Torah Centers and Rabbinic Activity in Palestine –

TorahCentersandRabbinicActivity in Palestine –ce Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism

Editor Hindy Najman Department and Centre for the Study of Religion at the University of Toronto

Associate Editors Florentino García Martínez Qumran Institute, University of Groningen Benjamin G. Wright, III Department of Religion Studies, Lehigh University

Advisory Board j.j. collins – j. duhaime – p.w. van der horst a. klostergaard petersen – j.t.a.g.m. van ruiten – j.sievers g. stemberger – e.j.c. tigchelaar – j. tromp

VOLUME 138 Torah Centers and Rabbinic Activity in Palestine –ce

History and Geographic Distribution

By Ben-Zion Rosenfeld

Translated from the Hebrew by Chava Cassel

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2010 This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Rozenfeld, Ben Tsiyon. Torah centers and rabbinic activity in Palestine, 70-400 C.E. : history and geographic distribution / by Ben-Zion Rosenfeld ; translated from the Hebrew by Chava Cassel. p. cm. – (Supplements to the Journal for the study of Judaism, ISSN 1384-2161 ; v. 138) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-17838-0 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Talmudic academies–Palestine–History. 2. Judaism–History–Talmudic period, 10-425. 3. Jewish learning and scholarship–Palestine. 4. Jews–Palestine–Intellectual life. I. Cassel, Chava. II. Title. III. Series.

BM502.R6913 2010 296.071'15694–dc22 2009036383

ISSN: 1384-2161 ISBN: 978 90 04 17838 0

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Brill has made all reasonable efforts to trace all right holders to any copyrighted material used in this work. In cases where these efforts have not been successful the publisher welcomes communications from copyright holders, so that the appropriate acknowledgements can be made in future editions, and to settle other permission matters.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands CONTENTS

Preface ...... vii Abbreviations...... ix

Introduction ...... 1 Sources...... 1 ResearchTools...... 6 Chapters—OutlineandStructure...... 11 TranslationofSourceMaterial ...... 13 Chronology ...... 14

Chapter One. Methodology: Who Is a Sage and Where Did He Live?...... 17 WhoisaSage? ...... 17 IdentifyingaSage’sPlaceofResidence...... 19 DeterminingtheImportanceofaSageoraTorahCenter...... 30 Delineating the Geographic Borders of Palestine’s Jewish Population...... 32

ChapterTwo. Judea...... 41 Lod—Urban Torah Center with Uninterrupted Rabbinic Activity,–ce...... 41 Rural Settlements with Rabbinic Activity—Mishnaic Period, –ce...... 57 Rural Settlements with Rabbinic Activity—Talmudic Period, –ce ...... 75 SummaryoftheDataandDiscussion...... 82 Conclusions...... 98 The Judean Sages: Internal Dynamics and Ties with the Wider RabbinicCommunity—DiscussionandConclusions ...... 106

ChapterThree. Galilee...... 115 Sepphoris and Tiberias—Urban Torah Centers with UninterruptedRabbinicActivity...... 115 Rural Settlements with Rabbinic Activity—Mishnaic Period, –ce...... 126 vi contents

Rural Settlements with Rabbinic Activity—Talmudic Period, –ce ...... 150 SummaryoftheData...... 170 DiscussionandConclusions...... 173

ChapterFour. CentralPalestine...... 203 Caesarea—UrbanTorahCenterandCapitalofPalestine...... 203 Samuka—RuralSettlementwithRabbinicActivity...... 217 SummaryoftheData...... 220 DiscussionandConclusions...... 223

ChapterFive. Golan,Bashan,HauranandTransjordan...... 235 HistoricalandGeographicBackground...... 235 Settlements with Rabbinic Activity—Golan, Bashan and Hauran 237 RabbinicActivity—Transjordan...... 251 SummaryoftheDataandConclusions...... 255

Bibliography ...... 259

Maps ...... 295

IndexofNames...... 301 IndexofGeographicalPlaces...... 311 IndexofSubjects...... 317 PREFACE

This book deals with a unique aspect of the social and cultural history of Jewish society in Roman and early Byzantine Palestine. The time period is that of the Mishnah and Talmud, –ce. Using the rabbinic literature as its primary source, the book identifies the cities, towns and villages in which the sages were active in the different regions of Palestine and explores the historical significance of this geographic distribution. To date, the research on the world of the sages and their activities has been devoted primarily to the main Torah centers, which, by and large, were located in the cities. No study has attempted to identify all of the places in which the sages resided and were active, particularly those located in the rural areas of Palestine. This book attempts to fill that void. The discussion of rabbinic activity takes an interdisciplinary approach, incorporating the fields of geography, archaeology and sociology. In addition, the book contributes to the scholarly research on the complex world of Mediterranean society in the period under discussion, of which PalestineanditsJewishpopulationwerepart. Thepreparationofthisbookwasamultifacetedendeavor.Ioweaspe- cial debt of gratitude to the following individuals at Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, who assisted me in this effort; the President of Bar-Ilan Uni- versity, Professor Moshe Kaveh, and the Rector, Professor Joseph Menis, for financial assistance; Ms. Yehudit Grossman of the Library of Social Sciences, whose wisdom was an invaluable asset to me in this research; the librarians at the Library of Jewish Studies, who enabled me to benefit from their extensive knowledge; Dr. Merav Tobol-Kahana of the Depart- ment of Hebrew and Semitic Languages for her help in the field of lin- guistics. And last, but by no means least, my wife, Rivka, whose patience and support made it possible for me to produce this book.

ABBREVIATIONS

AASOR The Annual of the American School of Oriental Research ADAJ Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt,Berlin-NewYork, – BAIAS Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society, London BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research BJPES Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin CA Current Anthropology CAH The Cambridge Ancient History (second edition) CHJ The Cambridge History of Judaism CJ Codex Justinianus CQ Classical Quarterly CT Codex Theodosianus HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual IEJ Israel Exploration Journal IESBS International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences,  JJS Journal of Jewish Studies JQR Jewish Quarterly Review JRA Journal of Roman Archaeology JRS Journal of Roman Studies JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism JSPSup Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series LCL Loab Classical Library MBAH Münstersche Beträge z. antiken Handelsgeschichte MGWJ Monatsschrift fur Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums NEAEHL New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, vols, Jerusalem . PAAJR Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly PG Patrologiae Graecae PW, RE Pauly-Wissowa, Paulys Realencyclopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft RB Review Biblique REJ Revue des etudes Juives SCI Scripta Classica Israelica ZDPV Zeitschrift der deutschen Palästina-Vereins ZPE Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik

INTRODUCTION

Thisbook,ahistorical-geographicstudyofrabbinicactivityinPales- tine from  to ce, the mishnaic and talmudic periods, maps the locations of Torah centers and uses these data to examine the socio- cultural makeup of the rabbinic world. Arranged according to regions, the book lists the names of all the villages, towns and cities in Palestine in which sages were known to have been active during this time period. It provides statistical information about these settlements—the number of sages active in each settlement in each generation and the number of settlements that were the scene of rabbinic activity in each generation and in each region, followed by a comparison of the scope of rabbinic activity in the different regions. The list of settlements and the statistical data serve as the basis for a historical, geographic and sociological discussion of the rabbinic world. Several themes guide the discussion of rabbinic activity: urban Torah centers vs. rural centers; urban sages vs. rural sages; center vs. periphery; the sages as a group on the macro and micro levels; and the ability of the sages to influence Jewish society. To date, the historical research has dealt primarily with rabbinic activity in the cities and less so with rabbinic activity in rural areas of Palestine. This book, which focuses on rabbinic activity in the villages as well asin the cities and compares the two, offers a new perspective.

Sources

The main sources consulted for information on the sages come from rabbinic literature. The book’s approach to the information found in rabbinic literature is a moderate-critical one, which accepts the basic historical reliability of these sources.1 Data were also obtained from

1 There are several scholarly approaches to the historical reliability of rabbinic literature. On the approach that basically accepts its historical reliability, see Levine, Rab- binic Class, –, –; Safrai, Economy, –; idem, “Rabbinic Sources”; Gafni, “Edu- cation”; idem, “Achievement”; Elman, “Response”; Schiffman, “Scrolls and Rabbinic”; as well as the different articles in Safrai, Literature. A different approach rejects the historical value of rabbinic literature but nonetheless is of the opinion that each source in rabbinic introduction historical sources of the Roman-Byzantine and Christian worlds for the above periods, as well as from archaeological and epigraphic sources. The research also drew extensively on the field of geography in order to achieve a better understanding of the geographic data, the mapping of the settlements, the differences between rural and urban settlements and the interrelationships between the two. Other disciplines, such as sociology and anthropology, enhance the research. All these contribute to a better understanding of rabbinic activity in the different settlements and add depth to the historical data, thus broadening the scope of the material and enriching its conclusions. The information obtained from rabbinic literature is presented according to the chronological order in which these sources were redacted. The primary sources for the mishnaic period are the tannaitic sources, which include the Mishnah, Tosefta and the halakhic midrashim. In a small number of instances, the first mention of a sage who was active during the mishnaic period appears in the Talmud. In such cases, where possible, the Jerusalem Talmud, which was redacted in Palestine, was given preference over the Babylonian Talmud, which I refer to only occasionally for the mention of a sage’s name. The sources for the talmudic period are the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds and the midrashic literature, and here too the Jerusalem Talmud and the early aggadic midrashim

literature reliably reflects the period in which it was compiled. The Mishnah, for example,wascompiledcircace,anditmayberegardedashistoricallyreliableforevents of that period only. The same holds true for the rest of rabbinic literature; see Neusner, Introduction, xxix–xxx, , –, –, –, –, –; idem, “Rabbinic Sources”; Strack-Stemberger, Introduction, –; Green, “Rabbinic Biography.” For an approach that lies between the two approaches, see Goodblatt, “Rehabilitation”; idem, “End”; Schwartz, “The Rabbi”; idem, “Rabbinic Texts,” esp. ; Cohen, “The Rabbi,” – ; Boyarin, Carnal Israel;Stern,Jewish Identity, xxii–xxxix; Sivertsev, Private House- holds, –. The approach of the latter two is fairly close to the approach that ascribes historical reliability to rabbinic literature. For a summary of the different methods, with the addition of a sociological approach, see Hezser, Social Structure, –. The Babylo- nian Talmud has not been used much as a source for identifying rabbinic activity in the settlements. It was used here to identify just three settlements (Galilee, nos. , , ) at the end of the mishnaic period, during the time of R. Judah ha-Nasi, which is just one generation before the talmudic period. In recent years scholars have begun to ascribe greater historical reliability to the Babylonian Talmud than in past decades. However, the Jerusalem Talmud is to be preferred in particular over the Babylonian Talmud if the two differ with regard to a particular sage or event in Palestine, and in general, since the JerusalemTalmudismorereliableasregardseventsorinformationabouttherabbiniccir- cle in Palestine. See Kalmin, Sages, Stories, , n. , –, , n. , –, , –; idem, The Sage, –, , , –, –; idem, Jewish Babylonia, –; Rubenstein, “Rabbinic Literature,” esp. –. introduction  receive preference over the Babylonian ones.2 The research also draws on manuscripts and reliable versions of the extant texts.3 The Responsa Project of Bar-Ilan University was the main tool utilized to search rabbinic literature. Some of the settlements mentioned in rabbinic literature are problematic in terms of their names, geographic locations, the generation to which the sages who were active in them belonged, and whether some of these sages were in fact members of the rabbinic class. However, these are case-specific problems. They do not detract from the general conclusions,whicharebasedonanaccumulationofdataaboutthesagesandthe settlements in which they were active. It should be noted that the information that was culled from rabbinic literature is partial at best due to the oral transmission of traditions over many generations, the complicated task of compiling and redacting this material into a corpus, and convert- ing it into a written format. The complex course of the material until it reached its present state resulted in the loss of much information, including the names of additional, forgotten sages.4 Had further sources been available, additional information on sages and their settlements could have been obtained. External indications to this effect, primarily based on archeological findings, are presented later on. Furthermore, rabbinic literature does not refer to the places of residence of the vast majority of sages. As a result, the list of settlements in the chapters of this book, which is based on the existing sources, is incomplete.

2 Although the data have been brought in the chronological order in which rabbinic literaturewasredacted,sometimestheidentificationofaplaceofresidenceiscomplicated and is based on several sources taken together, which are not always presented in chronological order. On how rabbinic literature can be used for obtaining historical information, see Stern, “Attribution and Authorship,” esp. nn. , ; idem,“Concept”; Kalmin, Sages, Stories. They focus mostly on the reliability of the content of the teachings. However, their approach to the reliability of the teachings is no less appropriate for the names of sages, because these have undergone less reworking than the content. 3 See,forexample,Cohen,“TheRabbi,”esp.n..Onthedivisionofrabbinic literature into different periods, see Gafni, “Background,” –; Neusner, Introduction, –; Schiffman, History, –; idem, Understanding, –, –, –; Alexander, Transmitting Mishnah, –. 4 On the transmission and redacting of the Oral Law, see Sussmann, “Torah she-Ba"al Peh,” –; Schiffman, “The Making.” For another point of view that indicates that oral transmission was common in the Roman world as well, see Elman, “Orality”; Jaffee, Torah; idem, “Rabbinic Authorship”; Alexander, “Orality.” It should be noted that Roman religion and rituals are also based on oral tradition, not on written books, see Scheid, “Oral Tradition”, esp. , . introduction

It should be added that the rabbinic sources were compiled in Galilee, apparently in those areas in which rabbinic activity was concentrated, first in Sepphoris and later in Tiberias. Consequently, the attention and teachings of the Galilean sages were focused far more on this region than on the other regions, and even the events recounted in rabbinic literature are taken primarily from this region. Similarly, the teachings that were recorded and redacted were mostly those of the Galilean sages. Not unexpectedly, the Galilean sages took less interest in their colleagues andineventsintheotherregionsofPalestine.Thisisreflectedinthe small number of teachings of sages in the other areas of Palestine that were recorded in rabbinic literature compared to the large number of teachings of the Galilean sages. The teachings of the Judean sages in the Yavneh period (–ce), however, are an exception, as the number of extant teachings of these sages is far greater than the number of teachings of the Galilean sages in that period, as will be discussed in Chapter . The sages’ teachings consist primarily of two categories—theological discussions and halakhic-legal teachings—with several varieties of each category. One notable variety also includes geographic details, in particular the name of a settlement combined with the name of a sage. The geographiccomponentandthenameofasageareusuallyanadjunctto the main part of the teaching, which is intended to express a theological concept or a halakhah. When citing a teaching or a saying in any language, normal practice would be to add the name and sometimes the place of the person who is being cited—such as Mr. X from Place Y.5 In thesameway,thosewhotransmittedthetraditionsandteachingsofsages to the following generations, and the redactors of the different rabbinic works, also included the names of sages whose traditions and teachings they were transmitting or redacting, sometimes along with the names of the places in which those sages had been active. Accordingly, a distinction should be made between the content of a teaching, which is subjec- tive and whose historicity and reliability may be in doubt, and the name

5 This practice in Jewish society is reflected in the archaeological finding of alistof wages from the end of the Second Temple period discovered in Beth Pagi in Jerusalem. It includes the names of over twenty workers, some with nicknames of their places of residence.SeeAmitetal.,“MountScopus”;Hachlili,Jewish Funerary, –, –, –. On the names and nicknames of places discovered at Masada, see Yadin and Nave, Masada, :–, –; Hachlili, “Masada,” –. On the many examples in the talmudic literature of the practice of stating names of individuals and place names, see, for example, Klein, “ha-Shemot,” esp. –. introduction  and sometimes the place of the sage to whom it is attributed; the latter pieces of information do not bear the personal stamp of the author of the teaching but simply constitute general background information to the teaching. Thus, they are more reliable. Furthermore, rabbinic literature is not a corpus of anonymous teachings. The fixed, systematic incorporation of the names of sages—and sometimes their places of residence alongside their teachings—is a dis- tinct feature of all rabbinic literature. A large proportion of the teachings is cited by a chain of sages. It is unlikely that the many hundreds of sages mentioned by name never really existed.6 Therefore, even though one may cast doubt on the historic reliability of the content of the teaching, this in no way negates the existence of the sage associated with the teaching, his appellation or place of residence, when it is mentioned.7 Support for the argument that the names of sages which appear in rabbinic literature were not invented by its redactors is provided by a rare piece of external evidence that lists the names of several sages who are mentioned in rabbinic literature as well. The Church Father Jerome (Hieronymus),whowasactiveinPalestineinthelatefourthandearly fifth centuries, lists several Jewish sages who were active in the mishnaic period, all of whom are sages known to us from rabbinic literature. In his commentary on Isa :, he presents a corrupted form of the names of several sages, such as Hillel and Shamai, R. Johanan b. Zakkai, R.Joshua,R.Akiva,R.Tarfon,R.Joseha-Galili,andR.Meir.8 Elsewhere he mentions R. Akiva, Simeon and Hillel.9 These are the names of some of the most famous tannaitic sages, and they were known to Jerome. It is unlikely that he invented their names, but rather he relied on known traditions. It should be noted that Jerome also refers to anonymous sages

6 This appears to have been the aim of Bacher, Tradition.Hegatheredandarranged most of the names of the tradents of teachings and traditions in rabbinic literature in order to present a clear sequence of these sages according to generation and to learn from it about these sages and how their teachings were transmitted. See also Strack-Stemberger, Introduction, –. It should be noted that this standard practice in rabbinic literature of mentioning the names of sages who transmitted traditions also prompted Neusner, “Attributions,” to study and attempt to explain it. Neusner does not say that all the names of sages that are mentioned are pseudonymous, but he offers a different explanation. 7 Thus, even scholars who point out the problems of the historical reliability of rabbinic sources tend to regard names as reliable. See, for example, Neusner, “Attributions”; Rubenstein, “Criteria.” 8 PL, , col. . Pritz, Jewish Christianity, ; Luomanen, “Nazarenes,”esp. –. 9 PL, , col. –. introduction who were his contemporaries and states that they taught him the Bible. He states explicitly that one of them was an especially important sage who resided in Lod.10 There is also epigraphic evidence of names of individuals who borethe title “Rabbi,”which might refer to a sage, even though there are objections in the scholarly research to ascribing this epigraphic title to members of the rabbinic class indiscriminately. Such material, where applicable, has therefore been approached with caution.11 It should be noted at this point that this book is not intended to be a biographical study of the sages—a topic that is the subject of scholarly dispute.12 Its focus is geography rather than biography.

Research Tools

Several sociological tools have been used in order to enhance our understanding of the activities of the rabbinic class. First among them is group research, which is commonly applied in historical-sociological studies of Jewish society. This sociological approach views the rabbinic class as a unique group not founded on blood relationships; it possessed its own symbols and distinctive features, which created group cohesiveness based primarily on cultural rather than on material factors. Sages shared common spiritual goals, central to which was the importance of Torah study, as well as the expectation of special reward for their efforts and activities as the bearers, transmitters, interpreters and teachers of the ancient biblical traditions.13 As such, they could teach anywhere—in the cities, in the villages, even in the open air—and the urban or rural character of the settlement in which they resided influenced their activities. They

10 See Chapter , Judea, n. . 11 See Rosenfeld, “Inscriptions,” esp. notes , , . 12 See, for example, Green, “Rabbinic Biography,”as well as other studies in the work in which this article appears. For a different opinion, see Levine, Rabbinic Class, –. The fact that rabbinic literature does not give the names of all sages who were active in those generations has already been addressed by Horowitz, Toseftah Atikta, –, –. 13 Thestudyofgroupsisabroadsubject.See,forexample,someoftherepresentative literature on the study of groups as it pertains to Jewish society: Schwartz, “Language, Power”; idem,“TheRabbi”;Jones,Archaeology, index, s. v. ethnic groups; Jones, “Identi- ties,”esp. –; Lapin, “Locating Ethnicity”; Cohen, Jewishness, –, –. For a different and important application of the study of groups, see Lee Lyman, O’Brien, Dunnell, Culture History,s.v.groups.Forthebasicsociologicaldefinitionsofthecharacteristics and constituents of groups, see the summary in Shotola, “Small Groups.” introduction  had no need to confine their activities to a small number of large urban academies, as was common in the Roman world. This accounts for their broad geographic dispersal in all of the widely scattered settlements listed in this book. The approach of group research—the macro level—studies the sages in terms of the ideological factors that united them.14 These included the Torah learning that took place in the study halls, the common ideological ideas that formed the basis for the ties among them, and primarily, their oral interpretation of the Written Law, which they wished to transmit to their disciples and to Jewish society at large.15 All of their cultural- spiritual activities constituted the glue that cemented their group relationship even though they resided in settlements that were located at great distances from one another. The interrelationships among sages were also examined on the micro level, from the perspective of networks,16 as for example, the relationships between sages in urban rabbinic centers and in rural centers.17 This approachdealswiththeinternal,practical, everyday aspects of the ties within the rabbinic world. Another tool that I drew upon extensively is the distinction between center and periphery in terms of the rabbinic centers in order to analyze the relationship between center and periphery over the generations. In addition to their geographic application, the terms center and periphery are used here in their sociological sense as they apply to elite intellectual groups.18 Such groups are usually active in large urban centers, rather

14 On the use of the term “group” and its sociological significance, see Hogg, “Group Processes.” 15 Alon, Toldot, :–, –; Safrai, Second Temple, –; Neusner, Intro- duction, –; Levine, Rabbinic Class, –; Kalmin, Jewish Babylonia,–,ands.v. Amoraim, Palestinian. 16 Only selected articles on the subject of networks are presented, and they include a comprehensive explanation of the subject and a list of the scholarly literature. White, “Ties”; idem, “Social Networks” contain an explanation of how family and social ties were the basis for personal and social advancement in the Roman Empire in the first centuries ce. Duling, “Movement,” , explains the evolution of the concept of networks and how it is applied in the research. See also the summaries in Chiesi, “Network Analysis”; Erickson, “Networks-Cultural Aspects”; Stokman, “Network: Social.” On the importance of networks and the application in early Christian society, see, for example, Stark, Rise of Christianity, –, –, –. See also Goldhill, “Agenda,” –; Pratt et al., “CulturalGeography”;Masuzawa,“Culture”;Swidler,“CulturalExpression.” 17 On this issue see Gafni, “Background”; Safrai, “Oral Tora”; Levine, Rabbinic Class, –; Hezser, Social Structure, –. 18 An assortment of articles on this subject can be found in the work edited by Green- feld and Martin, Center, viii–xxii; Shils, “Center and Periphery”; Champion, “Introduc- introduction than the villages. An analysis of the places in which such elitist leadership groups are active elucidates their characteristics and modes of oper- ation and their relationship with the periphery, which is usually rural in nature.19 Since the rabbinic class fits the definition of an elite group, this analysis is applied in the book to the rabbinic class and its cultural activities. The discussion of rabbinic activity was also approached from a geographic perspective. Two types of Torah centers existed in Palestine during the mishnaic and talmudic periods—urban centers and rural centers. Throughout most of the generations, the urban rabbinic center was the main cultural center, and it symbolized the spiritual direction of rabbinic society. For the most part, the important rabbinic centers were located in the large cities, some of which were originally large towns that later acquired the status of polis. These urban centers were not dependent ona particular sage; in most cases, several sages and academies were active in the settlement at the same time and on an ongoing basis throughout either the mishnaic or talmudic periods, or both. By contrast, the minor centers were located in the villages or in the medium-sized towns of Palestine where a lone sage was active. Such centers were temporary and dependent on the presence of a sage. After the death of that sage, the settlement was no longer a rabbinic center, and in almost all instances it received very little or no further mention in rabbinic literature.20 Sages

tion”; Chase-Dunn and Hall, “Core/Periphery”; Eisenstadt and Shachar, Society, Culture, –, –, s.v. center-periphery; Eisenstadt, Power, Trust, –, –, –. See also Chapter , Galilee, n. . 19 Much research has been conducted on the subject from different perspectives. See, for example, Galsterer, “Provincial Institutions”; Shaw, “Rebels”; Saller, “Status”; Freyne, “Elites.” 20 This can be proven, for example, from the settlements mentioned in the following chapters. It is especially evident in the chapter on Judea. The following settlements are mentioned only in association with a sage: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , —totaling eighteen settlements, which constitute more than two-thirds of the settlements in Judea in which a sage was known to be active. Other settlements that are mentioned mostly in association with a sage are , , , , , —a total of six settlements. Jerusalem—settlement no. —is for the most part not mentioned in association with sages. In the chapter on Galilee, which had more settlements with rabbinic activity than anywhere else in Palestine, almost half are mentioned only in connection with a sage. See settlements nos. , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , —a total of thirty-one. A further sixteen settlements are mentioned mostly in relation to a sage: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . This is a total of forty-seven settlements out of sixty- introduction  were active also in the large Hellenistic cities, primarily during the talmudic period, but only for one or two generations, which were not necessarily successive. However, from the perspective of the rabbinic world, these were only minor rabbinic centers. Scholarly research has naturally focused attention on the large Torah centers of the mishnaic and talmudic periods—Sepphoris, Tiberias, Lod and Caesarea. Most of the important sages were active in these rabbinic centers, and it was primarily the teachings emerging from these centers that survived, were recorded and were compiled in rabbinic literature. By contrast, until now, less attention has been paid to sages who were active on the periphery, which was primarily rural, in spite of the fact that a significant amount of information is available about rabbinic activity in the villages during the mishnaic and talmudic periods, particularly in Galilee. Another geographical factor affecting rabbinic activity was the location of the Torah center in the coastal area vs. an inland location. The coastal area was subject to international influence to a greater degree than was the inland area, which was generally far from the international highways and international gathering places.21 The historical perspective adds further depth to our understanding of rabbinic activity. For example, the political-military situation in Palestine

eight, which constitutes over two-thirds of the settlements under discussion. The chapter on Central Palestine deals with two settlements—Samuka, which is mentioned only in relation to sages, and Caesarea, which is mentioned mostly in association with sages. In the chapter on Golan, there are four settlements—nos. , , , —that are mentioned only in association with a sage. Three other settlements—nos. , , —are mentioned mostly in connection with a sage. Weknow about settlement no.  from the archaeological findings and not from rabbinic literature. Thus, in all of the regions of Palestine, mostof the settlements that are mentioned in rabbinic literature are referred to only or primarily in relationship to sages. In Galilee, however, there are also many settlements that are mentioned in other contexts as well. We can assume that this is due to the fact that most of rabbinic literature was compiled there. As a result, the area received greater attention, and events that were not associated with sages found their way into this literature for a variety of reasons. 21 It should be noted that Josephus had already made a distinction between coastal culture and inland culture; see, Against Apion, I:() –. See also much of the scholarly literature on this subject in Kasher, Against Apion, :–. This distinction was also evident among Josephus’s contemporaries, such as the young Tacitus, who divides the Roman Empire into these regions and who also notes which region is the center and which the periphery. See, for example, Pomeroi, “Center and Periphery,” –. On the sages’ multifaceted affinity to the polis, see in detail, for example, Sperber, The City; Levine, Judaism.  introduction led to major geographic changes in the region inhabited by the Jew- ish population during the mishnaic and talmudic periods, and it had a decisive effect upon the areas in which sages were active as early as the period following the destruction of the Second Temple, and even more so after the Bar Kokhba Revolt. The Jewish revolts led, inter alia, to a situation wherein large parts of the Jewish population, especially in Judea, were gradually pushed to the outlying areas. Recent archaeological findings provide evidence that from the second century onward there was a gradual flourishing of settlements in all of the outlying areas of Palestine; the population there increased, and economic conditions improved. This situation reached its height in the fourth century.22 The information about rabbinic activity in the following chapters indicates that at the same time—during the second to fourth centuries—sages extended the scope of their activities to the outlying areas, apparently as a result of the above factors that affected Jewish society in Pales- tine. Another important element affecting rabbinic activity was the impact of the Roman government’s dominant presence and its relationship with Jewish society, particularly in the urbanization process. In the first decades of the third century the important rabbinic centers gradually moved from the villages to the cities, which affected the geographic dispersal of the sages as well as the style and content of their social and cultural activities and thinking.23

22 See the articles written on this subject by Bar, “Frontier”; idem,“Population”;idem, “Settlement.” 23 On the mighty influence of the Roman government in the East and in Palestine, and on various aspects of the urbanization process, see, for example, K. Butcher, Roman Syria, –; Isaac, “Roman Administration”; idem, Limits of Empire, –; idem, Racism, –; Horsley, Archaeology, –; Garnsey, Food, –; Horden and Purcell, The Corrupting Sea, –; Ando, Imperial Ideology, –, –, and s.v. Romanization, urbanization; Boatwright, Cities, –, index, s.v. city; Fine, Art, –; Collins, Jewish Cult, –, –; Sartre, Middle East, –, , –. On the economical aspects of the Roman influence, see e.g., Sperber, Money and Prices, esp. –; Lapin, Economy, –; Rosenfeld and Menirav, Markets and Marketing, esp. , , , – , –. The latter two bring sources that indicate that the urbanization process was complicated and partial. A similar situation existed in other areas of the empire; see, for example, Cherry, North Africa, esp. –; Hingley, Roman Officers, –, on Roman Britain. The affect of the Roman presence on Jewish society and its sages is evident invariousrespectsinrabbinicliterature.Foracomprehensivestudy,see,forexample, Sperber, The City;Levine,Judaism. introduction 

Chapters—Outline and Structure

The book is divided into five chapters. Chapter : Methodology—Who is a Sage and Where did He Live? explains the book’s methodological approach to several important areas that require clear definitions, since they form the underlying basis for the data presented and discussed in this book. The chapter begins with a list of criteria to determine who is a sage in rabbinic literature. It then offers guidelines for establishing that a sage was active in a particular settlement and analyzes the distinctive linguistic characteristics of the names of sages when they appear in rabbinic literature in conjunction with the name of a place. After explaining how to ascertain the importance of a sage or a Torah center, the chapter presents a comprehensive description of the geographic borders of the regions under discussion, based on rabbinic literature and Josephus. This methodological chapter is followed by the chapters that deal with the different regions of Palestine and the Jewish settlements in each region that saw rabbinic activity. The first section of each chapter provides a list of the settlements in which sages resided and were active. There is a separate entry for each settlement, with the entries arranged in chronological order according to the first generation in which a sage was knowntohavebeenactiveinthesettlement.Eachentryfirstprovides an identification of the settlement’s precise or approximate geographic location and present-day identification, together with other essential information about the settlement. This is followed by a discussion of the local sage or sages, presented in order of generation. Brief historical information is presented about the sages, along with any other available information that is essential for understanding their rabbinic activity in that settlement. The second section of each chapter is devoted to a comprehensive discussion of what the historical data teach us about the settlements in which sages were active and about the rabbinic class in the region under discussion. Judea and Galilee were the main centers of Palestine’s Jewish population and thus, also the main foci of rabbinic activity. In the chapters on Judea and Galilee, the settlements are grouped geographically, where possible, as well as chronologically. The list of settlements in Galilee begins in Lower Galilee, followed by the settlements of Upper Galilee, and within these areas the settlements are grouped according to their proximity to one of the main rabbinic centers. The chapter on Cen- tral Palestine relates mainly to Caesarea—Palestine’s capital city and the seat of the Roman government—with its large Jewish minority and its  introduction important rabbinic center in the talmudic period. It includes only one other (rural) settlement that was known to have been the scene of rabbinic activity. Due to the paucity of the extant information, the chapter on Golan, Bashan, Hauran and Transjordan combines several different geographic regions. These areas were the distant frontier, and there is little information about their Jewish population, not to mention the sages who were active there. The discussion in each of the above chapters is divided chronologically into two time periods—the mishnaic period and the talmudic period— and each is further divided into the different generations of sages who were active during each period. The material presented for each generation is then further classified according to sub-regions, in order to understand better the scope of rabbinic activity in each generation. Each discussion begins with the main urban rabbinic centers, followed by the other settlements with rabbinic activity, which constituted the periphery and which, for the most part, were rural settlements. However, the material in the chapter on Golan, Bashan, Hauran and Transjordan is presented simply in chronological order of rabbinic activity, since we know of no main Torah center that was the seat of continuous rabbinic activity in these regions. In the chapters on Judea and Galilee—the two regions with the largest concentrations of the Jewish population—the settlements are listed in each generation according to their proximity to the main rabbinic centers. These rabbinic centers are Lod in Judea, Sepphoris in Galilee, during the time that it was the region’s main rabbinic center, and Tiberias from the second talmudic generation onwards, when it became the main Galilean rabbinic center. This order is irrelevant in the other chapters because those regions had either one main rabbinic center or no important rabbinic centers that saw ongoing activity. Information is also presented on the relative prominence of sages in the different settlements, but such information is available for only approximately a third of them; although meager, this information is nonetheless essential for ascertaining the importance of the local rabbinic center. The discussion of the settlements in each chapter is followed by an analysis and summary of the data, a presentation of the statistics and an explanation of their significance for understanding the scope of rabbinic activity in the region. Finally, each chapter contains a discussion of other aspects of the rabbinic class as a special status group. A question mark following the name of a settlement indicates that there is uncertainty regarding the settlement or the sage associated with introduction  the settlement. It signifies that there may be doubt as to the settlement’s location, its name, whether a particular sage actually lived there, his rabbinic status, or other uncertainty relating to the sage or the settlement.

Translation of Source Material

The translations of rabbinic texts appearing in the book are the standard scholarly English translations of this literature. For the most part, the Neusner editions of rabbinic literature are used, as they are generally the more modern or the only scholarly English translations of these texts available.24 When a different translation is used, this is noted. For example, the English translation of the Babylonian Talmud is based on the Soncino edition. A translation problem exists mainly with regard to the references to the Tosefta which appear in the footnotes due to the different Hebrew editions of this work. These references are cited from the standard Lieberman and Zuckermandel Hebrew editions and their translations. Occasionally it was necessary to make minor modifications in the English translation when I felt that a different understanding of the text or a different meaning of a word was more relevant. In these cases I state that the translation was “based on” a particular edition. The non-Jewish texts, such as those of the Roman world or the Church Fathers, are cited from the original sources, with the addition of a schol- arlyEnglishtranslation.Intheseinstancesaswell,modificationswere sometimes made when there was more than one way of understanding the text. The names of people, places and certain terms that appear in rabbinic literature take on many different forms and spellings, both in the sources and in the translations, and are therefore spelled in different ways in the scholarly literature as well. In this book, I have used a simple phonetic Englishspellingofthenamesofpeopleandplaces,basedontheHebrew spellings in rabbinic literature. Whenever possible, the English spelling of names of people and places also takes into account the rules discussed in

24 Unless otherwise indicated, the following English translations, with minor modifications, are used for rabbinic citations: Mishnah: Neusner, The Mishnah;Tosefta:Neusner, The Tosefta; Jerusalem Talmud: Neusner, The Talmud of the Land of Israel;Babylonian Talmud: Epstein, The Babylonian Talmud (Soncino); midrashic literature (halakhah and aggadah): Neusner, The Components.Thefollowingabbreviationsareused:m.=Mish- nah; t. = Tosefta; j. = Jerusalem Talmud; b. = Babylonian Talmud.  introduction

Chapter . Where appropriate, names were translated into English, such as Jose Heifani = Jose of Haifa, Jacob me-Afaratim = Jacob of Afaratim. I also deliberated over the translation of the Hebrew term “bet midrash,” which during the mishnaic and talmudic periods was the place where sages and their disciples studied and discussed Jewish Law. The term is variously translated as academy, house of study, study hall, and the like. In this book it is mostly translated as “academy,” and when it refers to a private institution, as “study hall,” but sometimes the two are used interchangeably. Earlier versions of Chapter  and Chapter  were published as separate articles (Rosenfeld, “Judaea”; Rosenfeld, “Galilee”) and have been changed and adapted for the present book.

Chronology

General Chronology of Periods and Events Relating to Palestine in Roman and Early Byzantine Times

ce Destruction of Second Temple –/ce Bar Kokhba Revolt –ce Severan Dynasty –ce Roman Imperial Crisis –ce Diocletianus ce Nicea, Christian era c. –ce Beginning of Byzantine Period c. ce End of Jewish Patriarchate

Generations of the Sages

It is customary to divide the mishnaic and talmudic periods into generations, as follows:

Mishnaic Period –ce –ce First generation after the destruction of the Second Temple –ce Second generation –ce Third generation /–ce Fourth generation –ce Fifth generation—Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi introduction 

Talmudic Period—c. –ce –ce First generation –ce Second generation –ce Third generation –ce Fourth generation –ce Fifth generation –ce Fifth to sixth generations

In Judea, some of the dates of the generations are slightly different, primarily in the talmudic period.

Judea –ce Fifth generation mishnaic period–Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi –ce First-second talmudic generation –ce Third talmudic generation –ce Fourth talmudic generation

chapter one

METHODOLOGY: WHO IS A SAGEANDWHEREDIDHELIVE?

The settlements in which sages were active are referred to in this book as rabbinic centers, spiritual centers or Torah centers. In order to map these Torah centers, clear definitions and systematic criteria are needed for determining who is considered a sage in rabbinic literature and for identifying the particular locale in which a sage was active. Clear guidelines are also necessary to ascertain the importance of a sage or a Torah center, as well as to delineate the geographical borders of the area of Palestine under discussion. These definitions and guidelines form the underlying basis for the data presented and discussed in this book.

Who is a Sage?

It is no simple matter to determine who is a sage in rabbinic literature. Even though this body of literature deals with sages, different figures are often mentioned in different contexts, and it is not always clear as to whether or not they were sages. Several criteria are suggested below for identifying an individual appearing in rabbinic literature as a sage. These criteria are not interdependent, and they are listed in order of importance: a. The individual bears the title “rabbi” in rabbinic literature. b. The individual stated a halakhic or aggadic teaching, even if he does not bear the title rabbi. c. Other individuals testified that the individual is a sage, even though no teachings were attributed to him. d. There is other proof in the sources that the individual is a sage (such as a story involving him). e. The individual cited a teaching in the name of a sage who bears the title rabbi, and on rare occasions, in the name of a sage who does not bear that title.  chapter one

The first two are the main criteria, and in most instances each alone is sufficient. The first criterion is better known and more generally accepted. The literature of the geonic period already indicates that the title rabbi found in the Mishnah, in the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds, and in the midrashic literature refers to a sage, i.e., a member of the rabbinic class.1 Even though the title rabbi has also been used in rabbinic literature for individuals who were not sages,2 it usually refers to an individual who is a member of the rabbinic class. Using the Responsa Project of Bar-Ilan University, the rabbinic literature was scanned for the title rabbi as it refers to a sage; over , such cases were found and only several dozen exceptions were noted. After the rabbinic literature had been redacted, other problems arose with regard to the title rabbi. Copyists, printers, proofreaders and typesetters, whether through error or for various reasons that suited their needs and their time period, bestowed the title rabbi upon individuals who had not borne this title in their own day.3 The first criterion for determining that a particular individual is a sage applies even in the case of an individual for whom only one teaching has been recorded. The second criterion relies on the fact that if a sage had stated a teaching in halakhah or aggadah,itwasstandardprocedurethathisname and teaching were recorded by sages of the following generation, who had been disciples in the preceding generation. The teachings of sages thus were passed on from generation to generation until the material was redacted. Presumably, sages who were members of the generation that followed that of the author of the teaching would not have preserved the teaching had the author not been a sage—a member of their own group—unless they noted otherwise. It can be deduced that the author of a teaching had been known as a sage in his day, despite the fact that he

1 On geonic traditions, see Kahan, Seder Tannaim,(Hebrew,section).Forthe scholarly literature, see Bacher, Tradition, –; Schürer, History, :–; Sokoloff, Dictionary, –; Glucker, Antiochus, –, ; Sharvit, Avoth, , –. The title “rabbi” was used in other ways even in the rabbinic world; see Mantel, Sanhedrin, –, –. 2 This has been noted by Cohen, “Epigraphical Rabbis,” –; and differently by Levine, Rabbinic Class, ,  and n. ; Goodman, Roman Galilee, –, . 3 On the actions of copyists and printers in general, see, for example, Lieberman, On the Yerushalmi, –; Sussman, “Introduction,” esp. nn. –. On the later periods see Sirat, Hebrew Manuscripts, esp. –; Spiegel, Jewish Book, esp. –; Heller, Printing ,esp.–;idem, Printing , esp. –; all of the articles in Liberman-Mintz and Goldstein, Printing the Talmud. methodology: who is a sage and where did he live?  was not mentioned with the title rabbi.4 Therefore, the second criterion is an important one that solves serious problems, such as how to regard an individual who has one or more teachings attributed to him but who does not bear the title rabbi. Simeon b. Azai (–ce), who had been a prominent figure among sages of his generation and should be considered a sage according to the second criterion, is one such example. The last three criteria relate primarily to the problematic cases in which there is only indirect proof that an individual was a sage. These cases make up almost a quarter of the names of the sages from the different settlements. In these instances, one of the last three criteria, or a combination of two or three of them, allows one to assume that a particular individual was a sage. Nonetheless, some doubtful cases still remain, and as stated previously, they are indicated with a question mark.

Identifying a Sage’s Place of Residence

Guidelines As rabbinic literature was not intended to serve historical purposes, its redactors did not relate historical information in a systematic manner. That is why, in most cases, the sages’ places of residence were not noted. While there is often mention of a sage’s presence in a particular settlement, that reference does not constitute proof that the settlement had been his place of residence. Even in recent times, scholars who have explored the history of the sages have not dealt systematically with this fundamental subject, but only randomly have mentioned a sage’s place of residence when they were able to deduce it from the text. It is therefore necessary to establish a solid systematic basis for a discussion of this important topic. Since the identification of the settlements in which sages

4 It is particularly striking that the teachings of sages in rabbinic literature generally were arranged according to generation, thus preserving the teachings of each generation. This provides the basis for drawing chronological conclusions about the generations in which the different sages were active. The scholarly research also generally uses the order found in rabbinic literature. See, for example, Urbach, The Halachah, –; Gafni, “Background,” –; Strack-Stemberger, Introduction, –. Schiffman, “The Making.” The Babylonian Talmud also follows a chronological order for the sages, but there are many problems with this order. See, for example, the discussion in Cohen, “Sugyot.”  chapter one were active is of major significance in this book, several guidelines are suggested below for identifying a sage’s place of residence based on rabbinic literature: a. The sage’s name and the name of a place appear together. b. There is direct proof in the sources that the sage lived in a particular place, even though the name of the place is not joined to the sage’s name. c. There is circumstantial evidence from the rabbinic sources thatthe sage lived in a particular place. d.Thereisproofofthesage’splaceofresidencefromexternalsources. It should be noted that, in general, there is clear evidence in the literature of both the mishnaic and talmudic periods that when linking the name of a settlement to the name of a sage, in most cases the sage had been active in that settlement and not elsewhere, as will be discussed further below. The first guideline carries the most weight, and in a large proportion of the cases it is the determining factor. However, this guideline holds true primarily for rural sages, whose names were linked to the village in which they were active. It applies only to a small portion of sages of the large urban rabbinic centers. Sages who were active in these large centers were mainly prominent sages, and as such, the names of the places in which they were active were not mentioned because their names were usually known in that city. Thus, when rabbinic literature was redacted in these large rabbinic centers, there was no need for further identification of sages active there. This is deduced from the fact that sages in the main rabbinic centers whose names were indeed linked to the places where they were active were not regarded as important sages. However, it was necessary to mention the places of residence of sages who were active on the periphery as a means of identification, since many of these sages were not well-known. It would also be reasonable to assume that sages and residents of cities with large rabbinic centers regularly referred to at least some of the sages in the peripheral settlements by the name of their settlement, thus preserving the sage’s name and connection to that settlement in rabbinic literature. In most cases the second guideline, and sometimes the third, was applied to ascertain which sages lived in the large urban rabbinic centers. The second and third guidelines are applicable also for rural rabbinic centers. Generally, only one guideline was used, although sometimes it was necessary to apply more than one. methodology: who is a sage and where did he live? 

The following are examples of explicit references in rabbinic literature to the place in which a sage resided. In the mishnaic literature, for example, we find: “And so did R. Halafta conduct matters in Sepphoris, and R. Hananiah b. Teradion in Sikhni” (t. Ta"anit :, based on Neusner :). This clearly indicates that R. Halafta was active in Sepphoris and R. Hananiah b. Teradion in Sikhni. Elsewhere in the Tosefta we find a statement by R. Judah ha-Nasi that he studied under Simeon bar Yohai in Tekoa: “Said Rabbi, when I was studying Torah with R. Simeon in Tekoa” (t. Eruvin :, based on Neusner, :). It is evident from this passage that R. Simeon was active in Tekoa. Examples in the talmudic sources include: “Said R. Hanina . . . when I would come up from Tiberias to Sepphoris, I would take the long way abouttogoandgreetR.Simeonb.HalaftainEinTe"enah” (j. Ta"anit :, a, based on Neusner, :). This reference explicitly states that R. Simeon bar Halafta lived in Ein Te"enah. In another example we find: “Rabbi and R. Jose bar Judah went down to Akko and were received by R. Mana” (j. Shevi"it :, a, based on Neusner :), indicating that R. Mana lived in Akko. In b. Avodah Zarah, a (Soncino, :): “R. Johanan happened to be in Farod. He enquired if there was any Mishnah of Bar Kappara [available], and R. Tanhum of Farod quoted to him [the Mishnah].” Thus, R. Tanhum resided in Farod. The fourth guideline seldom was used, as information from external sources is sparse. This consistent approach of basing conclusions of research on logical, structured, proven criteria, and guidelines in all of the above instances, enabled us to provide a firm basis for the data and arrive at more precise conclusions. It should be added that for the purposes of this book, we examined the names of other places in rabbinic literature that were linked to the names of a sage or places that were mentioned in association with the activities ofasage.Ifcasesdidnotmeettheabovecriteria,theywerenotincluded in the list of the names of settlements in the book.

Linguistic Characteristics that Identify a Sage with his Place of Residence The names of sages take on certain distinctive linguistic characteristics when they appear in rabbinic literature in conjunction with the name of a place. These characteristics are constant, recurring features which, as a result of the historical changes that took place in Palestine between  and  ce, sometimes were modified and took on new fixed characteristics. There is evidence for the assumption that if the name of a place  chapter one appears together with the name of a sage, then the place in which the sage was active, in all likelihood, was also his place of residence, as will be discussed below. Most of the sages mentioned in rabbinic literature in conjunction with the name of a settlement were active in rural areas. While rural sages were almost always mentioned together with their place of residence, this was generally not the case for urban sages. Nonetheless, the linguistic forms of the words that identify the name of a sage with the name of a place are identical for both rural and urban sages. Epigraphic findings from the late mishnaic and the talmudic periods in which the name of an individual appears together with the name of a placeexhibitthesamelinguisticcharacteristicsasthosefoundinrabbinic literature, and examples of these findings will be presented below and in the footnotes to support the ideas presented here. These findings include inscriptions that clearly indicate that an individual mentioned in an inscription resided in the place that appears along with his name.

Sage X Ish Place Y During the mishnaic period we find nine Judean sages whose names take the form “Sage X Ish (lit. man of) Place Y,”such as Nahum Ish (= man of) Gimzo, who was a member of the first to second generations after the destruction of the Second Temple. These sages were active during the Yavneh period, lasting from the destruction of the Second Temple to the Bar Kokhba Revolt.5 The names of fifteen Galilean sages take this form, such as Abba Jose Helikopri Ish Tivon, a member of the first generation after the destruction of the Second Temple.6 This form is far less common

5 The other eight are as follows: First to second generations, Nehuniah b. ha-Kaneh IshEmmaus,YakimIshHadid,Nehuniahb.ElinatanIshKfarha-Bavli;thirdgeneration, R. Levitas Ish Yavneh, Papias Ish Ono and Hananiah Ish Ono (who was active also after the Bar Kokhba Revolt), R. Eleazar b. Isaac Ish [Kfar] ha-Darom, R. Eleazer b. Judah Ish Bartuta. 6 See Chapter , Galilee, no. . Another sage was active there later in the mishnaic period—Haninah Ish Tivon. For the others, see ibid., no. , R. Menahem Ish Kfar (or Beth) She"arim,fromtheeraofR.Judahha-Nasi;no.,SimeonIshKitron,amember of the second to third generations after the destruction of the Second Temple; no. , R. Judah b. Agra (or b. Gamda) Ish Kfar Akko, a member of the second generation after the destruction of the Second Temple, R. Simeon b. Judah Ish Kfar Akko, perhaps the son of the former; no. , Abba Gurion Ish Zidan (Bethsaida) and Abba Judan Ish Zidan, both members of the third generation after the destruction of the Second Temple; no. , Nehemiah Ish Shihin, of the generation after the Bar Kokhba Revolt; no. , R. Jacob Ish Kfar Hitya, from the era of R. Judah ha-Nasi; no. , R. Eleazar b. Judah Ish Evlayim, a methodology: who is a sage and where did he live?  in the talmudic period. Although this pattern is used for reference to seven Galilean sages, we know of no Judean sages referred to in this way.7 The decrease in the use of this form in the talmudic period maybedue to Aramaic replacing Hebrew as the main language spoken by most of the Jews living in Palestine at that time.8 This change in language from the Hebrew of the mishnaic literature to the Aramaic of the talmudic literature is also manifest in the linguistic forms below. It is evident from several mishnaic sources that the wording “Ish (man of) place Y” refers to the place that was that sage’s scene of activity and not to his place of origin. M. Sotah : and m. Avot :,  mention Jose b. Johanan Ish (= man of) Jerusalem. It would be difficult to assume that he had been active elsewhere, rather than in the large city with which his name is associated, particularly as the period in which he was active is estimated to have been the beginning of the Hasmonean era, when Jerusalem was an important (and the only) Torah center in Judea. Elsewhere, in m. Middot :, we findIsh “ Har Habayit (= the man [in charge of] the Temple Mount,” Neusner, ). Clearly this title refers to the man’s position at the time, which was at the Temple Mount, and not to some previous connection to the place. There are nineteen names in the Mishnah alone that take the form “X man of Y,”meaning X who holds position Y. This indicates that when a sage was associated with a place, the association was not based on the past, but rather on the present, that is, the place in which he resided or was active.9 For example, in t. Yom Tov : (ed. Lieberman, ) we find: “Todos man of Rome taught the

memberof R.Judah ha-Nasi’s generation; no. , R.Halafta Ish Kfar Hananiah, amember of R. Judah ha-Nasi’s generation; no. , Abba Jose Ish Ianoa (Iani), a member of R. Judah ha-Nasi’s generation; no. , Eleazar Ish Biria, whose exact time period is not known; no. , Isaiah Ish Tiriya, whose time period is not known. 7 Chapter,Galilee,no.,R.TanhumIshKfarAkko,amemberofthethirdgen- eration, R. Isaac Ish Kfar Akko, perhaps of the same generation; no. , R. Jacob Ish Kfar Hanan (Hananiah), a member of the third generation; no. , R. Abba Hoshaiah Ish Tiriya, a member of the fifth to sixth generations; no. , R. Shila Ish Kfar Tamarta, a member of the second generation, and his son, R. Aha bar Shila Ish Kfar Tamarta; no. — Jacob Ish Kfar Neboria. It should be noted that according to the Babylonian Talmud, this was also the name of R. Hunia Ish Bikat Hauran (Hauaratan) in Bashan, see Chapter , Golan, no. . However, in the Jerusalem Talmud he is referred to as R. Hunia de-Barat Hauran (= of Barat Hauran). 8 Naveh, “Hebrew”; Bar-Asher, “Mishnaic Hebrew”; idem,“MishnaicHebrew”; Breuer, “The Aramaic”; idem, “Aramaic,” especially, –; Goodblatt, Jewish Nation- alism, –, –. 9 See Kasovsky, Mishnae, :.  chapter one

Romans the custom of . . .” (Neusner, :). The mention of the position held by Todos in Rome is a clear indication that he lived and was active in Rome.

