximity was tied to the obligation to meet the needs of the colonies.
In order to regulate the rights and duties of the royal eunuchs, the Roman authorities made sure to establish legislation accordingly. Due to the heavy taxes and the dwindling population, which caused land to be abandoned and abandoned, the Roman authorities tried to influence the inhabitants to renew the cultivation of the land by withdrawing favorable terms of leases and leases, which in fact amount to ownership of the land. This situation led to the spread of Hellenistic cradle methods, which in return required the haris to cultivate the land for at least five years.
This policy gave rise to an agro-legal concept called "world cradles". We were cradles inheriting all her rights and duties. Because of this, all the laws of possession that were changed in our time took on a special meaning against the background of the terms of the bindings in the Hellenistic-Roman style.
In Roman documents, terms such as Agri Deserti or Agri Captivi appear, that is, abandoned lands and captive lands. These terms are crossed in an interesting correlation between Chazal terms such as "properties of captives", "properties of Natushin" and "properties of Retushin" (refer to articles on this matter), which are characterized in the sources regarding the territories of Judah after the suppression of the rebellion of Ben Kusaba (135 CE), and it is interesting that President Raban Shimon ben Gamaliel refers to this issue as "Afkeata Damalka", that is, imperial confiscation (Bava Metzia Lech p. XNUMX, lt p. a), and the possibility cannot be ruled out that some of Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi's estates were included in this category, which is portrayed as a social moral disgrace from the perspective of the Presidency.
The Jerusalem Talmud tells of Rabbi Simeon who had fields on Mount Hamelech (imperial land), or "planters of vineyards" (Yerushalmi Avoda Zerah chapter 1 m. p. 2), who was probably a kind of conductor, we mean a contractor, and that the areas were owned by him, all according to the same Hellenistic-Roman legislation.
In this context, Sage sources attest to the term "elders of retirement homes", or "renters of retirement homes", when it comes to eris who testified the right of eris to their sons after them. These were first landowners who sold their fields to others in order to have eris sit in them, they and their sons after them, or their fields were expropriated by the Romans and bought by the owners who were not farmers.
The title of the chapter - "Royal Cribs in the literal sense" - its one meaning - areas of Cribs that were given to Rabbi Yehuda the President in Cribs from the Roman authorities, and on the other hand - areas of land owned by the House of the Presidency whose head acted like a king in everything.
The harris of all kinds
Eris He is the one who receives land from the owner in order to cultivate it and give the owner a proportional share of the annual harvest, which is called in Roman terminology Colonus Partiarius. This form of farm cultivation was most common in the period in question and mainly due to the intensive nature of the farm, and the same two phenomena: the integration of Greeks and Romans into the agricultural economy and the policy of encouraging the productive forces on behalf of the Roman Empire contributed to the widespread presence of the Arisas.
To anchor the phenomenon of the sheaves, the sources give the following: "He who receives a field from Israel, from the foreigner, and from the Kuthi (worked it with the sheaves, who gives the owners half, a third, or a quarter of the grain) shall divide before them (he shall divide the grain with a threshing floor and place their portion before the owners of the field and is not required to set aside a contribution and tithes from it, that the grain he gives them is his own" (Damai 6:1), and how interesting it is to highlight the The Sanhedrin permit in order to facilitate the very existence of Harris.
During the period, the plowing/lease contract between the owner and Harris was formed, including the former's obligation to the owner (half, a third, or a quarter of the harvest), the question of the tithe obligation that arises, for example, in the Dead Sea certificates of Ben Khosva, the matter of the agricultural property involved in Harris's work - what belongs to the owner and what to Harris, and more.
During this period, various forms of marriage contracts were regulated and established, and therefore the sources of the Sages emphasized the fact that "there is no change in the custom of the state (namely, the city and the region)" (Tosefta Baba Metziya 11:4 et seq.), including Rabbi Yehuda's testimony that "they do not write deeds of marriage (contracts) and receipts (contractual works) on time. Rabbi Yehuda Matir, lest we advance another" (Tosefta Baba Metzia 3:XNUMX and Tosefta Moed Ketan XNUMX:XNUMX). That is, for the benefit of the continued growth of produce and increased employment, and perhaps also the intention of increasing the Jewishness of employment. And in general, the intention of the legislator was in connection with the intensive land activity.
Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi, the one whose many lands were worked by haris, found himself referring to the above paragraph as holding that the land owner's rights regarding the haris would automatically pass to the new owners in the event of a land sale, just like in Roman law (The Struggle for the Land p. 32).
It should be noted that in order to make the lives of the Harisim easier and in accordance with the intensive nature of the economy, President Raban Shimon Ben Gamliel made it easier for the Harisim to actually get loans at interest. And Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi took another bold step in this direction and installed a regulation abolishing the de facto usury client.
This president strove to cancel the mitzvah of Shmita, even though it was a mitzvah from the Torah, and thus adapted it to the intensive system in general and in his estates in particular.
lessee He was the one who received land from the owner in order to cultivate it and raise a fixed amount of grain and fruits from the harvest for the owner. In the second Mishnah we read that "the tenant of a field from Israel donates and gives to him (contributes a donation from the grain that belongs to the tenant, but the sages of the Sanhedrin did not oblige him to enrich it, because they sought to make it easier for the tenant and said that the owner of the field will enrich what is received, but in the matter of the donation they did not make it easier" (Damai 1:XNUMX) The Jerusalem Talmud refers to this Mishna in its claim that "the tenant who fields from the Gentile donates and gives to him. Says Rabbi Shimon ben Gamaliel: What if this Gentile wishes not to contribute his fruits, he is not allowed, but divides and places before him" (Yerushalmi Damai chapter XNUMX, p. XNUMX) that is, they make the tenant's life easier
In another place, the Mishnah is changed: "The lessee takes a field from the foreigner and gives it to him. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even the one who receives the field of his ancestors (which was once his or his family's) from the foreigner pays tithe and gives it to him" (Demai 2:XNUMX) and the same applies to the lease from the Roman army, When it is clear that these are lands confiscated by the army at the time. The charging of the provision for tithes is intended to guarantee, even if theoretically, the feeling of future return to the owner.
Another figure in the Arisatian agricultural economy was The tenant. This is about someone who takes land from the owner by paying a yearly fee (location in Latin terminology). It is interesting that both the Latin and Sage sources warn against this phenomenon, which is not healthy for both parties.
Another character, more common, is the hired, when the common reality was a three-year lease. This phenomenon was a result of the difficult economic situation that prevailed after the Great Rebellion and the Rebellion of Ben Khosva. The normal reality was a three-year lease, but according to the nature of the intensive farm, it was expected, and with great justification, to see "hourly workers", those who were hired for seasonal work on the farm, such as in the grape vineyard and the olive grove. And due to the fact that such laborers were consumed by the intensive economy, the sages of the Sanhedrin tended to ease their position by referring, for example, to the lease signed between the seasonal laborer and the owner and which was drafted according to the "state custom" as the sources highlight.
Chazal sources reveal different types of employees usually based on the temporary basis such as: "Sabbath employee", "weekly employee", "monthly employee", "year employee".
Another character that appears in the sources is the "Peasant"As someone who was subordinate to the landlord, and for his lack of professionalism, he is sometimes called an "artisan farmer", perhaps one connected to some professional association.
Also remembered "Implants" who specialized in planting and sometimes even in grain.
So "what did we have?" A brave combination of capital and government and no less brave the connection between a great Halachic judge of his generation and his private businesses, and of course we are talking about the great of the Taniim and the great of the Presidents, Rabbi Yehuda the Hanasi. So what did we say? - There is nothing new under the sun.