Sage X ben/bar Place Y Another formulation appearing in the mishnaic period is the name of the sage followed by a noun phrase that begins with the word ben or bar (lit. sonof).InJudeawefindasingleexampleofthisform—Simeonb.(= ben) Antipatris, who was active in the generation after the destruction of the Second Temple. The name following the word ben (= son of) clearly does not refer to a person but instead is the name of a well-known place called Antipatris.10 In other sources as well, this formulation means that the sage is from place Y. There are three such instances among Galilean sages. Thus, for example, Menahem b. (= ben) Signai means Menahem of the village of Signah in the Lower Galilee. He may have been active in the second generation after the destruction of the Second Temple.11 A similar formulation is found for a sage who may have been active in Golan—R. Jacob b. Kurshai, the teacher of R. Judah ha-Nasi, who was active in Kurshi, which was perhaps located east of the Sea of Galilee.12 In the talmudic period, the Aramaic form bar replaces the Hebrew word ben in referring to the name of a place. There are ten such references among Galilean sages, such as the fifth-talmudic-generation R. Judan bar Signah. He was from the village of Signah, as was the above sage Menahem b. Signai, and the replacement of ben with bar reflects the

10 It has been suggested that the inscription “Yosef ben Eleazar ben Shila ben Horsha” foundonatombstonethatwasdiscoveredinTiberiasmeantthatYosefbenEleazarcame from the village of Horsha in Judea (ben Horsha = of Horsha), and after the destruction of the Second Temple he had wandered from Judea to Galilee, apparently to Tiberias; see Stepansky, “Inscription.”According to this explanation “ben Horsha” denotes his place of origin and not the place that was his location of activity. However, rather than speculating that Yosef ben Eleazar relocated from Judea to Galilee, it is easier to assume that, since he was buried in Tiberias, he must have resided in a nearby village named Horsha—which was a fairly common name, and not that he was originally from a village by the same name in Judea. See also Naveh, “Varia Epigraphica,” –; Rahmani, Jewish Ossuaries, , No. ; Zissu, “Sokho.” 11 Chapter,Galilee,no..Fortheothertwo,seeibid.,no.,AbbaHilphaib. Keruya, perhaps a member of the second generation after the destruction of the Second Temple; no. , Joshua b. Memel (Mamla), a member of the generation after the Bar Kokhba Revolt; and perhaps no. , Jose (b.?) Ketonta. 12 See Chapter , Golan, no. ; Klein, “ha-Shemot ,” . methodology: who is a sage and where did he live?  change of languages that took place between the mishnaic and talmudic periods, with Aramaic replacing Hebrew. The same phenomenon of bar replacing ben in the name of two different sages from the same settlement occurs in two other settlements in Galilee.13

Prefixes, Suffixes and Other Formats of Names and Places There are other formulations that connect the name of a sage to a place. In the mishnaic period we know of several formats consisting of the name of a sage with the addition of a gentilic noun. A gentilic noun taking a definite article is found five times among Judean sages. Thus, for example, we have R. Eleazar ha-Modai (= of Modi"in), a member of the generation preceding the Bar Kokhba Revolt.14 There are three such instances among Galilean sages, for example, Simeon ha-Shikmoni (= of Shikmona), a member of the third generation after the destruction of the Second Temple.15 We know of Joshua ha-Garsi (= of Gerasa) in Transjordan, who was a member of the generation that followed the Bar Kokhba Revolt.16 This form is also known to us from epigraphic findings that date back to as early as the first century ce, the end of the Second

13 Chapter , Galilee, no. , R. Judan bar Sagna; no. , Rabbi bar Kuriai (or Kuriia), a member of the second talmudic generation, Abba Hilphaii bar Kuriiah (or Keruiah), a member of the third talmudic generation; no. , R. Abba bar Memel, a member of the third generation, and R. Jose bar Memel who is referred to as R. Jose Mamlahia, a member of the fourth generation; no. , R. Eleazar bar Meiron, a member of the fifth talmudic generation; no. , R. Levi bar Biri, perhaps a member of the third talmudic generation; no. , R. Hananiah bar Akhbari, a member of the third talmudic generation; no. , Ada bar Ataleii, a member of the third talmudic generation; no. , R. Justa bar Shunnem, a member of the fifth talmudic generation. In settlements no. , , and  we find the ben of the mishnaic period interchanged with the bar of the talmudic period with regard to these settlements. An inscription discovered in a synagogue shows a similar suffix, see Naveh, Stone and Mosaic, –, No. . The inscription states “Judan bar (= son of) Zereda was the donor.” 14 Chapter,Judea,no.;ibid.,no.—TherearethreesagesfromMahoz—AbbaJose ha-Mehozi, a tanna of the third generation after the destruction of the Second Temple, R. Johanan ha-Makoti, a member of the fourth to fifth generations of the mishnaic period, andR.Simeonha-Mehozi,amemberofthefollowinggeneration;ibid.,no.,Simeon ha-Timni, a member of the third generation after the destruction of the Second Temple, was from Timnah. 15 Chapter , Galilee, no. , R. Simeon ha-Shazuri, a member of the first generation after the Bar Kokhba Revolt; no. , Jonatan ha-Kitoni, a member of the same generation; no. , Jose Heifani (= of Haifa), who attended R. Judah ha-Nasi. See also Goodblatt, “Definite Article”; Hachlili, Jewish Funerary, –. 16 Chapter , Golan, no. .  chapter one

Temple period. 17 There is a similar instance of the name of a sage with a gentilic noun but without the definite article—Jose Heifani (= Josef of Haifa), who was the attendant of R. Judah ha-Nasi. We know of two similar cases from the talmudic period: R. Judan Gezuri, a Judean sage who was a member of the fourth talmudic generation, perhaps from Gezer, and the Galilean sage Abba Zidoni (= of Zidon), a member of the fourth talmudic generation.18 Another form of the name of a sage that includes his place of residence takes a prepositional phrase—the name of the sage with the addition of a preposition followed by the name of the settlement. The preposition is sometimes the letter mem [m], as in the case of the Judean sages R.Judahb.Jacobme-BethGuvrin(=ofBethGuvrin)andJacobb.Isaac me-Beth Gophnin (= of Beth Gophnin), two mishnaic sages who are mentioned together and who may have been members of R. Judah ha- Nasi’s generation. Among Galilean sages, we know of R. Hiyya me-Achal Arav (= of Achal Arav), and from the talmudic period, we have the Galilean sage Jacob me-Afaratim (= of Afaratim).19 Sometimes the name of the sage appears with the Aramaic definite suffix aleph heh [ah], such as in the case of the Galilean sage Joshua Uza"ah (= of Uza). However, the name of this sage, who may have been active in the mishnaic period or at the beginning of the talmudic period, appears only once—in the Babylonian Talmud.20 By contrast, this form is prevalent throughout the talmudic period. Most of the common linguistic forms in the talmudic literature and in the aggadic midrashim differ from those of the mishnaic period. As mentioned, they were influenced by the Aramaic language, which was then the dominant language of the Jews in Palestine and Babylonia. One ofthecommonsuffixesthatisaddedontothenamesofplacesinthis period is the letter aleph [a]. This form appears five times among Judean sages, such as R. Eleazar Daroma (= of Darom—the south), a member of the fifth talmudic generation. There is a single instance of it among sages

17 For example, Rahmani, Jewish Ossuaries, , No. . This is a bilingual inscription. It states Papias ha-Beshani (= of Beth She"an) with the definite article heh [h] and the suffix yod [y], and underneath in Greek Παπα/σ κα Σαλωμι /Σκυπλεται (= of Scythopolis). 18 On Josef, see Chapter , Galilee, no. . On R. Judan, see Chapter , Judea, no. . On Abba, see ibid., no. . 19 On the first two, see Chapter , Judea, nos. , . On the other two, see Chapter , Galilee, no. , R. Hiyya; no. , Jacob me-Afaratim (= of Afaratim). 20 See Chapter , Galilee, no. . methodology: who is a sage and where did he live?  of Central Palestine, and it is found twice among Galilean sages.21 There are several names that take the suffix heh [h]. In Judea we find a single example of this form—for the Lod sage named Ludah (= of Lod) whose time period is not known. In Central Palestine we find this form once for the fourth-generation R. Taifah Samukah (= of Samuka).22 Apparently the suffixes heh [h] and alef [a] are interchangeable. The suffix yod alef [ya/ia] appears four times among Judean sages, for example, R. Simeon Ludia (= of Lod), a member of the third or fourth talmudic generation in Lod, and it appears nine times among Galilean sages.23 The suffix aleph heh [ah] appears in eleven cases of Galilean sages, such as Ulla Bira"ah (= of Biria), of the third generation, and in one case of a Golan sage.24 The suffix yod heh [iah/yah] appears in one case of a Judean sage, R. Hilfa

21 See Chapter , Judea: In Lod—R. Eleazar Daroma, R. Jose Daroma, R. Luliani Daroma, all of the fifth talmudic generation. There are two additional sages whose place of residence in Judea is uncertain—ibid., no. , R. Shabbetai Zedoka, a member of the second talmudic generation, and R. Alexander Zedoka. In Chapter , Central Palestine, no.,R.AbbaSamuka.InChapter,Galilee,no.,R.JoseKetonta,amemberof R. Judah ha-Nasi’s generation; ibid., no. , R. Johanan Anataniata, whose time period is not known; ibid., no. , Justa Havra. 22 On Ludah, see Chapter , Judea, no. , Lod. On Samuka, see Chapter , Central Palestine, no. . 23 Chapter,Judea,no.,Lod:R.SimeonLudia,amemberofthethirdorfourth talmudic generations; in the fifth generation there are R. Joshua Deromia and R. Jacob Deromia; ibid., no. , R. Levi Sukhia (= of Sukhia/Sokho), a member of the second talmudic generation. Chapter , Galilee, no. , R. Jose Zeidania (= of Zidon), a member of the fourth talmudic generation; ibid., no. , R. Jose Mamlahia (= of Mamla), a member of the second talmudic generation, R. Dosa Mamlahia (= of Mamla), a member of the fourth talmudic generation; ibid., no. , R. Jacob Gevulia (= of Gevul), a member of the second to third talmudic generations; ibid., no. , R. Hananiah Toratia (= of Tirata), a member of the third talmudic generation; ibid., no. , R. Isaac Attushiya (= of Attushiya) who was active in the third talmudic generation, and his son, R. Hiyya son of Isaac Attushiya; ibid., no. , R. Jose Gelilia (= of Gelil/Glelilia), a member of the third talmudic generation; ibid., no. , R. Judan Antadoria (= of Antadoria/Ein Tora). The same form appears in epigraphic findings, see Rahmani, Jewish Ossuaries, e, , No. ; , No. . 24 Chapter , Galilee, no. , Ulla Bira"ah (= of Biria), Abba Bira"ah and Nathan Bira"ah (uncertain), all three of the third talmudic generation; ibid., no. , R. Menahem of Iodfa"ah (= of Iodefat), a member of the first talmudic generation; no. , R. Jose Maonah (= of Ma"on), who was active in the second talmudic generation; ibid., no. , R. Isaac Migdalah (= of Migdala), a member of the second talmudic generation and R. Judan Migdalah, a member of the fourth talmudic generation; ibid., no. , R. Josi Mandah (= of Kfar Mandi), perhaps a member of the fourth talmudic generation; ibid., no. , R. Hiyya Farodah (= of Farod), a member of the fifth talmudic generation; ibid., no. , Oved Gelilah (= of Gelil), perhaps of the third talmudic generation; ibid., no. , R. Isaac  chapter one

Deromiah (= of the south—Lod), of the fourth talmudic generation in Lod. This form appears in one case of a Caesarean sage, four times among Galilean sages and five times among sages from Golan.25 Another Aramaic form, especially prevalent in the talmudic period, that attributes a person to a particular place, is the prefix dalet [d-] before thenameoftheplace.WefindthisformseventimesamongJudeansages, for example, the second-generation R. Jonathan de-Beth Guvrin (= of Beth Guvrin). It appears six times among the Caesarean sages, such as the second generation R. Ulla de-Caesarin (= of Caesarea), as well as inthecollectivenameRabbanan de-Caesarin (= Rabbis of Caesarea).26 This form is found six times among Galilean sages. Thus, for example, we find the following in the Jerusalem Talmud: “R. Abedima de-Haifa (= of Haifa) gave a decision in Haifa” (j. Eruvin :, a, Neusner, :), a reference which emphasizes that he lived in Haifa, and this can be generalized to other cases in which the name of a sage and the name of a place take this form. It appears six time for sages in Golan, such as R. Hunia de-Barat Hauran (= of Barat/Beth Hauran) as well as in the

Kaskesaah (= of Keskesaah), a member of the fifth talmudic generation. In Chapter , Golan,no.,R.EleazarBazra"ah (= of Bostra), who was active in the fifth talmudic generation. 25 Chapter,Judea,no.—Lod,R.HilfaDeromiah(=oftheSouth-Lod),amember of the fourth talmudic generation. Chapter , Central Palestine: in Caesarea we find R. Tahlifa Caesariah (= of Caesarea), who was active in the second to third talmudic generations. Chapter , Galilee, no. , R. Hananiah Anatoniah (= of Ein Te"ena), who was active in the fifth talmudic generation; ibid., no. , R. Hezekiah Akhaiah (= of Akko), who was active around the fourth talmudic generation; ibid., no. , R. Abba Sarongiah (= of Sarongiah), a member of the fourth talmudic generation; ibid., no. , R. Isaac Hipushiah,whosetimeperiodisnotknown.InChapter,Golan,no.,R.Berekhiah Bozraiah (= of Bostra), of the fourth talmudic generation, R. Hanan bar R. Berekhiah Bozraiah, R. Jonah Bozraiah, R. Tanhum Bozraiah, all of the fifth talmudic generation; ibid., no. , R. Tanhum Edreiah (= of Edrei), of the fifth talmudic generation. This suffix was found on an inscription in a synagogue in Almah in the Upper Galilee, see Naveh, Stone and Mosaic, –, No. ; Kutscher, Studies, . 26 Chapter , Judea, no. —the above R. Jonathan; ibid., no. , Jaffa—The names of all five sages known from the talmudic period contain this prefix before the name of the place: R. Adda de-Jaffa (= of Jaffa), a member of the third talmudic generation, R.Hiyyab.R.Addade-Jaffa,R.Pinhasde-Jaffa,R.Nahmande-Jaffa,allthreeofthe fourth talmudic generation, and R. Tanhum de-Jaffa, perhaps of the fifth to sixth talmudic generations; ibid., no. , R. Hasa de-Eshtemoa (= of Eshtemoa), who was active in the third to fourth talmudic generations. Chapter , Central Palestine: The above-mentioned R. Ulla de-Caesarin (= of Caesarea); R. Idi de-Caesarin, R. Paregori de-Caesarin, Zugga de-Caesarin, all of the third talmudic generation; R. Nasa de-Caesarin and R. Jacob de- Caesarin, of the fourth talmudic generation, and the anonymous group of sages called Rabbanan de-Caesarin. methodology: who is a sage and where did he live?  collective name Rabbanan de-Naveh (= Rabbis of Naveh).27 Sometimes the prefix dalet [d-] is joined to the preposition min (= of)—de-min [dmn]. There are nine such cases among Galilean sages and two in Golan.28 Based on an examination of the sources in which these forms appear, in all likelihood, the place that is mentioned denotes the place wherethesagewasactiveandnothisplaceoforigin. Epigraphic evidence exists that supports the above assumption. An Aramaic inscription in Hammat Gader dating back to the first half of the fifth century ce that coincides with the talmudic generation in which the Jerusalem Talmud was redacted mentions the names of individuals

27 Chapter,Galilee,no.,R.Joshuade-Sakhnin(=ofSakknin),ofthefourth talmudic generation; no. , R. Azariah de-Kfar Hitya (= of Kfar Hitya), a member of the secondtothirdtalmudicgenerations;ibid.,no.,R.Zakkaide-Ianoa,whosetimeperiod isnotknown;ibid.,no.,R.Zakkaide-Cabul,amemberofthefirsttalmudicgeneration; ibid., no. , R. Issachar de-Kfar Mandi, a member of the first talmudic generation; ibid., no. , R. Johanan de-Kezion, perhaps of the second talmudic generation; ibid., no. , R. Tanhum de-Kfar Agin, of the fourth talmudic generation, R. Joshua son of R. Tanhum de-Kfar Agin; ibid., no. , R. Jonathan, safra de-Gufta (= scribe of Gufta), of the fourth talmudic generation; ibid., no. , R. Zakkai de-Shaab, a member of the fourth talmudic generation, R. Mana de-Shaab, of the fifth talmudic generation; ibid., no. , R. Hiyya de- Kfar Tehumin, a member of the fourth talmudic generation, R. Judan son of R. Hama de- Kfar Tehumin, perhaps the son of the latter, in the fifth talmudic generation; ibid., no. , R. Jose de-Kfar Dan, a member of the fourth talmudic generation; ibid., no. , R. Hillel de-Kifra, of the fifth talmudic generation; ibid., no. , R. Judan (or Jonah) de-Kfar Imi, a member of the fourth talmudic generation. Chapter , Golan, no. , R. Hunia de-Barat Hauran, and his son R. Uziel b. R. Hunia de-Barat Hauran; ibid., no. , R. Platia de-Naveh, a member of the third talmudic generation, R. Shila de-Naveh, of the fourth talmudic generation, as well as the group named Rabbanan de-Naveh; ibid., no. , R. Eviatar de- Idmah, of the second to third generations, R. Kiris de-Idmah, perhaps of the fifth talmudic generation. On the prefix dalet,seeKasovsky,Bavli, :–. It should be noted that in the chapters of the book, the prefix “de” may appear as the English “of.” 28 Chapter , Galilee, no. , R. Josia de-min Usha (= of Usha), a member of the first to second talmudic generations; ibid., no. , R. Halafta de-min Haifa (= of Haifa), who was active in the first talmudic generation, and R. Abedimi de-min Haifa, who was active in the second to third talmudic generations; ibid., no. , R. Abba de-min Akko, a member of the third to fourth talmudic generations; ibid., no. , R. Dosetai de-min Biri (= of Biria), a member of the third talmudic generation; ibid., no. , R. Eleazar de-min Ruma, who was active in the first talmudic generation, and R. Johanan de-min Ruma, whose time periodisnotknown;ibid.,no.,R.Tanhumde-minFarod,amemberofthesecond talmudic generation; ibid., no. , R. Oshaia Zeira de-min Hivria, a member of the third talmudic generation. Chapter , Golan, no. , R. Eleazar de-min Naveh, who was active in the second talmudic generation, and R. Tanhum de-min Noi, whose time period is not known. About the word de-min,see,forexample,Kasovsky,Yerushalmi, :–; Kasovsky, Yerushalmi-Onomasticon, –, under the entry Sepphoris, where most of the linguistic forms discussed here appear. The form min appears also in epigraphic findings, see Rahmani, Jewish Ossuaries, , No. ; , No. .  chapter one who donated to synagogue renovations. It states: “And remember for the good the child of Sysiphus [Se]pphorai[a]h (= of Sepphoris) and [Lord Pa]trik (= Patricius) (of) Kfar Aqabi[a]h and Joseh b. (= son of) Dosetai(=Dositheus)de-minKfarNahum(=ofCapernaum) ... and remember for the good Judan Arda (= the architect?) m- Heimaus (= of Emmaus).” This inscription contains a variety of the different forms discussed above which associate an individual with his place of residence. The connection between Sysiphus and Sepphoris is implied by the suffix iah. Patrik is associated with his place of residence, Kfar Aqabiah, by the suffix iah, while Joseh b. Dosetai is associated with his place of residence by the preposition de-min (= of), as is Judan to Emmaus by means of the preposition m (= of)—Judan Arda m-Heimaus. The inscribers used a variety of forms to denote the places of residence of the donors who came to Hammat Gader from their different settlements, presumably to bathe and cure themselves in its waters, and at the same time to contribute to the synagogue there.29

Determining the Importance of a Sage or a Torah Center

There is an inverse relationship between the number of times in apar- ticular generation that the name of a sage is mentioned in rabbinic literature in association with a rabbinic center and the status of that sage at that time. The more important the sage, the less the need to mention the rabbinic center with which he was associated. The same holds true with regard to the large rabbinic centers. The fewer the sages mentioned in rabbinic literature in connection with the name of a Torah center in a particular generation, the more dominant was that center at the time. Thus, Lod was an important rabbinic center throughout the entire mishnaic and talmudic periods, even though after the Bar Kokhba Revolt it had become secondary in importance to Galilean rabbinic centers. Accordingly, its sages were hardly mentioned in conjunction with the city’s name, except at the end of the talmudic period, when Lod’s importance had declined and the appellation Daroma (= south/southerner)

29 On the inscription, see Naveh, “Varia Epigraphica”; Avi-Yonah, “Hammat Gader,” . Most of the linguistic forms discussed here appear in the inscription, see Naveh, ibid.; idem, Stone and Mosaic, –, –, No. ; Kutscher, Studies, . See also Hachlili, “Family,” esp. nn. , ; idem, Jewish Funerary, ; Urman, “Public Structures,” – . methodology: who is a sage and where did he live?  wasaddedtothenamesofitssages—R.X Daroma,alludingtoLod.30 The same is true of Sepphoris which, like Lod, had been an important rabbinic center throughout almost all of the mishnaic and talmudic periods. From the mishnaic period until the second generation of the talmudic period, no sage was mentioned in conjunction with the city’s name. Afterwards, from the second to fifth generations, sages were mentioned along with the name Sepphoris, primarily because it had declined and its importancehadbecomesecondarytothatofthecenterinTiberias.31 This phenomenon is true also of Tiberias. Hardly any sages were mentioned along with the name Tiberias throughout the entire talmudic period, when it was the main rabbinic center in Palestine and the place where most of the Palestinian rabbinic literature was redacted.32 The situation is somewhat different with regard to Caesarea, which had been the seat of a rabbinic center during the entire talmudic period. Approximately a third of its sages were mentioned in rabbinic literature in conjunction with the name of the city, which makes it an exception in terms of the large rabbinic centers.33 This phenomenon derives from this city’s unique character, compared to that of the other urban rabbinic centers, and is explained in detail in Chapter .

30 Rabbinic literature mentions R. Pas Daroma, a close associate of R. Judah ha-Nasi, who relocated to Sepphoris in his early years and was named after his city of origin. However, he was included among the Ziknei ha-Darom (= Elders of the South), a group of sages who were active in Lod during the first to second talmudic generations. At the same time there was another group designation, Deromaei. There is mention of a sage named R. Simeon Ludia who was act in the third or fourth talmudic generation, but there is no information about him. Another sage about whom there is no information is R. Luda. Both of these sages were apparently named after the city of Lod. Another phenomenon of this generation is that two Lod sages were given the appellation Darom (= South), which refers to Lod. They are R. Hilkiya ha-Dromi and R. Hilfa Deromiah. In the fifth talmudic generation, all sages active in Lod were given the same appellation: R. Eleazar Daroma, R. Joshua Deromia, R. Jose Daroma, R. Jacob Deromia, and R. Luliani Daroma. 31 Five sages from the third to fifth talmudic generations are mentioned, and they constitutehalfofthesageswhowereactiveinSepphorisduringthatperiod.Thenames of these sages are: third generation, R. Huna Rabbah de-Ziporin and R. Hanin de- Zipori; fourth generation, R. Hiyya Ziporah; fifth generation, R. Hanina de-Ziporin and R. Abduma de-Ziporin. See Chapter , Galilee, no. . 32 There are a small number of teachings of one sage who was active at the end ofthe fourth talmudic generation, R. Luliani bar Tabari. 33 InthesecondtalmudicgenerationwehaveR.Ullade-Caesarin;inthethirdtalmu- dic generation, R. Tahlifa Caesarea, R. Idi de-Caesarin, Zugga de-Caesarin (two sages), R. Paregori de-Caesarin; in the fourth talmudic generation, R. Nasa de-Caesarin, R. Jacob de-Caesarin. These eight sages constitute over a quarter of the twenty-six sages who were active in Caesarea during the talmudic period. To this we should add the collective  chapter one

The distinction between the cities and the villages with regard to the mentioning of a sage in conjunction with the name of a place is not abso- lute. Some of the Hellenistic cities in Palestine having a Jewish minority, such as Akko and Beth Guvrin, did not develop rabbinic centers that were active for an entire period. They were among the most important cities in Palestine, yet few sages were active there, certainly not for consecutive generations, and these sages were not famous on a national level. Con- sequently, in almost every instance in which a sage was active in one of these cities, the name of the city in which he was active was added to his name, as was the case with rural sages.

Delineating the Geographic Borders of Palestine’s Jewish Population

The geographic expanse of the areas in which sages resided and were active is essential background information for understanding the scope of rabbinic activity during the mishnaic and talmudic periods. Sages werepartofandintermingledwithJewishsocietyandwereactivein the different areas in which Jews resided, and not only in centrally located places. Jews resided in Judea, Central Palestine, Galilee, and on the eastern outskirts in Golan, Bashan and Transjordan. After the destruction of the Second Temple, and primarily after the Bar Kokhba Revolt, there were major population shifts in all of these regions as well as changes in their administrative borders, and similar changes took place in the rabbinic world and the places in which sages resided. From the time of the destruction of the Second Temple and up to the Bar Kokhba Revolt—–ce—rabbinic activity was concentrated primarily in Judea. After the Bar Kokhba Revolt, most of the Jewish settlements in Judea were destroyed, and the Jews remained only on its outskirts, in the Shefelah and southern Mt. Hebron. The information about rabbinic activity derives only from these areas. Galilee, too, was affected by the destruction of the Second Temple, but not gravely, and up until the Bar Kokhba Revolt, considerable rabbinic activity flourished in the region, which was second in importance to Judea. During the Bar Kokhba Revolt, Galilee, relative to Judea, suffered little damage, and after the Revolt, this region developed into the main center of Palestine’s

Rabbanan de-Caesarin, the anonymous group of sages who were active in Caesarea between the second and fifth talmudic generations. Thus, this phenomenon encompasses over a third of the sages who were active in Caesarea. methodology: who is a sage and where did he live? 

Jewish population. At the same time it became the focus of rabbinic activity until the end of the talmudic period—–ce—which is also the end of the period under discussion here. Jews also resided in a geographic region defined as Central Palestine. Itconsistedofpartofthenortherncoastalplain,fromnorthofJaffato present-day Haifa, and inland from the coastal plain to Mount Carmel. The region may be regarded, in a way, as an extended Caesarea—the capital—and its hinterland. A considerable number of Jews lived in this region before the destruction of the Second Temple, but they abandoned Caesarea entirely on the eve of the destruction, following violent clashes with its non-Jewish residents. Apparently many Jews fled Carmel as well.34 After the Bar Kokhba Revolt, the Jewish population, mostly from a defeated Judea, wandered towards the coastal plain that included Cae- sarea. Caesarea’s Jewish population gradually grew, and at the beginning of the talmudic period (approximately ce) Caesarea had become a rabbinic center that was active throughout the entire talmudic period. The last geographic region discussed in the book is the eastern outskirts of the Jewish population—Golan, Bashan, Hauran and Transjor- dan.ManychangestookplaceintheJewishpopulationoftheseareas. Golan, Bashan and Hauran appear to have had a smaller Jewish population during the mishnaic period and a larger one during the talmudic period. The same holds true for the rabbinic activity in the region, which, in the second half of the talmudic period, also spread eastward from Golan to the more distant outskirts of the Jewish population in these areas. The Jewish population in Transjordan had become greatly weakened in the days of the destruction of the Second Temple, and more so aftertheBarKokhbaRevolt,althoughtodatewehavenoprecisedata about Transjordanian Jewish residents and very little information about rabbinic activity in that area. The lack of information about the Jewish population in Northern Transjordan is even more problematic, as there is no evidence that Jews populated this area after the Bar Kokhba Revolt. Detailsofthegeographicbordersoftheaboveregionsarepresented below. The most useful and detailed geographic description of the borders of Palestine and its division into regions is that of Josephus. In general, his description follows the lines of the Roman administrative division of that time and represents the situation that existed on the eve of the destruction of the Second Temple in ce and during the years

34 See Rosenfeld and Borenstein, “Ramat ha-Nadiv”; Borenstein and Rosenfeld, “Nar- bata.”  chapter one immediately after it. However, both the administrative division and the geographic borders remained largely the same throughout the mishnaic and talmudic periods which followed, and the administrative and geographic changes made by the Roman government did not change the overall picture.35 In a famous passage in his Jewish Wars .–[.], Josephus divides Palestineintothreemainareasbroadlyfromnorthtosouth.Hefirst describes the Upper and Lower Galilee, then Transjordan (Peraea) and afterwards Judea, and adds a description of Samaria. Finally, he describes the kingdom of Agrippa II, which according to him includes: “The toparchies of Gamla and Golan, Bashan, and the Argov region (Tra- chon).”Josephus outlines the external boundaries of the different regions, as well as the interior borders dividing these regions. Galilee borders Syria and Phoenicia, primarily Tyre, in the north. The border in the west extends from Akko in the north to Carmel and to Geva-Parashim in the south (near today’s Mishmar ha-Emek in the Jezreel Valley). In the south it extends from Samaria to Beth She"an (Scythopolis) and as far as the Jor- dan River. From there the border turns northward and follows the Jordan River until it reaches the borders of the toparchies of Susita (Hyppos), Gader and Golan near the Sea of Galilee. These toparchies belonged to the kingdom of Agrippa II who ruled Golan, Bashan and part of Upper Galilee. Frequently using the terms breadth and length to describe the borders, Josephus states that Lower Galilee extends in length from Tiberias in the east to Cabul near Akko in the west. Its breadth is from a village called Kesulot, which lies in the Jezreel Valley in the south, to Beer Sheva (near today’s Kfar Hananiah) in the north, from which begins the breadth of Upper Galilee.36 The border of Upper Galilee extends from Beer Sheva in the south to Kfar Baka in the north, perhaps near Kedesh in northern Upper Galilee, which belonged to the toparchy of Tyre. Its length in the east extends from Kfar Tela near the Jordan River, alongside Lake Hulah up to Meron (Marut).

35 Alon, Toledot, :–; Avi-Yonah, Holy Land; idem, Geography, esp. –; Ur- bach, “Idolatry”; Safrai, Boundaries, –; Tsafrir, “Provinciot”; idem, Map, –; Rosenfeld, “Josephus”; idem,“Josephus-Mishnah”;Ofer,“Judah”;KlonerandZissu,“Hid- ing Complexes.” 36 The borders of Galilee did not include the coastal plain of the western Galilee, the southern Jezreel Valley and Beth Shean and the surrounding area. See Klein, Galilee, –. Compare with Freyne, Galilee, –; Goodman, Roman Galilee, –; Oppen- heimer, Galilee, –; Groh, “Galilean Synagogue”; Rosenfeld, “Josephus.” methodology: who is a sage and where did he live? 

Josephus delineates the borders of Transjordan (Peraea) as follows: The length of Peraea is from Makhaeros, near the Dead Sea, in the south, which borders on Moab, to Pella in the north. Its eastern limits reach to Arabia (Nabatean Arabia) in the south, and the three northeastern cities of Hesban, Philadelphia (Rabat Amon), and Gerasa in a northward direction. Generally speaking, the border extends from Arabia in the east to the Jordan River in the west. The borders of Judea are as follows: Its external eastern border runs in a north-south direction from the southern part of the Jordan River southward to the end of the Dead Sea on the Arabian border. Here the border turns to the west and extends to Rafiah on the Mediterranean Sea. ThiswastheRomanadministrativeborder,eventhoughJewsdidnotlive in the area of Rafiah, but only in areas north of Gaza. From Rafiah the border runs north along the Mediterranean until several kilometers past Caesarea. Here the border turns east along the Roman road Caesarea- Beth Shean (Scythopolis) until it passes Beth Shean from the south and reaches the Jordan River. Josephus mentions the interior border between Judea and Samaria from north to south that passes Anwat Burekais (Hirbet Baraka) in the toparchy of Akrabata in eastern Samaria. This means that Samaria’s border extends from the Roman road running between Caesarea and Beth Shean in the north to Anwat Burekais in the south. Judea begins at Anwat Burekais and its border extends southward to the area of Arad or Arab in the Negev, beyond which a Jewish population does not exist. Josephus also states that the breadth of Judea extends from the Jordan River in the east to Jaffa (the Mediterranean Sea) in the west. ButeventhoughJosephusmentionsJaffa,whichwouldmeanthat Judea extended as far as the sea, this assumption is imprecise, as later on he lists the toparchies of Judea, and the western toparchies are Lod, Emmaus, Pella (Beth Natif, Beth Letpha) and Idumaea, all of which are in the Shefelah, which borders on the coastal plain. He later states that Jaffa and Jamnia (Yavneh) are additional toparchies of Judea, alluding to thefactthattheyarenotanintegralpartofit.Furthermore,Jamniacould not have been included in the Judean toparchies, since it was the private city of the emperor during Josephus’ time. Thus, Judea bordered on the settlements of the Shefelah and not on the coastal plain west of the Shefelah, which in Josephus’ time was an autonomous region and not part of Judea. The vast majority of the population of the coastal plain was Hellenistic, residing in the coastal cities. They included some of the most important and prosperous cities  chapter one in Palestine, such as Akko, Caesarea, Ashkelon and Gaza. According to Josephus, however, the segment of the coastal plain, from the border between the toparchies of Ashdod and Ashkelon in the south to the border with the toparchies of Caesarea and Dor in the north, belonged to the province of Judea on the eve of, as well as after, the destruction of the Second Temple.37 The general description of the regions and their borders did not change after the destruction of the Second Temple despite administrative changes and the growth or decline of the Jewish population in the different regions. An important, primarily administrative change that should be stressed is that after the death of Agrippa II (circa ce), his kingdom was abolished and was combined administratively with the province of Judea.38 Thus, Josephus’ comprehensive description reflects the general outline of the areas in which the Jewish population of Palestine resided from the time of the destruction of the Second Temple onwards, even though as stated, there were changes that will be referred to in the vari- ouschaptersofthebook. A calculation of the size of the different regions of Palestine based on Josephus’s description clearly implies the geographic scope of rabbinic activity there. An area relatively small in size, for example a two or three- day journey from one end to the other, was able to facilitate ties among sagesinthatarea,astheycouldmeetoftenandactjointly,irrespectiveof whether they lived in villages or cities or in two different regions. The calculations show that the size of the main areas in which sages were active were not particularly large geographically, thus enabling sages to forge stronger ties and have a greater influence in those areas. Their influence on the population increased even further if they were active in a large number of settlements that were widely dispersed throughout the region, as in the case of Galilee and even of Judea during the Yavneh period. Their considerable influence on the population also strengthened the rabbinic class. Alternatively, less intensive activity in one of the areas meant less interaction among sages and less possibility for sages to act and advance their goals. The entire area of Judea totaled , square kilometers. It was approximately eighty kilometers long from north to south and extended about fifty kilometers from east to west. The eastern border of Jewish Galilee

37 On all this information, see Safrai, “Eretz Israel”; Rosenfeld, “Josephus,” esp. – , –. 38 See Tsafrir, “Provinciot,” –; idem, Map, –. methodology: who is a sage and where did he live?  was approximately fifty kilometers long, the southern border forty-five kilometers, the western border thirty-five kilometers and the northern border, fifty kilometers. Its total area was approximately , square kilometers.39 The size of the region referred to in this book as Cen- tral Palestine consisted primarily of the administrative area of Caesarea mentioned by Josephus. This area coincides mostly with the region of the coastal plain known today as the Sharon, which covers an area of about  square kilometers (approximately fifty kilometers long and fifteen kilometers wide). But Central Palestine also included the area east of Caesarea—Mount Carmel and its western slopes, up to the Mediter- ranean Sea—which covers about  square kilometers, and is over thirty-two kilometers long and over fourteen kilometers wide.40 Thus, the total area of the region referred to here as Central Palestine was approximately , square kilometers. The area of Jewish Transjordan was approximately , square kilometers, although according to one opinion, it totaled , square kilometers.41 Calculating the area of Golan and the nearby regions is more complicated, as the Jews regarded Golan as an extension of Galilee; yet the rabbinic centers were mostly east of Golan, primarily in Bashan. The main rabbinic center throughout most of the talmudic period was in Naveh in the middle of Bashan. Bostra, in the southeastern corner of the border of Bashan, and more precisely in Hauran, was a rabbinic center from the middle of the talmudic period; we know of a sage who was active in Edrei, slightly south of the Bashan, at the end of the talmudic period. Thus, it is difficult to regard this large area as one unit and calculate its size, as itis

39 It can also be presented in the following manner: The distance from north to south is seventy-five kilometers, and from east to west, thirty-eight to fifty-three kilometers, which totals an area of slightly over , square kilometers. For calculating the area of Judea, see Rosenfeld, “Galilean Valleys,” esp. nn. –. According to the calculations of Duling, “Movement,” , the area of Lower Galilee is four hundred and seventy square miles, and the area of Upper Galilee is one hundred and eighty square miles. He adds a third area to Galilee, the western shore of the Sea of Galilee and the area north of the Jordan River from Mt. Hermon to the Sea of Galilee, which is one hundred and twenty- five miles long, but he does not calculate the area of this region. 40 On calculating the area of these regions, see Karmon, Israel—Geography, –, –. For the historical aspects and maps, see Avi Yonah, Geography, –, – ; Tsafrir, Map, –; Lehmann and Holum, Inscriptions of Caesarea, –. Shahar, “Dialogue,” –; Capper, “Southern Palestine,” esp. –. 41 The first opinion is that of Hoehner, Herod Antipas, . He calculated  square miles. The second opinion is that of Kokkinos, Herodian Dynasty, . His calculation is greater because he added the area of southern Transjordan, and the area to the Arnon River, now named Wadi Mugib.  chapter one composed of several separate regions which, administratively, belonged to different provinces. In addition, the information about rabbinic activity in these areas is sparse, and at that time sages themselves regarded these areas as the outskirts of the Jewish population of Palestine. In addition to using Josephus’ map as a basis for understanding the geographic division of the areas in which the Jewish population of Pales- tine resided, rabbinic literature provides us with a kind of schematic map ofPalestine.Itisnotreallyamapbutarabbinichalakhicsourcethat contains the names of places constituting the borders of Palestine on all sides.42 This list of places, which is mentioned in several of the tannaitic sources, is a beraita referred to as the “List of Boundaries” or the “Tan- naitic List of Boundaries,” and it was redacted circa ce, about one hundred years after Josephus. It was composed by sages and reflected their geographic perception of the borders of Palestine for the purpose of observing the laws dependent upon the Land of Israel. The author of this source may have been R. Judah ha-Nasi—the redactor of the Mishnah— and its purpose was halakhic, in contrast to Josephus’ historical purpose. The beraita is not as detailed and comprehensive as Josephus’ map, and it notes only the names of settlements and not their geographic locations. The list of boundaries begins with several settlements along the coastal plain, from Ashkelon in the south to Akko in the north. The bound- ary then turns eastward, and the settlements that make up the northern border of Galilee are listed. This listing constitutes the main part of the beraita, and it contains most of the settlements, presumably because the redactor lived in this region and most of the Jewish settlements were concentrated there. Several settlements on the slopes of Mt. Hermon arelistedfortheeasternpartofGalilee.Thebordercontinueseastward, turns slightly south and includes most of the settlements of Golan and Bashan up to Hauran. It then turns westward at the southern corner of the Bashan and follows a generally southward direction, with several settlements listed in Transjordan (Peraea), and continues on to the southern tip of the Dead Sea. The southernmost point in this list is Rekem, which is identified with the well-known Petra. The border then turns westward and slightly north, following a straight line to Ashkelon.43

42 On the importance of such maps in the ancient world, see Smith, “Cartography.” 43 Much scholarly research has been conducted about the map delineated by the sages. The basic research was conducted by Sussmann, “Boundaries.” Much bibliographical material is brought in Feliks, Shevi"it, :– and in the notes. For the historical- cultural background, see, for example, Tsafrir, “Provinciot,” –; Hartal, Ituraeans, –. Also see the broader geographic-halakhic discussion in Sussmann, “Halakhic Inscription.” methodology: who is a sage and where did he live? 

The description in the beraita primarily helps us to understand how the sages perceived the borders and outskirts of Palestine in terms of the laws dependent upon the Land. We will list the important differences between Josephus’ map and the map delineated by the sages. With the exception of the outlying regions, it is clear that both the sages and Josephus have a very similar overall geographic perspective of the land. The coastal plain, which according to Josephus was part of the province of Judea, extended from slightly north of Ashkelon in the south to slightly north of Caesarea in the north. The beraita as well begins with Ashkelon in the southern coastal plain, but reaches only as far north as Akko. The differences along the northern border—in Galilee—are marginal, but there are considerable differences in the east. According to Josephus, Upper Galilee, Golan and Bashan were part of the kingdom of Agrippa II. They were annexed after his death, circa ce, to the province of Judea and constituted its northeastern and eastern borders. The List of Boundaries, redacted one hundred years later expands the border in this area by turning it sharply in a southeasterly direction from the slopes of Mt. Hermon towards the area of Naveh in Bashan and then continuing on to the city of Knat. The border then gradually turns to the southwest near the polis of Bostra, and then turns sharply westward in the direction of Transjordan, continuing thus up to a point east of the southern tip of the Dead Sea to the area of Zohar. The border described by Josephus, on the other hand, does not extend as far east as the region of Golan, Bashan and Trachon. It is interrupted to the south by the Decapolis, not an area populated by Jews, after which it reaches the Jewish area of Transjordan and continues on to the tip of the Dead Sea in the area of Zohar. According to the beraita,theentire area south of Bashan to the southern tip of the Dead Sea is included uninterruptedly within the area of Palestine. The beraita also includes a large area south of the Dead Sea up to Petra, which is relatively distant. The border, according to the List of Boundaries, then turns westward and slightly north, in a straight line to Ashkelon. Josephus differs here as well. According to him, at a point to the east of Zohar the border turns west in the direction of Rafiah and the Mediterranean Sea.44 Thus, the borders of Palestine according to Josephus and according to the beraita are fairly similar and include Judea, Samaria, Galilee, Golan,

44 For the map deduced from Josephus, see Tsafrir, Map, , ; Kasher, Hellenistic Cities, ; Rosenfeld, “Josephus,” map no. . For the reconstructed map of the List of Boundaries, see, for example, Feliks, Shevi"it, :.  chapter one

Bashan and Hauran, most of Transjordan and the center of the Coastal Plain. They delineate the geographic region in which Jews lived and in which the sages were active during the mishnaic and talmudic periods. The differences between the borders described by Josephus and those described in the beraita are found within these areas or on their outskirts, and they are easily explained by the political events that took place in Palestine at that time. Thus, for example, the sages, the rabbinic leadership and most rabbinic activity relocated from Judea to Galilee in the aftermath of the Bar Kokhba Revolt. This relocation took place within the area included in both lists and is easily understood against thebackgroundoftheRevolt,aswillbeexplainedlater.45 As stated, the maps differ primarily with regard to the outlying areas, which the sages apparently considered as lying within the geographic scope of their rabbinic activities, even if some of these areas were actually beyond the borders of Palestine. Because of the attitude of the sages and their activities in these outlying areas, I list and discuss these settlements as well. In summary, this discussion of the geographic background and the borders of Jewish Palestine sheds light on the size and layout of the areas in which Palestine’s Jewish population resided during the mishnaic and talmudic periods and in which sages operated as a unique group, forging and developing a network of ties among themselves and with others. The sizes of the different areas reflect the extent of rabbinic activity and the degree to which sages were able to influence Jewish society in these areas.

45 On the historical changes, see Tsafrir, “Provinciot,”esp. ; Frankel and Finkelstein, “Boundaries”; Rosenfeld, “Josephus-Mishnah.” chapter two

JUDEA

Judea was one of the two regions of Palestine with the largest concentrations of rabbinic activity between  and ce. This was so despite political upheavals and despite the decline of the Jewish population after the Bar Kokhba Revolt, which was followed by the reduction of rabbinic activity in the region. Lod, an urban settlement, was the most important TorahcenterinJudeaand,alongwithSepphorisinGalilee,sawunin- terrupted rabbinic activity throughout the entire mishnaic and talmudic periods. Activity of the sages in the other settlements of Judea was more sporadic. When several sages were active in a particular settlement, this information is marked by gaps in their periods of activity. In the rabbinic sources, a settlement was regarded as a Torah center when a sage resided there. When a sage no longer resided there, it was no longer regarded as a Torah center, and in most cases it received no further mention in rabbinic literature. The settlements with rabbinic activity are numbered, with Lod appearing first. The other settlements are listed chronologically according to the first time that the name of a sage in that settlement appears in rabbinic literature. In general, the settlements are also listed according to their proximity to Lod, the main rabbinic center in the region.

Lod—Urban Torah Center with Uninterrupted Rabbinic Activity, –ce

. Lod (Lydda) Lod had been a Jewish town during the Second Temple period.1 Romans conquered it, most probably during the spring of  ce, during the war that led to the destruction of the Second Temple (–ce). Jews who

1 The review of Lod is based primarily on Rosenfeld, Lod, –, –, –.  chapter two had surrendered or had been taken captive by the Roman Army were transferred to this town, and this transfer marked the beginning of the revival of Lod’s Jewish community. In fact, already in ce, the Roman government had begun to reorganize all of the areas it had conquered until then. As time went on, other refugees from the surrounding area and from Jerusalem moved to Lod whose location, in close proximity to the junction of the coastal highway and the road to Jerusalem, in the middle of the fertile Lod Plain, also facilitated its rapid revival and its development into a major town in the region. Not long after the destruction of the Second Temple, a Torah center was established in Lod, dramatically changing its history, as there are no records of any rabbinic activity there before the destruction of the Second Temple. This spiritual center developed and became second in importance only to the Torah center in Yavneh. In the generation before the Bar Kokhba Revolt, Lod was the most important rabbinic center in Palestine. But after the Bar Kokhba Revolt, its importance declined, and it became secondary to the rabbinic centers in Galilee even though it remained the main center in Judea throughout the entire mishnaic and talmudic periods. During the first generation (a generation is defined here as a period of thirty years—see Introduction) following the destruction of the Temple, circa –ce, R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, an eminent Torah sage and a wealthy man, was active in Lod. The first Lod sage known by name, itwas he who effectively established its spiritual center. R. Joshua b. Hananiah was active for a period of time alongside R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus in Lod, before the former relocated to nearby Peki"in.2 Before leaving for Yavneh, Rabban Gamliel lived in Lod and even established his own academy there.3 R. Eleazar bar Zadok, too, spent a considerable amount of time

2 Based on t. Ta"anit :, it appears that R. Eliezer and R. Joshua and Rabban Gamliel lived in Lod. A well-known beraita in b. Sanhedrin b notes that R. Eliezer lived in Lod and R. Joshua in Peki"in,butperhapshelivedthereinhisoldage.R.Eliezer’sstudy hall is referred to as “Metivta Rabba” or “Motva Rabba.” See Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Bo, Amalek, , ed. Horowitz, ; Mekhilta de-Rabbi Simeon Bar Yohai,eds.Epstein- Melamed, . See also Kahana, Mekhiltot,andn..Theterm“Rabba”(lit.large) for this building indicates that it was especially large and belonged to R. Eliezer who built it with his own money. For other references to his wealth, see m. Yadayim :; t. Ma"aser Sheni :; t. Sukkah :; t. Yadayim :. On R. Eliezer, see also Neusner, Eliezer, –, and especially –; Gilat, R. Eliezer, –; Goodblatt, The Monarchic Principle, , –. 3 Rosenfeld, “Rabban Gamaliel,” –; idem, Lod, –, –; Schwartz, Lod, –; Oppenheimer, “Jewish Lydda”; Cappelletti, Jewish Community, –, –. judea  in the town, and he was joined by his father, R. Zadok, for part of this time. The pair later moved to Yavneh, perhaps in the wake of Rabban Gamliel.4 During the next generation, the town’s most prominent sage was R. Tarfon (–ce). One of the most important sages of his generation, R. Tarfon was also wealthy and was associated with the town’s wealthy aristocracy, a fact that helped him establish himself as one of the leading figures of his time.5 R. Akiva, a preeminent sage of this generation (– ce), also began his Torah career in Lod, and even after he moved to Bene-Berak,asuburbtothewestofLod,hespentmuchofhistimein Lod.6 Other sages as well were active in Lod in this generation. R. Jose ha-Galili, a disciple and friend of the two aforementioned sages, spent a considerable amount of time in Lod, despite the fact that his name testifies to his Galilean origins.7 There were also groups of unidentified sages in Lod who are referred to by collective names. Mention is made of the Zekenim (= Elders), who would assemble to make halakhic decisions. The numbers of elders who assembled is sometimes recorded; for example, we find mention of a group of five elders or a group of thirty-two elders. Some of the sages who participated in these gatherings are known to us by name, and they include several of the most prominent figures of

4 In t. Pesahim :, ed. Lieberman, ; ibid., :, , R. Eleazar taught halakhah to the merchants of Lod, an activity which indicates that he held a special status in the town. See Rosenfeld, “Rabban Gamaliel”; Sivertsev, Households, –, –. 5 On his being a resident and sage of Lod with a special status, see m. Baba Metzi"a :; m. Ta"anit :; t. Megillah :; t. Hagiggah :. Also see m. Beitzah :, and Shmuel’s comments on it in j. Beitzah :, a (and also about his study hall). See also Tractate Mourning (Semahot) :, ed. Zlotnik, /, . On his wealth, see t. Ketubot :. He married three hundred women, which required enormous financial resources, during a period of draught (even if the number itself is exaggerated). See also j. Shivi"it :, b and parallels. On his owning slaves and fields, see b. Nedarim b. According to the Tosefta in Hagiggah :, ed. Lieberman, , as he was a priest, he received the priestly tithes on produce, which added to his wealth. On his connections with Lod’s wealthy residents see Rosenfeld, Lod, – and n. . 6 R. Akiva began studying Torah in Lod. See Avot de-Rabbi Natan, B: , , ed. Schechter, –; Becker, Geniza, –; Friedman, “Akiva Legend.” On his activities as a prominent sage in Lod already in Rabban Gamliel’s day, see m. Rosh Hashanah :. On his standing in his generation, see t. Ohilot :; t. Mikvaot :, ; Sifre, Deut., Par. , ed.Finkelstein,.R.TarfonandR.Joseha-Galiliarementionedalongwithhim,asinthe earlier Tosefta.A deep bond existed between R. Akiva and R. Tarfon, which was expressed by the latter in a discussion between them; see t. Zevahim :; t. Mikvaot :. As Lod was the larger city and Bene-Berak the suburb, in all likelihood they met mostly in Lod. See Rosenfeld, Lod, –; Safrai, “Halakha,” –; Strack-Stemberger, Introduction, – . 7 Rosenfeld, “R. Yosi ha-Galili”; Goodblatt, The Monarchic Principle, –.  chapter two thatgeneration:R.Akiva,R.Tarfon,R.Joseha-Galili,andR.Simeonb. Nanas. The names of the other sages are not mentioned, and they may have come from other settlements. Presumably, some of them were local, inlightofthementionofalocalgroupcomprisedoffiveelders.8 Simi- larly a group called Rabotenu (= Our Masters) is mentioned.9 Throughout the mishnaic and talmudic periods, we do not find any other record of the existence of notably important groups of unidentified sages within such a short time period in any of the other Jewish settlements, not even in Sepphoris and Tiberias, important Galilean centers in their prime. In other words, during this generation, Lod reached the height of its importance as the greatest Torah center in Roman Palestine. For Lod, this was a unique generation, and it would never again attain the status it held then.10 After the Bar Kokhba Revolt, Lod recovered relatively quickly as compared to the other Jewish communities in Judea, and it remained the capital of a toparchy named after it. In less than a generation, it reestablished itself as a spiritual center. However, no names or rabbinic traditions from the generation following the Bar Kokhba Revolt can be pinpointed to Lod. Nonetheless, Lieberman maintains that sages did reside in Lod. Hebasesthisconclusiononthefactthatprominentsageswereknown to have resided in Lod in the second generation after the Bar Kokhba Revolt. They conceivably did not “grow in the desert” and must have had local teachers.11 Note should be made of a Babylonian tradition which

8 T. Shabbat :; t. Mikvaot :,  states thirty-two elders; ibid., : states five elders. In t. Taharot : the word Lod was dropped, but it is mentioned by the medieval biblical commentators, as noted in Lieberman, Sifre Zuta,  (and n. ), . See his reference to the midrash itself, Sifre Zuta, Bemidbar, :, ed. Horowitz,  with regard to the testimony of R. Hanina, (who was active after the Bar Kokhba Revolt) in the name of five elders from Lod, who apparently were active in the generation before him. With regard to the Mishnah in Beitzah :, which states that R. Tarfon asked a halakhic question of five elders in the study hall, j. Beitzah :, a states that this took place in Lod. It should be mentioned that in t. Kelim, Baba Batra : there is also a single mention of an assembly of five elders in Sepphoris in that generation. See Oppenheimer, Galilee,  and . 9 Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael,Bo,Pis"ha, Chap. , ed. Horowitz, . The source mentions an event to which R. Judah and the sages are apparently alluding in the Tosefta in Shabbat , ed. Lieberman, . It is therefore likely that this event occurred before R. Judah’s generation, probably in the generation that preceded the Bar Kokhba Revolt. See, Rosenfeld, Lod,  and n. . 10 Rosenfeld, “Yavneh”; idem, Lod, –; Oppenheimer, “Jewish Lydda”; Goodblatt, The Monarchic Principle, –. 11 Lieberman, Sifre Zuta, , n. . It should be added that according to Lieberman, Sifre Zuta was compiled in Lod in the following generation by Bar Kappara who was active in Lod during that period, ibid., –. In addition, on p.  he presents a list of judea  mentions R. Bisa, the father of R. Hama. R. Hama was active in Lod during the second generation after the Bar Kokhba Revolt, and presumably, his father would have lived in Lod during the first generation after the Revolt. R. Bisa’s son and grandson are recorded to have posed halakhic questions to him, and he instructed them on these matters. Yet this lone mention, coupled with his absence from tannaitic literature, implies that he was possibly a sage of local importance only.12 With great hesitancy, we might also include R. Jeremiah b. Eleazar in the first generation in Lod after the Bar Kokhba Revolt.13 In the second generation after the Bar Kokhba Revolt, the generation of R. Judah ha-Nasi, Lod once again became an important spiritual center in the South, and a number of famous sages are known to have been active there. The most prominent among them was bar Kappara (– ce),14 whose full name was R. Eleazar ha-Kappar b. R. Eleazar ha- Kappar. He is the last sage from Lod mentioned in tannaitic sources, as he was a member of the transition generation between the mishnaic and eight sages who are mentioned only in Sifre Zuta and in no other rabbinic source. Some of the sages listed may have been active in the generation following the Bar Kokhba Revolt. Thus, they may have been from the academy in Lod in which the Sifre Zuta was compiled. 12 b. Baba Batra a; b. Ketubot b.Thegaugingofhistimeperiodisbasedonthe fact that he saw his grandson as a young lad, according to the Babylonian Talmud. 13 R. Jeremiah b. Eleazar’s possible inclusion among first generation Lod sages is based on the fact that only bar Kappara, who was active in Lod, cited teachings in his name, and barKapparamayhaveheardtheseteachingsfromR.JeremiahinLod.SeeHyman,Toldot, , ; and also the teaching of R. Jeremiah b. Eleazar in Mekhilta de-Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai, eds. Epstein-Melamed, , which is cited in b. Shabbat a by bar Kappara. In tannaitic literature he may have been referred to simply as R. Jeremiah. In this regard, see Epstein, Tannaitic Literature, , who maintains that R. Jeremiah belonged to the school of Rabbi Ishmael. Hirschman, Torah, –, raises doubt as to whether he can be attributed to the school of Rabbi Ishmael due to the paucity of R. Jeremiah’s teachings, which appear only twice in the collection of works of the school of R. Ishmael. There is also a teaching by R. Jeremiah that he cites in the name of R. Judah b. Betaira (t. Shavuot :), although according to the Babylonian Talmud in Megillah b, he brings this teaching in the name of R. Judah ha-Nasi. Perhaps these references allude to his affiliation with a group that was not particularly influential, and therefore he was active in the area of Lod after the Bar Kokhba Revolt, where Bar Kappara formed ties with him. 14 J. Shavuot :, a and the parallel j. Niddah :, c state that he was a judge in Daroma (= the south) along with his colleague R. Hama bar Bisa, who is mentioned below. The word Daroma in the Jerusalem Talmud and in the aggadic midrashim usually refers to Lod. See Lieberman, Sifre Zuta, ; Schwartz, Judaea, –. The Jerusalem Talmud also states several times—in Shivi"it :, d; Yoma :, d; and Beitzah :, a—that “R. Hoshayah brought a tannaitic teaching in the name of Bar Qapparah (Kappara) from the South” (based on Neusner, vol. :). In j. Ma"aser Sheni :, d, Bar Kappara disputes a certain practice with the son of Rabbi,whoviewedBarKapparaas the representative of the Southerners, and he in fact justified their practice. Many of Bar  chapter two talmudic periods.15 Lod’s sages from this generation onward, who will be discussed below, are mentioned only in talmudic sources. R. Hama bar Bisa (–ce) served in the capacity of judge together with bar Kappara, as well as in a leadership capacity in Lod, but he studied in Galilee as well.16 R. Jose b. Petros was another, virtually unknown, sage,

Kappara’s teachings were reported by his close disciple, R. Joshua b. Levi, the prominent Lod sage of the following generation, as will be discussed below. These sources support the conclusion that Bar Kappara was active in Lod. 15 See Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, –. For mention of his name as R. Eleazar ha-Kappar in tannaitic sources, see, for example., t. Yom Tov :; t. Hullin :. In the opinion of Lieberman, Sifre Zuta, , Bar Kappara was the compiler of the halakhic midrash called Sifre Zuta, which was compiled in the study hall in Lod. The Jerusalem Talmud in Horayot :, c attributes to Bar Kappara the compilation of tannaitic halakhot which apparently was similar in format to the Mishnah and was called “this great collection of the Mishnah, for instance . . . the Mishnah of Bar Qappara (Kappara)” (Neusner, :). See the parallel in Pesikta de-Rav Kahana,Lamentations,ed.Braude and Kapstein, . For a different opinion as to his name and place of residence, see Urman, “Batei Midrash”; Urman, “Bar Qappara.” Bar Kappara was a wandering sage and therefore is mentioned numerous times in rabbinic sources in the vicinity of R. Judah ha-Nasi in the Galilee region, in addition to other places. Furthermore, a lintel was discovered in Nahal Devorah in the Golan Heights with the inscription, “This is the study hall of Rabbi Eleazar ha-Kappar.” This lintel is dated to the beginning of the third century ce, which, according to the sources, is also Bar Kappara’s period of activity. This raises the question as to whether they are one and the same, which is what has been generally assumed. If so, what is Bar Kappara from Lod doing in Golan? A plausible explanation that has been suggested is that in his wanderings, Bar Kappara reached Golan at some point in his life, apparently in his later years, settled there and established a study hall. See Naveh, Stone and Mosaic, . For a different opinion and the deliberations in this regard, see Ben David, “Golan,” –. However, recent archaeological evidence points to the former conventional opinion. See Zingboim, “Deborah.” 16 R. Hama was a judge in Daroma. See j. Berakhot :, a. Lieberman, Sifre Zuta  and n.  states that this citation in the Jerusalem Talmud is followed by the words of R. Hoshayah, the son of R. Hama, whose practice was according to the “custom of my town” (Neusner, :). That R. Hoshaya was referring to a practice in the south, in contrast to the practice of the Galileans amongst whom he resided, is testimony to his Lod origins. With regard to R. Hama as a public leader, see j. Peah :, b; j. Shekalim :, a. Two sages, mentioned below, who were almost two generations younger, served alongside of him as leaders. This enables us to gauge how long he was active. R. Hama studied in Galilee under R. Judah ha-Nasi, who termed him “a great man” in b. Niddah b (Soncino, :) and in the parallel Genesis Rabbah, :. He also studied there under R. Ishmael b. R. Jose, one of the older members of the generation of R. Judah ha-Nasi, j. Niddah :, b and the parallel b. Niddah b. B. Baba Batra a states that R. Hama left his home to learn in a place of Torah. Thus, he probably left his town, Lod, for Galilee, which was the main Torah center during his youth. R. Hoshayah, the son of R. Hama, left Lod, apparently in his youth, and like his father, went to study in Sepphoris in Galilee. Later on he went to Caesarea, where he established a Torah center, and therefore is not discussedhereamongthesagesofLod.Formoreabouthim,seeHyman,Toldot, –; Levine, Caesarea, –. judea  who was the father-in-law of R. Joshua b. Levi, the preeminent sage of the following generation, about whom it is written that he “thirsted after the Torah.”17 R. Simeon b. Jehozadak was among the youngest members of this generation in Lod, and his death there is recorded (circa ce). HewasoneoftheteachersofR.Johanan,theprominentGalileansageof the following generation, but there is virtually no information regarding R. Simeon’s ties with the sages of Lod.18 R.Judahb.Pedaiahwasalsoone of the younger sages of Lod in that generation. His pupil, R. Joshua b. Levi from Lod, attests that R. Judah b. Pedaiah was a southern sage, and a nephew and disciple of Bar Kappara’s, but he also studied under R. Judah ha-Nasi in Galilee.19 R. Epes, another sage, is referred to in the Jerusalem Talmud as R. Pas Daroma (= the Southerner). Daroma apparently refers to Lod. R. Epes is mentionedmainlyasacloseassociateofR.Judahha-Nasi’s.Heserved as R. Judah ha-Nasi’s secretary and inherited his position at the head of the academy in Sepphoris for a brief period until his death, circa ce or slightly later. He is mentioned once in his old age together with “The Elders of the South” (= Ziknei ha-Darom). Thus, it is difficult to ascertain whether he had also been active in Lod or whether he left Lod for Galilee at a young age.20

17 J. Moed Katan :, d, refers to R. Jose as the father-in-law of R. Joshua b. Levi. The former was in mourning, and Bar Kappara sent two of his disciples to his house. We learn from this source that R. Jose lived in the vicinity of Bar Kappara, who held him in esteem. This episode probably occurred in Lod, as R. Jose was the father-in-law of R. Joshua b. Levi, and also because in the few teachings in which he is mentioned in rabbinic literature, he is mentioned together with sages of Lod and is given the title of rabbi. For his mention with Bar Kappara, see Genesis Rabbah, :, eds. Theodor-Albeck, ; ibid., :, – . J. Avodah Zarah :, c mentions him with his father-in-law and Zavdi b. Levi of the following generation in Lod. 18 Tractate Mourning : states: “It happened that when Simeon ben Jehozadak died in Lud (Lod), his brother Johanan came from Galilee to defile himself” (ed. Zlotnick, ). R. Simeon apparently died in the town where he had resided, in Lod, and his brother came from Galilee to his funeral. The source states that R. Jannai and R. Johanan were present at this event, and since the former died circa ce and the latter became active beginning around ce, but was perhaps still a pupil at the time of the funeral, in all likelihood, R. Simeon died circa ce. On the ties between R. Johanan and his teacher, R. Simeon, see Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, . 19 Genesis Rabbah, :, eds. Theodor-Albeck, ; ibid., :, –. In Ecclesi- astes Rabbah, : R. Joshua b. Levi states that he learned sixty laws of impurity from him. On the connection between Bar Kappara and Bar Pedaiah, see also b. Me"ilah b. On his studies under Rabbi,seej.Nazir :, d. On the disciples of Bar Pedaiah, see Bacher, Amora"im, :, –; Hyman, Toldot, . 20 J. Ta"anit :, a refers to him twice as R. Pas Daroma, and mentions that he was appointed head of an academy before R. Hanina, R. Judah ha-Nasi’s close disciple. There  chapter two

In the next generation, the first of the talmudic period, R. Joshua b. Levi (–ce) was active in Lod. He was the most prominent sage in the South beginning with the period after the Bar Kokhba Revolt and until the end of the talmudic period. Rabbinic literature records more than a thousand teachings in his name, far more than for any other southern sage during this period. Approximately sixty percent pertained to halakhah, while the rest pertained to aggadah,hencehisportrayal in scholarly literature as an aggadist. One midrash refers to him as “the greatest man of this generation,” a title not granted to any other southern sage. This same midrash states that R. Joshua studied in the great academy in Lod. He was a close disciple of bar Kappara and also attended the academy of ben Pedaiah, bar Kappara’s nephew, as well as the academy of R. Judah ha-Nasi in Galilee. An unusually large number of pupils attended his academy, and it is noted that he held them in special regard and ordained all of them, a deed that has no parallel in rabbinic literature. R. Joshua b. Levi was one of the foremost sages in all of Roman Palestine as well as one of its principal leaders. He was also a close associate of the patriarchal family, and according to one tradition, was allied to it through the marriage of his son. R. Joshua b. Levi maintained especially close ties with the sages of Galilee, primarily with R. Hanina, head of the academy in Sepphoris, and more than fifty of their joint teachings are extant. Later on,hebecameacloseassociateofR.JohananofTiberias,adisciple of R. Hanina and the most prominent Galilean sage after R. Hanina. More than one hundred and fifty joint teachings of the pair are extant, including some that prove that R. Johanan was a disciple of R. Joshua b. Levi. Visions and unique encounters with Elijah have been attributed to R. Joshua b. Levi, thus establishing him as one of the most prominent figures in rabbinic literature in the mystical realm as well.21 is a parallel with variants in b. Ketubot b. J. Eruvin :, c, Ms. Leiden, refers to himasR.PasDaroma,asnotedinLieberman,ha-Yerushalmi Kifshuto, . The same source in the Jerusalem Talmud states that two sages from Galilee who were active in the generation following R. Judah ha-Nasi said, “Let us wait here until the elders come up from the south. R. Epes the Southerner came” (Neusner :). In other words, after they waited, it states that R. Epes arrived. This indicates that the incident took place when he was at an advanced age, as he was considered one of the Elders of the South whom the sages from Galilee waited to meet. See also Genesis Rabbah, :, eds. Theodor-Albeck, , that he was also the secretary and friend of Rabbi.SeealsoAlbeck,Introduction to the Talmud, , . 21 Bacher, Amora"im, :, –, –. On his residing in Lod and his wealth, see Lamentations Rabbah, :, ed. Buber, . On his close ties with R. Judah Nesiah, the patriarch (nasi) of his generation and the grandson of Rabbi,seej.Yevamot :, d; j. judea 

Lod’s other sages in R. Joshua b. Levi’s generation remain largely in his shadow in rabbinic literature. Only a few of their teachings are recorded, and there are no references which would indicate that they had attained any special status or influence, either in Lod or on a national level. There is a reference to R. Joshua b. Levi’s brother, R. Judah b. Levi.22 Asageby thenameofZavdib.LeviapparentlywasactiveinLod.Heisoccasionally mentioned in aggadic literature, mainly in association with R. Joshua b. Levi, and there is reference to a discourse between them.23 Zavdi had a brother named Shalman b. Levi, who is mentioned once and may have lived in Lod.24 R. Jose b. Nehorai, too, may have lived in Lod in this generation, along with his associate, R. Johanan b. Arza. This is based on the fact that they lived near R. Joshua b. Levi and turned to him in

Shabbat :, d; b. Bekhorot b; b. Kiddushin a. His son married into the patriarchal family. A unique aspect of his ties with R. Hanina is presented in j. Ta"anit :, c and the parallel in b. Ta"anit a. R. Joshua decreed a fast in Daroma (= the south) and R. Hanina in Sepphoris; further on it states that R. Hanina regarded R. Joshua as the spiritual leader of the south and himself as the corresponding leader in Sepphoris. J. Berakhot :, a states that the two appeared before the Roman proconsul in Caesarea to intercede on behalf of the Jewish community. In addition, it is related in Genesis Rabbah, :, eds. Theodor-Albeck,  and ibid., :,  that R. Joshua journeyed to Rome and upon his return was met by R. Hanina. See also j. Ma"aser Sheni :, b, which describes that the pair journeyed together to Jerusalem. R. Johanan regarded R. Joshua b. Levi as his teacher, j. Bikkurim :, a; j. Avodah Zarah :, c; j. Gittin :, d; b. Kiddushin b, and in several sources reported teachings in R. Joshua b. Levi’s name. On R. Joshua’s visions and his many disciples, see Bacher, Amorai"im :, –, –; Hyman, Toldot, – . On the ordination of his disciples, see j. Hagiggah :, c. On his special regard for them, see j. Megillah :, a; b. Baba Batra a; b. Bekhorot b; b. Ketubot a. On being referred to as the greatest man of this generation, see Pesikta de-Rav Kahana, , ed. Braude, . For more about him, see Rosenfeld, “Inscriptions.” 22 Based on j. Demai :, d it would seem that R. Judah was his brother and lived nearby. Fewer than ten teachings of R. Judah b. Levi have been preserved. In three of them R. Johanan asks him a question, which implies that the former may have been his disciple at the time that he attended the academy of R. Joshua b. Levi, his brother. In three other teachings, R. Aha of the fourth generation in Lod brings teachings in R. Judah’s name. See Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud. 23 In b. Zevahim b, R. Johanan recited a beraita in Zavdi’s name. This would indicate that Zavdi was older than R. Johanan. For his teachings that are associated with R. Joshua b. Levi, see Genesis Rabbah, :, eds. Theodor-Albeck, , in which Zavdi and R. Joshua b. Levi conduct a discussion on an aggadic matter. From Ecclesiastes Rabbah : and in the parallel Exodus Rabbah :, it appears that Zavdi died after R. Joshua b. Levi. J. Avodah Zarah :, c and j. Demai :, a imply that he may have been associated with R. Hoshayah of Lod, who possibly lived in proximity to Zavdi when they were younger. 24 His teaching cited in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi in j. Kilayim :, a stresses the fact that he was Zavdi’s brother.  chapter two matters of halakhah.25 In addition, there is mention of an unidentified group of sages, “The Elders of the South,”26 and a slightly younger group called Deromaei (= Southerners) which some sources identify with “The Elders of the South.”27 In the third generation of the talmudic period, mention is made of the Hevraya, another group of unidentified sages who were slightly older than the other members of their generation.28 Only one of them is referred to by name—R. Johanan, father of R. Simeon, who may have been the father of R. Simeon b. Pazi—the R. Simon mentioned

25 In b. Hullin b R. Jose asks R. Joshua b. Levi a question which he introduces with “But there was a lamb in our neighborhood” (Soncino, :). This manner of speaking is typical of a person who lives in close proximity to the person being addressed. According to b. Avodah Zarah a, this R. Jose and R. Johanan b. Arza were sitting and drinking and debating a halakhic problem. R. Joshua b. Levi passed by, and they asked him his opinion. The story implies that R. Jose and R. Johanan b. Arza were friends who resided in the same area, and in proximity to R. Joshua b. Levi. This is also the only teaching in which R. Johanan b. Arza is mentioned. R. Jose b. Nehorai is mentioned as a disputantofR.Joshuab.Levi.R.Simeon,hissonR.Judah,andthelatter’sfriend,R.Aha, sages of Lod in the following generations, cited teachings in the name of this R. Jose. There are several teachings brought in his name by Galilean sages as well. See Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, . 26 As mentioned above (n. ), j. Eruvin : c includes R. Epes the Southerner among the Elders of the South, thereby indicating the existence of a group by this name. B. Yevamot a, mentions Bar Kappara instead of the Elders of the South. B. Hullin b states, “R. Joshua b. Levi and the Elders of the South” (Soncino, :). For another version of this text, see Rabbinovicz, Dikduke Sofrim, Hullin b, note zayin,andalsoMidrash Hagadol, Deut. :, ed. Fish, . See also Judah bar Kalonimus (Rabbi), Yichusei Tana"im ve-Amora"im, , who maintains that, “R. Joshua b. Levi said, the Elders of the South said” implies that he cited a teaching in their name. In any event, according to the sources there was a first to second generation group of sages by that name, in addition to those sages whose names were known. 27 They are mentioned in j. Pesahim :, d. B. Zevahim b, a parallel with variations, refers to them as “The Elders of the South” (Soncino, :). In b. Baba Batra a, the “Deromaei” (= Southerners) cited a teaching in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi. See Melamed, Introduction, . B. Eruvin b also mentions “Masters of the South” (Soncino :), which is a reference to R. Epes. In Pesikta de-Rav Kahana, Supplement , ed. Braude, , this appears to be a general name for the sages of the South, but it appears to support the assumption that the term was also used for unidentified sages. Note should be made of another sage, R. Simlai. He was a member of this generation whose place of origin was Lod. However, there is no mention in the sources of any connection between him and the sages of Lod but only of his association with sages in Galilee where he studied and was active. See Rosenfeld, “Rabbi Simlai.” That is why, like R. Hoshayah, he is not mentioned in the discussion of the sages of Lod. 28 J. Bikkurim :, b. According to j. Gittin :, b, the Hevraya cite a teaching in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi. J. Rosh Hashanah :, b states that R. Samuel bar Nahman, second to third generations, reported a teaching to the Hevraya in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi. judea  below.29 The Hevraya are mentioned primarily in connection with the academy in Tiberias. They were sages who “studied Torah for its own sake,” dealing mostly with theoretical halakhic issues rather than with practical halakhic rulings. In the Babylonian Talmud they are referred to as ordained sages or as tannaim (sing. tanna)—sages whose role in the study hall was to recite beraitot (halakhic and aggadic traditions of earlier generations). Some scholars have suggested equating the Hevraya with the Deromaei (Southerners), an unidentified group of sages who studied in a study hall and whose name was contingent on their location.30 The most prominent sage of this generation is referred to in the Jerusalem Tal- mud by the Hellenized form of his name, R. Simon, while the Babylonian Talmud refers to him by his full name, R. Simeon b. Pazi (–ce). HewasaclosediscipleofR.Joshuab.Levi,apriestandwealthyman.Like histeacher,hetooformedclosetieswiththesagesofGalilee,wasaclose associate of the patriarchal family, and his son was married to one of the daughters of that family.31 In addition, R. Joseph, the son of R. Joshua b. Levi was active in Lod, although we know little about him; he too, like his father, was reported to have seen visions.32 Other sages, who were close disciples of R. Joshua b. Levi, lived in Lod earlier in their careers. The oldest of them was R. Samuel bar Nahman (–ce), who studied mainly in Galilee and who lived to a very old age.33 R. Isaac bar Nahman (– C.E) was another disciple of R. Joshua b. Levi. There is no proof that he moved to Galilee, and he may have been a brother of R. Samuel above. In Lod R. Isaac served also in the respected capacity of community

29 In the Ms. Leiden version of j. Peah :, c, the Hevraya cite a teaching in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi that states that they were in Daroma (= the south). The parallel b. Hullin b, cites the teaching in the name of “The Elders of the South.” 30 Beer, “Chevraia”; Miller, “Zipora"ei”; idem, “R. Hanina,” esp. –. 31 Frankel, Mevo ha-Yerushalmi, a; Bacher, in Amora"im, :, –, and in n. , stated that the son’s parents, R. Simon and his wife, lived in Tiberias, but there is no proof of this. See also Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, –. A total of about one hundred and twenty teachings of R. Simon, who cited teachings in the name of R. Joshua b.Levi,werefoundintheResponsaProjectofBar-IlanUniversity,mostofwhichappear in the Jerusalem Talmud, about thirty in the Babylonian Talmud, and the rest in the aggadic midrashim. 32 Bacher, Amora"im, :, , and n. ; Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, . R. Joshua b. Levi’s grandson, the sage R. Meyasha, is also mentioned. But he may have resided in Tiberias and served as an official in the Roman government. See j. Shabbat :, a, together with Genesis Rabbah, :, eds. Theodor-Albeck, . Also see Rosenfeld, “Inscriptions.” 33 Bacher, Amora"im, :, –; j. Yoma :, a. Albeck, Introduction to the Tal- mud, –.  chapter two officialparnas ( ) and perhaps charity supervisor (gabai zedaka).34 Serv- ing alongside him in the same capacity was R. Jacob bar Idi (–ce) who spent his youth in Lod; he studied under R. Joshua b. Levi and cited many traditions in his name. Later, he moved to Galilee and became a close disciple of R. Johanan and Resh Lakish. Towards the end of his life, he resided in Sulam-Zor, not far from the famous city of Tyre, where he lived out his days.35 A number of sages, primarily known as aggadists, werealsodisciplesofR.Joshuab.Levi,andmayhavelivedinLod.They include R. Alexandri,36 R. Tanhum and R. Tanhum bar Hanilai, although thelattertwomaybeoneandthesame.37 The most important sages active in Lod in the fourth talmudic generation, circa –ce, (as mentioned in the Introduction, there are slight differences in the dating of the generations in Judea and therestof Palestine)wereR.Judahb.Pazi,sonofR.SimonandR.Aha,bothclose disciples of R. Simon. R. Aha studied under the sages of Caesarea as well. R. Judah and R. Aha enjoyed a highly respected and influential status in the rabbinic world, and Galilean sages, too, held them in great esteem. Both were closely associated with the Nasi’s house, of which R. Judah’s wife was a member. It appears that R. Aha was the more influential of the two sages, primarily in rabbinic circles, and he attracted many disciples, some of whom became important sages in Galilee. He was married to the daughter of a wealthy sage from Caesarea, who was influential

34 Several sources allude to the possibility of him residing in Lod. See j. Yoma :, d; b. Yoma b.BothsourcesrelatethatR.IsaacbarNahmanwaswithR.Joshuab.Levion Yom Kippur. This indicates that he resided in his vicinity, because according to Jewish law,oneisnotpermittedtoleavetheareaonthisspecialday,nottomentiontotravel from one settlement to another. On his being a community leader (parnas)togetherwith R. Jacob bar Idi, who is mentioned below, and with R. Hama bar Bisa who was active almost two generations earlier, see j. Peah :, b. On his association with R. Joshua b. Levi, see Bacher, Amora"im, :, , and n. . 35 B. Eruvin a; b. Baba Metzia b.Onhispositionwhenyounger,seen.above. And see Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, –. 36 Bacher, in Amora"im, :, – noted that he was a Southerner, as implied in Midrash Ecclesiastes Rabbah, : by the fact that his disciple, R. Aha of Lod, wished to see him in a dream. R. Alexandri acquiesced and, inter alia,showedhimthereward that would be given to “the slain of Lydda (Lod)” (Soncino, :) in the world to come. Dreaming a dream of this kind that deals with a particular episode from Lod reflects R. Alexandri’s personal connection to that group. Thus, it may be viewed as an indication that he was known to the sages of Lod. See Fleisher, “Lament.” In the opinion of Klein, Yehudah, , he was from Lod. 37 See Bacher, Amora"im, :, , and n. . On the problem of their being the same person, see Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, , , –. judea  among the sages there.38 Two other sages receive very little mention in the sources. Their names have the appellation for Southerner appended to them:R.Hilkiyaha-Dromi,usuallycalledsimplyR.Hilkiya,andR.Hilfa Deromiah (= of the south—Lod), who is only mentioned once and who may have been active in the same generation.39 R. Simeon Ludia, whose name indicates that he came from Lod, may have been active in Lod in the same generation, or in the previous one.40 In addition, there is mention of a sage named Ludah, whose appellation resembles that of his predecessor. He held the position of reciting beraitot in the study hall, and thus may have been a tanna in the academy in Lod during the talmudic period, but his time period cannot be precisely ascertained.41 Rav Huna, an important younger sage of this generation, who was active in the following generation as well, emigrated from Babylonia and lived in Lod part of the time. He was a member of the rabbinic court in Lod, alongside R. Judah and R. Aha. Later on, he settled in Galilee.42

38 Bacher, Amora"im, :, –, –; Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, – , –; Rosenfeld, “Leadership.” On the marriage of R. Judah to one of the daughters of the patriarchal family, see Esther Rabbah,:;j.Shabbat :, c. See also Lieber- man, ha-Yerushalmi Kifshuto, . On the origins of R. Aha’s wife, see j. Berakhot :, d. 39 On R. Hilkiya, see Hyman, Toldot, –. R. Hilfa Deromiah is mentioned in Pesikta Rabati, Piska , ed. Ish-Shalom, b. The parallel, Pesikta de-Rav Kahana, :, ed. Mandelbaum, , ed Braude, , mentions only R. Hilfai, whose teaching was reported to R. Joshua b. Nehemiah, of the fourth to fifth generations (Bacher ibid., :, –), and R. Hilfai therefore might belong to this generation. Ibid., , we find that R. Aha cited a teaching in the name of R. Hilfu; the reference may be to the same sage. And if R. Aha of Lod, a member of the fourth generation, cited a teaching in R. Hilfu’s name, this might allude to the latter’s association with the town. For the difference between the two Pesiktas, and for the meaning of the addition of the appellation Deromiah in Pesikta Rabbati, the later midrash of the two that tends to give titles to the sages, see Zunz, Ha- Derashot, –, and n. . 40 HisonlyteachingisfoundinExodus Rabbah, :, ed. Shinan, –, in the name of “R. Simon b. Lakish.” Based on this source, he may have been active in the previous generation, as R. Simon b. Lakish belonged to the second talmudic generation. This midrash in Exodus Rabbah contains alternate versions which state that R. Simeon Ludia cited a teaching in the name of R. Simon, a citation that corresponds to R. Simeon being a member of the fourth generation. It is problematic to place him in the fifth generation, because Lod sages of that generation are called Daroma,asnotedbelow.Shinan,inhis note to line  in his edition of the midrash,mentionsanothersage,R.JoseLudea,referred to in Wertheimer, Batai Midrashot,:,butitisunclearwhetherthenameisthatofa real person or whether it is simply a fictional name. And see ibid., –. 41 He is mentioned as someone who recites beraitot in b. Shabbat b; b. Shabbat a; b. Yevamot b. One of his aggadic teachings is presented in j. Ta"aniyot :, a. And see Schwartz, Judaea, , n. . 42 J. Baba Batra :, d; Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, ; Rosenfeld, “Leader- ship,” –.  chapter two

In the fifth talmudic generation (–ce) there are no definitive records of sages living in Lod, but we do know of several groups of sages who may have been active there. We are acquainted with a group of sages whosenames,likethoseofthetwosagesofthepreviousgeneration,have the appellation Daroma (= of the South) appended to them, implying here, too, that this group of fifth-generation sages was probably active in Lod. Five such sages are mentioned, most of whom apparently studied in Galilee. R. Joshua Deromia (= of the south) studied under R. Jose and R. Jonah, the most important Galilean sages.43 Mention is also made of R. Jacob Deromia who attended the academy of R. Jose, even though he cited teachings in the name of R. Judah bar Simon as well. R. Eleazar Daroma posed halakhic questions to R. Jose, and also cited teachings in the name of R. Shamai from Caesarea; hence it is possible that he studiedbothinGalileeandinCaesarea.44 R. Jose Daroma cited teachings to R. Jonah, and perhaps attended his academy.45 R. Luliani Daroma, who handed down teachings in the name of R. Judah bar Simon of Lod, is mentioned once.46 A total of less than forty teachings are attributed to them, while most have four teachings or less. A second group of sages are called “ben Pazi.” They may be descen- dantsofpreviousgenerationsofsagesfromLod,assuggestedbythis name. There are three records of a sage by the name of R. Hillel b. Pazi, who asked halakhic questions of R. Jose and R. Jonah, and possibly stud- iedunderthem.R.Hillelb.PazihadasonnamedR.Simeon.47 There is no personal information about R. Hillel, but based on the time period in which he lived, the name “ben Pazi” enables us to suggest that he was the son of R. Judah b. Pazi (bar Simon), who was active in the previous generation. This suggestion is supported by the fact that the first name,

43 About ten teachings cited in his name are extant. And see Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud,  and n. ; Kasovsky, Yerushalmi-Onomasticon, . 44 R. Jacob is mentioned approximately fifteen times, all of which are in the Jerusalem Talmud. In about half of these citations, he cites a teaching in the name of R. Jose. See Kasovsky, ibid.; Albeck, ibid., . R. Eleazar Daroma appears in the Jerusalem Talmud four times. See Kasovsky, ibid.; Albeck, ibid., . 45 J.Shavuot:,b,aswellasinMs.Leiden,asnotedinSchwartz,Judaea, , and not as in Rabinovicz, Sha"arei, , who argues that it is R. Joshua Deromia, notwithstanding the fact that there are sometimes changes of this sort. See Lieberman, Ha-Yerushalmi Kifshuto, . 46 Pesikta de-Rav Kahana, , ed. Mandelbaum,  and the parallels noted there. 47 In j. Demai :, c; j. Ketubot :,d; j. Sanhedrin :, c we find: R. Simeon asked R. Hillel. judea 

“Hillel,”wasacommonnameinthepatriarchalfamily.48 As mentioned earlier, R. Judah b. Pazi married into the patriarchal family, and R. Hil- lel may perhaps have been his son. R. Hillel’s son, Simeon, might have beennamedafterhisgreatgrandfather,R.Simeon-Simonb.Pazi.During this generation we find several mentions of a sage named R. Hanan—or Hanina—b. Pazi, who may have been the brother of R. Hillel b. Pazi.49 R. Inyia b. Pazi is mentioned once, and he is perhaps another brother.50 There is no direct proof that these sages were active in Lod, but ifthey were indeed members of the ben Pazi family, there is a basis for assuming that they were active in the town where their ancestors had resided and had owned property. Several close disciples of R. Aha and R. Judah bar Simon—R.Ashian,R.JudahbarTitas,R.JacobbarAbbayeandR.Samuel barInyia—areanothergroupofsageswhomayalsohavebeenactivein Lod in this generation.51 The list of sages who were probably active in Lod thus consists of three groups. The first group, the sages with the appellation “Daroma,” were the most likely to have resided in Lod. The second group consists of the four descendants of “ben Pazi,” whose names are identical to the name of the famous family of sages from Lod, but there is no further proof to support the family connection to Lod. The third group consists of sages who were disciples of fourth-generation Lod sages, some of whom probably remained in Lod when they themselves became sages, but there is no proof to substantiate this assumption. In any event, it is likely that the first group of sages was from Lod and that at least some sages in the other two groups remained in Lod. However, fifth-generation Lod sages cannot be identified definitively, even though some of these sages were given the standard appellation “Daroma.” The above information may be indicative of the decreased regard of Galilean sages for this generation of Lod sages, and perhaps also of the declining Lod influence in the rabbinic world.

48 See Hyman, Toldot, –; Strack-Stemberger, Introduction, –, . 49 In his regard, see Hyman, ibid., . He is placed in the fourth to fifth generations on the basis of his asking a halakhic matter of R. Halbo, who is known to belong to the fourth generation. 50 J. Eruvin :, a cites his teaching in the name of R. Judah, who may be R. Judah b. Simon, as the teaching forms part of the discussion of a particular issue by sages of the thirdtofourthgenerations.Thus,itisplausiblethathecamefromLodandstudiedunder asageofthepreviousgeneration. 51 Hyman, ibid., , , , , –. R. Ashian may also have studied in Galilee. See ibid., , for a list of sages who cited teachings in the name of R. Aha.  chapter two

However, the fact that rabbinic literature was redacted in Galilee un- dermines this conclusion regarding Lod’s diminished importance, as it would be the natural inclination of Galilean sages to mention the teachings of sages active in the Galilean centers. Thus we are left with an incomplete picture. The small number of references to Lod’s sages may also be attributed to the fact that this was almost the last generation of sages to appear in the Jerusalem Talmud, and in general, there was a marked decrease in rabbinic teachings from centers outside Galilee. This is true, for example, with regard to the sages of Caesarea. Up until the fifth generation, the Jerusalem Talmud mentions several Caesarean sages by name, whereas it mentions only one fifth-generation Caesarean sage.52 In other words, manifestations of the approaching final redaction of the Jerusalem Talmud are evident for this generation. However, this does not entirely account for the above phenomenon, which must also be viewed as indicative of an objective decline in the status of the rabbinic center in Lod. Nonetheless, there is information on the existence of a center in Lod in the next generation as well, based on reports about sages who resided in the town circa ce. The church father Hieronymus (Jerome), who lived in Judea at that time, referred in his commentaries on Job and Habakkuk to a sage or sages in Lod. He states, “I recall that in order to understand this volume [i.e., the Book of Job], I paid a not inconsiderable sumfortheservicesofateacherfromLodwho,amongsttheHebrews, was reckoned to be the most prominent.” Elsewhere he relates: “In Lod I visited one of the Hebrews whom they refer to as a sage and a tanna.” 53 This information demonstrates that circa –ce, the generation

52 See Lieberman, “Caesarea,” –. During the fifth generation, the last generation in Caesarea about which there is information in the Jerusalem Talmud, one sage is mentioned by name—R. Hoshayah bar Shamai—and with some incertitude, one other sage, Hilfai, a grandson of Rabbi Abbahu. In the previous, fourth generation, there are approximately ten sages known by name. Levine, Caesarea, –. Also see the discussion on this point towards the end of Chapter , Central Palestine. 53 Hieronymus, in the introduction to his commentary on Job, (Hieronymus, Praefatio in Job, PL, , col. ); in his commentary on Habakkuk, (Comm. In Abacuc,Lib, Chap. II: , PL, , col. ). The translation is based on Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv, – , No. , . Hieronymus also tells of a Jewish teacher who knew Greek (PL, , cols. , ) and taught him the Book of Ecclesiastes (PL, , col. ). In all likelihood, as maintained in Schwartz, Judaea, , n. , he is referring to a sage or sages from Lod. And see Stemberger, Jews and Christians, –. judea  in which the Jerusalem Talmud was apparently redacted,54 there were indeed Torah sages in Lod, perhaps even important ones according to Hieronymus, and the redacting of the Talmud did not mark the end or the decline of rabbinic activity in other areas of the country. Based on this information, the sages of Lod probably would have been involved in the decision to redact the Jerusalem Talmud. Such a momentous decision surely would have been weighed carefully by the redactors, presumably in Tiberias, and most likely they would not have made the decision autonomously but would have consulted with their colleagues in the various Torah centers, including the sages of Lod and Caesarea, as we shall discuss in the chapter on the rabbinic center in Caesarea.55 Information about the Jewish population of Lod in the period after the redacting of the Jerusalem Talmud and up until the Byzantine Era— –ce— is scant. Nor is there any evidence of sages residing in Lod in the subsequent generations, perhaps apart from a few allusions to this effect.56

Rural Settlements with Rabbinic Activity—Mishnaic Period, –ce

In contrast to Lod, other known Torah centers in Judea were of shorter duration. One of the distinguishing features of most of these rabbinic centers was that rabbinic activity took place during the Yavneh period, from the time of the destruction of the Second Temple until the Bar Kokhba Revolt, –ce, and only a minority of these centers date from the period after the Bar Kokhba Revolt. Another distinguishing feature of most of these centers was that they were located on the Lod Plain, not far from Lod itself, which was situated in the middle of the region that was named after it.

54 Genesis Rabbah,ed.Theodore-Albeck,,Introduction,;Ginzburg,Yerushalmi, , Introduction, ; Epstein, Amoraitic Literature, ; Gafni, “Background”; Boxer, “Bibliographical”; Leviticus Rabbah , ed. Margulies, “Introduction,” xxxii. 55 See Chapter , Central Palestine, esp. nos. –. According to Lieberman, “Cae- sarea,”–, they used halakhic material prepared by Caesarean sages and incorporated it into their Talmud. For the opposite opinion, see Epstein, ibid., , and Lieberman’s response, Sifre Zuta, . And see Assis, “Nezikin”; Sussmann, “Neziqin.” 56 Rosenfeld, Lod, –.  chapter two

Yavneh Period, –ce

. Yavneh (Jamnia) The famous center in Yavneh, which gave its name to the entire period between  and ce, was a unique exception. Yet despite its special significance as a spiritual center whose name became embedded in the consciousness of later generations, the Yavneh center was active for less than fifty years. It was associated with the names of two exceptional sages: Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai and Rabban Gamliel. During the Second Temple period, Yavneh was a Hellenistic town. Beginning with the year ce, the town was the private property of the Roman Emperor, who appointed his own epitropos over the city. At the end of the Second Temple period, friction arose between the town’s Jewish and non-Jewish residents. Although the Jews constituted a significant minority in the town, and even more so in the surrounding area, the town’s Hellenistic and pagan character made it improbable for a Torah center to develop there during the Second Temple period, as it did after the destruction of the Temple. In ce, during the conquest of Judea, Vespasian transferred the Jews who had surrendered during the war to Yavneh and Lod. In other words, the town had already turned into a quasi-detention camp two years before the fall of Jerusalem. The rabbinic sources appear to indicate that at that time ( ce) Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai was brought to Yavneh by the Romans, and it was due to his arrival that Yavneh eventually developed into a famous Torah center.57 By bringing Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai to Yavneh, the Romans were indirectly responsible for the development of the most famous Torah centerinhistory.ThisrenownedsagecommencedhisactivitiesinYavneh immediately upon his arrival, perhaps as early as the second half of ce. Presumably, he wished to avoid conflict with the imperial authorities and mainly pursued Torah study and teaching. He attracted many disciples andintroducedavarietyofrabbiniclaws,suchasthoseinvolvingthe Hebrew calendar, some of which have endured for many generations. It is unclear how far his influence extended, as there are no records in the

57 ForahistoryofthetownduringtheSecondTempleperiod,seeforexample,Schürer, History, :, –; Stern, Authors, :–; Smallwood, Jews, , –, , , –; Kasher, “Install an Idol”; Kasher, Hellenistic Cities, – , . On the town after the destruction of the Temple, see for example, Schwartz, Judaea, –; Rosenfeld, Lod, –; Jacobs, Institution,s.v.Yavne;Schäfer,The Jews, –. judea  rabbinic sources that he established any ties outside of Judea, such as with Galilee, for example, not to mention with the Diaspora. Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai died between –ce. There are at least two sages, referred to as the Sons of Betaira, who may have been active in Yavneh, since there is reference to their dispute with Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai on halakhic issues in the academy in Yavneh. Apart from them, however, we have no knowledge of any sages who were active there in that generation. Rabban Gamliel was active in Yavneh in the next generation, circa – ce. He apparently began his Torah career in Lod and even established an academy there. He later moved to Yavneh and became the leader of the sages of his generation as well as of the Jewish community in Roman Palestine. His academy was apparently named “Kerem be-Yavneh” (= A Vineyard in Yavneh), presumably due to its location in or near a vineyard. Sagesgatheredtheretoattendmeetingsandtodealwithmattersofpublic concern. The academy attracted many disciples, including Jews from the Diaspora. Rabban Gamliel’s associates, R. Zadok and his son, R. Eliezer b. Zadok, may have relocated from Lod to Yavneh together with Rabban Gamliel. We know of no other sages or academies in Yavneh in this generation, and the impression that arises from the rabbinic sources is that Yavneh was regarded more as a center of leadership than a center of academies and rabbinic scholarship. After Rabban Gamliel’s death, only one other, almost unknown sage is recorded to have been active in the town—R. Levitas of Yavneh.58 During this short generation before the Bar Kokhba revolt, –ce, Yavneh had ceased to be an important Torah center. Beginning with the next generation, after the Bar Kokhba Revolt, and until the end of the Talmudic period, we know of no rabbinic activity in Yavneh, and it is hardly mentioned in rabbinic literature. In essence, Yavneh served as a Torah center for a period of only two generations; during the time, two figures, who later came to be regarded as the rebuilders of Jewish culture after the destruction of the Second Temple, were active there. They had no successors, and as a result the Torah center at Yavneh ceased to exist. AsInoted,Hellenistic,paganYavnehwasnotthenaturalenvironment in which a Torah center was likely to flourish, and it was only because of

58 M. Avot :. In the parallel Avot de-Rabbi Natan, version B:, ed. Schechter, , there is a second teaching attributed to him. Both sources mention his teaching along with those of sages who were active in the generation before the Bar Kokhba Revolt, and therefore, it is logical to place him in that generation, as suggested in Bacher, Tana"im, :, . For the history of the periods of activity of Rabban Gamliel and his dynasty, see Goodblatt, The Monarchic Principle, esp. .  chapter two the destruction of the Temple and the political upheavals which befell the Jews in Judea, along with Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai’s forced relocation there, that it developed into a spiritual center. In all likelihood, Rabban Gamliel would have remained in the Jewish town of Lod had he not been forced to move to Yavneh by the Roman government, which wanted to keep an eye on his activities.59 In summary, Yavneh earned its place in Jewish history as the most important post-Second Temple rabbinic center because of the activities of the two aforementioned sages, who according to the rabbinic sources wielded sufficient authority to lay the foundations of the complex spiritual infrastructure of a religious Jewish lifestyle without a Tem- ple. Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai was the most prominent surviving sage of the Second Temple period, and some of his halakhic and philosophical approaches were accepted by dint of his personal authority. Rabban Gam- liel, who based himself on the halakhic principles of Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai and who added to them, was responsible for the major part of the religious and social rehabilitation that took place during his thirty or so years of leadership.60

. Gimzo Gimzo was located approximately six kilometers east of Lod, in the Modi"in region. It is mentioned only in connection with the sage Nahum or Menahem of Gimzo, who was active there in the generation following the destruction of the Second Temple. He was one of the principal teachers of R. Akiva, whom he instructed in his unique exegetical method of using the Pentateuch to learn aggadot and halakhot not specifically statedinthebiblicaltext(thehalakhicmidrashim).Heisportrayed as a pious man and a miracle worker, and one halakhic teaching is attributed to him.61 A sage by the name of Nehemiah ha-Imsoni may

59 For a summary of the history of these two sages in Yavneh, see Rosenfeld, “Rab- ban Gamaliel”; Rosenfeld, “Yavneh”; Rosenfeld, Lod, –, –. Shachar, “Talmudic Yavne.” 60 Rosenfeld, “Yavneh”; Rosenfeld, Lod, ; Cohen, “Yavneh”; Goodblatt, The Monar- chic Principle, –; Goodblatt, “End,” esp. –. 61 Tannaitic literature mentions him in only t. Shavuot :, ed. Zukermandel, , as Menahem. The text states that he instructed R. Akiva in his unique exegetical method of learning halakhah and aggadah. This reference indicates that R. Akiva was his disciple. Talmudic literature refers to him as Nahum. The language in the parallel, b. Shavuot a is slightly different: “R. Akiba who ministered to Nahum of Gimzo” (Soncino, :), and it compares him to his friend, R. Ishmael, who ministered to Nehuniah b. ha-Kaneh. judea  conceivably be the same person.62 Much later, in the third to fourth talmudic generations, there is mention of R. Jacob Amsonia (Omesiah). HemayhavebeenactiveinGimzoandgiventhesameappellationas his predecessor. It has also been suggested, however, that R. Jacob was active in Emmaus. He is referred to as a tanna—someone who holds the position of reciting halakhic traditions in an academy—and thus perhaps held this position in the academy in Gimzo.63

The meaning of the source is that R. Akiva was a close disciple of Nahum’s. B. Berakhot a attributes a halakhah to him which he taught R. Akiva; it states that “Nahum a man of Gimzu whispered it to R. Akiba (Akiva)” (Soncino, :), because he did not wish to reveal it to the public, and therefore whispered it only to his close disciple. Several sources cite a dialogue between R. Ishmael and R. Akiva that begins as follows: “R. Ishmael asked R. Aqiba (Akiva), saying to him, ‘Because you served Nahum of Gimzo as a disciple for twenty-two years [learning from him the exegetical principles that] the words . . ..are to be interpreted . . .’” (Neusner, Genesis Rabbah, :, ). In the parallel versions in b. Hagiggah a, b. Shavuot a, and Genesis Rabbah :, R. Akiva is asked how Nahum would have interpreted certain words or verses of the Bible based on his unique exegetical method of biblical interpretation. These sources indicate that R. Akiva was a close disciple of Nahum’s and had attended his academy for many years. Even if the mention of the number twenty-two is only symbolic, it nevertheless indicates R. Akiva’s awareness that Nahum was a great sage from whom he had much to learn. Nahum is mentioned in three other aggadic teachings which relate stories of miracles, such as in j. Peah :, b and in the parallel j. Shekalim :, b. B. Ta"anit a presents him as a pious person who overcomes great physical suffering. In b. Sanhedrin b–a, he accepts whatever happens to him, including the bad, as being for the good, and then a miracle befalls him. 62 Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv, wrote an entry entitled Emmaus = Gam Zo, Gimzo, in which he mentions several sages from a place by this name. In a of that entry, which cites j. Berakhot :, b and j. Sotah :, c, he notes that a sage named “Nehemiah Emsoni served R. Akiva for twenty-two years [as his disciple]. And [Akiva] taught him [what one could include in the interpretation of a verse based on the presence of the particles in the Torah] "t and gm [and what one could exclude in the interpretation of a verse based on each particle] "k and rq” (based on Neusner, :, j. Berakhot). R. Akiva taught him how to interpret the Written Law. For example, when the words “et” and “gam” appear in the Written Law, they are adding to what is stated explicitly. This, however, is the same tradition presented in the previous note, but with the names of the sages switched around. Klein therefore concluded that these sources in the Jerusalem Talmud are corrupted and that Nehemiah ha-Imsoni is Nahum of Gamzo, as the names are also very similar: Nahum = Nehemiah, Imsoni = Gimzo. Epstein held the same opnion, Tannaitic Literature, , . With regard to the settlement, see Fischer, Isaac and Roll, Roman Roads, II, . 63 This sage is mentioned in j. Baba Metzi"a :, d, “Tannah R. Jacob Amsonia” and therefore, he may have been a tanna.TheversioninMs.Escorialis“Omesiah,” see Rosenthal-Lieberman, Yerushalmi Neziqin, . This version is closer to the early suggestion of Neubauer, Geographie,andn.,thatAmsonia/Emsonia=Emmaus. This was also the premise of Hezser, Form, . Reeg, Ortsnamen,liststhemasseparate entries; – is the entry for Gimzo, and – is the entry for Imsoni. By contrast, Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv,  wrote a single entry—Imso = Gimzo, on the assumption that the places are identical. This view is also implied by Epstein, mentioned in the previous  chapter two

. Antipatris Antipatris was known as a Jewish town as early as the Second Temple period, when it was partly destroyed in the war with the Romans that led to the destruction of the Second Temple. A midrashic source mentions a figure by the name of Simeon b. Antipatris. It describes him as conversant in Torah and attributes to him a practice of which Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai disapproved. The latter sent his disciple, R. Joshua, to investigate the matter, and R. Joshua found that Simeon was indeed knowledgeable in Torah and had in fact acted properly.64 The settlement receives very little mention in the rabbinic sources, but it is known to have existed throughout the mishnaic and talmudic periods.65

. Emmaus Emmaus was an important town and toparchy already during the Second Temple period. After the destruction of the Temple, it was known to be a mixed town of Jews and non-Jews, and an army camp of the Roman government was housed there. The sage R. Eleazar b. Arakh, one of Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai’s important disciples, lived in Emmaus in the years immediately following the destruction of the Temple, and it may have been there that he died soon afterwards.66 R. Nehuniah b. ha-Kaneh wasalsoactiveinEmmausinthatgeneration.Heisreferredtoas“Ish (lit. man of) Emmaus,” attracted his own disciples, and according to the Babylonian Talmud, was the principal teacher of R. Ishmael, the foremost adversary of R. Akiva in his approach to the halakhic midrashim.67 As I note. This approach may be preferable, as Emmaus is mentioned often throughout rabbinic literature, whereas there is no linguistic form similar to Amsonia, Omesiah. See Reeg, ibid., –. 64 The Treatises Derek Erez, Pirke Ben Azzai, :, ed. Higger, –. 65 Avi-Yonah, Geography, , –; Safrai, Boundaries, s.v. Antipatris; Tsafrir, Map, ; Gophna and Beth-Arieh, Map of Rosh ha-Ayin, –, No. ; Frankel and Kochavi, “Aphek-Antipatris,” –. 66 Goshen, “Rabbi Eleazar”; Levine, “R. Elazar.” On Emmaus, see Schwartz, Judaea. –; Fischer, Isaac and Roll, Roman Roads, II, –. Tsafrir, Map, –. 67 Midrash Tana"im, Deut. :, ed. Hoffman, : “Apupil asked R. Nehuniah b. ha- Kanehof(Heb.:ish)Emmaus... Hesaidtohim... R.Joshuaentered.Hesaidtohim, ‘Did you hear what this pupil asked . . .,’” and a discussion ensued. This episode occurred after the destruction of the Temple, because later R. Joshua cited something he had seen in the Temple as proof. Nehuniah is presented as a sage who has a pupil, and the former has a discussion with R. Joshua, who appears to belong to the same generation. Thus, it may be established that Nehuniah was active in the first decades after the destruction of judea  noted above, there is also mention of a R. Jacob Amsonia, a member of the third to fourth talmudic generations, who was active either in Gimzo or in Emmaus.

. Peki"in The location of Peki"in is unknown. It was situated on the road between Lod and Yavneh, perhaps in the region of modern-day Rehovot. R. Joshua b. Hananiah, a close disciple of Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai, lived there afterleavingLod.R.Joshuab.Hananiahandhiscolleague,R.Eliezer, were the two most prominent sages in the generation after Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai, during the time of Rabban Gamliel of Yavneh. R. Joshua b. Hananiah was active in Peki"in for many years and died circa ce, after which Peki"in received no further mention in the rabbinic sources.68

. Hadid Located on the northeastern edge of the Lod Plain, Hadid was approximately five kilometers east of Lod. Yakim of Hadid was active there in the generation of R. Joshua b. Hananiah and apparently during Rabban Gamliel’s time as well. Hadid receives mention in rabbinic literature only in connection with Yakim, after which the place receives no further mention.69

the Temple. See Bacher, Tana"im, :, –. For more on Nehuniah, Yakim and Nahum, see Büchler, The Priests, , –, and n. ; Alon, Mechkarim, I, , –. On R.IshmaelasR.Nehuniah’sdisciple,seeb.Shavuot a. This teaching is the only one that connects R. Ishmael with his teacher. R. Ishmael uses the method of klal u-prat (from the general to the particular) in his halakhic midrash,amethodwhichtheBabylonian Talmud attributes to his teacher. However, there is no direct proof that his teacher used this method, but that does not negate what is written in the Babylonian Talmud, as there areonlyfourorfiveextantteachingsofNehuniah.SeealsoEpstein,Tannaitic Literature, , –, which also presents the dispute between R. Ishmael and R. Akiva. 68 Rosenfeld, “Rabban Gamaliel,” especially n. ; Rosenfeld, Lod, –, . For the identification of Peki"in, see ibid., Lod,  and n. . Several locations inside of contemporary Rehovot or its western suburbs have been suggested (such as Hirbat Duran in the center of the city or Hirbat Kubeibeh, which is Kfar Gevirol, in the southwest or the nearby Hirbat el-Bad). The Peki"in referred to here is not the well-known village in Galilee. See Safrai and Safrai, “Beth Anat,” –. 69 M. Eduyot :, “R. Joshua and R. Yakim of Hadid testified . . ..”“Hadar” is written in the printed editions of the Mishnah, but Hadid is the version that appears in the Mishnah  chapter two

. Modi"in R. Eleazar ha-Modai (= of Modi"in) was apparently active in Modi"in during the time of Rabban Gamliel and also in the next generation, just priortotheBarKokhbaRevolt.Subsequently,Modi"in is not mentioned in rabbinic literature.70

. Ikkesh(?) The location of this settlement is unknown; it is perhaps in Judea. There is mention of Hezekiah, Abi (or: of) Ikkesh who presented halakhic testimony before Rabban Gamliel,71 a reference which indicates that he manuscripts. R. Joshua and R. Yakim testified about a vessel containing the ashes of the red-heifer. According to the rabbinic sources, R. Joshua b. Hananiah was a young sage before the time of the destruction of the Second Temple. Mentioning him together with Yakimsuggeststhattheywereapproximatelythesameagebutnotofthesamegeneration as Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai. Also see Alon, Mechkarim, :, n. . About the place named Hadid, see Fischer, Isaac and Roll, Roman Roads, II, –. Gophna and Beth Arieh, Map of Lod, –, No. . 70 About the place, see Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv, ; Reeg, Ortsnamen, –; Tsafrir, Map, ; Fischer, Isaac and Roll, Roman Roads, II, –. Recently a different site— Um el-Umdan—inside modern-day Modi"in has been suggested as the location of ancient Modi"in. The site contains the remains of a settlement and a synagogue that was active until the Bar Kokhba Revolt. In other words, the site was active during the time of the sage R. Eliezer ha-Modai. If we accept this suggestion, it would be the first time that Modi"in is identified as having existed during R. Eliezer’s time. See On and Weksler- Bdolach, “Um el-Umdan”; Strange, “Ancient Synagogues,”esp. n. . This opinion has been rejected by Zissu and Perry, “Modi"in,” esp. , who suggest the area of el Midiah. On R. Eleazar ha-Modai, see Frankel, Darkhei ha-Mishnah, ; Hyman, Toldot, –; Bacher, Tana"im, :, –; Ben Shalom, “Ideology,” –; Efron, “Traditions,” –, , ; Kahana, Mekhiltot, –. These sources present approximately twenty-five teachings of R. Eleazar ha-Modai from the Mekhilta in which he disputes with R. Joshua b. Hananiah. This reference indicates that he was active as a sage already in the time of R. Joshua, his disputant. R. Eleazar ha-Modai is mentioned to a small degree among the sages of the next generation—the eve of the Bar Kokhba Revolt. It is most striking that he has little association with R. Akiva. He is associated with the Bar Kokhba Revolt in only one teaching in j. Ta"aniyot :, d. The parallel in Midrash Lamentations Rabbah,:, ed. Buber, – relates that R. Eleazar ha-Modai resided in Betar in the last stages of the Revolt, became involved in a quarrel with Bar Kokhba, and the latter slew him. For the reliability of this tradition, see Efron, ibid. Likewise, there are no teachings linking R. Eleazar to Modi"in; only his name alludes to Modi"in. 71 This is the wording in Sifra, Shmini, :(d), Ms. Rome (Assemani ), ed. Finkel- stein, , “Hezekiah Abi Ikkesh presented before Rabban Gamliel in Yavneh which he stated in the name of Rabban Gamliel the Elder” (based on Neusner, Sifra, Part II, chap. :). The same wording, with the addition of one word, is found in Ms. Vati- can : Torat Kohanim (Sifra), Seder Eliyahu Rabba veZuta, ed. Makor, Jerusalem, , judea  was a member of the same generation. The place receives no further mention. R. Hananiah b. Akashiah may have been active there, as the name Akashiah perhaps indicates his place of residence rather than his father’s name. R. Hananiah was active in the generation following the Bar Kokhba Revolt. Likewise, there is mention of R. Simeon b. Akashiah, who may have been named after his place of residence as well. He apparently was active during the mishnaic period, but the generation to which he belonged is not known.72

. Bene-Berak Bene-Berak was located about four kilometers west of Lod, near the present-day Mesubim Junction, and served as a form of suburb of Lod. It dates back to the Second Temple period but is mentioned primarily in connection with R. Akiva’s activities there, probably in the later part of his life. No other sage was active afterwards in Bene-Berak, and it is mentionedonlyrarelyinrabbinicliterature.73

. Ono Ono is usually identified with Kfar #Ana (m.r. .), located about two kilometers east of ancient Bene-Berak and about five kilometers north of Lod. Recently, following excavations and surveys, a site by the name of

: “before Rabban Gamliel in Yavneh” (Heb. BeYavneh). This is the wording in the parallel b. Bekhorot a. The testimony that he stated in the name of Rabban Gamliel the Elder suggests that not only was he active already prior to the destruction of the Temple but also that he was active during the time of Rabban Gamliel in Yavneh. See also Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv, , n. , who notes that in Yalkut Shimeoni, Shemini, Chap. , it states “Hezekiah of Ikkush.”This evidence supports the assumption that Ikkesh or Ikkush is the name of a settlement. 72 On Hananiah, see Frankel, Darkhei ha-Mishnah, –; Strack-Stemberger, Introduction, ; Bacher, Tana"im, :, , . Bacher suggests that R. Simeon b. Akashiah may have been the brother of Hananiah. Simeon is mentioned in m. Kinnim : in an aggadic teaching. Even if his teaching is an addition and not part of the corpus of the Mishnah itself, it is likely that he was a tanna.Moreover,intheparallelb.Shabbat a, the teaching is brought in the name of the Tanna R.Ishmaelb.R.Jose,oneoftheeldersof R. Judah ha-Nasi’s generation. And since the Babylonian teaching is attributed to a tanna, it is also likely that the teaching in the Mishnah may be attributed to a tanna. 73 The rabbinic sources about Bene-Berak are cited in Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv, –. The four sources, Nos. , , a, and b, belong to a later period. On R. Akiva, seefor example, Safrai, R. Aqiba, –; Strack-Stemberger, Introduction, –. For a history of Bene-Berak, see Finkelstein, “Bene-Beraq”; Tsafrir, Map, ; Rosenfeld, Lod, , , and nn. , , ; Oppenheimer, “Benei Beraq.”  chapter two

Kfar Juna, located about one kilometer northeast of Kfar #Ana, has been suggested as the identification of Ono. In the rabbinic sources Ono is associated mainly with several sages who were active there during the mishnaic period. However, Ono was overshadowed by Lod, its more important neighbor. Papias of Ono, a disputant of R. Akiva, was active there.74 During the Bar Kokhba Revolt and for a short while afterwards, R. Hananiah of Ono, a disciple of R. Akiva’s, was active in Ono.75 The sources also mention a sage by the name of Joshua Onia, but it is not clear to which period he belonged—although it was most likely the second talmudic generation or earlier.76

74 For the identification of Ono and for the sources about the settlement, see Reeg, Ortsnamen, –, ; Tsafrir, Map, . For the alternative suggestion, see Gophna, Taxel, Feldstein, “Ono.” Papias of Ono is mentioned only in Sifre Zuta, :, ed. Horowitz, . It would be logical to identify him with a sage named Papias, who disputed with R. Akiva, and who is also a member of the same generation. For sources on Papias, see Frankel, Darkhei ha-Mishnah, ; Hyman, Toldot, , ; Bacher, Tana"im,:,– , who identify Papias with a different sage named Papus b. Judah. But it is doubtful whether such a sage indeed existed. He is mentioned in t. Sotah :, ed. Lieberman,  and the parallels, but the wording is suspect and should be read Judah b. Papus, as noted in Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshuta,vol.,Sotah, Chap. , , lines –. B. Berakhot b, and the parallels in Tanhuma,KiTavo,andTanhuma, Ki Tavo , ed. Buber, , indeed mention Papus b. Judah with regard to a different matter and in a discussion with R. Akiva. But, as Lieberman maintains, the source is b. Berakhot,whichwouldhave influenced the compilers of the Tanhuma. In any event, it is an ancient corruption. On the other hand, Judah b. Papus is mentioned several times in the Palestinian rabbinic sources. See Hyman, ibid., . According to Hyman, Judah b. Papus is the father of Papus b. Judah. This sage is sometimes referred to as Papus in the printed editions, but the version in the manuscripts is more precise—Papias. On this subject, and on the background to the dispute with R. Akiva, see Kahana, “Critical Edition,” especially nn. , . 75 M. Gittin :: “This ruling did R. Hanina of Ono bring back from prison” (Neusner, ). Apparently R. Hanina had heard the ruling from R. Akiva when the latter was imprisoned by the Romans. This would indicate that R. Hanina was a close disciple of the latter. On the other hand, it states in t. Sanhedrin :: “Hananiah of Ono gave testimony before Rabban Gamaliel” (Neusner, :). It is unlikely that R. Akiva’s disciple spoke with Rabban Gamliel, who was active two generations earlier. It therefore is preferable to interpret the passage as referring to Rabban Simeon b. Gamliel, the son of Rabban Gamliel, who was active in the generation after R. Akiva, that is, after the Bar Kokhba Revolt, when Judea was destroyed and the sages moved to Galilee. The question arose as to whether it was permissible to intercalate the year in Galilee, and Hananiah, who was active in that generation, testified that post factum it was permissible. And see Safrai, “The Localities.” 76 Joshua Onia is mentioned several times in the Jerusalem Talmud. In j. Orlah :, a, Joshua Onian refers to a beraita and makes a change in it, thus implying that he was a tanna who recited beraitot in a study hall. He further explains beraitot in j. Shabbat :, c; j. Pesahim :, d. R. Samuel bar Isaac, a member of the third to fourth generations of the Palestinian amora"im cited teachings in Joshua Onia’s name, indicating that Joshua Onia preceded him, and that Joshua Onia was perhaps active a generation or two earlier. judea 

. Mahoz Mahoz means port, and it refers to Mahoza de-Yavneh or Yavneh-Yam, where Nahal Sorek runs into the Mediterranean Sea (Minet Rubin, m.r. .). Archeological findings have revealed that during the Roman period, Mahoz was particularly noted for its “Jewish character,”although historical sources refer to the settlement as the maritime part of main- land Hellenistic Yavneh. During the Byzantine period, the settlement was granted independent administrative status. Rabbinic activity in Yavneh- Yam is attributed only to the Roman period. There is mention of Abba Jose ha-Mehozi (= of Mahoz), apparently active in R. Akiva’s day. The Babylonian Talmud (Sukkah b) states: “And R. Johanan in the name of R. Simeon ha-Mehozi in the name of R. Johanan ha-Makoti (perhaps, “Makos,”from Mahoz).”Thus, these two sages may have come from Mahoz, and since R. Johanan, the well-known sage of the second talmudic generation recited a teaching in the name of R. Simeon ha-Mehozi, the latter must have preceded him by at least one generation, thus making him a member of the first talmudic generation or perhaps even an earlier generation. R. Simeon ha-Mehozi cited a teaching in the name of R. Johanan ha-Makoti—Makosi, who therefore must have been at least a generation older, thereby placing R. Simeon in R. Judah ha-Nasi’s generation, and possibly even an earlier generation. There is no further mention of Mahoz in rabbinic literature.77

. Timnah Timnah was located to the north of ancient Modi"in (Hirbat Tibnah, m.r. .). Until the end of the third century it was part of the toparchy that was named after it. In the years leading up to the Bar Kokhba Revolt, Simeon ha-Timni (= of Timnah) a younger member of R. Akiva’s generation, and also his disciple, was active there. Timnah is

77 Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv, ; idem, Yehudah, –; Kutsher, Milim, –; Schwartz, Judaea, , ; Reeg, Ortsnamen, –; Isaac, “Seleucid Inscription”; Kasher, “Greek Inscription,” –; Tsafrir, Map, . For up to date archaeological information, see Fischer, “Yavneh-Yam, A,” especially ; idem, “Yavneh-Yam, B,” –. Abba Jose is mentioned in the Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael,Beshalah,ed.Horowitz- Rabin, , and in the parallel Mekhilta de-Rabbi Simeon Bar Yohai, Beshalah :, eds. Epstein-Melamed, , where he is called R. Jose. In both sources, R. Natan of the Usha generation cited a teaching in his name. It is therefore likely that R. Jose preceded him by a generation and was active before the Bar Kokhba Revolt.  chapter two mentioned in rabbinic literature only in connection with Simeon ha- Timni,andononeotheroccasioninthetalmudicperiod.78

. Kfar #Aziz The location of Kfar #Aziz has been identified as southern Mount Hebron (Hirbat el-Uzeiz, m.r. .). It is mentioned only once, as the residence of R. Ishmael, the well-known disputant of R. Akiva.79 R. Ishmael formulated a unique approach to the halakhic midrashim which differed from that of R. Akiva’s school. R. Ishmael attracted many disciples, some of whom, such as R. Meir, became the important sages of the next generation. In addition, many disciples from the Babylonian Diaspora attended his academy.80

. Kfar Darom Kfar Darom is mentioned once in rabbinic literature, in connection with R. Eleazar b. Isaac of Kfar Darom, a contemporary of R. Akiva’s.81 Kfar Darom’s location is uncertain; it may have been a settlement in the Beth Guvrin area, which at that time was referred to as the Darom (= South) by the sages, or it may be identified with Dir El Balah, south of Gaza.82

78 Simeon ha-Timni is mentioned several times in the Mishnah, and in t. Berakhot : he is listed as one of R. Akiva’s older disciples. In t. Sanhedrin :, ed. Zuckermandel,  he disputes with his teacher. See also Sifre Numbers, par. , ed. Horowitz, . He holds a discussion with R. Judah b. Baba, who was active in the same generation; see t. Beitzah :. And see Reeg, Ortsnamen, ; Tsafrir, Map, ; Rosenfeld, Lod, , , , . 79 M. Kilayim :; Reeg, ibid., –; Tsafrir, ibid., . 80 On R. Ishmael’s importance, see Epstein, Tannaitic Literature, –, –; Strack-Stemberger, Introduction, . For information on his disciples, see Hyman, Toldot, –; Gafni, “Jews of Babylonia,”–; Kahana, “Dwelling,”–; Porton, “Rabbi Ishmael,” especially –. 81 R. Eleazar b. Isaac of Kfar Darom appears in Sifre Numbers,par.,ed.Horowitz,and is referred to as “Ish ha-Darom” (lit. man of the south). The parallels, b. Sotah b and the midrash in Numbers Rabbah :, refer to him as “Ish Kfar Darom” (lit. man of Kfar Darom). The Sifre is referring to a place called Darom (= South), as the expression “man of . . .” generally means that the person bearing that name is from that place. Thus, even if the version in the Babylonian Talmud is an interpretation of the name of the place, the meaning is the same—i.e., that he was from a place named Darom or Kfar Darom. The discussion in the above Sifre cites the opinion of R. Eleazar b. Isaac after that of Abba Jose b. Hanan and before that of R. Ishmael of this generation. Thus, it is likely that R. Eleazar b. Isaac is of the same generation. 82 For the suggestion of identifying Kfar Darom with Dir el Balah, see Klein, Yehuda, ; Schwartz, Judaea, , , ; Tsafrir, Map, ; Bagatti, Villages, –. How- judea 

. Bartuta Bartuta is mentioned only in association with R. Eliezer b. Judah of Bartuta, a contemporary of R. Akiva’s. Bartuta’s location is uncertain; it may perhaps be identified with Kafarta, about five kilometers northwest of Emmaus, where remnants from the Roman-Byzantine period have been excavated. Alternatively, it has been identified with Migdal Tuta, today’sHirbatet-TutorShekhShbani,abouteightkilometerssouthof Gaza.83

. Kfar ha-Bavli(?) Two sages are associated with Kfar ha-Bavli: R. Nehuniah b. Elinatan of Kfar ha-Bavli who testified together with R. Joshua b. Hananiah, the association placing him in the second generation after the destruction of the Temple—the Yavneh period—and R. Joseh b. Judah of Kfar ha- Bavli, who was a member of the generation that preceded the Bar Kokhba Revolt or the subsequent generation.84 The location of Kfar ha-Bavli ever, the suggestion is problematic as this place is situated in the southern part of the coastal plain (in the northern Sinai), which is called the coast or the west in rabbinic literature, whereas the Negev mentioned in Scripture is referred to by the sages as the south. In other words, the location is inland, and not along the coast. See Sifre Deuteron- omy, par. , ed. Finkelstein, –; and see Schwartz, ibid., –. Moreover, the Jewish population in the northern Sinai was sparse. See ibid., , –. Therefore, it is preferable to identify Kfar Darom with an area that was referred to at that time as the South—Beth Guvrin and the surrounding area—and it is likely that there was a settlement there that bore the same name as that of the area. It is also likely that a sage was active in an area that had a considerable Jewish population rather than in an outlying area thatwasontheoutskirtsoftheJewishpopulation. 83 ThewordsofthisR.Eliezerarefoundint.Bekhorot :, ed. Zuckermandel, . R. Eliezer cited a teaching in the name of R. Joshua b. Hananiah, and R. Akiva relates to it. This citation indicates that this R. Eliezer was one generation younger than R.Joshua. Indeed, in t. Zavim :, ed. Zuckermandel, , it states that R. Simeon bar Yohai cited a teachinginthenameofR.EliezerbeforeR.Akiva,histeacher.Thus,R.Akivaknewhim and was of the same generation. For the suggestion of identifying Bartuta with Kafarta, see Press, Topographical-Historical, ,:, ; idem, :, under the entry Kfar Bartuta. Also see Reeg, Ortsnamen, ; Epstein, Tannaitic Literature, . For its identification with Migdal Tuta, see Kahana, “Places,” ; Schwartz, Judaea, , ; Tsafrir, Map, . Here, too, as with the previous settlement, this suggestion is problematic, and it is preferable to identify the place with a settlement in the Judean Shefelah, which had a considerable Jewish population. 84 Thefirstsage,R.Nehuniahb.ElinatantestifiedtogetherwithR.Joshuab.Hananiah in m. Eduyot :. Ibid., : he is mentioned only as R. Nehuniah, but presumably it is thesamesage.Thesecondsage,R.Jose,ismentionedinm.Avot :, after a teaching  chapter two is uncertain, and various sites that are distant from Judea have been suggested, such as Sidon or a location in Babylonia. However, it is highly doubtful that at such an early stage after the destruction of the Temple someone whom the sages considered to be one of their own would have been active in such distant places. In addition, the fact that R. Nehuniah appears together with R. Joshua implies that they knew each other well, a relationship which would have been difficult had they lived a great distance from one another. The most reasonable identification of the settlement, taking both location and name into account, is Hirbat el- Babliya, m.r. ., in the southern Shefelah, one kilometer south of Kibbutz Gvaram, not far from the Ashkelon-Gaza road. Remnants of the settlement Hirbat el-Babliya extend over an area of at least twenty dunams, and shards have been discovered there from the early and late Roman periods as well as from the Byzantine period. Thus, this settlement was most likely in existence during the late first and early second centuries. This is an area in which one would expect to find rabbinic activity, as Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai had been active only slightly earlier in the nearby settlement of Beror Hayil, two kilometers eastoftheseruins,andhemayhaveattractedothersagestothearea, such as R. Nehuniah.85

After the Bar Kokhba Revolt, /–ce In the wake of the Bar Kokhba Revolt (–/ce), most of Judea’s Jewish population had been destroyed, and the sages of that generation relocated to Galilee to continue their activities. There are allusions to the presence of sages in Lod in the generation following the Bar Kokhba Revolt but no definitive data in this regard, and we have no information

of Elisha b. Abuya, from the generation prior to the Bar Kokhba Revolt, and prior to a teaching of Rabbi. Therefore, he probably was active before the latter. 85 The preferred identification of the place is the suggestion in Press, Topographical- Historical, :. For the other suggestions, see Reeg, Ortsnamen, –. The information on the settlement is based on the Map Survey of the area, which is soon to be published as part of the Israel Antiquities Authority, Map Survey of Israel, No. . I am indebted to Mr. Ya"akov Hoster, regional antiquities inspector, who supplied me with this information and with whom I surveyed the site, both of which helped with its identification. For a connection between Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai and Beror Hayil, seet. Ma"asrot :; b. Sanhedrin b. For its identification as Beror Hayil, Tel Beror or Bureir, see Tsafrir, ibid., ; Reeg, ibid., –. See also the above Map Survey No. , about Bureir apparently being the largest village in the region during the Roman period. judea  whatsoever on rabbinic activity elsewhere in Judea. Only two generations later, during the days of R. Judah ha-Nasi (circa –ce)—the last generation of the mishnaic period—do we find information about other sages who were active in Lod and other areas of Judea.

. Beth Guvrin Beth Guvrin had been a Jewish town until the destruction of the Second Temple. Afterwards, a non-Jewish population established itself there, and gradually turned it into a Hellenistic town with a non-Jewish majority. In ce Beth Guvrin was granted the status of polis and was named Eleutheropolis.86 There is one mention in the Tosefta of a sage named R. Judah b. Jacob of Beth Guvrin. He provided halakhic testimony, apparently based on a tradition known to him, that Caesarea’s status with regard to some of the laws of ritual purity and impurity was the same as that of the rest of Palestine. Such discussions were common in R. Judah ha-Nasi’s generation and were meant to encourage Jews to settle in the Hellenistic cities, mainly by granting exemptions from the priestly and Levite tithes to cities with mixed populations, such as Beth Guvrin,87 and also by the aforementioned halakhic decision that equated the purity status of some of these cities with that of the rest of Palestine. The testimony ofR.JudahofBethGuvrinappearsintheToseftaamongotherhalakhot that deal with these issues, some of which are mentioned as being from R. Judah ha-Nasi’s time. The testimony of R. Judah of Beth Guvrin may have been from that time as well which would make them contemporaries.88 R. Judah’s testimony may indicate that the issues of ritual purity and the tithes were also of concern to Jews already living in towns or cities with mixed populations such as his own. That is why his testimony is mentioned with regard to the halakhic status of Hellenistic Caesarea, the capital of Palestine. His testimony may perhaps have been part of a discussion over the halakhic status of Hellenistic towns in general, with the assumption that a liberal policy regarding Caesarea would encourage

86 For its history, see Schwartz, Judaea, –; Urman, “Beth Guvrin”; Kloner, “Beth Guvrin”; Stemberger, Jews and Christians,Index,s.v.BethGuvrin;Butcher,Roman Syria, Index, s.v. Beth Guvrin. 87 J. Demai :, c. For a discussion on the subject, see, for example, Büchler, “R. Jehu- dah I,” –; Levine, “Rabbi Judah,” –; Oppenheimer, Galilee, , . 88 T. Ahilot :. The entire chapter deals with this issue. And see Sussmann, “Ha- lakhic Inscription,” –; idem, “Boundaries,” , ; Levine, Caesarea, , –; Habas, Caesarea.  chapter two

R. Judah ha-Nasi and the sages to take a liberal attitude towards other Hellenistic towns or cities, such as R. Judah’s own town of Beth Guvrin. That indeed is what transpired. Beth Guvrin is also mentioned several times in rabbinic literature of the talmudic period, at which time it was one of the most important cities in Roman Palestine. R. Jonathan of Beth Guvrin was active in the second to third talmudic generations, in the second half of the third century. Little is known about him, but his ties with the important rabbinic center in Lod are evident, as he is linked to its two foremost talmudic sages: R. Joshua b. Levi in whose name R. Jonathan cited a teaching,89 and R. Simon—the main spokesman for R. Jonathan—who was the most prominent third-generation sage in Lod and R. Joshua b. Levi’s close disciple.90 ThusitisconceivablethatR.JonathanwasR.Joshuab.Levi’s disciple in Lod. It should be noted that the church father Epiphanius (–ce), who was born in a village near Beth Guvrin, refers to his teacher Tarfon from Eleutheropolis (Beth Guvrin).91 This Tarfon would thus have been active in the first half of the fourth century, roughly two generations after R. Jonathan. However, this particular Tarfon may have only been a schoolteacher and not a sage. In any case, Beth Guvrin never developed into a large-scale Torah center with rabbinic activity throughout the entire talmudic period. This was despite the large Jewish population in the city and its surroundings, and its administrative and economic importance as one of the most important cities in all of Judea and as part of the largest toparchy in Roman Palestine, which was named after it.92 It is indeed unlikely that sages would have been inclined to live thereaftertheBarKokhbaRevoltinlightofitsHellenistic-paganculture and the general decline of the Jewish population and rabbinic activity

89 About R. Jonathan citing a teaching in his name, see j. Yoma :, b; Midrash Song of Songs Rabbah,,:;Ecclesiastes Rabbah , :. The parallel, ibid., , : appears to be a corruption. The sages who cited in the name of R. Jonathan were mostly sages from the South. In Genesis Rabbah, :, ed. Theodore-Albeck,  we find that R. Jacob bar Aha of Caesarea cited a teaching in his name; see ibid., in the note to line . In j. Yevamot :, d, R. Abin bar Bisna, an unknown sage, also cited a teaching in the name of R. Johanan. 90 Song of Songs Rabbah,,:. 91 See Epiphanius, Vita :, PG, :,  in Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv, , s.v. Beth Guvrin, no. . 92 Avi-Yonah, Geography, –; Safrai, Boundaries, –. Compare with the sizes of the other toparchies listed by both. According to Eusebius, the toparchy of Beth Guvrin included thirty-three settlements. See Melamed, “Onomasticon”; Rosenfeld, Lod, , n. . judea  in the South, relative to Galilee. Beth Guvrin’s distance from the South’s main rabbinic center—Lod—also impeded its development into a Torah center that could boast uninterrupted rabbinic activity.

. Beth Gophnin The sage Jacob b. Isaac of Beth Gophnin is cited together with the above-mentioned R. Judah b. Jacob of Beth Guvrin. Thus, like his col- leagueJudahb.Jacob,Jacobb.Isaacmayalsohavebeenacontempo- rary of R. Judah ha-Nasi. The identification of Beth Gophnin is uncertain, although the place may be identified with Gophna, today’s Jifne (m.r. .), located six kilometers north of Ramallah, which was theprovincialcapitaluntilaftertheBarKokhbaRevolt.Butthiswould imply that a sage was active there after the Bar Kokhba Revolt, and thus a Jewish community was still present as well in an area that bore the scars of the Revolt and had been emptied of its Jewish inhabitants. This is problematic, as there is no hint in the rabbinic sources of a Jewish settlement in this region after the Bar Kokhba Revolt. It is therefore more likely that Beth Gophnin was located elsewhere in Judea.93

. A town in the South This is a reference to a place whose actual name is unknown. The sage R. Pinhas b. Jair was active there. Midrash Deuteronomy Rabbah : states “. . . R. Phineas (Pinhas) b. Jair that when he was living in a town in the south” (Soncino :). This town is not Lod, but a different settlement in the South. Lod is indeed referred to in the Palestinian Talmudic and midrashic sources as “Daroma” (= the South), as noted earlier, but the midrash here states “a town in the south,” and not that he lived in the South or in Daroma. Hence this town cannot be identified with Lod. The above midrash goes on to relate that R. Pinhas possessed fields on which he grew barley, amongst other things, and this is also implied in a shorter version of the midrash in a parallel in the Jerusalem Talmud. R. Pinhas b. Jair is regarded in rabbinic literature as a miracle worker and a pious man. There are hardly any extant halakhic teachings in his name, yet

93 The sage Jacob b. Isaac is mentioned in t. Ahilot :. For a review of the suggestions for identifying Gophnin with Gophna, see Avi Yonah, The Holy Land,s.v.Gophna; Schwartz, Judaea, ; idem, Lod,s.v.Gophna;Reeg,Ortsnamen, ; Tsafrir, Map, ; Selinger,“Jifna.”Seealso,Fischer,Isaac,Roll,Roman Roads II, –.  chapter two he is considered a halakhic authority, as evidenced by the success of his resolute objection to R. Judah ha-Nasi’s attempts to abolish the Sabbatical year.94 Perhaps he succeeded in this matter because R. Judah ha-Nasi considered him the representative of the sages of the South, which was indeed how R. Judah ha-Nasi viewed him when he accepted his testimony and abolished Ashkelon’s ritual impurity. This ritual purification of Ashkelon is mentioned in the Tosefta, in Ohalot :, ed. Zuckermandel, : It is told of Rabbi (i.e., R. Judah ha-Nasi) and R. Ishmael the son of. R. Jose and R. Eleazar ha-Kappar, who spent the Sabbath in the stall of Pazi in Lod, and R. Pinhas b. Jair was sitting before them. They said to him: “Ashkelon— What do you [rule] concerning it?” He said to them, “They sell wheat in their basilicas, and they bathe and [forthwith] eat their Passover in the evening” (based on Neusner, :).95 Further on in the Tosefta they evidently accepted his testimony, and Ashkelon’s impurity was removed. This gathering of the most prominent sages of the time in Lod indicates that R. Judah ha-Nasi regarded Lod as a sufficiently important location in the South in which to discuss a problem as critical as the abolishing of Ashkelon’s ritual impurity.96 R. Pinhas’ inclusion signifies that R. Judah ha-Nasi regarded him as a southern sage of high standing. Therefore R. Pinhas, in the role of a local who was invited to discuss a problem relating to the Jews of the South, was asked, “What do you [rule] concerning it?” R. Pinhas replied that they, the residents of the area around Ashkelon, go to Ashkelon to trade because they regard it as part of Palestine in terms of the laws of ritual purity. This exchange implies that he and others frequented Ashkelon, an indication that they lived in that area and in close enough proximity to Ashkelon to be able to travel there and back on the same day. This information from the Tosefta supports the aforementioned midrash which states that R. Pinhas b. Jair indeed lived in a settlement in the South, which was half aday’sjourneyfromAshkelon.

94 This is mentioned in j. Demai :, a; b. Hullin a. See also Krauss, Kadmoniot ha-Talmud, :, . The two Talmudic sources also present stories of miracles and piety relating to R. Pinhas b. Jair. For more about him, see, for example, Safrai, “Pious- Hasidim”; Strack-Stemberger, Introduction, ; Meir, Rabbi Judah,–; Ben Shalom, “R. Pinhas”; Fuks, “Ashkelon, Judaea,” , . 95 Formoreabouthim,seeBacher,Tana"im, :, –; Hyman, Toldot, . In their opinion, he lived in Lod, but they based their opinion on the above mentioned Tosefta, which contains no such indication. 96 For the entire account, see Rosenfeld, Lod, –. judea 

. Jerusalem(?) A number of sources in the Babylonian Talmud mention the phrase “the holy congregation of Jerusalem” or the parallels “the holy assembly” or “the men of Jerusalem.” Some argue that this refers to a group of sages who settled in Jerusalem at the close of the second century ce and were still living there at the beginning of the third century. This group was comprised of R. Meir’s disciples, a number of whom are known by name: R. Simeon b. Menasyah and R. Jose b. Meshullam, known from other sources to have been active in this generation, and perhaps R. Abba Jose b. Johanan of Jerusalem, mentioned on only one occasion. They lived as a commune, dividing their day between Torah study and agricultural work. They were very particular about certain commandments, stringently observing the laws of ritual purity and spending much time in prayer. It has been suggested that R. Samuel of Phrugiah be added to this group. This name is inscribed on a tombstone discovered in Jerusalem and was identified with a sage by this name in the Talmud. We have no knowledge of the existence of this group in Jerusalem beyond this generation.97

Rural Settlements with Rabbinic Activity—Talmudic Period, –ce

. Jaffa Jaffa had been a Jewish town until the destruction of the Second Temple, after which time it developed a mixed population. Its Jewish population

97 This is a summary of Safrai, “Holy Assembly”; idem, “The Jews,” especially –, where he notes that sages also went to Jerusalem during those times, thus strengthening their ideological ties to the city. See also Urbach, “Jerusalem”; Gafni, “Litera- ture,” especially ; Schwartz, Judaea, –. According to Schwartz, Jews remained in Jerusalem at least until ce, when Constantine began building churches there. See Tsafrir, “Topography,” ; Di Segni and Tsafrir, “Ethnic Composition,” , –. It should be noted, however, that Safrai, in “Holy Assembly,” nn. , , refers to a group of researchers who do not accept this interpretation of the holy congregation of Jerusalem and offer a different interpretation. In their opinion, members of this group were the descendants of fugitives from Jerusalem who settled in Galilee and during the talmudic period formed a collective for religious purposes, similar to the community called “The House of R. Jannai,” and these people therefore were called the Holy Congregation. Kloner and Zissu both share this view (Necropolis, , n. ). Therefore, it is still uncertain  chapter two continued to exist there throughout the mishnaic and talmudic periods.98 Rabbinic activity in Jaffa is mentioned only from the second half of the talmudic period—the beginning of the fourth century—for three consecutive generations. R. Adda of Jaffa was active there in the third talmudic generation, and R. Hiyya b. R. Adda of Jaffa, probably the son of the former, was active there in the fourth generation. There are four extant teachings in his name, all aggadic in nature.99 Other sages who were active in Jaffa include R. Pinhas of Jaffa to whom a halakhic teaching is attributed and R. Nahman of Jaffa, who cited an aggadic teaching in the name of the fourth-generation sage, R. Jacob of Caesarea, who posed a question on an aggadic matter to R. Pinhas (bar Hama), active in that generation in Galilee, perhaps in Sepphoris. R. Nahman perhaps may be associated with another halakhic teaching, indicating that he was a disciple of the fourth generation’s R. Judan in Galilee, perhaps in Tiberias.100 R.TanhumofJaffamayhavebeenactivethereinthefifthto whether or not to list them. There is also no consensus with regard to the identification of the name on the inscription. See the opinions presented in Amelig, Inscriptiones Judaicae, –, no. . 98 For its history from the Second Temple period until the end of the talmudic period, see Tolkowsky, Jaffa, –; Schürer, History, :–; Kaplan and Kaplan, “Jaffa”; Appelbaum, Jaffa; Fischer, Isaac, Roll, Roman Roads II, –, , ; Dessel, “Jaffa”; Price, “Five Inscriptions.” 99 J. Megillah :, b states that he cited a teaching in the name of R. Jeremiah, the most important sage in Tiberias in the third to fourth generations. Ibid., j. Moed Katan :, c; Leviticus Rabbah, :, ed. Margulies, ; Song of Songs Rabbah, :. On R. Adda and R. Hiyya, see also Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, , . The sages of Jaffa cited teachings mostly in the names of the sages of Caesarea, and to a lesser degree in the names of others. 100 R. Pinhas of Jaffa is mentioned in a halakhic teaching inj. Pesahim :, c. R. Nahman of Jaffa is mentioned in two aggadic teachings. He is mentioned in Genesis Rabbah, :, ed. Theodore Albeck,  (and see the parallel in Leviticus Rabbah,:,ed. Margulies, , and in the footnotes): “R. Menhama [in the name of] R. Nahman of Jaffa in the name of R. Jacob of Caesarea.” The latter was a member of the fourth generation. R. Menhama who cited a teaching in the name of R. Nahman was a fifth-generation sage, see Hyman, Toldot, , and he was apparently one of the last Palestinian amora"im. This indicates that R. Nahman was active in the fourth to fifth generations. The second teaching in Leviticus Rabbah, :,  states, “R. Phineas of Jaffa raised the following questionbeforeR.Phineas(Pinhas)b.R.Hama”(Neusner,Leviticus Rabbah, II, vol. :, :). In the good manuscripts and the parallels, and particularly in Pesikta de-Rav Kahana, Aharei, :, ed. Mandelbaum, , the name is R. Nahman and not R. Pinhas, and this is the preferred version. Thus, even according to this teaching, it would appear that R. Nahman was active at the end of the fourth generation, as he asked a halakhic question of R. Pinhas, who was active in the fourth generation. A further teaching is a halakhic one that is mentioned in j. Baba Metzi"a :, a (according to Ms. Escorial, Rosenthal-Lieberman, Neziqin, ): R. Nahman went into the session of R. Judan [to judea  sixth generations.101 A small number of teachings in the names of these Jaffa sages, chiefly of an aggadic nature, are extant. It appears that they studied in the great rabbinic centers of the period, mainly in Caesarea and perhaps also in Lod and in Galilean centers and that they had some connection with the local sages there. Many tombstones bearing Jewish names have been discovered in Abu Kabir, near Jaffa. The tombstones have been attributed to residents of Jaffa in the fourth and fifth centuries—although according to some opinions, they should be dated earlier, to –ce—and they constitute the main evidence of the growth of the Jewish community in the town. Several of the inscriptions carry the title rabbi: Rab(bi) Judan the Priest, Tanhum Berebi, Samuel (b.) Galos Berebi and possibly Nahum b. Simeon of the Berebbi people, who perhaps may be identified with R. Nahman of Jaffa. Other tombstones belong to the descendents of sages whose fathers may have lived in Jaffa: Judan, son of R. Tarfon Berebi, Hananiah b. Rabbi.102 An Aramaic inscription found on one of the tombstones is translated as follows: “This is the tomb of Kura, daughter of (R)abbi Bisna, opposite.” Another, indistinct Aramaic inscription appears to mention a woman, the “daughter of K(ura)?”, presumably the daughter of Kura of the above-mentioned inscription. It has been suggested that R. Bisna be identified with a sage bearing this name mentioned in the Jerusalem Tal- mud and active in the latter part of the fourth century.103 In the epigraphic hear the lesson] (based on Neusner :). Lieberman notes ibid., , line  that the wording in the printed editions is wrong and should read R. Nahman of Jaffa. Perhaps the sage R. Nahman, who is mentioned in some of the sources, attended the academy of R. Mana and was considered a member of the fifth generation (see Albeck, ibid., ; Hyman, ibid., ), is actually R. Nahman of Jaffa. 101 Pesikta de-Rav Kahana, :, ed. Mandlebaum, , mentions “R. Tanhum of Jaffa in the name of R. Nunia of Caesarea.”Since the names are so similar, perhaps R. Tanhum of Jaffa is the same person as R. Nahman of Jaffa, even though, as already mentioned, this namealsoappearsinthismidrashicsource.R.NuniaisperhapsR.NisaofCaesarea, who was active in the fourth generation in Caesarea, even though he also appears as R. Nisa further on in Pesikta de-Rav Kahana, , . Thus, R. Tanhum was active in the fifth to sixth generations, and he was one of the last Palestinian talmudic sages. See also Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv, –, but the names there are somewhat corrupted. See also Reeg, Ortsnamen, . 102 On the inscriptions, see Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv, xxxxi, , no. –; Frey, Corpus II: –, –, no. , , , , , , . The editors, Klein and Frey, read the inscriptions differently. On the dating of the inscriptions, see Schwartz, Judaea, , and n. . On inscription no. , see Horbury and Noy, Jewish Inscriptions, Egypt, –, no. . 103 This is the suggestion of Kaplan, “New Readings,” especially n. , who argues that most of the inscriptions in Jaffa were written in Greek and only a few were in Aramaic,  chapter two findings, the classification of those with the title rabbi as talmudic sagesis based on the assumption that the fundamental meaning of this word on the tombstones is synonymous with its meaning in rabbinic literature— that is, a member of the rabbinic community. These tombstones probably span several generations, and they thus provide additional testimony to the information obtained from the rabbinic sources about the presence of sages in Jaffa at the end of the talmudic period and a few generations thereafter. It should be noted that there are reservations in scholarly literature about viewing every title of rabbi in the epigraphic findings as referring to a sage in the talmudic sense of rabbi. It has been suggested that the title rabbi in the inscriptions be viewed as a general title of respect, such as “sir,”rather than as a religious title. In this regard, it is important to note that the discussion relates specifically to Jaffa and not to all of the places with tombstones that bear the inscription “Rabbi.” Jaffa is unique in that some of the epigraphic findings are consistent with the information about the town found in rabbinic literature. The closeness between the time periods of the rabbinic sources and that of the inscriptions allows us to make the assumption that individuals who share the same names and titles have something in common, such as in the case of the title rabbi, which appears in both these sources. There is also other evidence to support the assumption that, in the case of Jaffa, the title rabbi has a meaning that is identical to that of the same word in rabbinic literature.104 Since the tombstones, including those of the sages, date to the fifth century, the implication is that Jaffa was a rabbinic center even after the talmudic period. While a discussion of the fifth century goes beyond the time frame of this book, it enables us to understand developments in the rabbinic centers at the end of the talmudic period and afterwards. During as in the case of these two. This supports the assumption that both inscriptions refer to families of sages. See also Frey, Corpus, Nos. , ; Hachlili, Jewish Funerary, . See also, Van der Horst, “Greek.” 104 An extensive discussion of the issue was begun by Cohen in his article “Epigraphical Rabbis,” in which he questions whether or not the title rabbi in the inscriptions has a meaning similar to the title rabbi in rabbinic literature, and his view is supported by some scholars. See also, Stemberger, Jews and Christians, –. However, a review of the existing material and of new findings also lends credence to an earlier opinion in scholarly research that the title has the same meaning in both sources. See Rajak, “The Rabbinic Dead”; Miller, “Epigraphical Rabbis, Archeology, Sages,” especially –; Rosenfeld, “Inscriptions,” –. On the dating of the inscriptions, see Horbury and Noy, Jewish Inscriptions, –. On the importance of the epigraphic findings for understanding literary texts, see Williams, “Contribution”; Fine, “Liturgy.” judea  this time, the Jewish population grew in several areas that were situated on the outskirts of the centers of Jewish population, and rabbinic centers developed in these areas. This phenomenon, which will be discussed later on, was typical of Jaffa, which was located on the periphery of the Jewish population of Judea. However, after the Bar Kokhba Revolt, Jews migrated from the center of the country to the coastal cities and towns, and this migration may have reached Jaffa as well, thus increasing its Jew- ish population. In addition, some of the tombstones bear inscriptions of Jews from outside of Palestine who settled in the town, leading to the expansion of the local community and the development of an environment conducive to the growth of a local Torah center. A key factor in this regard was the favorable economic situation in Jaffa, an important port town that could offer a wide variety of opportunities for earning a livelihood. The tombstones testify to the fact that the Torah center in Jaffa was active beyond the talmudic period, and there are also hints that it may have existed until the end of the Byzantine period.105 The growth of the rabbinic center in Jaffa apparently occurred in tandem with the waning of the spiritual center in Lod at the close of the talmudic period. In other words, the outlying areas of Judea developed at the expense of the more centrally located areas. This may have included the migration of Jews from Lod and its surroundings to Jaffa, along with rabbinic families who furthered the growth of its spiritual center.106

. Gezer(?) Gezer is located approximately nine kilometers south of Lod and during the talmudic period was just a village. There is mention of a R. Judan

105 Fleischer, “Lament,” –, – notes the mention of an Elder in Jaffa who was perhaps the local sage at that time. 106 This also is alluded to in the tombstone inscriptions in Jaffa. Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv, , no. , read the inscription on a bilingual gravestone as follows: The Hebrew is “This is the grave of Rav Judan ha-Kohen son of Rav Noach nefesh shklud.” (This is also the version in Frey, Corpus, no. .) The Greek version is “ΡΑΒ ΙΨΔΑ ΥΙΣ ΙΩΝΑΘΑ, RabJudahsonofJonatan.”Ibid.,n.,Kleinsuggeststhecorrection“ofLud(Lod)” instead of the incomprehensible word “shklud.” If this suggestion is correct, it would indicate that this R. Judan moved from Lod to Jaffa and lived and died there and that he was a known sage and was buried there. A further, though questionable, allusion to it may be found in another inscription, ibid., –, no.  (Frey, ibid., no. ). This is a Greek inscription which ends with the Hebrew word Shalom: “ΣΥΜΩΝΣ ΥΙΥ ΙΑΚΩ ΔΙΣΠΛΙΤΥ. î¯åìù,”whichistranslatedas“ofSimeonb.JacobofDiospolis.  chapter two

Gezuri, who was active in the fourth talmudic generation around the middle of the fourth century, and who might have been named after the place in which he resided.107

. Sokho Sokho is Sukhia in Aramaic. Circa ce, Levi of Sukhia was active there. Sokho may have served also as the residence of Antigonus of Sokho, one of the first sages of the Oral Law known by name, who was active during the Hasmonean period. The settlement has been identified with the well- known Sokho in the Shefelah, today’s Hirbat Shweika (m.r. .), near the Beth Guvrin-Jerusalem road. Another suggested identification is a ruin bearing the same name in southern Mount Hebron, east of A- Zaharia. The problem with the first suggestion is that it assumes that a sage was active in an area about which only hazy evidence exists of a Jewish presence after the Bar Kokhba Revolt. On the other hand, there was a rather strong Jewish community in southern Mount Hebron during that period, but the ruin of Hirbat Shweika shows no signs of a Jewish presence at that time.108

Shalom.”Klein, ibid., n. , states that this is the Greek name for Lod during that period. In that same note he offers a different interpretation of the inscription. Compare with Schwartz, Judaea, –, and nos. , . 107 Schwartz, Judaea, , . But the interpretation is doubtful, because in j. Shabbat :, b and in the parallel b. Shabbat b R. Judan is asked about a circumcision, possibly because he was a circumciser, and his title was based on his profession—gozer (= cutter).Ontheotherhand,intwootherteachings,R.Judancitesteachingsinthename of R. Aha and R. Simon (Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, ), two notable third- and fourth-generation Lod sages. This citation indicates that he was from the South and studied in Lod, and it increases the probability that he may have lived in Gezer, which is near Lod. It is also conceivable that his title was based on two factors, the place of residence and the profession. See also Fischer, Isaac, Roll, Roman Roads II, –. 108 Levi of Sukhia is mentioned without the title rabbi, although we find a citation in j. Eruvin :, c by the Tiberian sage “R. Simeon b. Laqish (Lakish) in the name of Levi Sokayya,”(Neusner, :), as well as in the parallel j. Pesahim :, b, which mentions only R. Sokayya. Another teaching cited in the name of Levi of Sukhia is found in j. Yoma :, b. Therefore, this Levi should be regarded as a sage. It should be noted that he is called Levi Suviah in Ms. Leiden and in the Venetian edition, whereas in b. Eruvin b, the parallel of the above j. Eruvin,andinb.Hullin b the name was corrupted, andheiscalledLeviSava.SeeSokoloff,Dictionary, . Regarding the identification of the settlement and the two suggestions, see Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv, ; Schwartz, Judaea, ; Reeg, Ortsnamen, –; Tsafrir, Map, . These authors prefer the first suggestion. See also Naveh, “Varia Epigraphica”; idem, Shard and Papyrus, ; Rahmani, Jewish Ossuaries, , No. . The latter two authors discuss the name Sukhia, which was found on an ossuary in a tomb in Jerusalem. Antigonus is mentioned in m. Avot judea 

. Zedoka(?) Zedoka may be Beth Zedok, today’s Deir Sa"ad (m.r. .).109 R. Shab- betai Zedoka, apparently a member of the second talmudic generation, wasactivethereinthesecondhalfofthethirdcentury.Thereisalso mention of R. Alexander Zedoka, of the third talmudic generation, at the beginning of the fourth century.110

. Eshtemoa Eshtemoa is located in southern Mount Hebron. R. Hasa of Eshtemoa was active at the end of the third century or the beginning of the fourth century, and he was visited by a sage from Tiberias.111 There is very

:. Zissu, in “Sokho,” reports that its location is that of Sokho in the Shefelah, based on survey results, because a large settlement had once existed on this site at the end of the Roman and Byzantine periods. Moreover, findings from this period in Sokho, near Mount Hebron, have yet to be discovered. However, in “Rural Settlements,” , Zissu tends towards the second suggestion. But Sussman, “Lamp,” indicates that the incidence of pottery oil lamps made in the Jewish factory in Beit Natif, located a short distance from Sokho to the north, suggests that there were Jewish settlements in this area that were the primary sales targets of the factory’s products. But even Sussman indicates that the main target of the products was in the opposite direction of the Beth Guvrin area, to the south of Beit Natif and far from Sokho. However, these findings still do not provide unequivocal testimony that there had been a large Jewish population in the area of Sokho. See Kloner, “Shefelat Yehudah.” 109 For the suggestion of the identity of the place, see Alon, Mechkarim, :, and ; Schwartz, Judaea, –, ; Reeg, Ortsnamen, ; Tsafrir, Map, . They suggest that the place be identified with Besandouke, the birthplace of the Church father Epiphanius, a distance of less than five kilometers from Beth Guvrin. See Epiphanius, Vita :. PG, :, . 110 R. Shabbetai is mentioned in j. Shevi"it :, a. R. Eleazar, of the second genera- tioninTiberias,taughtR.Shabbetaihalakhah. This connection between the two raises the possibility that R. Shabbetai lived in Galilee, possibly near Tiberias, as suggested by Frankel, Mevo ha-Yerushalmi, a. In j. Demai :, c, the sage R. Zeira, who was active in the third to fourth generations in Tiberias, poses a halakhic question to R. Shabbetai. Therefore, it may be preferable to look for the location of Zedoka in Galilee. See Klein, “Ortsnamenkunde,” , who suggested Hirbat Sadikin (m.r. .). See also Yankele- vicz, “Populations,”  and n. . 111 J. Nedarim :, a, according to the version appearing in Rav Nissim Gaon, “Sefer Hamafteah,” cited in Mann, Text, , . See also Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv, , s.v. Eshtemoa; Safrai, “Synagogues South,” . The Jerusalem Talmud states that R. Jasa visited R. Hasa of Eshtemoa and related a matter of halakhah to him. R. Jasa could be R. Assi or R. Jose, who were among the leading sages in the third or fourth talmudic generation in the Torah center in Tiberias. Ruth Rabbah, :, ed. Lerner, – mentions R. Hasa in an aggadic teaching, even though his name has been left out of several of the manuscript versions. He maybethesamepersonastheR.HasamentionedintheJerusalemTalmud.Amissing  chapter two little information in rabbinic literature about this area during this period. Thus, this is an extremely important reference, as it informs us that a sage from the dominant rabbinic center in Tiberias visited in Judea as far as southern Mount Hebron, probably in order to establish ties and extend his influence. Information on rabbinic activity in southern Mount Hebron is sparse, yet it shows that sages may have been active there too, as well as in the South as a whole. An indication to this effect is obtained from an inscription found in the ancient synagogue of Susiya, which mentions two other sages in that area. The inscription dates back to the fourth century,112 or perhaps one hundred years later.113 If we assume that the meaning of the title rabbi in the inscription is identical to its meaning in rabbinic literature, this assumption suggests a phenomenon similar to that in Jaffa—that Torah centers, albeit isolated and minor ones, had developed along the periphery of the Jewish population in Palestine. The chance information from the archaeological finding in Hirbat Susiya suggests that, as in Jaffa, the data provided in rabbinic literature about the sages and the settlements in which they were active are incomplete.

Summary of the Data and Discussion

The Numerical Data Based on the data found in rabbinic literature, the time frame of the material under discussion is divided into two main periods. The first is the Yavneh period, the shorter of the two, but of greater historical importance, dating from the destruction of the Second Temple until the name is a common phenomenon, even in good manuscripts. Therefore, here too, the version containing the name is to be preferred, in the sense of lectio difficilior (the more difficult reading).SeealsoLevine,The Ancient Synagogue,s.v.Eshtemoa. 112 Schwartz, Judaea, –, ; Levine, The Ancient Synagogue,index,s.v.Susiya; Tsafrir, Map, ; Amit, “Priests.”Schwartz put forth the suggestion that the sage R. Jacob b. Susi was from Susiya, which is near Eshtemoa. But the similarity is in name only, becauseinrabbinicliteratureheisassociatedwithGalileansages.SeeAlbeck,Introduc- tion to the Talmud, . 113 See,forexample,Amit,“ArchitecturalPlans”;Rosenfeld,“Susiya.”Thereisanother indication of this in the inscription discovered near a synagogue in Hirbat Rimmon, approximately fifteen kilometers west of Susiya. The inscription mentions a person by the name of Jacob b. Rabbi, who might be the son of a rabbi whose name does not appear, as in the Jaffa inscription. See Fabian and Goldfus, “Horbat Rimmon,” especially , . judea 

Bar Kokhba Revolt (–ce). The Judean sages predominated during this time, with the most important sages and leaders residing in Lod and Yavneh. There were other important sages who were active in the outlying areas of Judea. At this point in time, most Galilean sages studied in Judea and were subordinate to Judean sages in spiritual matters. The second period dates from the time immediately after the Bar Kokhba Revolt until the end of the talmudic period (/–ce), and this period saw a change in the status and activities of Judean sages. The rabbinic center in Lod was no longer the main Torah center in Palestine; it remained the important Torah center in Judea but was secondary to the Galilean centers. The number of settlements in Judea boasting rabbinic activity declined and then gradually improved, primarily in Lod. During the Yavneh period, twenty-five sages were active in sixteen settlements in Judea. At the same time, there were two (and possibly three) sages in Lod, which is reported separately to highlight its uniqueness as the only settlement with uninterrupted rabbinic activity throughout the entire mishnaic and talmudic periods. Lod was also the focus of activity of the aforementioned group of five elders (from the third, and perhaps even the second, generation after the destruction of the Temple), and possibly of other sages as well, such as at least two or three sages referred to by the term “our rabbis.” Thus, during the Yavneh period there were two sages,fiveeldersandtwoorthree“ourrabbis”activeinLod,atotalofnine or ten sages (in addition to one about whom we are uncertain). This does not include other unidentified sages who may have been active there, as well as unidentified sages included amongst the “thirty-two elders” who gathered in Lod in the third generation after the destruction of the Tem- ple. In the generation immediately following the Bar Kokhba Revolt—the second period—there are allusions to rabbinic activity in Lod, but no information is available about the names of the sages who were active there, or their numbers. There is also no information about rabbinic activity elsewhere in Judea. The second generation after the revolt, that ofR.Judahha-Nasi,sawamarkedrevival.Lodlistedsixsages(andone sage about whom we are uncertain), and four other settlements (plus two settlements about which we are uncertain) were the scenes of activity of five sages (plus five sages about whom the information is not definitive). The number of sages in Lod approached that of the Yavneh days, and it recaptured its place as the leading Torah center in Judea, second to Sepphoris in Galilee. Other Judean settlements also saw a revival, but not on the scale of the Yavneh period.  chapter two

Subsequently, during the talmudic period there were eleven sages (and one sage about whom we are uncertain) who were active in Judea in five settlements (plus two uncertain settlements). At the same time, there were twenty sages in Lod (and ten sages about whom we are uncertain). This list of sages in Lod includes several unidentified groups of sages, such as the “Elders of the South” and the Deromaei (= Southerners), mentioned in the first to second talmudic generations, as well as the Hevraya, mentioned in the third talmudic generation, who might be identified with the Deromaei. As the names of these groups are in the plural form, we may cautiously assume that each included at least two sages. The notable mark of this period is that Lod continued to serve as the important and dominant spiritual center in Judea and was able to lay claim to an average of four to six sages per generation during the talmudic period. By contrast, the number of sages per generation in the other Judean settlements was small, as in most cases a settlement was the scene of activity of only a single sage throughout the entire talmudic period. The vast majority of Judean sages who were not active in Lod resided in urban settlements such as Jaffa and Beth Guvrin, while only a few isolated sages were found in rural areas of Judea, and the information about some of them remains inconclusive. Thus, the rabbinic sources mention a total of twenty-six settlements in Judea (including those about which we are uncertain) that saw rabbinic activity during the mishnaic and talmudic periods. These include six urban settlements, one of which was Lod—the predominant center in Judea—which saw rabbinic activity throughout the mishnaic and talmudic periods. In the remaining five settlements, sages were active for brief time spans of one to three generations: Emmaus was home to two sages in the first generation after the destruction of the Temple; Yavneh was the scene of rabbinic activity for the first two to three generations following the destruction of the Temple; Jerusalem is uncertain—a group of sages may have been active there during R. Judah ha-Nasi’s time and possibly even in the subsequent generation or generations; Beth Guvrin had two sages, at the end of the mishnaic period and in the second to third generations of the talmudic period; Jaffa could lay claim to rabbinic activity during the last three generations of the talmudic period. The status of another settlement, Mahoz, is unclear. Mahoz served as Yavneh’s outlet to the sea. Sages were active there during three different generations of the mishnaic period. The remaining nineteen settlements were rural ones. Two of them, Ono and Ikkesh (uncertain), laid claim to three sages, while two others, Kfar ha-Bavli and Zedoka (uncertain), had two sages. Fifteen judea  additional settlements had one sage for a single generation, after which they were no longer referred to as Torah centers and generally received no further mention in rabbinic literature. During the Yavneh period, most of the rabbinic activity in rural areas was concentrated in thirteen settlements and perhaps in one additional uncertain settlement. After the Bar Kokhba Revolt until the end of the talmudic period we know of only five settlements, some of which are uncertain, that saw rabbinic activity. With the exception of Lod, even the urban rabbinic activity that existed mainly after the Bar Kokhba Revolt in approximately five settlements, was scattered over several generations.

Scope of Rabbinic Activity According to Time Period

Yavneh Period, –ce. In the first generation after the destruction of the Second Temple, circa –ce, we know of sages who, having survived that period, were active in Judea, and information about the settlements in which some of them were active is extant.114 Yavneh was the center of activity of Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai, as well as the sons of Betaira; Lod was home to R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, active until approximately ce; Emmaus laid claim to R. Eleazar b. Arakh and Nehuniah b. ha-Kaneh; Gimzo was the location of Nahum of Gimzo; and Antipatris was home to Simeon of Antipatris. There is also information about R. Zadok, who apparently lived in Lod and later in Yavneh at the beginning of Rabban Gamliel’s

114 The classification below is based on Albeck, Introduction to The Mishnah, –, who divided the Yavneh period into two generations. The first generation, which he termed the first group, included the sages who were active during the time of Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai and later on during the time of Rabban Gamliel in Yavneh. This decision was the outcome of the problem of how to categorize the sages who were active during the periods of both these leaders. The second generation, the second group, consisted of the sages who were active during R. Akiva’s time. The same was done by Strack-Stemberger, Introduction, –, but with certain changes. However, below we distinguish between those sages who were active in the first two generations, i.e., between the time of Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai and Rabban Gamliel. The main criterion is that the second generation includes sages who are mentioned together with Rabban Gamliel and R. Joshua, the notable sages of that period, and who were active until approximately ce, the latter even somewhat later. See Alon, Mechkarim, :–. The third generation includes those sages who were active during the time following Rabban Gamliel and who mostly were associated with R. Akiva until the Bar Kokhba Revolt.  chapter two time. Thus, there were nine sages in five Torah centers, and two of these centers were home to more than one sage: the rabbinic center in Yavneh wasthesceneofactivityofthreetofoursages,asthesonsofBetaira could be counted as at least two sages; and Emmaus was home to two sages. All of these centers were located near the Lod Plain: Gimzo was located in the east, along the periphery of the Modi"in region; Emmaus was located in the south, separated from the Lod Plain by the Ayalon Valley; Yavneh was situated in the west; Antipatris was in the north. Thus, all of the centers were apparently within fifteen kilometers of Lod. We do not know of any spiritual centers that were located in the Judean Hills or in the Beth Guvrin Valley during this period. In the second generation after the destruction of the Second Tem- ple, –ce, the sages were distributed as follows: Yavneh—Rabban Gamliel and R. Eleazar bar Zadok; Lod-Peki"in—R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus and R. Joshua b. Hananiah (both members of the previous generation as well); Hadid—Yakim of Hadid; Ikkesh—Hezekiah Abi Ikkesh; Kfar ha-Bavli—Nehuniah b. Elinatan of Kfar ha-Bavli. Thus, in this generation, seven sages were active in five rabbinic centers. On the surface, this appears to indicate a slight decline in numbers as compared to those of thepreviousgeneration.Butthisisnotnecessarilythecase,becausein the first generation the total number of known sages together with the number of sages whose location is unknown totals approximately twenty, whereas in the second generation, that of Rabban Gamliel, the number was greater.115 Furthermore, in both generations, the number of sages

115 We will add up the remaining sages who are known by name but not by location and compare the generations. In the first generation, that of Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai, we have the following: Benei (= sons of) Betaira (a name that implies that they were at leasttwosages),R.Dosab.Harkinas,hisbrotherJonathan,R.Eliezerb.Jacob(thefirst), R.Haninab.Dosa,AbbaShaulb.Batnit,Zachariahb.ha-Kazzab,Zachariahb.Kabutal(?), b. Bukhri, Johanan b. Gudgada, Eleazar Safra(?). Most of these sages continued to be active for a while during Rabban Gamliel’s time, and obviously, some of the sages mentioned below were already active during this early period. Thus there was a total of ten sages, with another two about whom we are uncertain and another nine whose location is known. This is a total of nineteen sages and two about whom we are uncertain. The second generation, that of Rabban Gamliel, includes: R. Simeon b. Netanel, R. Jose ha-Cohen, R.Eleazarb.Azariah,R.Judahb.Betaira(andseeHyman,Toldot, –; Gafni, Jews of Babylonia,),R.Joshuab.Betaira,R.Joshuab.Hyrcanus,Samuelha-Katan,Joseb. Huni, Simeon Ahi Azariah, Menahem b. Sagnai, Simeon ha-Pakuli, R. Judah b. Gadish(?), b. Peturi, b. Bagbab(?) (see Hyman, ibid., ). They total twelve sages, another two about whom we are uncertain and another six whose location is known. Thus, we have a grand total of eighteen sages in addition to the two about whom we are uncertain. To this list we must add the sages who were active in Galilee during Rabban Gamliel’s time and were not mentioned during the time of Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai. judea  whose location is unknown is much greater than the number of sages whose place of activity is known. Hence, the relative paucity of information about those sages whose place of activity is known is not necessarily testimony to an actual decline in the number of sages who were active in this generation or a decline in the number of settlements in which they were active. The distribution of spiritual centers and sages in the Lod Plain inthe third generation of the mishnaic period (–ce) were as follows: Yavneh—R. Levitas of Yavneh; Mahoz (Yavneh-Yam)—Abba Jose ha- Mehozi; Lod-Bene-Berak—R. Akiva; Lod—R. Tarfon; Modi"in—R. Elea- zar ha-Modai; Ono—Papias of Ono and Hananiah of Ono. Outside the Lod Plain, the distribution was: Timnah—Simeon ha-Timni; Kfar #Aziz—R. Ishmael; Kfar Darom—R. Eleazar b. Isaac of Kfar Darom; Bartuta—R. Eleazar b. Judah of Bartuta. Thus, there were a total of eleven sages in ten centers. To this we should add several groups of sages from Lod. There were the “five elders,”and also “our rabbis,”who constituted at least two sages. In addition, we have the group of “thirty-two elders from Lod” who were presumably a group of sages who met in this town. Most of the members of this group probably came from outside of Lod, but in all likelihood at least some must have lived in Lod, including elders whose names are known, as well as several sages not listed among the previously mentioned sages or groups. This situation implies that there were several other academies of sages who were active in Lod in addition to the academies of R. Akiva and R. Tarfon. This generation saw an increase in the number of rabbinic centers relative to the two preceding generations, but it is their geographical dispersion that is informative. The rabbinic centers were no longer confined to the Lod Plain and its environs but were distributed throughout other areas of Judea. A sage was active in Timnah, in the upper northern low- lands of Judea. Kfar #Aziz, in southern Mount Hebron, was a very important center, far from the main focus of rabbinic activity. It was home to R. Ishmael, a notable disputant of R. Akiva. R. Ishmael was one of the leading sages of his generation and attracted many disciples, including some from Babylonia. Two other sages lived in Kfar Darom and in Bar- tuta, which are located in the area of Beth Guvrin or Gaza. These centers were on the periphery of the Jewish population in southwest Judea. According to other suggestions, they may have been even more distantly located, in the Gaza area. This dispersion of spiritual centers represented a significant expansion of rabbinic activity and influence across Judea. The sages resided in the  chapter two small towns and villages of Judea, rather than in a single urban center such as Lod or Yavneh. They lived among the people and were involved in society, rather than being concentrated in just one or two great urban centers. This enabled them to gradually develop into a religious leadership with widespread influence.116 In addition, rabbinic literature emphasizes the great personal influence and charisma of the foremost sages of thiseraandothers,amongthemR.Akiva,butalsoR.Tarfon,R.Ish- mael and R. Jose ha-Galili. The considerable attention paid to their public activities indicates that the sages of this generation before the Bar Kokhba Revolt wielded great influence and were deeply involved in the weighty problems of that day. It should be noted that the names of more than forty sages from this generation have been identified. Most of them are from unknown locations, and are mentioned in connection with R. Akiva who was active in Lod and the surrounding area.117 The fact that the notable sages of this generation were active in Judea, and mainly in Lod, and that disciples from Palestine and the Diaspora came to study in Judea rather than any

116 On the importance with which the tannaitic sages viewed involvement in community affairs, see for example the expression “zorchei zibur” (lit. the needs of the community) which appears several times in the Tosefta in connection with those sages who were involved in community affairs. T. Berakhot :states,“R.AkivaandR.Eleazarb. Azariah were preoccupied with communal needs (= zorchei zibur)” (based on Neusner, :). T. Berakhot : attributes this to R. Gamliel: “R. Gamliel and his court . . . communal needs.”The phrase “communal needs” refers to all social matters. Elsewhere in the Tosefta, in Sanhedrin :, there is mention of a King of Israel who occupied himself solely with the wants of the community: “an Israelite king, who is busy only with the needs of the community (= zorchei zibur).” Since a king deals with all matters of state and society, therefore, the words “zorchei zibur” do not refer only to matters of religion but to matters of society and government as well. The expression appears another time in the Tosefta, in Sanhedrin :, and is translated there by Neusner as “public business.” See also Sifre, Deuteronomy, Piska , ed. Hammer, : “these are the elders (= Zekenim), appointed over the community,” and it is clear from the continuation that the elders are the sages. For more on sages as community leaders (Heb. = parnas), see Sifre, Deuteronomy,piska , ed. Hammer, /; Levine, Rabbinic Class, s.v. parnas, –, –; Rosenfeld, Lod, s.v. parnas, –, –. 117 Albeck, in his Introduction to the Mishnah, –, lists thirty-two sages in this generation. His list is based on the sages mentioned in the Mishnah. Strack-Stemberger, Introduction, – presents a list of thirty sages, including some that are mentioned in tannaitic sources other than the Mishnah. They mention nine sages whom Albeck did not mention. On the other hand, Albeck mentions eleven sages not mentioned by Strack- Stemberger. A comparison of the two lists gives us an additional ten sages, which together with those mentioned in both lists totals over forty sages. For more details, see Rosenfeld, “The Sages.” judea  other region,118 points to Judea as the main center of rabbinic activity. Presumably, a considerable number of those sages whose locations we do not know were active in Judea, and some of them were likely to have been active in Lod and its surroundings, due to its status as the main spiritual center and to the presence of its important sages.

After the Bar Kokhba Revolt, /–ce. We do not have any conclusive information on the names of sages active in Judea in the fourth generation of the mishnaic period, after the Bar Kokhba Revolt, –ce. There are two highly uncertain possibilities with regard to Lod—R. Bisa, the grandfather of R. Hoshea, known only byname,andperhapsR.Jeremiahb.Eleazar.Anumberofsagesknown by name from a reconstruction of sections of the Sifrei Zuta may also have been active in Lod, where this work was compiled. However, due to the high degree of uncertainty in this regard, we will include only the two above-mentioned sages. Thus, with great hesitation, we state that there mayhavebeenatotaloftwosagesinthisperiod,andonlyinLod. The destruction of most of Judea in this generation left its markon the rabbinic world as well. Lod’s status declined from that of the main national spiritual center to perhaps a mere local center, and the only one in Judea. There are no extant teachings that may be attributed to sages in Lod or to those in other Judean settlements. This lack of extant teachings is in marked contrast to the hundreds of teachings by Galilean sages of this generation. The distribution of sages in the fifth generation of the mishnaic period, circa –ce, was as follows: Lod—Bar Kappara, R. Hama bar Bisa andR.Joseb.Petros;Mahoz(Yavneh-Yam)—R.Johananha-Makoti; Beth Guvrin—R. Jacob b. Judah of Beth Guvrin; Beth Gophnin—Jacob b. Isaac; Jerusalem(?)—R. Simeon b. Menasyah, R. Jose b. Meshullam and perhapsR.AbbaJoseb.JohananofJerusalem.Thus,therewereatotal offivesagesinthreecenters,plusonecenteraboutwhichuncertainty remains—Jerusalem—with its three sages. This constituted a significant increase in the number of sages and the number of settlements with rabbinic activity compared to those of the previous generation. Yet, they constituted fewer sages and fewer rabbinic centers than the number of sages and centers two generations earlier in Judea and Lod on the eve

118 See Urbach, “mi-Yehudah la-Galilee”; Rosenfeld, Lod, , –.  chapter two oftheBarKokhbaRevolt.TherabbiniccenterinLodservedasthe important spiritual center in Judea in this generation, second in national importance only to Sepphoris in Galilee, the site of the academy presided overbyR.Judahha-Nasi.Thus,evenfromanationalperspective,the status of the spiritual center in Lod, which represented Judea, underwent importantdevelopmentsinthisgenerationincontrasttothoseofthe previous generation when Lod was perhaps only a local rabbinic center. The important Judean sage of this generation was bar Kappara of Lod. He later moved to Galilee where he attended the academy of R. Judah ha-Nasi—which contributed considerably to his fame—and from there he may have moved to Golan. We also know of R. Hama bar Bisa who is mentioned in ten teachings. In most of these he is referred to by his son’s name, R. Hoshayah, who in the following generation established the Torah center in Caesarea. This reference indicates that the sages in subsequent generations regarded the son as the more important of the two, probably due to the center that he established in Caesarea. R. Hama maintained ties with R. Judah ha-Nasi who resided in Sepphoris. He attended R. Judah ha-Nasi’sacademy, and there is mention that he served as a judge in his city. Apparently the fame of the two sages from Lod was largely due to their connections with R. Judah ha-Nasi. Galilean sages knew about them and reported their teachings because of this association. This pattern—sages who spent time in Lod before leaving it for other places, usually Galilee—was a recurring phenomenon until the end of the talmudic period. The path of the above-mentioned R. Hoshayah—the close disciple of bar Kappara and the son of his colleague, R. Hama—followed this pattern. He left Lod for Galilee, where he studied under R. Judah ha-Nasi. Upon the latter’s death he moved to Caesarea and established a Torah center there.119 Two other important sages left Lod in that generation. One was R. Epes—also called “R. Pas Daroma”—who may have relocated to Galilee at an early stage to attend the academy of R. Judah ha-Nasi and who also served as his secretary and successor as the head of the academy in Sepphoris for a short while. The second was R. Samlai, who was slightly younger than R. Epes. He too spent most of his life in Galilee and was a close associate of R. Judah Nesiah—R. Judah ha-Nasi’s grandson.120 In terms of their geographic distribution, the number of rabbinic centers in which sages were active was not large, but these centers developed

119 Levine, Caesarea, –, –; Oppenheimer, “Bathei Midrash.” 120 See above, and nn. , , . judea  in the areas in which Jews had settled after the Bar Kokhba Revolt. There was no longer any Jewish presence in the Judean hills—from the northern border in Samaria almost to its southern tip. The same was true for the Modi"in region. Jews remained only on the outskirts of the Judean hills, in southern Mount Hebron and along the Judean Shefelah. Some Jews also migrated to the coastal region.121 In effect, the Torah centers represented the urban areas in which Jews settled and not the villages, where there were no known rabbinic centers in this generation. The urban centers were in Lod in the Lod Plain; Yavneh-Yam/Mahoz in the Judean coastal region; Beth Guvrin in the southern plain; and perhaps Jerusalem (Aelia Capitolina). They were Hellenistic cities with a Jewish population, and even Jewish Lod, which had a pagan minority, was granted the status of a polis during this time period in ce.122 The establishment of rabbinic centersinHellenisticcitieswasoneofthefirstmajorsignsofthechange that was taking place in the rabbinic world in this generation. Sages settled in these cities through choice rather than by force, unlike the case of the spiritual center in Yavneh, where Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai and Rabban Gamliel had been forced to settle. This change was linked to the economic situation that existed after the Bar Kokhba Revolt. Larger settlements presented greater economic opportunities, and Jews—the sages included—had a better chance of establishing themselves in these places. The migration to the cities was preceded by the rapid urbanization that had occurred throughout the Roman Empire, including Roman Palestine in the generation of R. Judah ha-Nasi. The process was speeded up throughout the Empire by the emperors of the Severan dynasty, and the cities grew at the expense of the rural areas. This process apparently also contributed to the change in the sages’ attitudes towards the cities and their adjustment to living there, despite the predominant and rich pagan culture in these places. A notable example is the positive attitude exhibited by R. Judah ha-Nasi himself towards living in culturally mixed cities, reflected in his move to Sepphoris, a polis withapaganminority,aswellasinhishalakhic teachings, aimed at strengthening the Jewish presence in the Hellenistic cities.123 R. Judah ha-Nasi’s actions most likely affected the attitude of

121 Alon, Mechkarim, :–; Safrai, “Settlement”; Schwartz, “The Wake”; idem, Ju- daea, –; Mor, The Bar-Kochba Revolt, –; Schäfer, The Jews, –; idem, Bar Kokhba, –. 122 Rosenfeld, Lod, –. 123 See, for example, Oppenheimer, Galilee, –; Habas, “Caesarea,” esp. , and n. . On urbanization in the Roman East, see for example, Wolf, “Urbanization”; Sartre,  chapter two thesagesaswellandservedtosupportandencouragethemtolivein these cities. This phenomenon, whereby sages migrated to mixed cities and established rabbinic centers in them, became increasingly prevalent. It reached its pinnacle with the establishment of a rabbinic center in Caesarea in the following generation, at the beginning of the talmudic period, and with the establishment of the center in Tiberias two decades later. However,thesageswhowereactiveintheHellenisticcitiesofJudea, with the exception of Lod, received little mention in rabbinic literature. From the perspective of the rabbinic world, these settlements— mainly Beth Guvrin and Beth Gophnin, and to a certain extent, Yavneh- Yam / Mahoz—were apparently considered the outskirts. Jerusalem, too, was distantly located from areas that enjoyed a Jewish presence and from the hub of rabbinic activity; Galilean sages from R. Meir’s academy may have settled there, but this is uncertain. If settlement did occur, it was only in this generation.

The Talmudic Period, –ce. Covering a slightly longer time period in Judea than in the other regions of Palestine, the sages of the first to second talmudic generations, – ce, can be divided into two groups. The older group was active circa –ce. Lod was the scene of activity of R. Simeon b. Jehozadak, R. Judah b. Pedaiah and R. Joshua b. Levi, who was also a member of the younger group of this generation. Simeon ha-Mehozi was active in Mahoz (Yavneh-Yam). Thus, there were four sages in two settlements, a decline from the previous generation. Yet the time period under discussion here is approximately half a generation, making it an intermediate generation. Most notable is the fact that the Torah centers were located once again in urban Lod and Yavneh-Yam/ Mahoz, as in the previous generation, and again, in proximity to the coastal plain. There are sev- eralextantteachingsofR.Simeonb.JehozadakandR.Judahb.Pedaiah that indicate that they were members of the previous generation. A very

Middle East, –. On the impact of urbanization on Jewish culture, including on its sages, see Hezser, Social Structure, –; Sperber, The City; Lapin, “Rabbis and Cities”; idem, “Rabbinic Movement”; Meyers, “Recent Archaeology”; idem,“JewishCulture”; idem, “Jewish Art”; Sartre, ibid, –. However, it already has been noted in the introduction to this book that some of these studies indicate that urbanization only partially affected Jewish culture. judea  large number of R. Joshua b. Levi’s teachings are extant, and he will be mentioned again further on. Only one teaching of Simeon ha-Mehozi has been recorded. The teachings of R. Simeon b. Jehozadak are cited by his disciple, R. Johanan, who established the rabbinic center in Tiberias and was the most important sage of the following generation. However, we do not know whether this R. Simeon had ties with the sages of Lod, even though he himself came from Lod. The existence and extent of the internal ties among the sages of Lod in a particular generation of the talmudic period are not always documented. The same is true for Caesarea. By contrast, the ties among Tiberian sages are better documented, since the bulk of talmudic and midrashic literature was redacted in Tiberias. As a result, there is a lack of information about the internal ties in Torah centers outside of Tiberias, including in urban centers such as Lod and Caesarea, not to mention rural centers, about which information is scant. The second group, a half generation younger, was active circa – ce.LodwasthesceneofactivityofR.Joshuab.Levi,theforemost southern sage of the talmudic period, who was active from  to ce, R. Judah b. Levi, Zavdi b. Levi, Shalman b. Levi, R. Jose b. Nehorai(?) and R. Johanan b. Arza(?). To this list we might add two groups of unidenti- fiedsagesfromLod—theEldersoftheSouthandtheDaromaei(=South- erners). In Ono we have Joshua of Onia; in Beth Guvrin—R. Jonathan of BethGuvrin;inSokho—R.LeviofSukhia;andinZedoka—R.Shabbe- tai Zedoka(?). They total seven sages, plus three of whom we are uncertain, in four centers and in another center about which we are uncertain. In addition, two other groups were active in Lod. We already know of the existence of a greater number of sages and centers in this half of this generation than in the previous generations, and there are also more uncertain cases. At this juncture, the sages in Judea were also more widely distributed. In addition to Lod and its neighboring Ono, a sage lived in Sokho, which may have been located either in the inner Shefelah, about ten kilometers northeast of Beth Guvrin, or in southern Mount Hebron, east of A-Zaharia.124 A sage was active in Beth Guvrin in the southern Shefelah, and there may have been a sage in nearby Zedoka. This indicates

124 As mentioned above in n. , these suggestions have equal weight, with a tendency toSokhointheShefelah,eventhoughitissurprisingtofindasageinanareathatmay not have had a Jewish population. It is possible, however, that Jewish settlements did exist in this area. See Kloner, “Shefelat Yehudah”; Schwartz, Judaea, –.  chapter two that the spiritual centers were located mainly in the area surrounding the two cities situated on either side of the Shefelah plain, Lod and Beth Guvrin. But there were also several rural centers—Ono, Sokho, Zedoka(?)—which made their appearance as spiritual centers for the first time since the Bar Kokhba Revolt. This was a sign of rabbinic activity spreading widely in this generation, but on a smaller scale than in the generation prior to the Bar Kokhba Revolt. In this generation as well, most of the rabbinic activity was concentrated in Lod; four sages were active there, as well as two sages about whom we are uncertain. In addition, there were two groups of unidentified sages—the Elders of the South and the Daromaei—whose designations indicate that, for the most part, they did not include sages knownbynamebutratherothersageswho,forvariousreasons,were not referred to by name. The number of sages active in Lod in this generation approached the number of sages active there on the eve of the Bar KokhbaRevolt,whenR.AkivalivedinLod.However,theirstatuswas lower than that of the sages in R. Akiva’s day, when the Torah center in Lod was the most important in its generation. R. Joshua b. Levi was active in Lod in this generation. He was the most prominent of all southern sages from the time period after the BarKokhbaRevoltuntiltheendofthetalmudicperiod.TheLodcenter reached its height at this time, in part due to Lod’s polis status and the urbanization process. The Galilean centers of this generation also recognized the importance of the center in Lod. However, their leaders— beginning with R. Hanina bar Hama (–ce) in Sepphoris, followed by R. Johanan in Tiberias (–ce) who was a disciple of R. Joshua b. Levi at an early stage in his career—continued to be more highly regarded. In other words, even at its prime, the center in Lod, while the most important in Judea, took second place to the above-mentioned Galilean centers, and it did not regain the status it had enjoyed prior to the Bar Kokhba Revolt. More than a thousand halakhic and theological teachings of R. Joshua b. Levi are extant. There is also much detailed information about his life and his religious, social and political activities, which made him an important leader of the Jewish population in Roman Palestine. On the other hand, we have almost no information about the other Lod sages, and the number of extant teachings cited in their names is extremely small, ranging from one to four teachings per sage. This reflects the great disparity between the prominent R. Joshua b. Levi and the other sages of Lod and Judea, who stood in his shadow. judea 

The list of third-generation talmudic sages, circa –ce, isas follows: In Lod—R. Simon; R. Johanan, the father of R. Simeon (b. Pazi?); R. Joseph b. R. Joshua b. Levi; R. Isaac bar Nahman; and a group called the Hevraya. The sages about whom we are uncertain are R. Alexandri and R. Tanhum (bar Hanilai?). Jaffa was the scene of activity of R. Adda of Jaffa and Zedoka—of R. Alexander Zedoka(?). Thus, five sages were active in this generation, plus one about whom we are uncertain, as well as the group called the Hevraya, which might be identified with the Daromaei of the previous generation, and three rabbinic centers existed (one regarded with uncertainty). Less information is available about this generation than about the previous generation. A decrease is apparent in the number of rabbinic centers: Lod, Jaffa and perhaps Zedoka, near Beth Guvrin. As in the earlier generations, here too, Lod is notable in terms of the number of sages active there—four, and two about whom we are uncertain. Several additional sages might be added from the group called the Hevraya, whose title attests to the fact that it does not represent sages who were known by name. The Torah center in Lod in this generation was second in importance to that in Tiberias. Lod’s most prominent sage was R. Simon who, like his teacher R. Joshua b. Levi, was closely associated with the patriarchate, including through ties of marriage. Yet the impression is that Galilean sagesregardedR.Joshuab.Levi,hisprincipalteacher,asthemore prominent sage. The other Lod sages were not viewed as major figures by Galilean sages. The rabbinic center in Jaffa first made its appearance on the map in this generation, and it was active until the fifth generation, the end of the talmudic period. Jaffa is an example of a spiritual center that developed along the periphery of the Jewish population in Palestine during the talmudic period, primarily from the third century ce onward. The distribution of sages in the fourth talmudic generation, – /ce,wasasfollows:Lod—R.JudahBarSimon(orb.Pazi),R.Aha, R. Hilkiya ha-Dromi, R. Hilfa Deromiah, R. Simeon Ludia, Ludah (his period is uncertain); Jaffa—R. Hiyya ben R. Adda of Jaffa, R. Pinhas of Jaffa, R. Nahman of Jaffa; Gezer—R. Judan Gezuri (uncertain); Eshte- moa—R. Hasa of Eshtemoa; Gimzo or Emmaus—R. Jacob Amsonia, in the third to fourth generations. Thus, there were ten sages—and another two sages whose generation or identification are uncertain—who served in five rabbinic centers. The number of sages known by name and the number of settlements in which they were active were greater than in the previous generation. Likewise, there was a greater geographical distribution of settlements with rabbinic activity than in the previous  chapter two generation. Four settlements were located in the environs of the Lod Plain—Lod, Jaffa, Gezer and Gimzo or Emmaus. The fifth settlement, however, Eshtemoa in southern Mount Hebron, was located far from the other centers of this period, on the outskirts of the Jewish population. In addition, it should be noted that two of these settlements—Lod and Jaffa, and possibly also Emmaus—were urban settlements. Two were rural settlements—the uncertain case of Gezer, and Eshtemoa. Thus, the number of urban rabbinic centers slightly outnumbered the rural ones. The chance testimony about a sage’s presence in a distant rural settlement such as Eshtemoa indicates that rabbinic activity in distant regions had not ceased even at this late period, and as noted earlier, might have existed on a larger scale than is known to us from rabbinic literature. Lod’s sages were equal in number to and better known than the sages of the other settlements, despite the growing importance of the rabbinic center in Jaffa. Two important sages were active in this generation—R. Aha and R. Judah b. Pazi, son of R. Simon of the previous generation—and both were from Lod. Many of their teachings are extant, and they maintained close ties with sages from other rabbinic centers. They were among the leading Palestinian sages, and it was due to their presence that the center in Lod continued to maintain the same important status it had enjoyed in the previous generation. Not enough teachings of the Jaffa sages are extant for us to gauge their importance, but the few that exist allude to ties mainly with the sages of Caesarea and less so with the geographically closersagesofLod.Theexplanationforthismightlieintheconvenient and direct land and sea links between these two port cities.125 During the fifth talmudic generation, /–ce, the sages were distributed as follows: Lod—R. Joshua Deromia, R. Jacob Deromia, R. Eleazar Daroma, R. Jose Daroma, R. Luliani Daroma; Jaffa—R. Tanhum of Jaffa(?). They totaled five sages, plus one sage about whom weare uncertain. There is far less information about the geographical distribution of the sages in this generation, as we know only about sages in Lod—assuming that the designation “Daroma” (= Southerner) refers to Lod—and about one sage in nearby Jaffa about whom we are uncertain. Thus, the information about the South in this generation dwindled; the sages from Lod are referred to as Daromai, reflecting their diminished

125 The land link was a Roman road along the coast that linked the two locations. See Roll,“RoadstoCaesarea.”Forthemaritimelink,seet.Demai :, ed. Lieberman, ; idem,Lieberman,Tosefta Kifshuta, vol. , Zeraim, . See also Frey, Corpus, , No. ; Levine, Caesarea, , –, , ; Schwartz, Judaea, –. judea  status, and indeed, there are few teachings recorded in their names. These two centers contrast Galilean rabbinic centers, with hundreds of teachings of such prominent sages as R. Mana and R. Abun from Sepphoris, as will be discussed in Chapter . This phenomenon appears to be due not merelytotheattitudeofGalileansages—theredactorsoftheJerusalem Talmud and midrashic texts—who did not include the teachings of the sages from Lod and Judea, but rather, to a real decrease in the status of the Lod rabbinic center, whose sages did not attain the prominence of their predecessors. The designation Daroma was already used to describe some less important Lod sages of the previous fourth generation, even though there were still sages known by name who were active in Lod. Perhaps the designation Daroma referred not only to sages from Lod but to all sages active in the South. If so, the five sages with this appellation mentioned here, and perhaps the two from the previous generation, represent sages from the South whose location is not defined. If this is the case, it would indicate that Galilean sages had a lower regard for Judean sages as a whole, as evidenced by the fact that they did not bother to note their exact location, as had been customary in the past. However, thepreferableinterpretationofthetermDaroma refers to sages active in Lod, since the talmudic sources frequently referred to Lod as Daroma. The designation Daroma thus reflected the decline in the status of Lod sages, whose city was now referred to only in general terms, and even more so, the decline in the status of Judean sages in general. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the sages of Caesarea, Sepphoris and Tiberias were known by name and city and not by an appellation, and many of their teachings are extant. Furthermore, we know of an unidentified group of Caesarean sages referred to as Rabbanan de-Caesarin (= Rabbis/Sages of Caesarea), a title whose meaning corresponds to the designation Daroma. But some southern sages designated Daroma were known by name, such as R. Joshua Deromia. This probably indicates a higher regard for those southern sages than for the anonymous “Rab- bisofCaesarea.”Inanycase,theuseofthegeneraldesignationDaroma implies a lowered regard on the part of the redactors of the talmudic and midrashic texts. The situation appears to be even more complex if we include in the list of fourth- to fifth-generation sages, another group of sages who may have been associated with Lod—the ben Pazi family. This family consisted of four sages—the fourth-generation R. Hillel b. Pazi and R. Hanan or Hanina b. Pazi and the fifth-generation R. Inyia b. Pazi and R. Simeon b. Pazi. If the members of this group are indeed from the same family,  chapter two it is likely that they were members of the family of R. Simon and his sonR.Judah,whowerecalledbenPazi.Thisassumptionincreasesthe number of fourth-generation sages by two, bringing the total to twelve, with two sages about whom we are uncertain. The number of sages in this generation is the largest of the talmudic period, proving that Lod’s importance had not diminished in that generation. Two more sages of the famous ben Pazi family may be added to the fifth generation. They were connected to the patriarchal family, which would have heightened their status in their own city and thus the status of the entire rabbinic center as well. However, in their case too, there are too few extant teachings to gauge their standing as sages. Yet another problematic group is those sages who were the disciples of fourth-generation sages in Lod and whose place of residence is unknown; all or some of them may have been active in Lod. They include R. Ashian, R. Judah bar Titas, R. Jacob bar Abbaye and R. Samuel bar Inyia. But while it is conceivable that one or more of them may have lived in Lod, they cannot be listed among the Lod sages, as there is no indication that they, in fact, did live there. Likewise, we have not taken into account sages such as R. Samuel b. Nahman and R. Jacob b. Idi, both members of the third talmudic generation, who began their careers in Lod before moving elsewhere,usuallytoGalilee.ThesameistrueforTarfon,theteacher of Epiphanius, who may have been a sage in Beth Guvrin in the fourth generation or a mere schoolteacher.126

Conclusions

A summary of the data available from the rabbinic sources provides us with a broader view of the places of residence and activity of Judean sages. The most striking phenomenon is that Lod was the dominant spiritual center throughout the entire mishnaic and talmudic periods. It was unique among the other centers in Judea in this regard, and no other Torah center in Judea saw rabbinic activity that continued uninterruptedly, even if it occurred only throughout the mishnaic period or just throughout the talmudic period. The other centers were active for shorter, and often sporadic, periods of time.

126 For the sages mentioned here, see the entries for each of them in Hyman, Toldot and in Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud.Onthe“RabbisofCaesarea”andthesagesofthis city, see Levine, Caesarea, –. judea 

Lod was unique in this regard also when compared to the rabbinic centers in Galilee, with the exception of Sepphoris. Thus, both Lod and Sepphoris were exceptional in Palestine, since there is no information to indicate that other Galilean centers saw continuous rabbinic activity throughout the entire mishnaic and talmudic periods as these centers did. A review of the information about the spiritual centers in Lod and Sepphoris emphasizes their singular status. Lod laid claim to a sage as early as the first generation after the destruction of the Temple, whereas there is no mention of any sages in Sepphoris in that generation. From the second generation onwards, an unbroken chain of sages was active in each of these centers throughout the mishnaic and talmudic periods. In the second generation, the center in Lod was second in importance to Yavneh in Judea, as well as throughout the entire country, and by the third generation it had developed into the most important rabbinic center in Palestine. Correspondingly, Sepphoris was the foremost center in Galilee in the second and third generations, albeit of lesser importance than the Judean centers of Yavneh and Lod. In the generation following the Bar Kokhba Revolt, there are hints of rabbinic activity in Lod, but we have no information with regard to names and numbers, and the sages may have been of local standing only. By contrast, Sepphoris then had become one of the most important centers in Galilee. In the subsequent generation—that of R. Judah ha-Nasi—at the end of the mishnaic period and in the following generation—the first of the talmudic period—Sepphoris had developed into the foremost spiritual center in Roman Palestine, and Lod, which had developed into the most important center in the South, took second place. Afterwards, from the second talmudic generation until the end of the talmudic period, Sepphoris remained an important center in Galilee, but was second to Tiberias; it only regained its earlier status as the most important center in the country in the fifth talmudic generation.127 Throughout the talmudic period, Lod was the most important center in the South and one of the most important in Palestine, of similar standing to Sepphoris. A summary of the history of these two centers shows that they had undergone considerable transformations over the generations. Yet their rabbinic activity continued uninterrupted, and they served as important centers throughout almost the entire mishnaic and talmudic periods.

127 As will be discussed in Chapter  in the section on Sepphoris.  chapter two

Another interesting phenomenon is that during the Yavneh period, from after the destruction of the Temple until the Bar Kokhba Revolt (–ce), the main Torah centers were located in Judea and not in Galilee, and disciples flocked mainly to the academies in Judea. Thus, many disciples from Galilee, and even from the Babylonian Diaspora, came to Judea. In the first two generations after the destruction of the Temple, Yavneh served as the main rabbinic center, while Lod was second in importance to it. Yavneh was apparently the seat of Jewish leadership, chiefly in the days of Rabban Gamliel (–ce), whereas the center in Lod appears to have been more of a center of Torah and academies. In the following generation, that preceding the Bar Kokhba Revolt, an unknown sage was active in Yavneh, and in the absence of a suitable successor to Rabban Gamliel, Yavneh in effect ceased to function as an important Torah center. On the other hand, for a single generation, Lod developed into the main rabbinic center in Palestine. This was due to the intensive activity of its sages and their disciples. Its renown was particularly due to the presence of its most prominent sages, headed by R. Akiva, whose disciples formed the next generation of sages, as well as by other sages such as R. Tarfon, R. Jose ha-Galili—who is mentioned in association with Lod—and other Elders.128 Presumably, the activities of this generation of sages in Lod influenced, inter alia,thegenerationsof sages that followed the Bar Kokhba Revolt who chose to continue their activities in Lod, transforming it once again into an important spiritual center. A total upheaval occurred after the Bar Kokhba Revolt, and Galilee developed into the leading area of rabbinic activity, with Judea secondary to it. Lod remained the main Torah center during this period as well, but it took time for it to recover and increase the scope of its rabbinic activity. There is no information about sages who were active in Judea, including in Lod, in the generation after the Bar Kokhba Revolt, and the presence of a sage or two can be suggested only with some hesitancy. Beginning with the next generation—that of R. Judah ha-Nasi—which was also the last generation of the mishnaic period, and until the end of the talmudic period,weknowofanumberofsageswhowereactiveineachgeneration, mainly in Lod, which had reclaimed its prominence as the main rabbinic center in Judea, partly due to its polis status and partly to the urbanization process in general. In each generation, we know of a few sages in other

128 Rosenfeld, Lod, , . judea  settlements, which served as spiritual centers for only a generation or two. The sages in these settlements received little mention, and the impression is that they were not particularly influential. However, the information compiled in rabbinic literature is incomplete, due to the censorship of the redactors who did not include all of the teachings of all of the sages who were active in the different generations. Moreover, the information from rabbinic literature after the Bar Kokhba Revolt came from Galilee. In other words, it largely represented the viewpoint of Galilean sages in preference to that of Southern sages. The Judean sages mentioned by Galilean sages were primarily from Lod, and several of them, such as R. Joshua b. Levi and his disciple R. Simon, received hundreds of mentions in Galilean literature. This recognition indicates that the discourse of Galilean sages was with the Lod sages, whom they regarded as more important than the sages of the other Judean centers who received infrequent mention. It can also be sur- mised that had there been other prominent sages in Judea, their teachings would have been reported. In any case, there was a vast difference inthedegreeofimportanceofLodandofotherrabbiniccentersinthe South. This was reflected in the greater number of sages active in Lod, the greater continuity of rabbinic activity there throughout the mishnaic and talmudic periods and Lod’s status as the most important rabbinic center in Judea throughout that entire period. Thus, it is not surprising that Palestinian rabbinic literature of the talmudic period held Lod in special regard and reflected this regard in a unique linguistic formulation. Lod was sometimes called Darom or Daroma (= the South or southern), rather than Judea. This appellation was generated because Lod, in the wake of the Bar Kokhba Revolt and onward, was the most prominent and important Jewish settlement in the South and was its main Torah center. In the fifth generation as well, at the end of the talmudic period, sages were referred to by the general appellation Daroma, which was indicative of the decreased importance with which they were regarded by Galilean sages. FromthetimeoftheBarKokhbaRevoltuntiltheendofthetalmudic period, most of the sages active in Judea had studied in the main Galilean centers. During R. Judah ha-Nasi’s time and in the following generation, they studied in Sepphoris. Afterwards they studied primarily in Tiberias, when it was regarded as the foremost center in Palestine, and sometimes in Caesarea, the capital of the country, which served as one of the most important spiritual centers in Roman Palestine throughout the entire talmudic period. However, there were a number of prominent sages  chapter two who first studied in Lod and then studied and were active in Galilean centers. These included R. Johanan and Resh Lakish, the leading sages of Tiberias, who at one point studied in Lod before returning to Galilee. The same was true of R. Hiyya bar Abba and R. Assi in the next generation and of R. Haggai in the fourth generation. Some of the sages who were active in Caesarea had also studied in Lod, such as the third-generation R. Abahu—who had studied primarily in Galilee under R. Johanan but who had also spent much time studying in the academy of R. Joshua b. Levi in Lod—and the fourth-generation R. Shamai.129 We do not know of any Judean sages who studied in Sepphoris from the second talmudic generation onwards, once Tiberias had supplanted it as the main Torah center. During the third and fourth centuries, a non-Jewish population, first pagan and then Christian, gradually established itself in Lod. By the sec- ondhalfofthefifthcentury,theChristianpopulationhadbecomethe majority and Lod became a Christian city.130 This had a major impact which, to a large extent, eventually led to Lod’s decline as a religious center. It still continued to be an important center in the fourth generation, towards the end of the talmudic period, but by the end of this generation a certain decline is discernable, as Galilean sages began referring to some of Lod’s sages as Daroma,suchasR.HilkiyaDaromaandR.Hilfa Deromiah. Lod declined further in the fifth generation, the last generation in which sages were associated with Lod. All of these sages, such as R. Joshua Deromia and others, were accorded the appellation Daroma. Rabbinic activity in the other settlements in Judea also had undergone change. Relative to Lod, rabbinic activity in the other settlements was marginal. The Yavneh period, from the time between the destruction of the Second Temple and the Bar Kokhba Revolt (– ce) saw considerable rabbinic activity in rural settlements. In the first two generations after the destruction of the Temple, this activity was concentrated in the Lod Plain, and in the third generation it spread to the rest of Judea. The extensive rabbinic activity that was taking place along the periphery of the Jewish population provided a significant backup to the main centers in Yavneh and Lod and increased their influence throughout Judea. The end of the Bar Kokhba Revolt was followed by a time of great crisis. Most of Judea was destroyed, and it never fully recovered nor regained

129 See Rosenfeld, ibid., –, –, and Chapter  below. 130 Rosenfeld, ibid., –. judea  its pre-Revolt state. Instead, the Jewish population shrank in size and was concentrated on the outskirts of Judea. The same was true of rabbinic activity throughout the region, which recovered only partially. With the exceptionofLod,fewsagesareknowntohavebeenactiveintheJudean region. Rabbinic activity that we know of was sporadic, and it existed in onlyasmallnumberoftownsandcitiesandinanevensmallernumber of villages in those areas where there now was a reduced Jewish presence. Mention should be made of the growth of rabbinic centers in the Hel- lenistic cities on the outskirts of Judea, which began at an earlier stage than in Galilee and the center of Palestine, where rabbinic activity in towns and cities with a similar makeup began only after the generation of R. Judah ha-Nasi, at the beginning of the talmudic period. In Judea, this had occurred already in the Yavneh period, but it was mainly a phenomenon common to the period following the Bar Kokhba Revolt. It began in Hellenistic Yavneh, which was the most famous center in the first two generations after the destruction of the Second Temple. Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai and Rabban Gamliel were both active there for approximately forty years, circa –ce. Presumably, the Roman authorities forced the pair to stay in Yavneh. However, they were followed, probably in the third generation on the eve of the Bar Kokhba Revolt, by a lone sage, R. Levitas of Yavneh, but there is no proof that he remained there under coercion. The name Levitas indicates that his parents had been influenced by Greek culture and suggests that he may indeed have been born in Hellenistic Yavneh in which he was active. However, the paucity of information about him makes it difficult to establish his exact time period and history. There is no information about any sages in Yavneh after the Bar Kokhba Revolt, and Yavneh fades into extinction in terms of rabbinic activity, gradually becoming a heroic symbol of a Torah center in rabbinic literature.131 It should be noted that rabbinic activity does receive mention in the maritime area of Yavneh—Yavneh-Yam, referred to in the rabbinic sources as Mahoz—which also possessed a Hellenistic character. How- ever, there is little information about sages who were active there. We know of one sage active there on the eve of the Bar Kokhba Revolt. Two other sages there are known by name, one active in the first or second generation after the Bar Kokhba Revolt and the other active in the following generation—either the second generation after the Revolt

131 See the list of settlements above, no. ; Rosenfeld, “Yavneh.”  chapter two or the next—the first talmudic generation. In other words, sages were active in Hellenistic Mahoz even during the period preceding the Revolt, before sages generally became active in Hellenistic towns and cities.132 Thus, apart from Lod, Hellenistic Mahoz was unique in Judea in terms of almost continuous rabbinic activity there prior to and perhaps immediately following the Revolt, and there is nothing to indicate that this was due to coercion. Sages also settled in the important southern city of Beth Guvrin in R. Judah ha-Nasi’s generation, the last generation of the mishnaic period, as well as two generations later, in the second talmudic generation. There may also have been a group of sages in Jerusalem—Aelia Capitolina— during R. Judah ha-Nasi’s generation, and perhaps afterwards. Later on, a Torah center developed in Jaffa and was active from the third to the fifth talmudic generations. Thus, there was a greater upsurge in rabbinic activity in the large Hellenistic towns and cities than in the villages of the South. But this rabbinic activity took place on the outskirts of the Jewish population, and it did not lead to the emergence of important rabbinic centers in these locations. These rabbinic centers developed against the background of the destruction of the Temple and the Bar Kokhba Revolt, which radically changed the distribution of the Jewish population, leading to the migration of Jews from the earlier population centers in the Judean hills to themoreoutlyingareas,suchasBethGuvrinandtheareaaroundit, and to Mahoz and Jaffa. The Jewish population also migrated from Judea to Galilee and to the coastal towns and cities as well. Thus, there was a relocation from the central region to the periphery, a relocation which strengthened settlements in the outlying areas to which sages arrived as well.However,thesagesweremoreattractedtotheHellenisticJudean towns and cities, which were developing as a result of the urbanization process, rather than to the villages, as the likelihood of finding a means of livelihood in the towns and cities was greater. These changes also led to a better attitude of the sages to these Hellenistic settlements. It should be added that sages were sometimes dispatched to certain settlements for a limited period of time, and this move increased rabbinic activity in these settlements. Thus, R. Isaac bar Nahman, a third- generation Lod sage and a disciple of R. Joshua b. Levi, was sent to Gaza to serve there as a sage and a judge for a period of time, after which he

132 Schwartz, Judaea, –. On Mahoz as a Hellenistic settlement, see Tsafrir, Map, . judea  was meant to return to Lod. Sages were dispatched from Galilee as well. Almostconcurrently,R.ZeminawassenttoserveinTyreforaperiodof timeandthentoreturntohisplaceofresidenceinGalilee.133 After the Bar Kokhba Revolt, the number of sages who were active in the villages of Judea decreased, relative to their numbers on the eve of the Revolt and relative to the number of Galilean sages who were active in Galilean villages after the Revolt and during the talmudic period. In R. Judah ha-Nasi’s generation we find mention of Beth Gophnin, whose location is uncertain—it might be Gophna—as well as mention of “a town in the South.” Four or five settlements are mentioned in the talmudic period: Gimzo or Emmaus (nos.  and  in the list of settlements) in the third-fourth generations; Gezer (uncertain; no. ) in the fourth generation; Sokho (no. ), around the middle of the third century; Zedoka, uncertain, perhaps Beth Zadok near Beth Guvrin (no. ); and Eshtemoa, in the third to fourth generations (no. ). The latter is the only settlement from the talmudic period about which we are certain of rabbinic activity; we are uncertain of rabbinic activity in the rest. We are uncertain about Gezer, and whereas we are more certain about Sokho, variant meanings can be offered for the words Gezuri and Sukhia. We are uncertain about Beth Zadok, while Gimzo should probably be replaced by Emmaus. In other words, the situation after the Bar Kokhba Revolt was such that, with the exception of Lod, throughout all of Judea during the two mishnaic generations, sages were active in only two rural villages and in one other village about which we are uncertain; and afterwards in talmudic times, they were active in perhaps two or three villages plus an equal number of villages about which we are uncertain. In other words, information regarding rabbinic activity in the villages of Judea after the Revolt is very meager indeed, implying that rabbinic activity in the outlying areas of Judea failed to recover. However, one must take into account the fact that Judea was far from the main center of rabbinic activity in Galilee, where most of the rabbinic sources were redacted, and it is likely that not all data from that period is extant. Occasionally, information existing by chance alludes to additional information that was not preserved. For example, there is a single mention in the Jerusalem Talmud of the activities of a fourth- generation sage, R. Hasa of Eshtemoa, in southern Mount Hebron, which was on the outskirts of the Jewish population of that time. Eusebius, the

133 See j. Bikkurim :, d, which states that R. Judah bar Titas was appointed to teach in Rome and return home.  chapter two well-known church father from Caesarea, was active during that precise period, and he reported seven Jewish settlements that were located in southernMountHebroninhisday.Accordingtothearcheologicalfind- ings, the number of settlements may have been far greater,134 with each settlement having the potential of being home to the rabbinic activity of more than one sage. Thus, a random piece of information hints at the possibility of additional sages in this region who were not recorded due the region’s considerable distance from the main center of rabbinic activity. Moreover, if we assume that the title rabbi found on the Jaffa inscriptions, as well as the two persons entitled rabbi in the inscription found in Hirbat Susiya in southern Mount Hebron near Eshtemoa refer to sages in the talmudic sense, this assumption provides support for the claim that additional sages were active in the fourth century; yet they were not mentioned in rabbinic literature. Some of the names appearing in the above inscriptionswerethoseofsageswhowereactivelaterinthefifthcentury, indicating that there were sages active in Jaffa or in the outlying area of southern Mount Hebron during that time. The many tombstones found in Zoar, located along the southeastern edge of the Dead Sea, include one with the inscription “Rabbi Simon Berebi,”which goes on to state explicitly that he was a “sage” who died in the year  after the destruction of the Temple, i.e., ce. This finding indicates that the title rabbi inthe inscription refers to a sage in the sense used in rabbinic literature. Even though Zoar lies to the east of Judea, it is only several dozen kilometers from southern Mount Hebron, close enough to constitute further proof of rabbinic activity in this region in the middle of the fifth century as well.135 Andifsageswerestillactiveatthattime,whenthesituationof the Jewish population in Byzantine Palestine was less favorable than in the previous century, this indicates that some form of rabbinic activity existed in this area also after the talmudic period.

The Judean Sages: Internal Dynamics and Ties with the Wider Rabbinic Community—Discussion and Conclusions

Information about the extent to which there was contact among the rabbinic centers in Judea is important in order to understand the ties that existed among sages in Judea, as well as the ties that were established

134 Schwartz, Judaea, , and continue until ; Isaac, “Jews, Christians.” 135 Naveh, “Seven Tombstones,” No. . judea  between the main center of Jewish population and the periphery. This discussion, too, is affected by the partial, fragmented nature of the available information, as most of the sources upon which the discussion is based were redacted by Galilean sages who regarded Judea as a distant place of secondary importance. Thus, the conclusions are also necessarily partial and incomplete. In the first two generations after the destruction of the Temple, Yavneh was the main Torah center in Judea, and other centers were located on the periphery. Lod was an important center and secondary in importance to Yavneh. Information about the first generation after the destruction of the Temple is sparse, but we nevertheless know of close ties that existed between Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai from Yavneh and his disciple, R. Joshua b. Hananiah, who was active first in Lod and afterwards in Peki"in. R. Joshua b. Hananiah also visited Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai when the latter was living in Beror Hayil. Likewise, there is mention of the ties established by Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai with Simeon of Antipatris via his disciple R. Joshua, although these ties do not attest to Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai’s influence but only to his friendship with Simeon (see nos.  and  in the list of settlements). We also find mention of ties that existed between Yavneh and the surrounding villages.136 Because of Rabban Gamliel’s leadership role, a variety of ties were established with different settlements across the country in his day. Con- ventions were held in Yavneh, which strengthened the ties between Rab- ban Gamliel and his academy, on the one hand, and the sages active in the various settlements, on the other. Rabban Gamliel himself traveled throughout Judea and Galilee in order to increase the contact between settlements and the seat of leadership in Yavneh. Disciples from Galilee came to study in Yavneh, and Yavneh also maintained ties with Jew- ish communities outside of Palestine, partly as a result of Rabban Gam- liel’s visits to Rome, on the way to which he established ties with Jews in various places in the Mediterranean Basin, and partly as a result of the trips to the Diaspora by other sages.137 There is even mention ofa

136 This association is alluded to inm. Rosh Hashanah :, and in t. Rosh Hashanah :, ed. Lieberman, . It is stated explicitly in j. Rosh Hashanah :, b: “Yavneh is a rabbinical ordinance, and the villages near it are a rabbinical ordinance” (based on Neusner, :/), as well as in the beraita in b. Rosh Hashanah b. 137 See above, no.  in the list of settlements; Oppenheimer, “Rabban Gamaliel”; idem, Galilee, – Safrai, “Hachmei Yavneh.”  chapter two pilgrimage to Yavneh from Asia Minor for the purpose of inquiring into matters of halakhah. This is reminiscent of the pilgrimage to the Temple in Jerusalem on Jewish festivals, and sages may have regarded it as such, viewing Yavneh as a substitute of sorts for the Temple in Jerusalem. There were three different laws, receiving separate mention in the Tosefta,about which the following was said: “Concerning this law did the men of Asya go up for three successive festivals to Yavneh, and on the third festival they [the authorities of Yavneh] declared it valid for them” (t. Hullin :, Neusner : / ).138 Nonetheless, we know little about the ties that existed between Yavneh and other settlements in Judea, apart from the information about Yav- neh’s connections with Lod, which points to close contact between these two prominent centers. For example, sages would visit R. Joshua at Peki"in in Judea on their way from Yavneh and from there continue on to Lod.139 Another example is the Passover Seder held in Lod which was attended by Rabban Gamliel and the Elders, who presumably arrived from Yavneh and perhaps from elsewhere as well.140 In addition, there is information about the ties between Lod, which had many academies, and sages from various settlements in Judea. Thus, we know that the disciples of R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus of Lod lived in different settlements throughout the country, and in some cases there is explicit mention of the fact that some of these disciples visited him in Lod.141 In the third generation, on the eve of the Bar Kokhba Revolt, Lod became the leading Torah center. It retained this status until the end of the talmudic period, and other settlements in Judea with rabbinic activity were regarded as the periphery. This perception was mainly due to the stature, wide-ranging activities and connections of R. Akiva and also of R. Tarfon, who was a sage in Lod. The information about sages in other Judean settlements is available primarily because their teachings were generally linked to those of R. Akiva—either disputing him or stating something in agreement with him. In any case, this information

138 T. Hullin :; t. Parah :; t. Mikvaot :. 139 T. Sotah :, ed Lieberman, . See also, Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv, , s.v. Peki"in. 140 T. Pesahim :, ed. Lieberman, . See also Alon, Mechkarim, :; Oppen- heimer, “Rabban Gamaliel.” 141 R.IlaiofUsha,thefatherofthefamousR.Judah,visitedhisteacher,R.Eliezer,seet. Yom Tov :, ed. Lieberman, . J. Eruvin :, d and b. Eruvin b mention a disciple of R. Eliezer’s from Obalin/Iblin in Lower Galilee. T. Kelim Baba Metzi"a : and b. Shabbat b mention a disciple from Upper Galilee. See Oppenheimer, “Rabban Gamaliel”; idem, Galilee, – Safrai, “Hachmei Yavneh.” On R. Jose, son of the Damascene, which is Damascus, see Epstein, Tannaitic Literature, –. judea  indicates that they had ties with this important sage. The connections of these sages with R. Akiva increased their contact with the Torah center in Lod and its suburb Bene-Berak, where R. Akiva resided for part of the time. Disciples, as well as sages from Galilee, came to Lod, and the major rabbinic conventions of this generation were held there. These conventions presumably included sages from both Judea and Galilee, thus strengthening their ties to Lod.142 Mention should be made of the strong ties that existed between R. Ishmael of Kfar "Aziz in southern Mount Hebron and other sages of his day. Although this settlement was regarded as the periphery, relative to Lod, R. Ishmael’s particular status transformed it into an important, unique rabbinic center in its own right. He established an academy there, and it attracted many disciples who came to study under him. He also met and debated with the sages of his generation, generally with R. Akiva. It would be difficult to imagine that these sages took the trouble to travel to R. Ishmael’s distant settlement. In all likelihood it was R. Ishmael who made the journey, primarily to Lod, the main Torah center of his generation, where he met with its sages and others who came there for meetings and to study. Among the sages with whom he met was the prominent R. Akiva, his foremost disputant. Many of their debates and disputes are quoted directly in the tannaitic sources as well as in later talmudic and midrashic sources.143 In the period after the Bar Kokhba Revolt there is little in rabbinic sources about ties among the sages themselves in the various settlements in Judea, and when ties are mentioned, it is mainly with reference to Lod—the main center. Lod is mentioned only in the second generation after the Revolt, during R. Judah ha-Nasi’s time, and in association with particular rabbinic centers. For example, the Babylonian Talmud in Hullin btellsoftwosageswhocametoLodtoestablishaleapyearand spent the Sabbath in Ono: “Our Rabbis taught: It is related of R. Simai and R. Zadok, that when they were on their way to Lydda (Lod) in order to intercalate the year, they spent the Sabbath at Ono, and they ruled concerning the intercalation as Rabbi [Judah ha-Nasi] concerning the crop” (based on Soncino, : / ). From this generation onwards, sages such asbarKappara,andlaterhisclosediscipleR.Joshuab.Levi,theprominent sage of the next generation, are linked with other sages from Lod.

142 Oppenheimer, Galilee, –, and n. ; Urbach, “mi-Yehudah la-Galilee”; Ro- senfeld, “R. Yose Ha-Gelili”; idem, Lod, –. 143 See Kfar "Aziz, no.  in the above list of settlements; Hyman, Toldot, –, – .  chapter two

From the time period after the Bar Kokhba Revolt until the end of the talmudic period, ties mentioned within Judea were almost exclusively with regard to the sages of Lod.144 R. Joshua b. Levi of Lod, for example, traveled from Lod to Beth Guvrin and bathed there for religious reasons. This chance piece of information points to ties that must have existed between this sage from Lod and the important southern city, as it is unlikely that R. Joshua b. Levi traveled the entire distance from Lod to Beth Guvrin, roughly a day’s journey, just to bathe. Instead, it is more likely that he had established ties with the local Jewish community there and perhaps also with Jewish communities in the surrounding area. This incident also lends support to the assumption that there were ties between R. Joshua b.LeviandR.JonathanofBethGuvrin,whocitedateachinginhisname and may have attended the former’s academy. To this citation we should addthatR.Simon,R.Joshuab.Levi’simportantdisciple,citedateaching in the name of R. Jonathan and may have studied under this sage from BethGuvrin.WealsoknowofvisitstoJerusalembyR.Joshuab.Leviand Galilean sages. Similar visits to Jerusalem were also recorded for other sages, beginning with the period following the destruction of the Temple until the end of the talmudic period. Presumably, their main purpose was to visit the site of the Temple. Yet R. Joshua b. Levi may also have met with members of the Jewish community that might have existed there. Indeed, there are a number of traditions handed down by R. Joshua b. Levi in the name of the “Holy Congregation of Jerusalem,” which included several sages. If the name refers to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, his visit was probably also intended to strengthen his ties with them.145 R. Malukh of Arabia was another sage who cited a teaching in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi. The former’s name implies that he came from Provincia Arabia,probablyinsouthernArabia,whichinhisday—circa the middle of the third century—had a Jewish community. R. Malukh was named after his distant province rather than after a particular settlement in that province, and he was apparently remembered for his distant origins. R. Joshua b. Levi visited that region and may have traveled through the area in which R. Malukh of Arabia lived.146 R. Joshua b. Levi’s outstanding disciple, R. Simon, is mentioned in particular association with the area called Har ha-Melekh (= Royal Moun- tain). He owned “orchards” there, probably vineyards, or “fields” accord-

144 Schwartz, Judaea, –; Rosenfeld, Lod, –. 145 See the above list of settlements, no. ; Schwartz, ibid., –. 146 Schwartz, ibid., ; Rosenfeld, Lod, –. judea  ing to a variant reading. At that time the region included most of the Judean hills, but hardly any Jews lived there. Since R. Simon owned property in an area devoid of Jews, and presumably had to travel there every so often, he may have visited Jewish settlements en route.147 In the fourth generation we find mention of R. Aha who traveled to Emmaus,148 and another sage who traveled from Lod to Ono.149 Thus, the above examples indicate there were ties between Lod and the periphery, perhapsstrongties,becauseLodwastheadministrativecenter(toparchy) for the many settlements in the region. However, information on this subject is scant, making it difficult to evaluate the nature of the relationship between Lod and the sages who lived in the Judean periphery,150 and even more difficult to evaluate the ties among the different sages of these outlying areas. Finally, a relatively large amount of information is available about the contact between Galilean sages and their Judean counterparts. During the Yavneh period this contact was bilateral in nature. The influential sages lived in Judea; they toured Galilee and established ties with its sages and their Galilean disciples and with the local society. At the same time, disciples and sages arrived from Galilee to attend the academies in Judea or to seek answers to halakhic questions. They came mainly to Yavneh and Lod and had little contact with the periphery. There were exceptions, however, such as the academy of R. Ishmael in Kfar "Aziz in southern Mount Hebron, to which sages and disciples flocked from Galilee and even from Babylonia. After the Bar Kokhba Revolt, most of the prominent sages were active in Galilee, and the nature of the relationship between the two groups was reversed. The prominent Galilean sages visited Judea, mainly for socio- religiousreasons,suchastosanctifythenewmoon,tostrengthentheir ties with the Jewish population there or to deal with various religious problems. This state of affairs continued throughout the talmudic period as well. In other words, it was approximately the same type of connection that the earlier Yavneh sages had forged with sages of Galilee. For two generations after the Bar Kokhba Revolt until the beginning of the

147 J. Demai :, b; j. Avodah Zarah :, b; Rosenfeld, ibid., , . Shahar, “Har Hamelech,” esp. –. 148 J. Avodah Zarah :, d. 149 R. Jacob b. Dostai, see b. Ketubot b. 150 See, for example, Fischer, Isaac and Roll, Roman Roads, II, – (map); Rosen- feld, Lod, the map at the beginning of the book, and –.  chapter two talmudic period, Judea did not attract disciples from Galilee. During the talmudic period as well, only a few disciples came from Galilee or Caesarea to study in Judea. In actuality they went only to Lod to attend the academies of a small number of sages such as R. Joshua b. Levi, his disciple R. Simon and the latter’s disciple, R. Aha. Conversely, the vast majority of disciples in Judea, and particularly those from Lod, attended the academies in Galilee throughout all of the generations from the period after the Bar Kokhba Revolt until the end of the talmudic period. We have almost no information about sages in the outlying areas of Judea during this post-Revolt era, and hence it is difficult to know where they hadstudiedandwhetherornottheyhadattendedtheacademiesin Galilee. As noted in the list of settlements (no. ), during the second half of the talmudic period, sages from Jaffa may have studied in Caesarea, Tiberias or Lod. It should be pointed out that there is a greater amount of information about ties that existed between Galilee and the outlying areas of Judea after the Bar Kokhba Revolt and during the talmudic period than about the ties that existed among the Judean settlements themselves. There is scant information about Galilean sages who visited Judea to deal with localsocialissues.ButwedonotfindthereversesituationofJudean sageswhotraveltoGalileetodealwithmattersconcerningtheJewsof Galilee, which indicates that Galilean sages were more influential than their Judean colleagues. Thus, R. Judah ha-Nasi and other prominent Galilean sages visited Lod, and together with their Judean counterparts they formed a religious court of law to abolish Ashkelon’s impure status.151 Visits of this sort on the part of the Jewish leader and his rabbinic associates had broad social aims. There is an incident from the first talmudic generation involving two of the leading Galilean sages: “R. Johanan and R. Jonatan went to help bring peace to the villages of the South” (based on Neusner, :).152 There is also a description of a comprehensive tour of Judea by three important third-generation sages from Tiberias “who went up to the Royal Mountain” (Neusner, :), which refers to most of the Judean hills. This implies that these sages traveled extensively throughout Judea, and it is unlikely that they traveled simply for their own enjoy- ment. Rather, they must have been furthering their ties with the Jewish

151 T. Ahilot, :, ed. Zuckermandel, . 152 J. Berakhot,:,d. judea  population in the various settlements in this region.153 The visit by R. Jasa of Tiberias to R. Hasa of Eshtemoa in southern Mount Hebron (see no.  in the list of settlements) should also be viewed in this light, as it was presumably part of a journey to enhance the relationship with Jewish settle- mentsofthisregionandperhapsalsowithvarioussettlementsenroute. These journeys may have been intended to strengthen the ties between Galilean sages and their Judean colleagues and to extend the former’s sphere of influence to include Judean society as well. It should be noted that the status of R. Joshua b. Levi—the most prominent Lod sage in the first talmudic generation—was unique in the rabbinic world. Mention is made of his trips abroad on behalf of the entire Jewish population of Palestine. Mention is also made of ties that existed between the sages of Caesarea and the south, mainly Lod, and these too helped to strengthen the ties within the rabbinic world in Palestine as well as to support the sages who were active in Judea.154 The few descriptions of the ties that existed between the central area of Judea and the periphery from the period after the Bar Kokhba Revolt until the end of the talmudic era reflect the paucity of information on this subject. The only information in the rabbinic sources is with regard to the ties that were established amongst the sages in Lod or to their ties with sages of the Judean settlements. By contrast, there is a greater variety of information concerning the ties of Galilean sages with Judean sages, with the local Torah center in Lod and also with the outlying regions of Judea. This information points to Galilee’s dominant status in relation to the central and outlying areas of Judea, and the picture that emerges points to a general social responsibility that is demonstrated by Galilean sages. We should keep in mind, however, that the rabbinic sources that relate to the period under discussion originated in Galilee and were compiled by the sages who lived there. Judea was of secondary importance to them, and it is thus not surprising that the extant material about Judea is fragmented and meager. It is therefore difficult to arrive at clear-cut

153 J. Avodah Zarah :, d. See also j. Demai : d about the gathering of sages for the purpose of exempting the Royal Mountain (= Har ha-Melekh) from the tithes. This source mentions that the gathering occurred during the time of R. Hoshayah, the prominent sage in Caesarea during the first talmudic generation. This information suggests that the gathering was not run by Judean sages and apparently did not take place in Judea, even though it dealt with a problem of Judea’s Jews. For information on the ties of Judea and Lod with Galilee, see Schwartz, Judaea, –; Rosenfeld, Lod, –, –, –. 154 Rosenfeld, Lod, –, s.v. Caesarea; Goodblatt, “Rimmon Valley,” esp. ; Schwartz, “Urban Culture.”  chapter two conclusions regarding the ties between Galilee and Judea, and especially between Judea’s central area and its periphery. The results of my research most likely do not reflect the full extent of rabbinic activity in Judea. This partial profile is due to the incomplete information in the rabbinic sources as well as to the meager relevant archaeological findings. Even the sociological element of group solidarity in the rabbinic world finds only partial expression in rabbinic literature and is reflected mostly in the ties that existed among Judean sages and in their ties with sages living in Galilee or Caesarea. These ties were essential for strengthening their group solidarity and their social status. However, even the partial extant information implies that the interrelationships among the sages living in the settlements of Judea and elsewhere were actually much greater, and they will hopefully someday come to light. chapter three

GALILEE

Information on the scope of rabbinic activity during the mishnaic and talmudic periods is far greater for Galilee than for any of the other regions coveredinthisbook.ThisisduetothefactthatpriortotheBarKokhba Revolt—during the Yavneh period—the Torah centers in Galilee were secondary to those in Judea, whereas after the Revolt, the sages relocated to Galilee, which subsequently developed into the main focus of rabbinic activity. In addition, since most of rabbinic literature was redacted in Galilee, more information was recorded about rabbinic activity in this region than in the other regions of Palestine. The chapter begins with a discussion of the two main rabbinic centers in the two important Jewish cities of Galilee—Sepphoris and Tiberias— followed by sixty-six settlements in which rabbinic activity was more sporadic. With the exception of one polis, all of the latter were rural settlements. The discussion and conclusions about the settlements with rabbinic activity are followed by a discussion of the ties between the sages of the large urban Torah centers and the sages active on the periphery.

Sepphoris and Tiberias—Urban Torah Centers with Uninterrupted Rabbinic Activity

. Sepphoris (Zippori) Sepphoris was located in the fertile southwestern side of the Beth Netofa Valley. It became the capital of Jewish Galilee as early as Gabinius’ time (–bce)—when Rome first began to rule over Palestine. Sepphoris was the only Jewish settlement in the Galilee that saw uninterrupted rabbinic activity from the first generation after the destruction of the Second Temple in ce until the end of the talmudic period. The first Seppho- rian sage mentioned by name was R. Parta the Great, who was a member of the generation that had witnessed the destruction of the Temple; there is no other extant information about him. His son, R. Eleazar b. Parta, was a member of R. Akiva’s generation, and was active until the Bar  chapter three

Kokhba Revolt (circa –ce). R. Halafta was active in Sepphoris in the second to third generations (circa –ce). He was a prominent sage and the progenitor of the renowned rabbinic family that was active in Sepphoris throughout the mishnaic period.1 Although Sepphoris was an important rabbinic center in Galilee, from the time of the destruction of the Second Temple until the Bar Kokhba Revolt it stood in the shadow of Yavneh and Lod—the main rabbinic centers in Judea. This is reflected, inter alia, by the fact that R. Jose, the son of R. Halafta of Sep- phoris, left Sepphoris to attend the academy in Lod, thus following the common practice of many students in Galilee at that time, who studied in Judea, rather than vice versa.2 After the Bar Kokhba Revolt (/ce), most of the sages relocated to different parts of Galilee. Sepphoris was the most important Jewish city in the region, and it attracted many people from Judea, including many of the priestly courses.3 The sages, with the exception of R. Jose b. Halafta, one of the outstanding sages of that generation and a close associate of the rabbinic leader and patriarch, Rabban Simeon b. Gamliel, did not settle in Sepphoris, however.4 According to rabbinic literature, Rabban Simeon b. Gamliel himself lived in Usha, a medium-sized town located far to the west of Sepphoris. Since Usha was the scene of activity of the foremost rabbinic leader of that day, this generation is sometimes referred to as the Usha generation or Usha period. Rabban Simeon b. Gamliel established his residence in Usha rather than in the more important city of Sepphoris becausehefeltthattheRomangovernmentwouldnotbepleasedto have a strong Jewish leader in the main Jewish city of Galilee. Sepphoris’ wealthy residents, as well, who had collaborated with the Romans, had no desire for their city to become the main seat of rabbinic leadership.

1 On the Parta family, see b. Ketubot a. On his son, R. Eleazar, see Bacher, Tana"im, :, –. On R. Halafta, see ibid., :, ; Oppenheimer, Galilee, , ; Urbach, “mi-Yehudah la-Galilee,” –; Strack-Stemberger, Introduction, . On the history of Sepphoris, see Klein, Galilee, –; Schürer, History, :–; Freyne, Galilee, – . Goodman, Roman Galilee,index,s.v.Sepphoris;Miller,Sepphoris,.Jensen,Herod Antipas, –. 2 See Urbach, ibid. 3 Kahana, Mishmarot;Safrai,Galilee, –; Oppenheimer, Galilee, –. For a different opinion on the matter, see Trifon, “Priestly Courses,” and Safrai’s response to Trifon in “Priestly Courses.” 4 T. Shevi"it :, ed. Lieberman, ; j. Berakhot :, b; j. Moed Katan :; d; Oppenheimer, Galilee, , , . On the close relationship between R. Jose and R. Simeon, see Mantel, Sanhedrin, – and n. ; Oppenheimer, “Shikum,” –. galilee 

Until then, rabbinic leadership had been located in Judea, rather than in Galilee, and Sepphoris’ aristocracy was apprehensive about having Palestine’s most prominent sages close by.5 In the next generation (–ce), the leading sage in Sepphoris was R. Ishmael b. R. Jose bar Halafta, the grandson of R. Halafta.6 R. Parta, the grandson of R. Parta the Great, was another scion of a local rabbinic dynasty in Sepphoris.7 Circa ce, R. Judah ha-Nasi moved from Beth She"arim to Sepphoris. It was then that Sepphoris reached the height of its importance. R. Judah ha-Nasi’s charismatic personality, in addition to his special status as the patriarch and the most important sage of his generation, attracted many members of the rabbinic class, who flocked to his academy, the most renowned of that generation.8 After R. Judah ha-Nasi’s death in /ce, there was no one ofhis stature to succeed him and unify the rabbinic class. These circumstances led to the decentralization of the rabbinic world. Several of R. Judah ha- Nasi’s disciples established academies of their own in various settlements, primarily in Galilee. Nonetheless, Sepphoris continued to be the most important rabbinic center in the next generation as well.9 R. Judah ha- Nasi’s son, Rabban Gamliel be-Rabbi (circa –ce), succeeded his father as patriarch and lived in Sepphoris. Other sages who were active in Sepphoris in this generation included Rabban Gamliel’s brother, Simeon be-Rabbi, R. Hanina bar Hama (the Priest), who was head of the academy in Sepphoris, and perhaps R. Epes the Southerner, who preceded him in this role for a short period of time. In addition, R. Bna"ah,R.Judah ha-Nasi’s disciple, established an academy in Sepphoris.10 Circa ce,

5 See Oppenheimer, “Shikum,”–; idem, Galilee, –; Büchler, Mechkarim, – ; Alon, Mechkarim, :, n. ; idem, Toldot, :–; Safrai, “Beth She"arim,”– . 6 Bacher, Tana"im, :, –; Hyman, Toldot, –; Avi-Yonah, Rome and Byzan- tion, , , . On the close relationship between R. Ishmael and R. Judah ha-Nasi, see b. Sanhedrin a; b. Pesahim b; Ecclesiastes Rabbah :. R. Ishmael b. R. Jose bar Halafta headed an academy in Sepphoris, even before R. Judah ha-Nasi relocated from Beth She"arim to Sepphoris. See b. Ketubot b; j. Ketubot :, d; Alon, Mechkarim, :. 7 B. Ketubot a. Hyman, Toldot, , maintains that the grandson, R. Parta, also had a son who was a sage during the time of R. Judah Nesiah, R. Judah ha-Nasi’s grandson, but the sources he cites do not support this view. 8 Bacher, Tannaiten, :–; Safrai, “Beth She"arim,”; Levine, “R. Judah,”– , –; idem, Rabbinic Class, –; Oppenheimer, Galilee, –; idem, Rabbi Judah, –; Horsley, Galilee, –. 9 Oppenheimer, “Batei Midrash”; idem, Galilee, –, and n. . 10 J. Horayot :, b; j. Baba Metzi"a :, d. See also Bacher, Tana"im, :, –; Lieberman, “Caesarea,” ; Klein, Galilee, ; Levine, “Rabbi Judah,” . On R. Hanina,  chapter three the office of patriarch was held by R. Judah Nesiah, R. Judah ha-Nasi’s grandson. He was active first in Sepphoris, but he may have moved with the patriarchate to Tiberias around ce. However, it may only have been his grandson, R. Judah Nesiah II, who moved to Tiberias circa ce. Once the seat of the patriarchate relocated to Tiberias, it replaced Sepphoris as the main rabbinic center in Palestine.11 After ce and up until the beginning of the fifth talmudic generation, the rabbinic center in Sepphoris continued to be second in importance to the center in Tiberias. R. Hama bar R. Hanina bar Hama, the Priest, son of the prominent sage of the previous generation, was active in Sepphoris in the second to third talmudic generations.12 In the third talmudic generation (–ce), there is mention of Huna Rabbah de-Ziporin (= of Sepphoris),13 R. Hanin (Hanan) de-Zipori (= of Sep- phoris),14 and perhaps also R. Imi, the father of the fifth-generation R. Abduma de-Ziporin.15 The sages who lived in Sepphoris in the fourth talmudic generation (–ce) included R. Pinhas (bar Hama, the Priest), one of the country’s foremost sages, and his brother, R. Samuel,

see Hyman, Toldot, –; Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, –. According to b. Berakhot b, R. Hanina was a priest. On his importance in the rabbinic world and on the rabbinic center in Sepphoris, see Miller, “R. Hanina.” 11 Levine, Rabbinic Class, –. For a chronology of the patriarchal dynasty from this point in time until the end of the talmudic period, see Mantel, Sanhedrin,–, and n. ; Levine, “Patriarch,” esp. –, and n. . On Rabban Gamliel and his son, R. Judah Nesiah, and their status, see Rosenfeld, “The Crisis,” –; Oppenheimer, Galilee, , , as well as the discussion below about Tiberias. 12 J. Shabbat :, a. According to Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, –, he was activeinthethirdgeneration,butsincehewasthesonofR.Haninawhodiedcircace, he should be moved up half a generation. 13 J. Shabbat :, a. Albeck, ibid., . B. Rosh Hashanah b–a mentions R. Hana Zipora (= of Sepphoris). But see also Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv, , No. a, and n. , who maintains that the reference is to R. Huna. 14 R. Pinhas of the succeeding generation in Sepphoris cited a teaching in the name of R. Hanin, Genesis Rabbah : (eds. Theodor-Albeck, ), and R. Hanin cited a teaching in the name of R. Samuel bar Nahmani of the second to third generations, ibid., : (p. ). It therefore appears that R. Hanin was active between the two sages. Albeck, ibid., –, devoted an entire entry to R. Hanin and identified him with R. Hanan, the father of R. Simeon, who is mentioned once in the Jerusalem Talmud. But in n.  he refers to his index in Genesis Rabbah, eds. Theodor-Albeck, vol. , . Here Albeck hints at the possibility of identifying him with R. Hanan de-Zipori (= of Sepphoris). This identification is more likely, since in the midrash ateachingiscitedbyR.Hananinthe name of the Galilean sages in whose vicinity R. Hanin may have been active, whereas R. Hanan, the father of R. Simeon, is mentioned in j. Pe"ah :, c in Daroma. 15 J. Beitzah :, d states that the fourth-generation R. Isaac b. Eleazar cited a teaching in the name of R. Imi, whose son was a member of the fifth generation. galilee  who was less well known.16 R. Hiyya Ziporah (= of Sepphoris) (the Priest) was also active in Sepphoris at this time.17 Sepphoris grew in importance in the fifth talmudic generation, and its status as a rabbinic center overshadowed even that of Tiberias, as it became the scene of activity of the most illustrious sages of that generation. The leading fifth-generation sage was R. Mana (–ce), who apparently had been born in Tiberias and had attended the academy of his father, R. Jonah, and of his father’s associate, R. Jose bar Zevida, the great Tiberian sages of the previous generation. R. Mana later settled in Sepphoris and attracted many disciples, who were to become most of the fifth- to sixth- generation sages, the last group of sages recorded in the Jerusalem Talmud. R. Mana’s charismatic personality in all likelihood contributed greatly to the important status of Sepphoris in that generation. Several other prominent sages were active together with R. Mana in Sepphoris, including R. Abin (Abun), R. Hanina de-Ziporin (= of Sepphoris), and perhaps also R. Haggai (the second).18 R. Abduma de- Ziporin also resided there.19 The rabbinic center in Sepphoris had its share of vicissitudes. Never- theless, the city was the scene of rabbinic activity throughout the entire mishnaic and talmudic periods. It was thus similar to Lod in Judea; Sep- phoris and Lod were the only two places that were able to claim uninterrupted rabbinic activity throughout these periods. This was due, inter alia, to the fact that both had been important Jewish cities as early as the days of the Second Temple and throughout mishnaic and talmudic

16 On R. Pinhas, see j. Yoma :, d and the parallel passage in Ecclesiastes Rabbah :. On his brothers, see Genesis Rabbah :, eds. Theodor-Albeck, . Albeck, ibid., –, notes that R. Pinhas immigrated from Babylonia, as implied in j. Eruvin :, d: “when R. Pinhas came up here” (based on Neusner, :). The Hebrew reading is based on Lieberman, ha-Yerushalmi ki-Fshuto, . Bacher, Amora"im, :, , n. , maintains that R. Pinhas and his brother did not come from Babylonia, but rather they were local residents. However, he based his view on an incorrect reading in the printed edition. 17 He posed questions to R. Ami; see j. Orlah :, a. In addition, he was a priest; see j. Terumot, :, b. 18 OnR.Abin,R.HaninaandR.Haggai,seeRosenfeld,“R.Abun.”OnR.Hanina,see Albeck, ibid., –. On R. Haggai (the second), see j. Yoma :, d. R. Mana visited him on Yom Kippur, from which we can deduce that he lived nearby. See also Hyman, Toldot, , who writes that his son, R. Eleazar bar Haggai, who was a disciple of R. Mana, may also have lived in Sepphoris. 19 Albeck, ibid., . On p.  there is mention of R. Samuel bar Abdima, who apparently was a disciple of R. Mana. This information allows us to suggest that he apparentlywasthesonofR.Abdima,andpossiblylivedinSepphoris,asdidhisfather.If this is the case, there are three known generations of sages in this family in Sepphoris.  chapter three times. In addition, both were favorably located along important roads and situated in fertile areas, two conditions that advanced the economic circumstances of their inhabitants and of those living in the surrounding areas. Sepphoris was the most important Galilean city as early as Sec- ond Temple times.20 Caesarea and Tiberias were also important rabbinic centers, but only from the beginning of the talmudic period, in the generation after R. Judah ha-Nasi. This prominence was due to their different character, as from the onset they were built as poleis,withamixedpopu- lation and a Hellenistic orientation. A result of the accelerated pace of the urbanization process in Palestine was that sages began to settle in these cities.

. Tiberias In –ce, Herod Antipas, who ruled over Galilee, built Tiberias as his capital. It was established originally as a polis.However,itsinhabitants were mainly Jewish, which made it different from the other poleis.Asig- nificant proportion of Tiberias’ Jewish inhabitants, primarily its aristocracy, had been influenced by the city’s Hellenistic culture. Tiberias was consideredrituallyunclean,asitwasbuiltoveracemetery,andJews who stringently observed the laws of ritual impurity at first refused to settle there.21 It can be inferred from rabbinic literature that after the destruction of the Second Temple, Rabban Gamliel of Yavneh and the sages endeavored to create a closer relationship between the city’s inhabitants and the rabbinic world. In the course of their journeys to Galilee and elsewhere for the purpose of unifying the Jewish population of Pales- tine, they also visited Tiberias and established ties with its inhabitants.22

20 See, e.g., Avi-Yonah, Geography, ; Jones, “Urbanization,” –; idem, The Cities, , ; Smallwood, The Jews, –, ; Meshorer, “Coins of Sepphoris”; Freyne, Galilee, –; Levine, “Third Century”; Goodman, Roman Galilee, –; Schwartz, Judaea, , –; Horsley, Galilee, –; Rosenfeld, Lod, –, – , –; Meyers, “Sepphoris”; Weiss, Sepphoris Synagogue, –, –, index: s.v.Roman;Freyne,“SepphorisMosaic”;Grantham,“Sepphoris.” 21 Josephus, Antiquity, :–; Avi-Yonah, “Foundation of Tiberias”; Schürer, His- tory, :–, and n. . However, Hoehner in Herod Antipas, – maintains that the city was founded in ce, but his arguments are not convincing. On the founding and development of Tiberias, see Kasher, “Foundation”; Oppenheimer, “Tiberias Insti- tutions”; idem, Galilee, , ; Freyne, Galilee, –, and nn. , ; idem, “Galilee and Judaea”; Goodman, Roman Galilee,index,s.v.Tiberias;Dothan,Hammath Tiberias, –; Horsley, Galilee, –; Hirschfeld, “Tiberias”; Jensen, Herod Antipas, –. 22 Alon, Toldot, :; Oppenheimer, Galilee, , , –; idem, Rabban Gamaliel. Rabban Gamliel’s visit is mentioned in t. Shabbat : (ed. Lieberman, ). His visit to galilee 

However, because of its Hellenistic orientation and its ritual impurity, the sages apparently refrained from settling there. Yet a sage by the name of R. Jose b. Kisma may have been active in Tiberias or its environs in the generation preceding the Bar Kokhba Revolt. Thus, rabbinic activity in Tiberias may actually have begun as early as the end of the Yavneh period, in the generation that preceded the Bar Kokhba Revolt.23 After the Bar Kokhba Revolt, rabbinic leadership moved to Galilee, seeking to reestablish its influence and to nurture its ties with the inhabitants of Tiberias. Important sages visited the city and even abolished its impure status.24 R. Hananiah b. Akavya may have lived in the city or its environs at that time.25 R. Meir, the eminent sage of that generation, was

the Elders is recorded in m. Eruvin :. R. Eleazar, R. Joshua and R. Akiva bathed in the bathhouseinTiberias,seej.Sanhedrin :, d. R. Jose Hagalili also visited Tiberias— see Sifre Zuta, Hukat :, ed. Horowitz, . Ben Azai is also mentioned in Tiberias; see b. Sotah a. 23 R.Joseb.Kismaisproblematic,asheismentionedneitherinthetannaiticliterature nor in the Jerusalem Talmud, but only in the Babylonian Talmud and later sources that were influenced by it. R. Jose b. Kisma is mentioned in b. Yevamot b and in aparallelpassageinj.Shekalim :, a, a passage that was added to the Jerusalem Talmud based on the Babylonian Talmud, a type of addition not uncommon in tractate Shekalim.Heisalsomentionedinb.Avodah Zarah a, but he is not mentioned in a partial parallel passage in Sifre Deuteronomy Par. , ed. Finklestein, . See also Tanhuma, Vayishlah, , ed. Buber, . See the discussion in Rosenfeld, “The Sages,”– , esp. n. . For more about him and his time period, see, e.g., Herr, “Persecutions,” , nn. , . Levine, in Rabbinic Class, –, is uncertain as to whether R. Jose lived in Tiberias. 24 Sifre Zuta, Hukat :, ed. Horowitz, : “R. Eleazar b. Jacob sat in Tiberias and expounded about the parah (red heifer), and R. Meir and R. Eleazar b. Shamua were sitting there.”These three were leading sages of their generation. Another important sage, R. Judah b. Ilai, was familiar with Tiberias and its surrounding area; see t. Shevi"it :, ed. Lieberman, , and the supplement to it in j. Shevi"it :, d. But we cannot deduce from this source that R. Judah b. Ilai lived there, as posited in Klein, Galilee, . R. Reuben b. Strobilus spent a Shabbat in Tiberias; see t. Shavuot :; Bacher, Tana"im :, , and n. . A visit to Tiberias was attributed to R. Simeon bar Yohai, and he may even have stayed there for a while because of his involvement in the ritual purification of Tiberias. See Levine, “Tiberias,” –; Oppenheimer, Galilee, –. Leviticus Rabbah :, ed. Margulies, mentions that the leader, Rabban Simeon b. Gamliel, walked from Tiberias to Sepphoris. 25 Bacher, Tana"im, :, , based his view on a beraita in b. Eruvin b, which states that R. Hananiah made three things permissible for the inhabitants of Tiberias. Bacher assumed that R. Hananiah did so as a resident of the city. However, rabbinic literature often mentions that a sage established a halakhic ruling for the residents ofa particular settlement without clear evidence that he resided there. Furthermore, there is a partial parallel in t. Eruvin :, ed. Lieberman, , which does not state that the matter referred to Tiberias, and R. Hananiah is mentioned along with R. Meir, who disputes him. However, it is possible that these two sages are mentioned in this context because  chapter three active in Tiberias during that period, but according to rabbinic literature, he resided in the neighboring Hamat, south of Tiberias. R. Meir may have been deterred from living in Tiberias because of its Hellenis- tic character, despite the ties which the sages maintained with its Jew- ish inhabitants, and also because of the taint of impurity that hung over it.26 There is no information about sages who lived in Tiberias during thetimeofR.Judahha-Nasi.27 Yetheandthesagessoughttodevelop deeper ties with the city, which was the largest in Galilee and the most important in terms of its economy.28 As with other Jewish communities,

R. Meir also was active in Tiberias and its environs, where they dealt with the problem, as R. Hananiah also was a local sage in the city or its environs. 26 Büchler, Am-ha-Ares, collected the laws of purity and impurity that were established by the sages of the Usha generation, including R. Meir. He posits that they were more stringent than their predecessors. Alon, Mechkarim,:– and Urbach, The Sages, – reject Büchler’s position and demonstrate that the laws of impurity were established well before the Usha generation. However, in their opinion as well, the Usha generation sages were very stringent on these matters. Priests refrained from settling in Tiberias in that generation because of the stain of impurity that was present in the city. See also Oppenheimer, Galilee, – and Safrai, Temple, –, both of whom state that R. Meir was especially stringent in matters of purity and impurity. Thus, the impurity associated with Tiberias probably prevented R. Meir from living there, even though the city had been purified in his generation. See  in the list of settlements, below, and Levine, “Tiberias,” –. 27 However, there is one source, b. Baba Batra a, which relates that a tax was imposed on the inhabitants of Tiberias in Rabbi’s day; Rabbi exempted the sages from paying it and the city’s inhabitants demanded that he abolish the exemption for the sages. This source implies that sages lived in Tiberias in that generation; see Safrai, “Galilee, Golan,” ; idem, Temple, . However, it is unclear if, in this instance, Rabbi refers to R. Judah ha-Nasi or to his grandson, R. Judah Nesiah. For the other opinions, see Levine, Rabbinic Class, –. Therefore, it is uncertain whether or not theses sages were contemporaries of the grandfather; they may have been active during the grandson’s generation, the second talmudic generation, when Tiberias was an important rabbinic center. 28 R. Judah ha-Nasi regarded Tiberias as a city of great status in Galilee, as implied in j. Rosh Hashanah :, a, which states that he abolished the signal fires for the sighting of the new moon, but “did not discontinue those from the Sea of Tiberias” (Neusner, :). According to Lieberman, Tosefta ki-Fshutah, Moed: Rosh Hashanah, , lines – , –, R. Judah ha-Nasi kept the signal fires burning around the Sea of Tiberias, wheretheywerelittoinformZefatofthesightingofthenewmoon,andZefatsignaled back when it received the notification. R. Judah ha-Nasi visited Tiberias, b. Megillah b; he bathed in the hot water springs of Tiberias, b. Shabbat b. On the importance of Tiberias during this period and the intention of the Roman authorities to grant it the status of a colony, a status not considered for Sepphoris, see Avi-Yonah, Rome and Byzantion, –, ; Alon, Mechkarim, :; idem, Toldot, :–, ; Kimelman, Rabbi Yohanan, –; Schürer, History, :–, and n. ; Oppenheimer, Galilee, –; idem,“SeveranEmperors”;Isaac,Near East, Index, s.v. Tiberias. Meshorer, (City Coins, ) found evidence that Tiberias was a colony from a coin that was minted during galilee 

R. Judah ha-Nasi asserted his authority over Tiberias’ Jewish inhabitants and over the wealthy aristocracy that had come under Hellenistic influence.29 In the next generation as well—the first of the talmudic period— we know of no sages who lived in Tiberias, but sages continued to maintain close ties with the city.30 It was only in the second talmudic generation (circa  ce) that R. Johanan, the most important sage of his generation, settled in Tiberias and remained there until his death in ce. He established an academy that became the most important in Palestine, and his colleague, R. Simeon b. Lakish joined him. Somewhat later, the patriarchate also relocated to Tiberias from Sepphoris, and this transformed Tiberias into the Jewish capital of Palestine.31 From then until the end of the talmudic period, Tiberias was the scene of uninterrupted rabbinic activity. A significant proportion of the sages who were active in Palestine during the talmudic period studied in Tiberias. In R. Johanan’s generation, his colleague-disciple R. Eleazar b. Pedat was active in Tiberias.32

the reign of Elagabalus (–). This is contrary to Smallwood, The Jews, , n. . Other important sages visited the city; for example, Ruth Rabbah : and the parallel Ecclesiastes Zuta,ed.Buber,statethatR.HiyyaandR.Simeonb.Halaftastudiedin the study hall in Tiberias. 29 Levine, “R. Judah,” –; idem, Rabbinic Class, –, –; Oppenheimer, Galilee, –. 30 R. Hanina often walked from Tiberias to Sepphoris (j. Ta"aniyot :, a). These walks are likely to be the background to the story recounted in b. Baba Metzi"a b: “R. Hanina found a slaughtered kid between Tiberias and Sepphoris, and they permitted it for him.”The assumption was that the kid had been slaughtered properly, as most ofthe travelersonthisroadwereJews.AccordingtoMidrash Tanhuma, Judges , R. Jannai, too, visited Tiberias. 31 On the patriarch’s relocation to Tiberias, see j. Shevi"it :, c–d; j. Beitzah :, a; j. Niddah :, b. On the subject in general, see Safrai, “Galilee, Golan,” – ; idem, Temple, –; Oppenheimer, “Batei Midrashot,” ; idem, Galilee, –; Levine, Rabbinic Class, –; Kimmelman, Rabbi Yohanan, –, –. According to Leviticus Rabbah :, ed. Margulies, –, R. Johanan was born in Tiberias or its vicinity. For other sources on his connection with Tiberias, see Bacher, Amoräer, :– ; Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv, s.v. Tveriah: numbers , , –, , , , , , , , . On R. Simeon b. Lakish, see ibid., numbers , a, , , , . In many of the sources he is mentioned together with his predecessor and was overshadowed by him; see Bacher, Amoräer, :–; idem, Amora"im, :, –, –; Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, –, –. 32 J. Berakhot :, b, and the parallel in j. Shekalim :, a; also j. Megillah :, b. In each of these cases, the name of Eleazar b. Pedat is linked to his senior colleague, R. Johanan; see parallels in Genesis Rabbah , eds. Theodor-Albeck, ; Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, –. Hirschfeld, “Excavation at Tiberias,”– suggested that a structure excavated in Tiberias be identified with the study hall of R. Johanan.  chapter three

R. Menahem (Nahum) b. Simai33 and R. Abba bar Zebda34 may also have settled in Tiberias. In the third talmudic generation, the leading Tiberian sages were R. Ami and R. Assi (–ce), and next in importance, R. Hiyya bar Abba.35 Inaddition,R.Levithedarshan (preacher or expounder of the Law) was active there.36 R. Zeira and R. Jeremiah followed these sages at the end of that generation,37 as did R. Haggai, an important Tiberian sage who was active shortly afterwards with members of the next generation.38

33 This possibility is implied by the parallel texts: j. Avodah Zarah :, b; b. Avodah Zarah a. See also the other sources cited by Albeck in Introduction to the Talmud, . 34 He served as a judge together with R. Ami and R. Assi. When their court was in session, R. Abba bar Zebda opened [the session] and they closed [the session], a procedure which implies that he was older and more important and than they were. See j. Rosh Hashanah :, b; j. Sanhedrin :, c. R. Abba bar Zebda also studied under R. Hanina together with R. Eleazar; see Albeck, ibid., –. 35 FormoreonR.AssiandR.Amitogether,seee.g.,b.Berakhot a, a; b. Shabbat a; b. Beitzah b; b. Yevamot a; j. Avodah Zarah a, c (R. Assi [or Jasa] died in Tiberias). R. Ami, the most important judge in the city, was the more prominent of the two. See Hyman, Toldot, –, –; Albeck, ibid., –, and n. . Hyman and Albeck note that R. Assi and R. Ami are sometimes mentioned together with R. Hiyya bar Abba. For additional sources, see, e.g., j. Hagigah :, c, where R. Assi and R. Ami are mentioned twice, which states that the Patriarch sent them to establish schools throughout the country and that the three sat together in the rabbinic court. R. Hiyya was present when R. Assi died; see j. Moed Katan :, c. R. Hiyya’s important status in Tiberias is implied also in j. Pesahim :, a. See also Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv, index, ; Beer, “Issachar,” –, and n. . 36 R. Levi is mentioned as an expounder of halakhah /aggadah in R. Johanan’s academy; see j. Sukkah :, a, and Genesis Rabbah, :, eds. Theodor-Albeck, – . He also served in the same position after R. Johanan’s death; according to j. Rosh Hashanah :, b, R. Zeira, a member of the generation after R. Johanan, ordered the sages to hear R. Levi deliver his sermon. See also j. Sanhedrin :, b. R. Abba bar Kahana, a member of the same generation, also went to hear R. Levi’s sermon. See also Hyman, ibid., –; Albeck, ibid., –. 37 On R. Zeira in Tiberias, see j. Avodah Zarah :, c, and mainly b. Moed Katan b. On R. Jeremiah, see j. Shekalim :, c; j. Ta"aniyot :, a; j. Terumot :, d and the parallel texts; j. Shabbat :, c; j. Shabbat :, d. R. Jeremiah was a disciple-colleague ofR.Zeira,andbothsagesweresomewhatyoungerthanR.Ami,R.AssiandR.Hiyya,a fact that may be inferred from the sages with whom they associated or whose academies they attended. See Albeck, ibid., –, –. R. Samuel bar Isaac also may have been active in Tiberias. See j. Berakhot :, a. He maintained close ties with R. Zeira; see Albeck, ibid., –. 38 J. Rosh Hashanah :, b states that “Rabbi Haggai opened [the discourse], and Rabbi Jonah and Rabbi Jose closed [the discourse]” (Neusner, :) in the assembly house. See the parallel passage in j. Sanhedrin :, c. The above quote shows that R. Haggai was active together with these two sages, R. Jonah and R. Jose, who were members of the fourth generation. R. Haggai was the more important sage, as attested by the fact that he opened the discourse in the assembly house. The sage who opens the galilee 

In the fourth talmudic generation (–/ce), Tiberias was the scene of activity of the two notable sages of that generation, R. Jonah and R. Jose bar Zevida. R. Luliani bar Tabari (= of Tiberias) was probably active there as well, as his name indicates that he was a Tiberian.39 In the fifth generation (/–ce), Tiberias’ status as the main rabbinic center declined temporarily, because most of the leading sages resided in Sepphoris and there is no definitive information about important sages who lived in Tiberias in that generation. Two sages by the name of R. Jose bar Bun, one a member of the third to fourth generations, and the other, of the fifth generation, may also have lived in Tiberias.40 In addition, it is highly likely that R. Eleazar bar Jose was the son of R. Jose bar Zevida, the prominent fourth-generation Tiberian sage, and that he too, like his father, remained in Tiberias. R. Eleazar bar Jose’s colleagues, R. Abba Mari and R. Mataniah, may also have resided in Tiberias.41

discourse is more important than those who conclude it, as is implied from the list of sages mentioned who open a discourse. Albeck also, ibid., –, notes that R. Haggai was a member of the third to fourth generations. It should be added that R. Haggai is not mentioned often with R. Jonah and R. Jose, who are mentioned together very frequently, but rather is mentioned mostly with members of the previous generation. We thus can deduce that he died not long after R. Jonah and R. Jose became active. 39 There is no explicit reference in the sources to the fact that R. Jonah and R. Jose lived inTiberias.OnR.Jonah,seej.Shabbat :, a. R. Jonah and R. Jose studied under the Tiberian sages mentioned in the preceding generation, and they frequently are mentioned together, whether in episodes apparently taking place in Tiberias, traveling from Tiberias to other locales or instructing other sages who came to them to pose questions or to learn under them, as they were the most important sages of their generation. These incidents involving the leading sages presumably occurred in a very important rabbinic center, which is most likely Tiberias, the main rabbinic center. Historians therefore assumed that R. Jonah and R. Jose lived in Tiberias. See Hyman, ibid., –, –; Albeck, ibid., –. On R. Luliani, see Hyman, ibid., . All of the traditions that he cited were in the name of the third-generation R. Isaac. 40 Hyman, Toldot, – and Albeck, ibid., , mention two sages by this name. One was active in the third to fourth generations and the other in the fifth generation. The sages mentioned with them in rabbinic literature are apparently Tiberian sages. Aminoah, “R. Jose,”followed by Strack-Stemberger, Introduction, ,  mention only one sage by this name who was a member of the fifth generation and one of the last talmudic sages. 41 There is also no unequivocal proof that R. Eleazar bar Jose lived in Tiberias when he was a sage; see Albeck, ibid., . He is mentioned in j. Beitzah :, c with two other sages, R. Abba Mari and R. Mataniah. Together, R. Eleazar bar Jose, R. Abba Mari and R. Mataniah ruled on a very important halakhic matter, and they probably convened as arabbiniccourtofthreeinTiberias.R.AbbaMarimayhavebeenthebrotherofR.Jose and the uncle of R. Eleazar; see Albeck ibid., –, , who adds further support to the possibility that these sages were active together in Tiberias. Presumably, there were other sages who lived in Tiberias, such as R. Hiyya bar Luliani, who may have been the son R. Luliani bar Tibri of the previous generation.  chapter three

Between the second and the fifth generations, a group of unidentified sages, referred to collectively in the Jerusalem Talmud as the Hevraya, resided in Tiberias. Their status was not the same as that of the sages mentioned by name,42 and their standing may have been akin to that of a group in Caesarea who were known collectively as Rabbanan de- Caesarin (= Rabbis/Sages of Caesarea).43 Since Tiberias had become a principal destination for sages and their disciples since the days of the second-generation R. Johanan, who turned its academy into the most important rabbinic academy in Palestine, presumably other sages whose names are recorded in rabbinic literature lived in Tiberias during the talmudic period even though there are no definitive records to this effect. Indeed, based on rabbinic sources, we can deduce that many of the exchanges that took place between sages of the talmudic period, most of whom had studied in Tiberias, were with sages who were known to have lived there.44 The absence of any explicit mention that these exchanges took place in Tiberias may be attributed primarily to the fact that the Jerusalem Talmud and most of the aggadic midrashim, were redacted in Tiberias, and since the sages were referring to themselves and to what was transpiring in their city, they may have felt it unnecessary to mention that their discussions were taking place in Tiberias. The Jerusalem Talmud was redacted circa ce, but even afterwards, in the Byzantine period and up until the Moslem conquest, Tiberias remained the main rabbinic center in Palestine.45

Rural Settlements with Rabbinic Activity—Mishnaic Period, –ce

All of the settlements discussed below are listed in chronological order according to the generation of the first sage known to be active in each. Additional sages who were active in a settlement are listed in chronological order of generation. Where possible, the settlements are also grouped geographically, beginning with Lower Galilee and followed by

42 Beer, “Chevraya.” 43 Bacher, “Die Gelehrten”; Levine, Caesarea, –; idem, Rabbinic Class, . 44 See, e.g., the long list of sages who studied under R. Johanan, in Kimmelman, Rabbi Yohanan, –a. Presumably, some of them remained in Tiberias. 45 Dan, The City, –. galilee 

Upper Galilee. Within these two areas, settlements are listed according to their proximity to the main Torah Center.

Yavneh Period, –ce During the time period between the first three generations after the destruction of the Second Temple and up until the Bar Kokhba Revolt (–ce), some of the Galilean rabbinic centers were situated near Sepphoris, and the rest were in other areas of Galilee.

. Tivon Tivon was located near Beth She"arim. Abba Jose Helikopri (apparently Helikopri was the title of a metal merchant) of Tivon was active there as early as the first generation after the destruction of the Temple. Later on, in the mishnaic period, Tivon was the scene of activity of R. Haninah of Tivon. After this period, Tivon receives no further mention in rabbinic literature.46

. Beth She"arim Located on the border between the Carmel Mountains and the Jezreel Valley, Beth She"arim was an important town during the second and third centuries ce. R. Johanan b. Nuri, a leading Galilean sage in the second to third generations after the destruction of the Temple, was active there circa –ce. He had apparently changed his place of residence, as there is mention that he lived, perhaps earlier, in Ginneigar. Three generations later (circa –ce), Beth" She arim was the scene of activity of R. Judah ha-Nasi. In that generation, there is also mention of Menahem of Kfar She"arim or Beth She"arim.47

46 In m. Makhshirin :, R. Joshua cites a teaching in the name of R. Abba Jose to support the opinion of the House of Hillel: “R. Joshua said in the name of Abba Jose Holi Qofri.” This is the reading in the good manuscripts of Kaufman, Low, Paris and others, and not the reading brought by Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv, , n. . Thus, if R. Joshua cited a teaching in the name of Abba Jose, who cited a teaching in the name of the House of Hillel whose activities ended with the destruction of the Second Temple, then we may deduce that Abba Jose was active in the period immediately following the destruction of the Tem- ple. For the meaning of the term Holi Qofri, see Epstein, Tanaitic Literature, , and n. . R. Hanina of Tivon is mentioned in Sifre Deuteronomy, Par. , ed. Finkelstein, . 47 Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv, . On R. Johanan b. Nuri residing in Beth She"arim, see Lieberman, Toseftah ki-Fshutah, Zeraim, , Terumot :, , lines –. On his  chapter three

. Ginneigar Ginneigar was situated about five kilometers east of Beth She"arim (m.r. .). Today’s Kibbutz Ginnegar is located nearby. Ginneigar is mentioned in only two traditions in the Jerusalem Talmud, according to which R. Johanan b. Nuri, mentioned in the previous entry, resided there.48

. Kitron Kitron was situated near Sepphoris, but there is no consensus as to its identity. According to one talmudic tradition, the biblical Kitron is identified with Sepphoris. In the second or third generation after the destruction of the Second Temple, R. Simeon of Kitron was active there.49

. Usha Usha was located approximately thirteen kilometers northwest of Sep- phoris, which is presently the northeastern end of Kiryat Ata (m.r. .). In the second to third generations after the destruction of the Second Temple, R. Ilai, who had studied mainly under the Judean sages R. Eleazar b. Hyrkanus, Rabban Gamliel and others, was active in Usha (circa –ce). R. Ilai’s son, R. Judah b. Ilai, was one of the leading sages in the generation after the Bar Kokhba Revolt, and he estab-

history, see Bacher, Tana"im, :, –. R. Menahem is mentioned in b. Niddah a where he makes a halakhic ruling with regard to a woman pregnant with twins and adds, “both sit before us in the study hall” (based on Soncino :). In other words, the twins were born, grew up and were now studying with R. Menahem in the study hall. The Talmud identifies them as Judah and Hezekiah, the sons of R. Hiyya, the associate of R. Judah ha-Nasi. We thus may deduce that R. Menahem, their teacher, was a member of R. Judah ha-Nasi’s generation. See also Safrai, “Beth She"arim”; idem, Temple, –; Mazar, “Beth Shearim”; Goodman, Roman Galilee, index, s.v. Beth Shearim. 48 Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv, ; Tsafrir, Map, . 49 R. Simeon of Kitron is mentioned in Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael,Beshalah,eds. Horowitz-Rabin, , as well as in Mekhilta de-Rabbi Simeon bar Johai,Beshalah,eds. Epstein-Melamed, . In both sources he is mentioned after Avtalion and before Abba Jose Hamehozi, a member of R. Akiva’s generation. These references imply that he too was a member of R. Akiva’s generation, or of the preceding generation. For suggestions as to his identification, see Encyclopaedia Biblica, :–; Reeg, Ortsnamen, –; Ward, “Sacred Geography,” –. See also no.  in the list of settlements. galilee  lished an academy there.50 Circa the year  ce, Rabban Simeon b. Gamliel, who according to rabbinic tradition was patriarch and leader of the sages, apparently settled in Usha and was active there. He and R. Judah headed the rabbinic center, which was regarded in rabbinic literature as the most important of that generation. And indeed, that generation is known as the Usha generation or the Usha period because of the prominent sages who were active there. The rabbinic center in Usha ceased to exist after the deaths of these sages, and there is no information about sages in Usha in the following generation. R. Judah ha-Nasi, son of Rabban Simeon b. Gamliel, was not associated with Usha but rather with Beth She"arim, which then became the most important rabbinic center. Afterwards, R. Judah ha-Nasi relocated to Sepphoris, which consequently developed into the most famous rabbinic center.51 Only later on, in the first or second talmudic generations, is there mention of R. Josiah de-min Usha (= of Usha), who was an important sage in his day.52

. Shikmona Shikmona was a Jewish town during the mishnaic and talmudic periods and even later, in the sixth century. It was situated near ancient Haifa, andremnantsofitarefoundattheentrancetomodern-dayHaifa(m.r. .). In rabbinic literature we find mention of Simeon of Shikmona, who apparently was named after his place of residence. A tannaitic source

50 See Bacher, Tana"im, :, . On the father, see Hyman, Toldot, –. On the son, see Ben Shalom, “Bar Ilai.” On Usha and its location, see Yeivin, Survey, , – . According to Yeivin, Usha was a medium-sized town in the district of Sepphoris, covering an area of forty dunams. See also Ilan, Ancient Synagogues, . But according to the more updated archaeological survey of Olami and Gal, Shefar"am, Nos. , , , (Hirbat Usha), it covered a greater area, and the site evidently contains remains from the Roman period. 51 See Bacher, Tannaiten, :–, –; Alon, Mechkarim, :–; Oppen- heimer, Galilee, –, –; idem, Rabbi Judah, –; Levine, “Rabbi Judah,” –; Epstein, Tanaitic, Literature, . On establishing the time period in which they were active, see Safrai, Temple, –. 52 “Rabbah bar Bar Hanah said, ‘we were sitting five elders before R. Josiah from Usha’” (Soncino, Gittin b, :). In b. Gittin b in Ms. Vatican, , the reading is: “Rabbah bar Bar Hanna said in the name of R. Johanan” (Porush, Variant Gittin, , n. ). Rabbah was a member of the third generation, and R. Johanan was a member of the second generation. Therefore, R. Josiah probably was a member of the first or second generation; see Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, . See also Safrai, Temple,  and n. , who mentions Rabbah Ushaah, who is recorded in the geonic literature. However, it is not clear whether or not this sage was from Palestine, as he cited a teaching in the name of Rav.  chapter three states specifically that he was a disciple of R. Akiva, and since one of his halakhic teachings is recorded, he should be regarded as a sage, even though he is referred to without the title rabbi.53

. Kfar Akko Asitsnameimplies,KfarAkkowasasuburboftheHellenisticcityof Akko and may be identified with el Makr (m.r. .) or perhaps with Tel el Fuchar (m.r. .).54 It probably was called “Kfar” to differ- entiate it from the important, non-Jewish city of Akko. Apparently Kfar Akko was a large village with a substantial population. In the generation before the Bar Kokhba Revolt, R. Judah b. Agra (or Gamda) of Kfar Akko was active there.55 In R. Judah ha-Nasi’s time, approximately a gen-

53 Simeon of Shikmona is mentioned in Sifre Numbers, par. , , , ed. Horowitz, , , . Three different teachings in his name, each concerning a similar concept, are citedbyR.Hidka,whostressesthatSimeonwasoneofR.Akiva’sdisciples.Thethreesages are mentioned together in b. Baba Batra a. On the history of Shikmona, see Klein, Galilee, ; idem, Sefer ha-Yishuv, ; Tsafrir, Map, ; Elgavish, Shiqmona, –, –; Hirschfeld, “Shiqmona”; Olami, Ronen and Romano, Haifa West, entries , , . 54 The precise location of Kfar Akko is very problematic because of the lack of uni- formity in the way in which the name appears in rabbinic literature—for example, Kfar Eichos, Avos, Achom. See also Reeg, Ortsnamen, –. However, the names appearing in rabbinic literature are very similar to the assonance and the grammatical root of the name Akko, implying that Kfar Akko was the original form of the name. Thus, Kfar Akko is most likely near the city of Akko and not far away from the city by that name, as has been suggested. For more information, see Tsafrir, Map,  (s.v. Capharata), ; Schmitt, Siedlungen, Palästinas, –. Frankel et al. (Upper Galilee, , [entry ], ) have suggested recently that it be identified with el Makr, which is to the east of Tel el Fuchar, along the mountain slopes to the east of the Coastal Plain, as the remains from the Roman-Byzantine period at this site cover an area of  dunams and are more impressive than at Tel el Fuchar. Moreover, the name also corresponds to Makr/Acre. In the Crusader sources, the name Akko often takes the form of Acre, Achra, Accaron, which is close to M/Akr. See Elitzur, Place Names, –. It is therefore the more likely identification, as it preserves the ancient form of the name Akko. 55 In Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Yitro, Amalek , eds. Horowitz-Rabin, , and in the parallel Mekhilta de-Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai, ibid., :, eds. Epstein-Melamed, , we find that R. Judah b. Agra poses a halakhic question to Rabban Gamliel. This encounter implies that the former was, at most, one generation younger than Rabban Gamliel. In t. Kilayim :, ed. Lieberman, , we find that “R. Simeon b. Gamaliel permits in the name of R. Judah b. Agra from Kfar Akko” (Neusner :). The parallel passage in b. Sotah b, refers to R. Simeon b. Gamaliel as R. Judah b. Gamda. This reference indicates thatR.Judahb.GamdawasolderthanRabbanSimeonb.Gamliel,theleaderinUsha,and was active between the time of Rabban Gamliel and his son, in the generation preceding galilee  eration and a half later, there is mention of R. Simeon b. Judah of Kfar Akko, who some believe to have been the son of the above R. Judah b. Agra.R.Simeonb.JudahwasaclosediscipleofR.SimeonbarYohai.56 Later, in the third talmudic generation, there is mention of R. Tanhum bar Hiyya of Kfar Akko. R. Isaac of Kfar Akko may have been another member of this generation.57

. Arav The name Arav has been preserved in the name of the village Arabeh, east of Sakhnin (m.r. .). R. Hanina b. Dosa was active there in the first to second generations after the destruction of the Second Temple. He was known as a pious man, and was active already in the time

the Bar Kokhba Revolt. Lieberman, in Tosefta ki-Fshutah, Zeraim, :, Kilayim :, lines –, and n. , deliberates over this possibility, because in b. Hulin a, R. Judah b. Agra cites a teaching in the name of R. Meir, a citation which would indicate that R. Judah came after R. Meir. However, the tannaitic sources imply that R. Judah preceded R. Meir by one generation. It should be noted that a Greek inscription resembling the name Gamda Γαμαδ[ης] was discovered not far from Kfar Akko, to the south of Kibbutz Ramat Yohanan, in the area in which b. Gamda lived. See Appelbaum, Isaac, Landau, “Ramat Yohannan.” They, too, suggest that the epigraphic Gamda can be identified with this sage. This identification indicates that even if the name Gamda is mentioned inthe Babylonian Talmud and not in a Palestinian rabbinic source, this tradition should not be ignored, as the name Gamda was also found in Palestine and the tradition of this name may have reached Babylonia from Palestine. The Babylonian Talmud in Ta"anit a states “in a city that can supply [fifteen] hundred foot-soldiers, as for example Kfar Akko” (Soncino, :). For the different readings, see Rabbinovicz, Dikduke Sofrim, Ta"anit, ibid., n. samech. In any event, based on this source, the settlement was a large one. 56 R. Simeon b. Judah cited many teachings in the name of R. Simeon bar Yohai. In j. Sotah :, c, we find “Rabbi says, ‘In accord with the statement of R. Simeon b. Judah of Kfar Emum (Akko) in the name of R. Simeon’” (Neusner, :). Since R. Judah ha- Nasi cited R. Simeon b. Judah of Kfar Akko, we may deduce that the latter was older than R. Judah ha-Nasi, who was also a disciple of R. Simeon. See Bacher, Tana"im,:,– ; Hyman, Toldot, . On the sages of this settlement, see Romanoff, Onomasticon, –. 57 On R. Tanhum, see Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, –. Albeck identifies him with R. Tanhum bar Hiyya of the same generation, and in n.  he hesitantly identifies him with another sage of the same generation called R. Tanhum of Kfar Agin or Agon or Gon. In his opinion, the name Agin was corrupted and became Avun, then Akhun, then Akko. See also below, in the entry for Kfar Agin/Agon. See also Reeg, Ortsnamen, –. The second sage, R. Yitzhak, cited a teaching in the name of R. Johanan, in b. Avodah Zarah b, and in the parallel b. Bekhorot a. R. Tanhum may have been a disciple of R. Johanan, or he may have been a member of a later generation.  chapter three of Rabban Gamliel.58 R. Hiyya of Achal Arav, who is mentioned in a beraita, may have been active there at the end of the mishnaic period. He cited teachings in the name of R. Meir.59 Achal Arav, or Achla Arav, is mentioned in a beraita that deals with the priestly orders and apparently refers to a neighborhood on the outskirts of Arav where a priestly order had settled. It was often the practice of priestly orders to make an effort to preserve the past priestly framework by living together with their own orders.60

. Sakhnin Today Sakhnin is a city located in the Sakhnin Valley (m.r. .). R. Hanina b. Teradion, who died a martyr’s death as a result of the edicts that followed the Bar Kokhba Revolt, was active there in the generation before the Revolt.61 Some two hundred years later, in the fourth talmudic generation,R.JoshuaofSakhnin,aclosediscipleofR.LeviofTiberias, was active there.62 This might imply that there were sages from the rural villages who attended academies in the main rabbinic centers and then returned to serve as sages in their own villages.

. Kfar Signah(?) Kfar Signah is identified in scholarly research with Sakhnin, discussed above. However, an Aramaic promissory note dating to the year  /  ce mentions Kfar Signah, and rabbinic literature, beginning with the Mish- nah, makes a clear distinction between Kfar Signah and Sakhnin.

58 Albeck, Introduction to the Mishnah, –; Safrai, “Pious-Hasidim”; idem, Tem- ple, –; Oppenheimer, Galilee, –, , and n. ; Freyne, Galilee and Gospel, –, but according to Freyne, R. Hanina lived prior to the destruction of the Second Temple. 59 According to the printed editions and some of the manuscripts, the accurate version ofthenameinb.Pesahim a, Soncino, : is “R. Hiyya of Ebel #Arab.”See Rabbinovicz, in Dikduke Sofrim,n.ayin. Even though he notes that the parallel passage in b. Shabbat a does not contain the words “of Achal Arav,” it may be an omission. See also Ratner, Ahavat Zion, Shabbat, :, . See also Safrai and Safrai, “Beth Anat,” –, and n. ; Safrai, Temple, ; Reeg, Ortsnamen, ; and esp. Elitzur, Place Names, –. 60 Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv, ; idem, Galilee, –; Oppenheimer, Galilee, –. 61 T. Ta"aniyot : (ed. Lieberman, ). In b. Sanhedrin b we find, “Our Rabbis taught (tanu Rabbanan) ... Followthescholarstotheiracademies ... R.Hananiab. Teradion to Sikni” (Soncino, :). On martyrdom, see Herr, “Persecutions.” 62 Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, ; Reeg, Ortsnamen, –. galilee 

Therefore, identifying Kfar Signah with Sakhnin is problematic, despite the similarity in names.63 Regarding rabbinic activity in Kfar Signah, there is mention of Menahem b. Signai, who may have been a member of Rabban Gamliel’s generation.64 Much later, in the fifth talmudic generation, R. Judan bar Signah was active there.65

63 On the promissory note, see Naveh, Sherd and Papyrus, –. However, in n. , Naveh states that Kfar Signah, which is mentioned in m. Menahot : and in m. Kelim :, is Sakhnin. Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv, , writes separate entries for Kfar Signah, Kfar Sichni, Kfar Sechania (p. ), Signa (p. ), Sikhnin (p. ) and identifies them all with Sikhnin. Butthevarietyofnamesunderscorestheproblemofidentifyingalloftheseplacesasa single place. In addition, the list of settlements which Josephus fortified in Lower Galilee contains a place called Sigoph; see his War of the Jews , ; The Life of Flavius Josephus, , , . Sigoph is identified with Sakhnin, based on the interchanging of the letters het and gimmel. This interchanging of letters also applies to the name Signah, which is identified with Sakhnin. However, rabbinic literature mentions Signah and Sakhnin separately over the course of several generations. See Reeg, Ortsnamen, , –, –; Tsafrir, Map,  (Sichnin),  (Sugna). 64 In m. Eduyot :, Menahem b. Signai presents his testimony to the members of Rabban Gamliel’s generation, who are the main testifiers in this tractate. See Epstein, Tanaitic Literature, –, . Even more can be learned from the extensive parallel in t. Eduyot :, ed. Zuckermandel, , where Menahem’s words are followed by “when they seated him in the academy, everyone was surprised at him. He said to them, ‘Thusandso,ifIamnotattheheadofallwhocomeafterme!’”(basedonNeusner, :). The fact that they seated Menahem in the academy suggests that he was given an important religious-administrative appointment within the rabbinic educational and judicial framework, a position which would indicate that he was a sage. See Epstein, ibid., –; Gafni, Jews of Babylonia, . The surprise at Menahem’s appointment does not in any way imply that his colleagues did not consider him a sage, but rather that they thought better-qualified people should have been appointed. Menahem’s role as head of the academy receives mention mainly in Rabban Gamliel’s generation. For example, in m. Yadayim : there is the famous incident pertaining to R. Eleazar b. Azaria: “On the day on which they appointed R. Eleazar b. Azaria [head] of the academy,” or the episode in Sifre Deuteronomy, par.  (ed. Hammer, ) with R. Johanan b. Nuri: “R. Johanan benNuriandR.EleazarHismawereappointedbyRabbanGamaliel[tosupervise]the academy.” See Alon, The Jews, , n. . It is also known that R. Johanan b. Nuri was a Galilean, and according to Urbach, mi-Yehudah la-Galilee, –, Rabban Gamliel appointed Galilean sages—R. Johanan b. Nuri, for example—to important religious and administrative positions in Yavneh, in this way strengthening the ties with Galilean sages. Thus, the appointment of R. Signai, who apparently was also a Galilean, is understandable. This appointment supports the assumption that R. Signai was a sage of some status who was active during the time of Rabban Gamliel, in spite of the fact that hardly any of his teachings are extant. 65 See Leviticus Rabbah, :, ed. Margulies, , and the different reading in line . This R. Judan cited teachings in the name of R. Aha, the important Lod sage in the fourth talmudic generation, and therefore, the former probably was a member of the fifth generation.  chapter three

. Zidan There are two settlements by this name in rabbinic literature, and itis not always clear which Zidan is referred to in the sources. One is the famous coastal city of Zidon, which will not be discussed here. The second is Bethsaida (Iulias), which rabbinic literature often calls Zidan. This settlement was known to have existed in the last generations ofthe Second Temple period. It was located near the Jordan estuary, north of the Sea of Galilee, and is identified with A-Tell or with one of the hills nearby. In spite of the fact that it was situated on the border of Golan, and in administrative terms was included in the Golan toparchy, this important settlement should be regarded as part of Jewish Galilee, since Zidan maintained close ties with Tiberias and with the Jewish population in Galilee and an uninterrupted string of settlements connected it to the Jewish population on the western side of the Sea of Galilee. According to archaeological findings, the settlement, if it was indeed A-Tell, flourished primarily between the first century and the beginning of the fourth century, after which it suffered a significant decline. But even after its decline, it continued to exist, either nearby or on one of the surrounding hills.66 In the third generation of the Yavneh Period, there is mention of Abba Gurion of Zidan and Abba Judan of Zidan (or: Ish [= man of] Zidan), who cited teachings in the names of the principal Judean sages of the first to second generations of that period.67 The two above

66 Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv, , wrote one entry for Zidan, but noted that some of the sources were probably referring to Bethsaida. See Safrai, Temple, , , –; Reeg, Ortsnamen, –; Tsafrir, Map, ; Urman, “Public Structure,” –, and esp. Freund, “Bethseida”; idem,“TheSearch”;Grootkerk,Ancient Sites, –. According to Fortner, “Bethsaida,” the pottery found in A-Tell is dated no later than the first quarter of the fourth century, a date which does not correspond to the information in rabbinic literature that a sage was active in Zidan around ce. We can explain the difference between the two dates, which is only one generation, if we assume that in the fourth century the settlement expanded to one of the nearby hills, such as el #Araj. See also Tsafrir, Map, . However, according to another opinion, the location of Bethseida is in the vicinity of A-Tell, in el #Araj, which resolves the problem. See Tsafrir, Map, ; Urman, “Public Structure,” –; Noon, “Bethseida”; Ben David, Golan, . 67 Abba Gurion cited a teaching in the name of Abba Shaul, according to the mishnah in j. Kiddushin :, b. In the parallel passage in b. Kiddushin a, he cited a teaching in thenameofAbbaGuria.ThereweretwosagesbythenameofAbbaShaul,oneamember of the generation of the destruction of the Second Temple, and the other a member of the generation after the Bar Kokhba Revolt. See also Albeck, Introduction to the Mishnah, , . Here the reference seems to be to the first Abba Shaul, because in the continuation of the mishnah,R.Judah,ofthegenerationaftertheBarKokhbaRevolt,citesateaching galilee  sages may be one and the same, because of the similarity in their names, time and place. It is also likely that Haninah b. Hakhinai—a disciple of R. Akiva—lived in Zidan.68 Much later, at the beginning of the fourth century, in the fourth talmudic generation, there is mention of a sage by the name of Abba Zidoni who apparently was active there. At the end of this generation (circa ce), mention is also made of R. Jose Zeidania (= of Zidon).69 In addition, there is an isolated record of a sage by the name of R. Simeon ha-Zidoni (= of Zidon), whose time period is uncertain.70 in the name of Abba Shaul. Thus, Abba Shaul preceded him and could not have lived during the time of R. Judah ha-Nasi. There is also a teaching of Abba Gurion’s presented in the name of Rabban Gamliel in Esther Rabbah :. See Tabori, “Esther Rabbah,” – . Based on two teachings of Abba Gurion, who cited them in the names of sages who were active in the first and second Yavneh generations, we may assume that he was active around that time, in the third Yavneh generation. Two traditions cited in the name of Abba Judan were presented in t. Yevamot :, ed. Zuckermandel,  (= b. Yevamot a), followed by mention of Rabban Simeon b. Gamliel. In t. Ahilot :, ed. Zuckermandel, , Abba Judan testified in the name of R. Eleazar. In Mekhilta of R. Simeon bar Yohai, Mishpatim, :, eds. Epstein-Melamed, , he cited a teaching in the name of Rabban Gamliel. From the three teachings of Abba Judan, it thus appears that he, like Abba Gurion, was active between the period of the second-generation sages in whose names he cited teachings, and the period of Rabban Simeon b. Gamliel of the generation after the Bar Kokhba Revolt. It should be noted that in t. Kelim Baba Batra :, ed. Zuckermandel, , there is mention of Jonathan b. Hersha of Gennosar, who asked the Elders of Yavneh a question in halakhah. But as he only asked a question and did not state or cite a teaching, it does not constitute proof that he was a sage. 68 In t. Niddah :, ed. Zuckermandel, , we find “Said R. Simeon, ‘Hananiah b. Hakinai found (met) me in Sidon.’ He said to him, ‘When you see R. Akiva, say to him . . .’” In Sidon, Hananiah b. Hakinai requested that R. Simeon bar Yohai, who may have resided there, ask their teacher, R. Akiva, a question when he visited him. And see Bacher, Tana"im, :, –. :, –; Hyman, Toldot, –. Hyman states that R. Eleazar b. Jacob of the generation following the Bar Kokhba Revolt cited a teaching in the name of R. Hananiah. 69 Abba Zidoni is mentioned in Midrash Ecclesiastes Rabbah, : (): “The disciples of R. Abba and Abba of Zidon said in the name of R. Samuel b. Nahman.” A similar statement appears in Midrash Shmuel, d (ed. Buber, ), but instead of the disciples ofR.Abba,itstates“thedisciplesofR.Imi.”R.ImiandR.Abbawereactiveinthethird talmudic generation, and if Abba of Zidon is mentioned with their disciples, when they were still pupils, that indicates that he was active no later than their third-generation teachers,R.AbbaorR.Imi.R.JoseZeidanaiwasadiscipleofR.Jeremiah,theeminent Tiberian sage of the third to fourth generations. See j. Ketubot :, c; j. Nazir :, d, which state that R. Jose recited a beraita before R. Jeremiah. See also Hyman, Toldot, . According to this source, he was a member of the fourth to fifth generations. See also Safrai, Temple,andReeg,Ortsnamen (both mentioned above, in n. ). 70 In b. Pesahim a he is called “R. Simeon the Shilonite” (Soncino, :) in the printed editions. But in almost all of the manuscripts and in the medieval commentaries, he is referred to as ha-Zidoni (= from Sidon). See Rabbinovicz, Dikduke Sofrim,n.resh.  chapter three

. Keruiah(?) (or Kuriiah) A tannaitic sage by the name of Abba Hilphai b. Keruya is referred to in rabbinic literature as a pious person. Rabban Gamliel of Yavneh apparently came to visit him and asked Abba Hilphai to pray for him. This notation would indicate that they were members of the same generation. Much later, in the third talmudic generation, there is mention of a sage with a similar name, Abba Hilphaii (Hilpha) bar Kuriiah (or Keruiah). It hasbeensuggestedthatKeruiah/Kuriiahisthenameofaplace,which may perhaps be identified with the settlement Koreai that is mentioned at the end of Second Temple period. Koreai is Tel Mazar in the Ker- auah Valley in northern Jordan Valley. 71 But the more likely identification is with Hirbat Kur in Lower Galilee, north of Tiberias and west of Tel Kinerot (m.r. .), where remnants of a synagogue were discovered. Moreover, the name Kur with the addition of the suffix “iah” is a fine preservation of the name Kuriiah or Keruiah. In addition, there areindicationsthattheabove-mentionedsagewasactiveinGalilee,near Tiberias, and the facts about Hirbat Kur are consistent with this interpretation.72 Another sage, Rabbi bar Kuriai (Kuriia), may also have been

71 Safrai, “Inianim,” –. For other suggestions, see Tsafrir, Map, –. 72 Thefirstsage,AbbaHilphaib.Keruya,ismentionedint.Ma"aser Sheni :, ed. Lieberman, . He is also mentioned in a corrupted passage in Midrash Psalms, :, ed. Buber,  (and his comment in n. ), which recounts that Rabban Gamliel of Yavneh (Jamnia) asked Abba Hilphai to pray for him. The second sage, Abba Hilphaii (Hilpha) bar Kuriiah (or Keruiah), is mentioned in b. Baba Batra a in a conversation with R. Hiyya bar Abba, a member of the third talmudic generation and one of the leaders of the Tiberian sages. Abba Hilphaii is mentioned with R. Hiyya bar Abba a second time in j. Ma"aser Sheni :, d, a reference which implies that Abba Hilphaii had ties with the Tiberian sages. Ties with Tiberian sages are more likely for someone who lives near Tiberias. The midrashic source, which tells the story of Rabban Gamliel’s visit to the first Abba Hilphai, also coincides with the stories about Rabban Gamliel, who visited Tiberias as a guest. See m. Eruvin :; t. Shabbat :, ed. Lieberman . Presumably, Rabban Gamliel visited the surrounding area as well and may have visited Abba Hilphai, if he in fact lived in the area. Therefore, it is preferable to identify Keruiah, Kuriiah(?) with Hirbat Kur, which is north of Tiberias and whose name preserves the sound and the root of the name Keruiah. In addition to the suitability of the name, this identification also provides a reasonable explanation for the background to the information in the sources. Kur was situated near the main Roman road leading from Tiberias to Gesher Benot Yaakov and on to Damascus. Thus, it would have been convenient for Rabban Gamliel to take a detour from the main road, visit the local sage and be assisted by his prayers. The first suggestion, in contrast, locates the settlement at a distance from the main roads that connected Judea and Galilee at that time. Moreover, remains from the Roman period were discovered at Kur, and of particular importance is evidence of the existence of a synagogue on the site. See Ilan, Ancient Synagogues, ; Grootkerk, Ancient Sites, . The name of the galilee  active there; his name is similar to that of the above-mentioned sages who apparently were active in this settlement. Rabbi bar Kuriai (Kuriia) was a member of the second talmudic generation, and he is mentioned in a discussion with a Tiberian sage, which implies that he resided in that area, and Hirbat Kur would be consistent with this case as well.73

First Generation after the Bar Kokhba Revolt, /–ce In the first generation after the Bar Kokhba Revolt, the rabbinic leadership moved to Galilee, which then became the sages’ main scene of activity. Beginning with this period, there is far more information available about Galilean settlements with rabbinic activity. In addition to those in Sepphoris and Usha discussed above, several other rabbinic centers existed in this generation:

. Shihin, Asochis It has been suggested that Shihin be identified with Tel Badawiya (= TelHanaton),whichistothewestofBethNetofaValley,abouttwo kilometers northwest of Sepphoris. Some scholars also have tried to identify Shihin with Mount Hiyya (Jebel el Umba, m.r. .), which is situated in the same westward direction, one kilometer to the northwest of Sepphoris.74 After the Bar Kokhba Revolt, there is mention of a sage by the name of Nehemiah of Shihin.75 He may perhaps be identified

second sage, Abba Hilphaii (Hilpha) bar Kuriiah (or Keruiah), appears in j. Ma"aser Sheni :, d. In Ms. Leiden he appears as Abba Hilfai bar Keriia; in Ms. Rome, , as Bar Kuriia; in Ms. Vatican, , cited in Genesis Rabbah, eds. Theodor-Albeck, :, –, the reading is Ben Keriia. 73 Rabbi bar Kuriai is mentioned in Genesis Rabbah, :, in a discussion in Tiberias with R. Eleazar, a member of the second talmudic generation. See ibid., n.  that most of the readings in the majority of the manuscripts is bar Kuriiah. In Ms. Vatican :,  and Ms. Vatican  we find Bar Kriia. In the parallels to the midrash that are found in j. Kilayim :, c; j. Ketubot :, b, he is referred to as Rabbi Barkiria. This Palestinian form of the name preserves a sound that is closer to the sound of the name Kur. 74 For the first suggestion, see Reeg, Ortsnamen, ; Tsafrir, Map, . For the second suggestion, see Strange, “Shikhin.” See also Grootkerk, Ancient Sites, –:, – :. 75 In j. Sotah :, b we find “Said R. Judah (b. Ilai), Nehemiah of Shihin gave testimonyforR.Akiva,”andsinceR.AkivawasalsotheteacherofR.Judah,then Nehemiah of Shihin was a member of R. Judah’s generation. Even though he is mentioned without the title rabbi, Nehemiah of Shihin appears to have been a sage, as he testifies in  chapter three with R. Nehemiah, the important disputant of R. Judah Ilai, who was a prominent sage in that generation.76

. Mamla Mamla, or Mamlakh has been identified with Hirbat Mimlah, about seven kilometers northwest of Tiberias (m.r. .). Mamla was a settlement of priests. Joshua b. Memel was active in the generation after the Bar Kokhba Revolt, and Memel is apparently Mamla. Before the Bar Kokhba Revolt, he attended the academies of R. Joshua ben Hananiah and R. Akiva in Judea.77 In the second talmudic generation there is mention of R. Jose Mamlahia, and in the third talmudic generation there is mention of Abba bar Memel, who was a prominent sage in his day, primarily during the latter half of that generation. Some one hundred and fifty teachings of his are extant, the vast majority on matters of halakhah and only a small proportion dealing with aggadah,amixturethatwas unusual for a rural sage. Abba bar Memel spent much time in nearby Tiberias and maintained close ties with its important sages. Sages from Tiberias, Lod and Caesarea cited teachings in his name.78 In the fourth the name of a sage. As noted in the Methodology, if a person cited a teaching in the name of a sage, then that would indicate that the person citing the teaching—Nehemiah in this case—is also a sage. Support for this claim is found in Genesis Rabbah, :, eds. Theodor- Albeck, , where Nehemiah is mentioned with the title rabbi: “R. Nehemiah of Sihin expounded (darash).” The verb darash adjacent to the name of a sage generally indicates that the sage was delivering a sermon to the public or in a study hall. See also Bacher, Terminologie, –; Frankel, Aggadah, –; Rosenfeld, “R. Simlai,”  and n. . 76 Theyhadthesamename,weremembersofthesamegeneration,andwereactivein Galilee. On R. Nehemiah, see Bacher, Tana"im, :, – and n. ; ibid., – and n. ; Hyman, Toldot, –. 77 In t. Nezirut :, ed. Lieberman, –, we find that R. Meir, who was active after theBarKokhbaRevolt,testifiedthatJoshuab.MemelwasknowledgeableintheOral Law. From the discussion there, we can deduce that Joshua b. Memel had studied under R. Joshua b. Hananiah. Sifrei Zuta, Matot :, ed. Horowitz, –, cites Joshua b. Memel answering a disciple of R. Akiva’s in the name of R. Joshua b. Hananiah. That disciple went to R. Joshua b. Hananiah, and he refuted R. Akiva’s words. This incident occurred in Judea, during the lifetime of R. Joshua bar Hananiah, who was R. Akiva’s teacher. The source also cites a teaching of Joshua b. Memel himself. This source indicates that he was sage, even though he did not have the title rabbi, who was active during R. Akiva’s time, on the eve of the Bar Kokhba Revolt. On the identification of the name Memel with Mamla, see Lieberman, Sifre Zutta, , n. . On its location, see Klein, Galilee, , n. ; Tsafrir, Map ; Grootkerk, Ancient Sites, –:. 78 On R. Jose Mamlahia, see Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, . On R. Abba, see Albeck, ibid., . There are just over one hundred teachings in his name in the Jerusalem Talmud, over thirty-five in the Babylonian Talmud and four in the aggadic midrashim. galilee  to fifth generations there is mention of R. Jose b. Memel who, in parallel texts, is referred to as R. Dosa Mamlahia. Memel and Mamlahia were two forms of the settlement’s name.79

. Hammat Hammat is the location of the famous hot springs south of Tiberias. R. Meir, who was active also in Tiberias, lived there in the generation after the Bar Kokhba Revolt.80

This calculation is based on the Bar Ilan University Responsa Database Project as wellas on Kasovski, Yerushalmi—Onomasticon, –; Kasovski, Thesaurus Bavli, :–. On R. Abba’s ties with other sages, see the sources in Hyman, Toldot, –. In j. Yevamot :, d, R. Jeremiah poses a halakhic question to R. Zeira. “He [R. Zeira] said to him ‘Go and see how a sage (‘Sav’—old sage) does it, and rely on his example.’He went out and found R. Ba (Abba) bar Memel, and he asked him, and he permitted it” (Neusner, :). R. Jeremiah and R. Zeira were the leaders of the Tiberian sages during the second half of the third talmudic generation, and R. Abba had a particularly close relationship with them. This source indicates that R. Abba was held in great esteem; he was regarded asan elder and an authority who ruled on halakhic matters, and perhaps he was also a judge. In j. Shavuot :, a, R. Zeira (died circa ce) discusses R. Abba’s extensive activities and mentions his death. Thus, R. Abba may have died not long before R. Zeira. 79 R. Jose b. Memel is mentioned in j. Kiddushin :, c. In the parallel j. Sotah :, b, we find “R. Dosa Mamlaha in the name of R. Aha,”one of the older members of the fourth generation. This reference indicates that R. Jose/Dosa, was active at the end of the fourth generation or the beginning of the fifth and is not to be identified with the first R. Jose Mamlahia. Leviticus Rabbah, :, ed. Margulies, , and the parallels state that R. Jose of Mamlahaia and R. Joshua of Sikhnin cite a teaching in the name of R. Levi. The latter was active in the third generation, and the sages who cited his teaching were members of the following generation, with R. Jose of the latest generation of the three. This citation implies that he was active at the end of the fourth generation or in the fifth generation. The change from Mamlah to Mamla was the result of a weakening of the guttural letters during the talmudic period because of the influence of Aramaic. See Kutscher, Studies, . On Mamla as a priestly settlement, see Genesis Rabbah, :, eds. Theodor-Albeck, ; Klein, Galilee, –, . In b. Yevamot a we find: “Rav Lili bar Memel said in the name of Mar Ukva who said in the name of Samuel.” Rav Lili was not from Mamla. This is his only teaching, and he cites it in the name of Mar Ukva, a Babylonian exilarch, who cites it in the name of Samuel, his friend. See also Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, . Thus, it is likely that Rav Memel, too, was a Babylonian. 80 J. Sotah :, d presents the story of R. Meir who generally delivered a sermon in the synagogue in Hammat every Friday night. Since this was his regular practice and since it was also the Sabbath, it would have been unlikely that he lived in Tiberias and returned there after the sermon, as the distance between Tiberias and Hammat at that time was beyond the “Sabbath limit.” See also t. Eruvin :, ed. Lieberman, . On R. Meir’s activities in Tiberias, see j. Berakhot :, b; j. Hagigah :, b; the parallels in Ecclesiastes Rabbah :; Ruth Rabbah :. Conceivably, R. Meir lived in Sepphoris at some point; see Oppenheimer,“Shikum,”andthenotes.Inrabbinicliterature,thenameHammatalone  chapter three

. Shazur Shazur is presently known as Sajur, located approximately two kilometers west of the Rammah junction, on the border of Lower Galilee (m.r. .). There is mention of R. Simeon the Shazuri, who was a member of the first generation after the Bar Kokhba Revolt.81

. Tekoa Tekoa in Upper Galilee has been identified with Hirbat Shema, which is situated on a mountain to the south of Mount Meiron. R. Simeon bar Yohai was active there, and R. Judah ha-Nasi studied under him there.82

. Ketonit Ketonit or Kitanot was a settlement near Sepphoris, perhaps a short distance east of Beth She"arim. Sages identified it with the biblical Katat, which was located on the land of the Tribe of Zevulun. Jonatan (or Johanan) ha-Kitoni apparently was active in the generation after the Bar Kokhba Revolt. In R. Judah ha-Nasi’s time, R. Jose (or Abba Jose of) Ketonta (or b. Ketonta) was active there. He may also have been called Issi (Jose) b. Judah.83 refers to the Hammat near Tiberias. See the sources cited in Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv, –; Reeg, Ortsnamen, –, –. See also Grootkerk, Ancient Sites, –:. 81 T. Baba Kama :, ed. Lieberman, ; Lieberman, Tosefta ki-Fshutah, Neziqin, :, Baba Kama , lines –. R. Simeon the Shazuri was a disciple of R. Tarfon and among the older members of his generation. See also Hyman, Toldot, –. On the location of Shazur, see Tsafrir, Map, ; Grootkerk, Ancient Sites, –:; Frankel et al., Upper Galilee, , , entry . 82 T. Eruvin :, ed. Lieberman, , which refers to the parallel texts; Reeg, Ort- snamen, –. On its location, see Tsafrir, Map, ; Grootkerk, Ancient Sites, – :; Frankel et al., Upper Galilee, :. According to Frankel et al., Hirbat Shema was a rather large settlement of thirty dunams and was perhaps no less important than the neighboring Meiron, which, according to them, covered an area of some twenty dunams. 83 Jonatan ha-Kitoni’s teachings are brought in b. Eruvin a. He was a disputant of R. Natan who was active in the generation following the Bar Kokhba Revolt, and Jonatan was most likely a member of the same generation. According to Klein, Galilee,and n. , based on Ms. Munich  loc. cit., Jonatan was referred to as ha-Kitroni, and he should be ascribed to the settlement by that name mentioned in the list of settlements above (no. ). R. Jose is mentioned several times. However, the reading of j. Baba Kama :, d, in Rosenthal-Lieberman, Yerushalmi Neziqin,,is“JosetheBabylonianisthe same person as Jose b. Judah, who is Jose Ketonta [the small]. And why was he called JoseKetonta?Becausehewastheleastandlastofthepiousmen.”Thus,accordingtothe galilee 

Generation of R. Judah ha-Nasi, –ce Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi’s academy, first located in Beth She"arim and later in Sepphoris, overshadowed the academies of other sages in different Galilean settlements. Nevertheless, several of them are mentioned in rabbinic literature:

. Ein Te"ena Ein Te"ena is identified with Ein el Joz (m.r. .), situated seven kilometers east of Sepphoris in the vicinity of Kfar Kana, near the road to Tiberias. In the days of R. Judah ha-Nasi it was the home of R. Simeon b. Halafta.84 Ein Te"ena receives further mention over one hundred years later, in the fifth talmudic generation, in connection with R. Hananiah Anatonia. Anatonia is a settlement that is identified with Ein" Te ena. There is also mention of R. Johanan Anataniata, whose time of activity is not known. He may perhaps be the above-mentioned R. Hananiah.85

Jerusalem Talmud, Ketonta is a designation for being less pious than his predecessors and not the name of a place. However, this is not a contradiction, as it is conceivable that not only was he given the name based on his place of residence, but also that he was less pious,andthiswasreflectedinhisnameaswell.SeealsoEpstein,Tanaitic Literature, . The location of Ketonit is not clear, and the opinion presented here is that of Safrai, “Beth She"arim,” ; idem, Temple, . See other suggestions in Encyclopaedia Biblica, :–. 84 According to Ta"aniyot :, a, R. Hanina, a disciple of R. Judah ha-Nasi, visited R. Simeon in Ein Te"ena, apparently in the latter’s old age. We may deduce from this source that R. Simeon was older than R. Hanina and was active during the time of R. Judah ha- Nasi. This placement of R. Simeon is also implied in b. Moed Katan b, which states that R. Judah ha-Nasi asked R. Simeon b. Halafta to bless his son. For the variants of this source, see Rabbinovicz, Dikduke Sofrim,n.resh.SeealsoHyman,Toldot, –; Tsafrir, Map, ; Grootkerk, Ancient Sites, –:, . 85 J. Pe"ah :, b, as well as the parallel j. Sanhedrin :, c, refer to R. Hana- niah Anatonia as a tanna who taught before R. Mana. Perhaps he held this position in the academy presided over by R. Mana, the leading sage in the fifth talmudic generation. According to j. Terumot :, b, R. Hananiah walked with the fifth-generation R. Zeira. In j. Orlah :, c, R. Hananiah speaks with the fourth-generation R. Jose. The latter is mentioned in j. Berakhot :, c, where he and R. Jonah, the two important fourth-generation Tiberian sages, attended R. Hananiah Anatonia’s wedding. Therefore, R. Hananiah probably was younger than R. Jose and R. Jonah. This is also compatible with the conclusion that R. Hananiah was active in the fifth generation. J. Berakhot :, a mentions R. Johanan Anataniata, and the names Hananiah and Johanan are often interchanged in rabbinic literature.  chapter three

. Kfar Hitya Kfar Hitya is a tel known as Karnei Hittin, situated approximately six kilometerswestofTiberiasneartheroadtoSepphoris.R.Jacobof Kfar Hitya was active there during R. Judah ha-Nasi’s generation. In the second to third talmudic generations there is mention of the master of aggadah,R.AzariahofKfarHitya.86

. Evlayim Evlayim or Ovelin is presently Iblin, located two kilometers north of Shefaram (m.r. .). In R. Judah ha-Nasi’s generation, there is mention of R. Eleazar b. Judah of Evlayim.87

. Haifa Haifa was a Jewish settlement some two kilometers northeast of Shik- mona at the foot of the Carmel Mountains (m.r. .) where Rambam Hospital is presently located. Rabbinic literature mentions Jose Heifani (= Josef of Haifa) [Neusner—Jose Hopni or Hofnim], R. Judah ha-Nasi’s close attendant towards the time of his death. He is mentioned without the title rabbi, yet in all likelihood, he was a sage but was totally eclipsed by R. Judah ha-Nasi.88 In the following generation, at the beginning of

86 R. Jacob of Kfar Hitya is mentioned indirectly in b. Hagigah b, in a story told about him by a blind, anonymous sage when R. Judah ha-Nasi and R. Hiyya visited him. R. Azariah is mentioned in Leviticus Rabbah, :, ed. Margulies, ; the third- generation R. Hanan cited a teaching in the name of R. Azariah. In the parallel Pesikta de-Rav Kahana, ,, ed. Mandelbaum, , R. Abba bar Kahana and R. Hanin cited a teachinginthenameofR.Azariah.R.Abbaaswell,wasamemberofthethirdgeneration, and consequently R. Azariah should be placed in the second generation. See also Reeg, Ortsnamen, –. 87 In t. Zevahim :, ed. Zuckermandel, , R. Eleazar cited a teaching in the name of R. Simeon. This citation indicates that he was active after R. Simeon, apparently in R. Judah ha-Nasi’s generation. See Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv, , ; Reeg, Ortsnamen, –; Tsafrir, Map, . 88 Jose of Haifa is mentioned in j. Kilayim :, b; j. Ketubot :, a; b. Ketubot a; Genesis Rabbah, :, eds. Theodor-Albeck, . All of the sources are parallel and deal with the death of R. Judah ha-Nasi. Jose of Haifa is mentioned as R. Judah ha-Nasi’sattendantduringhislifetimeandwasrequestedtoattendtohimathisdeath. Thus, he was apparently one of R. Judah ha-Nasi’s regular attendants, and therefore, it is likely that he was R. Judah ha-Nasi’s disciple-friend who served him in the way that disciples were accustomed to serve their rabbis. See the comment by Levine, Rabbinic Class, . For the location of Haifa, see Tsafrir, Map, . On Haifa being a Jewish galilee  the talmudic period, there is mention of R. Halafta of Haifa, and in the second to third talmudic generations, there is R. Abedimi of Haifa, who was a prominent sage. Most of the traditions involving this settlement are mentioned in relation to him. He maintained ties with the sages of Tiberias, Caesarea and Lod, and important sages cited teachings in his name.89

. Akko Akko was a well-known Hellenistic coastal city located on the outskirts of the Jewish population in Galilee. During the Second Temple period and afterwards, it was one of the important poleis in Palestine, and it held a Jewish minority. In the generation following the Bar Kokhba Revolt, sages deliberated over whether Akko was part of the Land of

village, see Leviticus Rabbah, :, ed. Margulies,  and the notes. See also the parallel, Lamentations Rabbah, :, ed. Buber, a; Klein, Galilee, ; Schwartz, Judaea, , . 89 R. Halafta is mentioned in j. Yevamot :, a; j. Gittin :, b as Halafta of Hawah (Neusner), meaning Haifa. R. Johanan of the second talmudic generation cited teachings in his name. Also see the parallel with the variant reading in b. Gittin b. On R. Abedimi, see Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, –. R. Abedimi was a member of third generation, but several third-generation sages cited teachings in his name, and therefore, he should be placed half a generation earlier. J. Niddah :, a–b mentions R. Abedimi sittingtogetherwithR.IsaacbarNahmanofLod,amemberofthesecondtothird generationsinLod.However,therearetwoteachings—inj.Kilayim :, b and in j. Terumot :, b—which state: “R. Zeira, R. Abudama of Haifa in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish” (Neusner, Kilayim, :). The former was a member of the third to fourth generations, and the latter was a member of the second generation. R. Abedimi’s time period was between the two. The source also implies that R. Abedimi maintained ties with the rabbinic center in Tiberias, where the other two sages were active. Similarly, according to b. Eruvin b,R.AssiandR.Abba,boththird-centuryTiberiansages,visited R. Abba de-min Haifa (= of Haifa), who is apparently R. Abedimi. J. Moed Katan :, c mentions that R. Jacob bar Aha of Caesarea posed a halakhic question to R. Abedimi in the presence of R. Abbahu, the leading third-generation Caesarean sage. R. Abbahu cited a teaching in the name of R. Abedima, b. Kiddushin b. J. Eruvin :, a states: “R. Abedima of Haifa gave a decision in Haifa.” This reference speaks to the fact that a sage teaching in his place of residence occurs rather infrequently in rabbinic literature. See also above, n. . In Pesikta de-Rav Kahana, :, ed. Braude, , we find: “R. Abedimi of Haifa said: In the study of a mishnah which is in my possession, I taught that . . .” The wording of this statement is unique in all of rabbinic literature and testifies toan independent sage with his own collection of traditions that he terms a “mishnah” and who confidently states that the collection apparently contains an independent idea of his own. This is supported in j. Shevi"it,:,a,whichstates:“TaughtR.AbedimiofHaifaon tannaitic authority” (Neusner, :), which is apparently referring to the halakhah that he taught from the mishnah in his possession. Other teachings of his were cited by younger sages of his generation.  chapter three

Israel as far as the commandments relating to the land were concerned. In the following generation as well, it is recorded that R. Judah ha-Nasi included only certain areas of the city as part of the halakhic boundaries of the Land of Israel. In the following generations of the talmudic period, sages continued to express differing opinions on this matter.90 During R. Judah ha-Nasi’s era, a sage named R. Mana, a disciple of R. Judah b. Ilai, was active in Akko. This may be the same R. Mana as the sage by this name who is mentioned several times in tannaitic literature but with no indications as to his place of residence.91 About one hundred years later, in the third to fourth talmudic generations (circa ce), R. Abba ofAkkowasactivethere.R.HezekiahAkhiyawasactiveinthesame generation or in the following one, but there is no further information about either sage. Thus, even though Akko was an important city, it never developed into a Torah center that saw uninterrupted rabbinic activity, probably due to its pronounced pagan character and its problematic halakhic status in the eyes of sages, as mentioned above.92

90 On Akko and its Jewish population during Second Temple times, see Josephus, War of the Jews, II, ; Kasher, Hellenistic Cities, –; Schürer, History, –. On Akko’s halakhic status, see the dispute in m. Gittin, :–, between R. Meir and R. Judah, who were active in the middle of the second century, over whether or not Akko is regarded as part of Palestine as far as a bill of divorce is concerned. In the following generation, R. Judah ha-Nasi regarded part of the city as separate from Palestine. See j. Shevi"it :, a; j. Gittin :, c. He also did not include it among the Hellenistic cities that he released from their impurity. R. Judah ha-Nasi also regarded Akko as the “border areas of the Land of Israel,” as mentioned in j. Shevi"it :, a. See also Oppenheimer, Galilee, –. Based on j. Shevi"it :, a, it appears that the halakhic attitude towards Akko did not change even in the generations after R. Judah ha-Nasi, in talmudic times. See Feliks, Shevi"it, :–. 91 According to j. Shevi"it :, a, R. Judah ha-Nasi visited R. Mana in his home in Akko and honored both him and one of his halakhic practices, noting that R. Mana was a disciple of R. Judah. Tannaitic sources also mention a sage in the same generation named R. Mana, who cited several teachings in the name of R. Judah. See also Hyman, Toldot, ; Strack-Stemberger, Introduction, . 92 R. Abba of Akko is mentioned in Genesis Rabbah, :, eds. Theodor-Albeck, . B. Avodah Zarah b states that R. Abba of Akko placed guards on board a boat that had arrived in the port of Akko with merchandise: “Once a ship of muries reached the portofAkkoandR.AbbaofAkkoplacedaguardbyit”tosupervisetheunloadingof the merchandise. His act reveals that he was an authority figure in Akko. This incident is unique in the way it is presented and in the emphasis that it places on the sage’s authority, and it bears a certain similarity to the instance of R. Abedimi of Haifa, above in n. . In b. Ketubot a,R.ZeiramentionsR.AbbaofAkko,andinb.Sotah a,R.Abbahumentions R. Abba. We can deduce from these references that R. Abba was a member of the third generation, as were the other sages. R. Hezekiah Akkaya is mentioned in j. Shabbat :, d. See Lieberman, ha-Yerushalmi ki-Fshuto, . R. Hezekiah Akkaya cited a teaching in the name of the Rabbis of Caesarea who, as mentioned, were active mainly between galilee 

. Kfar Hananiah Kfar Hananiah was located on the border between Upper and Lower Galilee, two kilometers south of the Hananiah Junction (m.r. .). R. Halafta of Kfar Hananiah, one of the elders of R. Judah ha-Nasi’s generation, was active there.93 Several generations later, in the third talmudic generation, there is mention of R. Jacob of Kfar Hanan—a shortened form of Hananiah under the influence of Aramaic.94 During mishnaic and talmudic times, Kfar Hananiah was a large Jewish rural settlement and an important center for the production of pottery;95 nonetheless its sages received little mention, and it did not develop into a Torah center that saw ongoing rabbinic activity.

the third and fifth generations. Thus, R. Hezekiah Akkaya must have been active in the fourth or fifth generations. See also Klein, Galilee, . On the character of Akko, see Oppenheimer, Galilee, –; Yankelevicz, “Populations,” , No. , , No. . 93 The Tosefta in Kelim, Baba Kama :, ed. Zuckermandel, , states: “R. Halafta of Kfar Hananiah said, ‘I asked Simeon b. Hanania, who asked the son of R. Hanania b. Teradion, and he said . . . And his daughter says . . .’ And when these things were reported beforeR.Judahb.Baba,hesaid,‘Betterdidhisdaughterrulethandidhisson’”(Neusner, :). R. Judah b. Baba, who was known to be an important sage, and Simeon b. Hananiah were active until the time of the Bar Kokhba Revolt. For more about them, see Hyman, Toldot, –, . Thus, R. Halafta, who posed a question to R. Simeon, must have been an adolescent prior to and a sage following the Bar Kokhba Revolt. This possibility is implied in Mekhilta de-Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai, Yitro :, eds. Epstein-Melamed, , which states that R. Halafta cited a teaching in the name of R. Hananiah b. Tradion. It is conceivable that he heard the teaching directly from him, and this is possible only until the time of the Bar Kokhba Revolt, at which time R. Hananiah was killed. Following theBarKokhbaRevolt,R.Halaftawasapparentlyoneoftheyoungersages,andhemay be regarded as a disciple-associate of R. Meir, in whose name he cited teachings. In the following generation, of R. Judah ha-Nasi, he was one of the older sages. 94 R. Jacob cited a teaching in the name of Resh Lakish, see j. Berakhot :, b; j. Berakhot :, d. In Genesis Rabbah, :, eds. Theodor-Albeck, , R. Jacob cited a teachinginthenameofR.Joshuab.Levi.Seealsotheentryinhisname,ibid.,vol.,index of names; Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, . In the Jerusalem Talmud and Genesis Rabbah, R. Jacob is mentioned along with the name Hanan and not Hananiah, a reason that the two names appear separately in Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv, . However, both names refer to the same settlement, and the shortened form is due to the influence of Aramaic, according to Kutscher, Studies, ; Klein, Galilee,  and n. ; Reeg, Ortsnamen, – . Reeg suggests identifying Hanan with Kfar Juhanah (Deir Hanah), where a priestly order had settled. He is apparently basing his identification on Avi-Yonah, Geography, , , who did not make a separate entry for Kfar Hanan, and subsequently, neither did Tsafrir, Map, . 95 T. Baba Metzi"a :, ed. Lieberman, . See also Adan-Bayewitz, “Peddler,” –; idem, Pottery, –; Frankel et al., Upper Galilee, , , entry .  chapter three

. Ianoa Located in western Upper Galilee, Ianoa was situated approximately three kilometers south of Ma"alot (m.r. .). Abba Jose of Ianoa (Iani) was apparently active there during R. Judah ha-Nasi’s generation. R. Zakkai of Ianoa resided in the settlement during the talmudic period, but the exact time period of his residence is not known.96

. Gush-Halav/Meiron Gush-Halav and Meiron were adjacent settlements in Upper Galilee to the east of Mt. Meiron. Both settlements were known as early as the Second Temple period, and in the mishnaic and talmudic periods they were among the most important settlements in Upper Galilee. Gush- Halav was located four kilometers to the northeast of Mt. Meiron— today’s Jish. Meiron was located at the foot of Mt. Meiron. R. Eleazar b. Simeon (bar Yohai), one of the elders of R. Judah ha-Nasi’s generation and a disputant of his, lived in Gush-Halav, or perhaps in Meiron.97 As mentioned, his father, too, had been active in this region, in nearby Tekoa. R. Eleazar bar Meiron was active in Meiron in the fifth talmudic generation.98

96 Abba Jose is mentioned in t. Kilayim :, , ed. Lieberman, , . Both instances state the following: “R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon and Abba Jose b. Hanan of Vanni say . . .” (Neusner, :, ). This statement indicates that they were active at the same time, during R. Judah ha-Nasi’s generation, which is when R. Eleazar also was active. See also Lieberman, Tosefta ki-Fshutah, Zeraim, :, line . In Sifre Deuteronomy,par.,ed. Finkelstein, , R. Abba Jose b. Hanan of Ianoa cites a teaching in the name of Abba Cohen b. Delaiah, who preceded him, but the time period of activity is not clear. See also Genesis Rabbah, :, eds. Theodor-Albeck, , n. . R. Zakkai of Ianoa is mentioned only once, and the time period of his activity is not known. See also Deuteronomy Rabbah,Va- ethanan, ed. Lieberman, . On the location of Ianoa, see Tsafrir, Map, ; Frankel et al., Upper Galilee, , entry , –, , entry ; Grootkerk, Ancient Sites, –, , . 97 According to Pesikta de-Rav Kahana, :, ed. Mandelbaum, , we may deduce that R. Eleazar b. Simeon was active in Gush Halav, where he died and was buried. But under pressure of the inhabitants of Meiron, he was brought to Meiron and buried alongside his father, who was active in nearby Tekoa and was buried in Meiron. Thus, it is conceivable that there was a connection between the father, the son and Meiron during their lifetimes, and perhaps they were active at that location for a period of time. The story in the parallel b. Baba Metzi"a b, which is a secondary reading, has some differences. See Friedman, “Aggadah,”–. On the history of R. Eleazar bar Simeon, see Epstein, Tanaitic Literature, –; Goodman, Galilee, –, –. 98 R. Eleazar bar Meiron is mentioned twice in Genesis Rabbah, :, eds. Theodor- Albeck, , in connection with fourth-generation sages. In addition, he cited teachings galilee 

Rabbinic activity in the three settlements below is first mentioned during the mishnaic period, but the generations in which the sages in these settlements were active are not known. They are therefore referred to here.

. Biria (or Birai) Biria was located just north of Zefat, but it has also been identified with the ancient settlement of Baram, where archaeological findings of two synagogues from that period were discovered. During the mishnaic period, Eleazar of Biria was active there, but the exact time period of hisactivityisnotknown.99 R. Dosetai of Biri (in the Jerusalem Talmud: R. Dosa), an expounder of the Law (darshan),wasactivethereinthethird talmudic generation, as were Ulla Bira"ah,R.AbbaBira"ah and R. Nathan Bira"ah (who was probably from Babylonia), but the exact time periods of their activity are not known.100 In addition, there is mention of R. Biraim in the name of Pinhas bar Hama of Sepphoris, a member of the fourth generation, see ibid., :, , and the parallel, ibid., :, . R. Eleazar is thus a member of the generation succeeding R. Pinhas. See Klein, Galilee, ; Reeg, Ortsnamen, –; Frankel et al., Upper Galilee, , entry . Frankel et al. note that the area of the ancient village of Gush Halav covered fifty dunams, and the tel, another twenty dunams. There is another site belonging to this village that is to the east and below it, covering an estimated eight dunams, all of which contain an abundance of pottery shards from the Roman- Byzantine period. See Frankel ibid., , entry . On Meiron, see ibid., , entry . Meiron covered twenty dunams, even though it might have been more important than Gush Halav. On the importance of Meiron and Gush Halav, and the suggestion that they were located on an important road leading from Syria to the South, see Meyers, Meiron, –; idem, Gush Halav, –. 99 Eleazar of Biria was a tanna whose teaching in b. Eruvin b is presented as a beraita. In other words, his teaching is presented as a tannaitic tradition and as support for the words of Rav, a disciple of R. Judah ha-Nasi. This implies that Eleazar preceded Rav and was active in R. Judah ha-Nasi’s time or earlier. See Klein, Galilee, , ; Reeg, Ortsnamen, , ; Tsafrir, Map, ; Grootkerk, Ancient Sites, –. Biria is mentioned already in the Yavneh period, in t. Mo"ed Katan :, ed. Lieberman, . For the alternative suggestion, i.e., that it be identified with Baram, see Safrai, “Galilee,” – ; Frankel et al., Upper Galilee, , entry . Frankel et al. note that Kfar Baram covered an area of approximately forty dunams and an abundance of Roman-Byzantine pottery shards were found there. Under the entry for Birai, on p. , entry , they mention the first suggestion, and note that the site has few pottery shards and its area covers only eight dunams. Therefore, on p. , entry , they preferred to identify it with Baram, as suggested by Safrai. 100 On R. Dosa (Dosetai) of Birai, see Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, , and n. . His sermons are mentioned in b. Eruvin a; b. Baba Kama a; b. Sanhedrin a. On Ulla of Bira"ah, see Albeck, ibid., . There is a reference to Rav Jeremiah Bira"ah, ibid., , but he is a Babylonian sage. Abba Bira"ah recited beraitot,b.Menahot  chapter three

(or Birai, Bira, Kirai), a member of the third generation, and R. Levi bar Biri (Birai), who may have been a member of the same generation or a later one. The Biri/Birai component of their names implies that they too were from Biria and that they may have been father and son.101

. Uza(?) Uza may have been a settlement in Lower Galilee. It has sometimes been identified with Kfar Uziel, home to one of the priestly orders. Kfar UzielislocatednorthwestofArbel,anditmaybethesameplaceas Hirbat Luiza. According to another suggestion, it should be identified with Hirbat Amudim, located to the east of Beth Netofa Valley. A further suggestion equates it with Hirbat Uza in western Lower Galilee, about eight kilometers east of Akko along the Akko-Zefat road. The site covers a rather large stretch of land encompassing some twenty-five dunams (m.r. .).102 Rabbinic literature cites a teaching transmitted in the name of Joshua Uza"ah (= of Uza), who apparently was active during the mishnaic period, but the exact time period of his activity is not known.103

b. B. Ketubot a states that “R. Nathan of Bira"ah taught a tannaitic saying,” and two sixth-generation Babylonian sages discussed his teaching. Thus, R. Nathan of Bira"ah also may have been a Babylonian. However, according to Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv, ; Reeg, Ortsnamen, ; Oppenheimer, Babylonia Judaica,  and n. , he is associated with Birai in Palestine, and in any case, the time period of his activity is unknown. 101 On Biraim, see Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, –. R. Levi bar Biri (Birai) cites teachings in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi, j. Baba Batra :, d. R. Joshua was a member of the first to second generations, indicating that R. Levi was active after him. In the parallel passage in b. Baba Kama a, the same teaching is cited by R. Tanhum andR.BraisinthenameofR.Joshuab.Levi.Thissourceimpliesthattherewereties, and perhaps even a close relationship, between R. Levi and R. Brais, who cited the same teaching and shared the name Biri. 102 The suggestion that Uza be identified w. Hirbat Utza, whose name is almost identical, is based on the interchangeability of the Hebrew letters zayin (z) and zadi (tz). See Frankel et al, Upper Galilee, , entry . Regarding the first suggestion, which appears in Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv, ; idem, Galilee, , that it be identified with Kfar Uziel, there is no substantial information about the site of Kfar Uziel, and only the first part of the name bears a resemblance to Uza. 103 In b. Nedarim b, we find: “Joshua of "Uza brought a beraita.” In b. Yoma b: “R. Johanan said, ‘R. Joshua Uza"ahasked’ ... SaidR.Johanan,‘R.JoshuaUza"ah subsequently solved.’” The latter is the reading in Ms. Munich and others. See Rabbinovicz, Dikduke Sofrim,nn.gimel, heh. The fact that R. Johanan cited R. Joshua of Uza indicates that R. Joshua preceded him by at least one generation. In other words, R. Joshua was a galilee 

. Tiriya Tiriya might be Hirbat Tira, east of Nazareth (m.r. .), or perhaps it is Hirbat Tiriya, located in western Upper Galilee, a short distance north of Peki"in (m.r. .). The name Hirbat Tiriya is a better match, and on the site are the remains of a structure that may have been a synagogue.104 During the mishnaic period, Isaiah of Tiriya, an exceptional figure, was active there, although the exact time period of his activity is not known.105 Much later, at the end of the talmudic period (circa ce), a sage with a similar name—Abba Hoshaiah of Tiriya, who was one of the last talmudic sages in Palestine—was active there. A Hoshaiah is mentioned together with Abba Hoshaiah, and he may have been his son and a sage. Thus, he would have been active in the generation that witnessed the redacting of the Jerusalem Talmud.106

member of the first talmudic generation, at the latest. However, the fact that he taught a beraita implies that he was a tanna who was active more than one generation earlier than R. Johanan. See also Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, – and . 104 Klein, Galilee, ; Reeg, Ortsnamen, ; Tsafrir, Map, ; Grootkerk, Ancient Sites, –, –; Gal, Tavor, #En-Dor, , entry ; ibid., , entry . 105 T. Baba Kama :, ed. Lieberman, ; Lieberman, Tosefta ki-fshuta, Neziqin, , , line . Apparently a sage, Isaiah of Tiriya is depicted as a pious man (hassid)who is meticulous about halakhah.Lieberman,ibid.,identifieshimwithAbbaHoshaiahof Tiriyah, who was a laundry man, according to j. Baba Kama :, c, and j. Baba Metzi"a :, c. In Leviticus Rabbah, :, ed. Margulies, , Isaiah of Tiriya is given the title rabbi and is mentioned once as Abba Hoshaiah of Tiriya. He appears between R. Johanan of the second talmudic generation and R. Eleazar b. Simeon, who was active two generations earlier. Thus, chronologically, Isaiah of Tiriya should be placed between the two, as one of the last tanna"im. 106 Abba Hoshaiah is mentioned in Genesis Rabbah, :, eds. Theodor-Albeck, . The reading in Ms. Vatican  is: “On the day that R. Abun died, Abba Hoshaiah of Tiriya was born. On the day that Abba Hoshaiah of Tiriya died, Hoshaiah [the words “his son” were added above the line] was born” (based on Soncino, :–). See also Sokolof, Genizah Fragments, , lines –, which does not contain the word “son.” However, the reading in Ms. Vatican ,  is already corrupted, and the word “son” appears in the text. For a discussion on this matter, see Rosenfeld, “R. Abun,” – and n. . It should be noted that R. Abun died between  and ce (Rosenfeld, ibid., – ), about the same time that Abba Hoshaiah was born. This chronology indicates that Abba Hoshaiah was one of the last talmudic sages in Palestine, as the Jerusalem Talmud was redacted circa ce. R. Hoshaiah, who was perhaps the son of Abba Hoshaiah, was born in this last generation, and presumably, he, too, lived in Tiriya. The mention of Hoshaiah in Genesis Rabbah implies that the compiler of Genesis Rabbah,whichwas compiled one or two generations after the Jerusalem Talmud, was aware of him and must have been a member of his generation at the latest, or possibly of the preceding generation. Furthermore, placing Hoshaiah at the end of the chain of sages implies that Hoshaiah also, was a sage and a member of the generation of the redactors of the Jerusalem Talmud,  chapter three

Rural Settlements with Rabbinic Activity—Talmudic Period, –ce

First Talmudic Generation, –ce The following settlements were the scene of rabbinic activity in the talmudic period only, in order of generation of the first sage mentioned in each.

. Akhbara A settlement known by this name existed in Upper Galilee, south of Zefat, as early as the Second Temple period. However, the Akhbara mentioned in rabbinic literature may perhaps be located near Sepphoris.107 R. Jannai was active in Akhbara in the first talmudic generation. He established a unique rabbinic center there based on a communal lifestyle and strin- gency in the observance of the laws of purity and impurity. The group ofsagesactiveinthiscenterwasreferredtocollectivelyas“theHouseof R. Jannai” (de-bai R. Jannai)or“members/thoseoftheHouseR.Jannai” (ilin de-bai R. Jannai). Their halakhic and aggadic teachings are recorded and were also cited by other sages. The information about their activities indicates that they were members of the second to fourth talmudic generations.108 This group is similar to other groups of unidentified sages in other rabbinic centers, such as the “Rabbis of Caesarea,” the “Rabbis of Naveh,” and the “Elders of the South” in Lod. R. Hananiah bar Akhbari was active in the third talmudic generation, and he may have been a member of this group. There is also mention of the third- generation R. Jannai bar Ishmael, perhaps a grandson of R. Jannai above,

perhaps even one of them. If so, this is a unique piece of information about the redactors of the Jerusalem Talmud, who remain unknown, and perhaps we now have information about one of them. 107 Rosenfeld, “Akhbara,”–. Support for this can be found in Frankel et al., Upper Galilee, , entries , . 108 Oppenheimer, “R. Yannai,” –. R. Jannai b. Ishmael of the third talmudic generation cited teachings in the names of the members of the House of R. Jannai. For more information about him, see the following note. Thus, the House of R. Jannai was active already in the second talmudic generation. J. Shevi"it :, b presents a halakhah taught by R. Johanan, a member of the second talmudic generation, to the House of R. Jannai. On the other hand, in the next halakhah, the fourth generation R. Jose posed a halakhic question to the House of R. Jannai. galilee  who cited teachings also in the name of the “House of R. Jannai.” In the fourth generation, there is mention of R. Jannai Zeira, and he too may have been a descendant of the first R. Jannai.109

. Ruma Ruma is located in southwestern Beth Netofa Valley (m.r. .). R. Eleazar of Ruma was apparently a member of the first talmudic generation.110 In all likelihood R. Johanan of Ruma, about whom we know nothing but his name, was active there during the talmudic period.111

. Iodefat The settlement of Iodefat is known to us from Second Temple times. It was located above and northeast of Beth Netofa Valley (m.r. .). It should be noted that Iodefat is mentioned in rabbinic literature only with regard to the Second Temple period and also only in connection with Menahem of Iodfa"ah (Iotapia), a member of the first talmudic generation.112

109 On R. Hananiah bar Akhbari, see j. Terumot :, b, and the parallel, j. Shabbat :, d; Rosenfeld, “Akhbara,”. R. Hananiah bar Akhbari is not mentioned elsewhere, and there are no halakhic or aggadic teachings in his name. However, since he came from Akhbaraandwascalledrabbi,heprobablywasasageandamemberofthegroupcalled “the House of R. Jannai.” See Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, . It is also possible that, based on his name and time period, R. Hananiah bar Akhbari was the grandson of R. Jannai and that the grandson also lived in Akhbara. On R. Jannai Zeira, see Albeck, ibid., . 110 In j. Gittin :, b we find: “R. Johanan in the name of R. Eleazar of Ruma,” as well as in the parallel b. Gittin b, in the printed editions and in Ms. Munich. See also Feldblum, Dikduke Sopherim, Gittin, n. vav.However,intwoothermanuscriptsof this Babylonian source, the reading is “de-min Daroma (= of Daroma),” but the reading “Ruma,” as it appears in the Jerusalem Talmud, is preferable because it is a Palestinian tradition. Furthermore, Ruma is less well-known than Daroma, which appears many times in rabbinic literature, and presumably, the letter dalet wasaddedtochangeittothe better-known name. On the location of Ruma, see Reeg, Ortsnamen, –; Tsafrir, Map, . 111 R. Johanan’s name was found on a genizah fragment; see Marmorstein, “Geniza,” . The fragment appears to be some form of lexicon of sages’ names, and it distinguishes between those with the title rabbi and those without. Only the names appear. This R. Johanan appears with the title, apparently because of a tradition known to the author of the fragment that he was indeed a sage. See Klein, Galilee, , and n. . 112 In j. Sukkah :, c, R. Jose bar Hanina cited a teaching in the name of Menahem of Iodfa"ah. See b. Zevahim b; Rabbinovicz, Dikduke Sofrim, Zevahim, b, n. resh. In b. Me"ilah b, we find that R. Johanan cited a teaching in Menahem’s name. In both  chapter three

. Cabul Cabul was an established settlement from Second Temple times. It was located on the western border of Lower Galilee, beneath Gush-Halav, on the border of the Akko Plain (m.r. .). In the first talmudic generation, we find mention of R. Zakkai of Cabul, who may perhaps be identified with the R. Zakkai of that generation whose name appears without any surname (patronymic or other).113

Second Talmudic Generation, –ce In the second talmudic generation, the main center of rabbinic activity shifted to Tiberias, and was headed by R. Johanan, the leading sage of that generation. In this generation as well, there is information about new rabbinic centers.

. Ma"on (or Beth Ma"on) Ma"on is identified with Tel" Ma un (m.r. .) on the northwestern hill overlooking Tiberias. The priestly order of Hupah lived there during this period. There is mention of Jose of Ma"on, who was a darshan in the synagogue in Ma"on or in the synagogue in Tiberias. R. Johanan, a member of Jose’s generation who lived in nearby Tiberias, accorded him the title Gavra Rabba, a great man, apparently because his status

of these sources, Menahem is mentioned without the title rabbi and the latter offers an interpretation of the words of R. Eleazar b. Shamua, a member of the generation following the Bar Kokhba Revolt. This citation indicates that Menahem was active in the following generation, the generation of R. Judah ha-Nasi, or one generation later, the generation preceding that of R. Johanan and of his disciple-associate R. Jose b. Hanina, both of whom cited teachings in Menahem’s name. Apparently, this form of the name, without the title rabbi is the original form. The fact that two sages who were members of the second talmudic generation cited teachings in his name could indicate that they had studied under him and heard the teachings directly from him. See also Reeg, Ortsnamen, – ; Tsafrir, Map, . The latter source presents the history and identification of Iodefat. 113 For the identification of Cabul, see Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv, –; Tsafrir, Map, – . R. Zakkai is mentioned in Tractate Semahot :. In Tractate Mourning ed. Zlotnik, , , we find that “two sons of Rabban Gamaliel (son of R. Judah ha-Nasi) came to visit R. Zakkai in Cabul.”See also Oppenheimer, Galilee, – and n. ; Reeg, Ortsnamen, . For another opinion, see Safrai and Safrai, “Beth Anat,” ; Safrai, Temple, . The Talmudic sources mention a R. Zakkai in this generation; see Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, , and perhaps the reference is to the above R. Zakkai of Cabul. galilee  wasequivalenttothatofasage.Thetitlerabbidoesnotappearwithhis name, and he may not have been ordained because of his problematic relationship with the patriarch.114

. Magdala/Migdal Nunia/Taricheae Magdala was Migdal Nunia or Taricheae of Second Temple times. It was located in Ginosar Valley, about four kilometers north of Tiberias (m.r. .). In the second talmudic generation there is mention of R. Isaac Migdalah. R. Judan Migdalah was active there in the fourth talmudic generation.115

. Gevul Gevul was located about seven kilometers north of Beth She"an (Skytho- polis) on the road to Tiberias (m.r. .). Mention is made of R. Jacob Gevulia, a member of the second to third generations of the talmudic period.116

. Kfar Mandi This settlement is today’s Kfar Manda, at the northwestern end of Beth Netofa Valley (m.r. .). Rabbinic literature mentions the master of aggadah,R.IssacharofKfarMandi,andlatermentionsR.Josi(e) Mandah, a member of the third talmudic generation.117

114 The source for information about him is j. Sanhedrin :, b, and the parallel, Genesis Rabbah, :, eds. Theodor-Albeck, ; Tsafrir, Map, . 115 On R. Isaac, see Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, . On R. Judan, see j. Berakhot :, a and the parallels in j. Ta"aniyot :, b; Genesis Rabbah, :, eds. Theodor- Albeck, . On the location of Migdalah, see Tsafrir, Map, . 116 Albeck, ibid., ; Fuks, Scythopolis, , ; Tsafrir, Map, . 117 Hyman, Toldot, ; Leviticus Rabbah :, ed. Margulies, – and in the notes. In j. Rosh Hashanah :, a we find: “expoundeddarash ( )R.IssacharofKfarMandi.” The verb darash means a public sermon, as already noted. Klein, Galilee, , mentions R. Jose Madah (= Mandah) and in n.  explains that Madah is the reading found in some of the manuscripts of b. Hulin a, as noted in Rabbinovicz, Dikduke Sofrim,Hullin,ad loc., n. vav. It should be added that the reading is Madah also in the good Ms. Hamburg of b. Hulin . We should not assume that Madah refers to the place named Media in Persia, as R. Jose Madah is mentioned in a story about a Palestinian sage who came to Babylonia and testified about an incident that took place in Palestine involving his rabbi, an incident in which the third-generation R. Hiyya Ziporah (= of Sepphoris) and R. Jose Madahparticipated.ItisthereforemorelikelythatthisR.Josewasalocal(Palestinian)  chapter three

. Kfar Tamarta(?) Kfar Tamarta was a settlement in Galilee, which may perhaps be identified with Kfar Tamra, located on the western rim of the mountains of Lower Galilee and the edge of Akko Plain, two kilometers south of Cabul (m.r. .). R. Shila of Kfar Tamarta, an expounder of halakhah and aggadah, was active in the second talmudic generation, and his teachings were cited by the outstanding sages of the great rabbinic centers. Thus, he was considered an important sage in his day, despite the fact that his place of residence was far from the main rabbinic centers. His son, R. Aha bar Shila of Kfar Tamarta, was active during the second to third generations of the talmudic period, and presumably he, too, lived in Kfar Tamarta. There is also mention of R. Judah of Kfar Tamarta; the time period ofhis activity is not known.118

. Farod This settlement was located in Upper Galilee on the road to Meiron (m.r. .). There is mention of R. Tanhum of (or: from) Farod, a disciple of bar Kappara.119 In the fifth talmudic generation, there is

sage and not a sage who emigrated from Media, even though there were sages who immigrated to Palestine at that time, such as R. Jannai Kapodukia in j. Baba Batra :, d, although they were few in number. See Safrai, “Beth She"arim,” ; idem, Temple, ; Reeg, Ortsnamen, ; Tsafrir, Map, . 118 R. Shila cited a teaching in the name of R. Johanan, an important second talmudic generation sage, while eminent third-generation sages R. Assi, R. Levi of Tiberias and R. Hanina bar Papa of Caesarea cited teachings in the name of R. Shila, citations which indicate that R. Shila was older than they were. The expression “expounded” (darash) halakhah and aggadah is found several times in connection with R. Shila; see Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, ; Hyman, Toldot, . R. Shila’s son, R. Aha, is mentioned in Esther Rabbah, :: R. Levi cited a teaching in the name of R. Aha bar Shila of Kfar Tamarta. R. Levi was a member of the third talmudic generation, a fact which places R. Aha in the second to third generations and perhaps even a generation earlier. According to some of the readings of b. Megillah a,wefind:“expoundedR.Judahof Kfar Tamarta”; see Rabbinovicz, Dikduke Sofrim, Megillah, a, n. taf ; Yalkut Shimoni, Psalms, . For the identification of Tamarta, see Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv, ; Reeg, Ortsnamen, –; Tsafrir, Map, ; Grootkerk, Ancient Sites, –, No. . 119 B. Avodah Zarah a. For the location of Farod, see Tsafrir, Map, ; Frankel et al., Upper Galilee, , entry . But ibid., , entry , they deliberate about this identification, and speculate that Farod was perhaps in the South, because they assumed that bar Kappara was active in the South, as suggested in Reeg, Ortsnamen, –. galilee  mention of R. Hiyya Farodah, apparently from Farod, who may have been the patriarch’s emissary to Babylonia.120

. Kezion Kezion (or Kerzion) is identified with Hirbat Qazion in Upper Galilee, east of Alma (m.r. .). Rabbinic literature mentions R. Johanan of Kezion or Kerzion, who may have been active in the second generation of the talmudic period.121

. Tirata Tirata (or Toratia) was a settlement in Galilee, which may perhaps be identified with Tel Tora, located southeast of Beth She"arim near Kfar Yehoshua in Jezreel Valley (m.r. .). R. Hananiah Toratia was active in the second talmudic generation.122

However, bar Kappara was also active for quite some time in Galilee, in the vicinity of Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi in Sepphoris. Therefore, as a Galilean, R. Tanhum of Farod may have studied under him in Galilee. 120 In b. Avodah Zarah b: “R. Hiyya Parva"ah visited the house of the exilarch” (Soncino, :). In the Abramson edition, Avodah Zarah, , the reading is Ferorah. Abramson mentions in his notes (p. , to line ) that there are several similar readings and that the correct reading is Farodah. This reading supports the assumption that R. Hiyya Farodah was from Farod and that his name derived from his place of residence. The description of a Palestinian sage in the house of the exilarch is not unusual. Inthe continuation of the source, R. Hiyya cited a halakhah in the name of Palestinian sages. Apparently he was an emissary sent by the patriarch, as were other sages, to foster ties with the Babylonian Jews and with the exilarch in particular. See Beer, Rashut ha-Gola, – ; Rosenfeld, “R. Simlai,” –. R. Zvid, an important fifth-generation Babylonian sage, was involved in the episode with R. Hiyya Farodah, an association which indicates that this R. Hiyya was active in the same generation. 121 In j. Berakhot :, b, and in the parallel passage in j. Beitzah :, b, R. Johanan of Kezion cites teachings in the name of R. Nahum b. Simai of the first talmudic generation. It is therefore likely that R. Johanan was active in the following generation. See Roth Gerson, Greek Inscriptions, –; Safrai, “Galilee, Golan,” . On the location of Kezion, see Tsafrir, Map, ; Grootkerk, Ancient Sites, –, entry ; Frankel et al., Upper Galilee, , entry . 122 Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, ; Kahana, “Settlements ,” –; Reeg, Ortsnamen, –; Grootkerk, Ancient Sites. Reeg states that perhaps R. Johanan b. Torta, who was a member of R. Akiva’s generation, lived in Tirata. But it is problematic  chapter three

Third Talmudic Generation, –ce

. Attushiya Attushiya (or Kfar Ittush) was a settlement identified with Hirbat Attusha south of Tiberias (m.r. .), in the vicinity of Kfar Yama, presently Yavneel. Attushiya’s local sages maintained strong ties with the rabbinic center in Tiberias. R. Isaac Attushiya was active in Attushiya in the third talmudicgeneration,andhisson,HiyyasonofIsaacAttushiya,wasactive there in the fourth generation of the talmudic period.123

. Arbel This settlement, known to us from Second Temple times, has been identified with Hirbat Irbid (m.r. .), located five kilometers northwest of Tiberias. Abba bar Benjamin resided there in the third talmudic generation. He apparently is identified with Abbai bar Benjamin who recited beraitot,andwhomayhaveheldthepositionoftanna in one of the academies, such as in the academy in nearby Tiberias.124

to view him as a Galilean sage, since there is no definitive information about him, and the limited information that exists associates him with R. Akiva, who was active in Judea. An additional question that arises is whether “Torta” in R. Johanan’s name is the name of a place. See also Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv, . In the entry for Torta, no. , he mentions Abba Jose ha-Torti. Klein’s source is Genesis Rabbah, :, eds. Theodor-Albeck, , but this reading appears in only one manuscript, where it is corrupted and cannot be used as evidence of the existence of a sage by the name of ha-Torti. Moreover, according to other manuscripts, the reading should be Abba Jose Heres (or Horam). 123 Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, , . On the identification of the place, see Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv, ; Kahana, Settlements , ; Reeg, Ortsnamen, ; Tsafrir, Map, ; Grootkerk, Ancient Sites, –. 124 J. Shevi"it :, d recounts that R. Abbahu came to Arbel as the guest of Abba bar Benjamin. He taught a beraita, according to j. Berakhot :, d; in the parallel j. Gittin :, b he was referred to as Abbaiei bar Benjamin. Abba bar Benjamin may perhaps be the same person as the sage Abbaiei brei de-Rav Benjamin b. Hiyya (= Abbaiei son of Rav Benjamin son of Hiyya) who is mentioned in b. Rosh Hashanah a and in the parallel b. Sotah b. See b. Niddah a; Hyman, Toldot, ; Albeck, ibid., . Albeck, ibid., wrote an entry only for Abbaiei brei de-Rav Benjamin and states that he was a fourth-generation Babylonian sage on the basis of the fact that in b. Hulin a he posed a question to a third-generation Babylonian sage. But they may simply have been two different people with similar names. On Arbel, see Tsafrir, Map, –. galilee 

. Unnamed settlement, perhaps in the vicinity of Tiberias R. Samuel bar Nahman, a member of the second to third generations of the talmudic period, lived in this settlement. He attended the academy in Lod and was a close disciple of R. Joshua b. Levi, the foremost southern sage. He later moved to Galilee and became a disciple of R. Jonatan, one of the most prominent Galilean sages, who apparently was active in Sepphoris. During R. Samuel’s period of activity as a sage, his ties were mainly with the Tiberian sages. However, some sources imply that R. Samuel did not live in Tiberias but lived elsewhere, conceivably in proximity to Tiberias.125

. Unnamed settlement near Tiberias R. Samuel bar Isaac lived in this settlement. He was a Babylonian sage who had attended the Babylonian academies and immigrated to Pales- tine where he became one of the foremost sages of this generation. His ties were mainly with Tiberias, and he was one of its most prominent sages. However, one source states specifically that he lived “somewhere”—in other words, not in Tiberias. This place probably was near Tiberias, perhaps even a suburb, as he is mentioned as a student, colleague and teacher

125 On R. Samuel bar Nahman, the many sages who cited teachings in his name, and his disciples, see Hyman, ibid., –; Bacher, Amoräer, :–; ibid, Amora"im,:, –; Albeck, ibid., –. Genesis Rabbah,:,eds.Theodor-Albeck,,relatesa story attributed to R. Samuel in which he is seated on his grandfather’s shoulder as they set out from their own settlement via Beth She"an to another settlement. Since he was seated on his grandfather’s shoulder, the other settlement could not have been far away. Thus, R. Samuel certainly lived near Beth She"an. In addition, Ginzburg, Yerushalmi, :– proves that R. Samuel lived far from Tiberias. According to j. Berakhot :, d, R. Samuel walks from his place of residence to Tiberias to participate in the intercalation of the year—an act performed by leading sages—and on the way he slept over at the home of a sage, an act which is evidence that he lived outside of Tiberias and at a considerable distance from it. According to b. Moed Katan a,R.Zeira,whowasactive in Tiberias, evinced surprise that an apparently elderly R. Samuel came to the academy after an absence of several years. This story is better understood if R. Samuel lived outside Tiberias, because then the sages would not have seen him for a long time and therefore would be surprised at his arrival. In b. Hulin a he is termed the outstanding sage of his generation.  chapter three almost exclusively in connection with Tiberian sages, information that indicates that he had spent much time there.126

. Aiitalu The name of this settlement has been preserved with an interchange of the letters, in the name of the village Eilut, north of Nazareth (m.r. .). Aiitalu was home to the priestly order Se"orim.127 In this generation there is mention of Ada bar Ataleii, who was apparently a local sage128 and who may have been a member of the local priestly order.

126 See the sources cited in Hyman, ibid., –; Albeck, ibid., –. In j. Berakhot :, d, we find: “R. Jasa in the place of R. Samuel bar R. Isaac taught” (based on Neusner, :). On this reading, see Schäfer und Becker, Synopse,I:,.R.Jasais R. Assi, the friend and contemporary of R. Samuel bar Isaac, or R. Jose, a member of thefollowinggeneration.R.AssiandR.JosewereamongtheleadingTiberiansagesof their respective generations. The above passage states that R. Jasa taught in R. Samuel’s place, which implies that the place was not Tiberias, because otherwise it would not have been mentioned, as was the practice with regard to the Tiberian sages. See also Ginzburg, Yerushalmi, :. The passage in j. Yoma :, c, “R. Samuel bar R. Isaac did not go down to the meetinghouse (= beth ha-va"ad),”shouldbeunderstoodinthesameway.Thereare several such statements in the Jerusalem Talmud, and they are interpreted to mean that someone set out from his home in the same city to the meetinghouse or set out from a different place to the meetinghouse; see Kasovsky, Yerushalmi, :. In the talmudic period the meetinghouse was mentioned only with regard to Tiberias. In view of the first source about R. Jose, it is preferable to interpret it to mean that he set out from another place to the meetinghouse in nearby Tiberias with which R. Samuel also was associated. 127 Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv, , ; idem, Galilee, , ; Reeg, Ortsnamen, –. Reeg offers another suggestion as to its identification, that it be identified with Eitarun, which is north of Avivim in present-day Lebanon. However, the ending of the name does not correspond to Aiitalu, and it is unlikely that priests, who generally made an effort to live in groups (see Kahane, “Priestly Courses”), lived so far away on the periphery of the Jewish population in Galilee. 128 J. Gittin :, c presents a halakhah cited by “R. Jacob bar Ada bar Italei in the nameofR.Eleazar.”TherewasnosagebythenameofR.JacobbarAdabutratherJacob barAhaofthefourthtalmudicgeneration.Inaddition,thewording“barAdabarItaleii” is unclear, and words are obviously missing from the text. In the notes about this text, Rabbinovicz, Sha"arei,  refers the reader to Hidushei ha-Rashba on b. Gittin b, where the reading is “R. Jacob bar Aha, Ada bar Italeii in the name of R. Eleazar.”Since R. Jacob was a member of the fourth generation and R. Eleazar of the second generation, Ada was active between the two, in the third generation. And even though Ada does not have the title rabbi, since he cited a teaching in the name of a sage who preceded him, it is likely that he was a sage. galilee 

. Hivria Hivria (or Havra) is identified with el Huwwara (m.r. .), north of Beth She"arim. It is located on the site of the biblical Idalah that was mentioned in Josh :. Oshaia Zeira of Hivria recited beraitot and had been involved in a bitter confrontation with the patriarch. He apparently was active in Hivria in the third talmudic generation.129 In the fifth talmudic generation, there is mention of Justa Havra.130

. Afaratah(?) Afaratah (or Ofaraim, Ofaraia) is generally identified with Hirbat Fureir (m.r. .), located midway between Beth She"arim and Legio, a distance of about nine kilometers from both. However, there are some scholars who identify Afaratah with Kfar Afaratah, west of Beth Netofa Valley on the road to Usha (Hirbat A-taibeh, m.r. .). Josephus mentions Afaratah in the list of fortifications which he prepared at the time that he was appointed commander of Galilee. R. Jacob of Afaratim was active circa the third talmudic generation.131

129 On R. Oshaia Zeira, see b. Hullin b; b. Hullin a: Rava, a fourth-generation Baby- lonian sage cited a beraita of R. Oshaia’s. Therefore, the latter should not be placed as late as that generation. In b. Niddah a we find, “R. Oshaia Zeira of Hivria taught,” in which he bases himself on a teaching of R. Johanan. We can deduce from this passage that R. Oshaia was active after R. Johanan, who was active in the second generation and beforethefourth-generationRava.Thus,wemayassumethatR.Oshaiawasactivein the third generation. An incident is recounted in b. Ta"anit a about a fierce confrontation between R. Oshaia and the patriarch, who reacted violently to R. Oshaia. The phenomenon of serious confrontations between different sages and the patriarch was especially notable from this generation, in the last quarter of the third century, onwards. See Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv, ; Kahana, “Settlements ,” –; Tsafrir, Map, ; Grootk- erk, Ancient Sites, –. 130 Justa Havra cited a teaching in the name of the fourth-generation R. Berakhiah, as mentioned in Genesis Rabbah,:,eds.Theodor-Albeck,andinthenotes.Genesis Rabbah :, , mentions another person who was active in Hivria, Abimi of Hivria, buthedoesnotseemtohavebeenasagebecausehisnameisnotlinkedtoanyofthe sages or their teachings. 131 For two suggestions regarding the identification of Afaratah, see Reeg, Ortsnamen, –, . Tsafrir, Map, ,  (Capharata) prefers to identify it with Hirbat Fureir. But see Grootkerk, ibid., –, who identifies it with Kfar Afaratah. The advantage of the latter suggestion is that Afaratah corresponds to the talmudic name, in contrast to the suggestion of Fureir that does not have the letter taf, which is an integral part of the name. See Elitzur, Place Names, –. Elitzur, ibid., – demonstrates that the name Afarata, which was the name of an Arab village, was changed in contemporary times to Taibeh. This change was based on a supernatural fear of the name Afaratah, which in  chapter three

. Gelil (or Glilia) The name of the settlement Gelil (or Glilia) is recorded in the “Beraita de-Tehumin” as Castra de-Gelil (of Gelil), Fortification of Galilee, and it is identified with Hirbat Jelil (m.r. .), approximately one anda half kilometers northeast of Montfort in western Upper Galilee. Rabbinic literature mentions R. Jose Gelilia, who was active in the third talmudic generation.132 Another sage who may have been active there was the darshan Over (Oved) Gelilah (of Gelil)—the word Gelilah may have referred to the settlement Gelil, rather than to the entire Galilean region.133

Arabic means bad, and therefore, the name was changed to Taibeh, which means good. In j. Shabbat :, c we find: “R. Hunia Jacob of Afaratim in the name of R. Judah ha-Nasi.” In other words, based on the traditional method in the Jerusalem Talmud of transmitting a teaching, R. Hunia, a member of the fourth to fifth generations, cited a teaching in the name of Jacob of Afaratim, who cited a teaching in the name of R. Judah ha-Nasi, who was active at the end of the mishnaic period. We may deduce from this information that R. Jacob was active in the period between the other two sages mentioned in the transmission sequence. However, the wording of the transmission sequence in the parallel Leviticus Rabbah, :, ed. Margulies, , is: “R. Hunia and R. Jacob of Partim in thenameofR.Eliasa.”Alsoseethenotesthere.Thus,R.Jacobcitedateachinginthename of R. Eliasa, who was apparently a sage of the talmudic period, whose period of activity is unknown, and not in the name of R. Judah ha-Nasi. In other words, according to this source, we can estimate that R. Jacob was active between the second to fourth generations. If we assume that R. Hunia, who was a member of the fourth to fifth generations, heard the teaching directly from R. Jacob, then the latter was active in the third to fourth generations. There is also mention of a sage by the name of R. Joseph ben ha-Hotef Efrati, who was a member of the generation after the Bar Kokhba Revolt; see Hyman, Toldot, –. The words “ben ha-Hotef” may be an appellation or title, and Efrati may be the name of his place of residence—Afaratim, Partim—which may indicate that perhaps he too lived in this settlement. 132 For the identification of Gelil, see Sussmann, “Boundaries,” ; Feliks, Shevi"it, :, , ; Tsafrir, Map, ; Grootkerk, ibid., –. Its identification now may be aided by Frankel et al., Upper Galilee, , entry , who reports that pottery shards from the Roman and Byzantine periods were found at the site under discussion, a site that covers an area of forty-five dunams. In other words, during the period when the abovementionedsageswereactive,alargesettlementhadexistedonthesite.Forthe time period of R. Jose, see Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, . 133 He is mentioned in b. Sanhedrin a and b. Hullin b. In both places, the same wordingisused:“Over(orOved)Gelilahexpounded(darash).” The former source has a parallel in Genesis Rabbah, :, eds. Theodor-Albeck, , “in the name of R. Johanan,” instead of Over Gelilah. R. Johanan was the leading sage of the second talmudic generation,andheprobablyisthesourceoftheteaching,notOver,whoisanunknownsage. Perhaps Over heard the teaching directly from R. Johanan or in his name, from which we may deduce that he was active after the second talmudic generation. The source inb. Hullin b has a continuation in which the fourth-generation R. Samuel Kapotkia (see Hyman, Toldot, ) refers to the teaching. Thus, Over (or Oved) was probably active in the third generation. galilee 

. Sulam Zor Sulam Zor was located in the region of Rosh Hanikrah. R. Jacob bar Idi, a close disciple of R. Joshua b. Levi in Lod and later of R. Johanan in Tiberias, lived in Sulam Zor. Apparently he settled in Sulam Zor only laterinhislife,anddiedthere.Hisson,R.Josebreide-R.Jacobbar Idi (= R. Jose, the son of R. Jacob), cited his father’s teachings. We can deduce from this that R. Jose attended his father’s academy. It would be reasonable to conclude that R. Jose remained in the settlement where his father had lived and taught him and where he eventually assumed his father’s place as a sage.134

Fourth Talmudic Generation, –ce

. Sarongiah Sarongiah is identified with Hirbat Serjuna, southwest of Tiberias (m.r. .) and a short distance west of Poriah. R. Abba Sarongiah was active in the fourth talmudic generation.135

. Kfar Agin(?) Kfar Agin (or Agon, Gon) is usually identified with Umm Guni near Degania (m.r. .). But it may actually have been located far from

134 On R. Jacob bar Idi, and on his being a disciple of R. Joshua b. Levi, see the sources brought in Albeck, ibid., –. R. Joshua was older than R. Johanan, and R. Jacob apparently studied originally under R. Joshua and then later under R. Johanan. This chronology is supported in j. Pe"ah :, b and in j. Shekalim :, a, which relate that in hisyouth,R.JacobwasacharitysupervisorinLodwithR.HamabarBisa.SinceR.Hama was a member of R. Judah ha-Nasi’s generation, he was almost two generations older than R. Jacob, from which we may deduce that R. Jacob was in Lod when he was younger. Furthermore,R.JacobmusthavespentaconsiderableamountoftimeinLod,becausea charity supervisor must be a well-known individual, a status which takes time to develop. He also studied under R. Joshua who was active in Lod. See Albeck, ibid., ; Schwartz, Judaea, . On his residence and death in Sulam Zor, see b. Beitzah b; b. Eruvin a; b. Baba Metzi"a b; Klein, Galilee, , and n. . On the son, R. Jose, see Genesis Rabbah, :, eds. Theodor-Albeck, . On Sulam Zor, see Reeg, Ortsnamen, –. 135 For the identification of Sarongiah, see Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv, ; Reeg, ibid., –; Tsafrir, Map, ; Grootkerk, Ancient Sites, –. R. Abba Sarongiah is mentioned in j. Sukkah :, c, after the third-generation R. Abbahu. In Genesis Rabbah, :, eds. Theodor-Albeck, , he is mentioned together with R. Judah bar Simon of the fourth generation and therefore was his contemporary.  chapter three

Degania, along the coastal plain between Akko and Caesarea. R. Tanhum of Kfar Agin (or Agon) was active in the fourth talmudic generation. He was associated with the rabbinic center in Caesarea and apparently attended the academy of R. Haninah bar Papa, an important third- generation Caesarean sage. He also studied in Lod under R. Simon, its leading sage in that generation.136 We thus have interesting testimony to ties between a rural sage and sages of the great urban rabbinic centers.

136 For the identification of Kfar Agin, see Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv, , ; Reeg, ibid.,  (with the name variants); Tsafrir, Map, ; Grootkerk, ibid., –. R. Tanhum is mentioned in j. Baba Batra :, a. According to the reading in Rosenthal-Lieberman, Yerushalmi Neziqin, , the name of his place of residence is Kfar Agon and not Gon, as suggested in the printed editions, where presumably the letter alef was dropped. According to Rosenthal-Lieberman, R. Tanhum once cited a teaching in the name of the fifth-generation R. Eleazar b. R. Jose (Albeck, ibid., ), and this R. Eleazar cited a teaching twice in the name of R. Tanhum, a citation which indicates that they were members of the same generation. In Genesis Rabbah, :, eds. Theodor-Albeck, , we find that the third-generation R. Hanina b. Papa went to comfort R. Tanhum when the latter was in mourning. This source indicates that R. Haninah and R. Tanhum were members of the same generation, the third generation. But then, how could R. Tanhum cite a teaching in the name of a fifth-generation sage, R. Eleazar b. R. Jose? This problem can be resolved only if we assume that R. Tanhum was younger than R. Haninah and was thus a member of the fourth generation. According to this chronology, R. Tanhum was active a generation earlier than R. Eleazar b. R. Jose. R. Haninah bar Papa was active in Caesarea, and according to the editors of Genesis Rabbah, , n. , the above incident occurred on the Sabbath. This information suggests that Kfar Agin was located only a kilometerortwofromCaesarea,andaccordingtoJewishlaw,R.Haninah,wholived in Caesarea, would be allowed to walk a distance of only approximately one kilometer on the Sabbath, or at most, double the distance, if an eruv tehumin existed. (An eruv tehumin is created by stringing a wire around a certain area before the Sabbath for the purpose of extending the distance that it is permitted to walk beyond the town borders on the Sabbath.) Accordingly, the location of Kfar Agin may have been in the vicinity of Caesarea and not in the vicinity of Tiberias. The above editors have already noted that the parallel text in j. Moed Katan :, c contains somewhat different details. The incident recounted there is not associated with the Sabbath, and in response to a comment made by his guest, R. Tanhum said: “This is what R. Simon, my teacher did.” This statement is further evidence that R. Tanhum was active in the fourth generation, as he was a disciple of R. Simon, the leading sage in Lod in the third generation. If R. Tanhum lived closer to Lod, it would make sense that he would have ties with Lod, and it then would have been natural for him to have studied there and not in Tiberias. Thus, if he lived not far from Caesarea, (see n. ) then he lived closer to Lod than to Tiberias. Lod and Caesarea were joined by a major Roman road, and the distance between them was fifty kilometers, nearly twice the distance between Caesarea and Tiberias. In addition, in the above mentioned passage in the Jerusalem Talmud, he is referred to only as R. Tanhum bar Hiyya, without mention of his place of residence. Since the passage in the Jerusalem Talmud and Genesis Rabbah are parallels, the two sources are referring to the same R. Tanhum bar Hiyya, about whom Genesis Rabbah, ibid., states that he lived in Kfar Agin. See also Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, –. galilee 

In the fifth talmudic generation there is mention of R. Tanhum’s son, R. Joshua, son of R. Tanhum of Kfar Agin, who was a sailor.137

. Gufta(?) Gufta (or Guvta de-Ziporin [= Guvta of Sepphoris]) was a settlement on the outskirts of Sepphoris and has been identified with the biblical Gat Hefer, presently Kfar Meshhed, located four kilometers southeast of Sepphoris (m.r. .). R. Jonathan, scribe of Gufta, may have been active in Gufta in the fourth talmudic generation. R. Isaac bar Gufta was active in the fifth generation of the talmudic period.138

. Shaab Shaab is located in western Galilee northwest of Iodefat, presently the village Alma a Shaab, which is not far from Cabul (m.r. .). R. Zakkai of Shaab was active in the fourth talmudic generation, and in the fifth generation there is mention of R. Mana of Shaab, who attended the

137 J. Shabbat :, a refers to him as R. Joshu, according to the reading in Ginzburg, Seridei Yerushalmi, , line . According to Lieberman, ha-Yerushalmi ki-Fshuto, , JoshuisashortenedformofJoshua.IntheparallelinGenesis Rabbah,:,eds.Theodor- Albeck, , his name appears as Joshua in all of the readings. They relate that he was in Asia Minor and wished to set sail on the sea (the Mediterranean Sea), apparently to travel to Palestine. The incident is cited as an example of a professional sailor on the “Great Sea” (the Mediterranean Sea). See also Sperber, Nautica Talmudica, –. There were other sages who were sailors (see Lieberman, ibid., ), even though Jewish society at that time was not a maritime society (see Sperber, ibid., ). This profession required that the sailor live near the sea, a requirement which supports the suggestion in the previous note that Kfar Agin was located in the Coastal Plain and not near the Sea of Galilee. In both sources, Joshua is referred to as rabbi, even though no teachings are cited in his name and he does not cite the teachings of other sages. Thus, there is doubt as to whether or not he actually was a sage, but since he was the son of a sage, he had a suitable background for being a sage as well. 138 For the identification of Gufta, see Klein, Galilee, , and n. , –; Reeg, Ortsnamen, –; Tsafrir, Map, – (Get Hefer); Grootkerk, ibid., –. R. Jonathan, a scribe of Gufta, possessed the title rabbi, but there is doubt as to whether ornotheactuallywasasage,sincetherearenoteachingsinhisnameandhedidnot cite teachings in the names of other sages. However, in j. Megillah :, b, he poses a halakhic question to R. Simon of the third generation, and in j. Sukkah :, a, we find that R. Huna, a sage of the fourth to fifth generations, is a guest in the sukkah of R. Johanan (= Jonathan), scribe of Gufta. Thus, perhaps R. Jonathan was merely the scribe of the settlement, and scribes generally were not sages. See Frankel, Mevo ha-Yerushalmi, a. On R. Isaac bar Gufta, see Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, .  chapter three academy of R. Joshua of Sakhnin.139 This is a rare instance of a rural sage who attended the academy of another rural sage, most likely because the two settlements were not far from each other.

. Kfar Tehumin(?) The location of this settlement is not known. The word tehumin derives from the noun tehum, which in Palestinian rabbinic literature refers to a border, with all of its various meanings. One connotation is the border between two toparchies. Thus, the name Kfar Tehumin may imply that the village was located on the border of two administrative areas. In the fourth talmudic generation, there is mention of R. Hiyya of Kfar Tehumin, who was appointed a judge by the patriarch and who was thus a person of status in the religious establishment. His close relationship with the patriarch is consistent with the identification of Kfar Tehumin’s location, which is not far from the seat of the patriarchate in Tiberias. The term tehum Teveriah (= toparchy of Tiberias), which refers to Tiberias’ administrative borders, was mentioned previously in tannaitic literature. Thus, Kfar Tehumin may have been located along this administrative border. Maps dating back to the British Mandate period show remnants of a settlement named Hirbat eth Thaum (m.r. .), which is now calledHirbatShum.ThenameThaumpreservestherootthm in the word tehumin and may thus have been the site of Kfar Tehumin. It is located on a mountaintop a short distance east of the road that presently joins Tiberias and Rosh Pinah, near Amiad, north of the Sea of Galilee. This was the northern border of the Tiberian toparchy and also the border between Upper and Lower Galilee in this area.140 R. Judan, son

139 For the identification of and sources about Shaab, see Klein, Galilee, ; Reeg, Ortsnamen, ; Tsafrir, Map, ; Grootkerk, ibid., –. R. Zakkai of Shaab is mentioned only once, in Pesikta de-Rav Kahana,:,ed.Mandelbaum,,wherehecites a teaching in the name of R. Samuel bar Nahman. As mentioned previously, R. Samuel bar Nahman was a leading second- to third-generation sage in the rabbinic center in Tiberias, and he lived outside of Tiberias. Perhaps he and R. Zakkai were teacher and disciple, a relationship which is another example of the dependency of a rural sage on the rabbinic center in Tiberias. R. Mana of Shaab is mentioned in eight teachings, all of which he cited in the name of R. Joshua of Sakhnin, a member of the fourth generation, who cited teachings in the name of R. Levi of the third generation. See Reeg, Ortsnamen,  (without the parallels). R. Mana cited another teaching in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi, Tanhuma, Bereshit , but perhaps this is a corruption and the reading should be the same as in the other teachings. 140 On R. Hiyya, see Albeck, ibid., . In j. Shabbat :, d we find: “R. Hiyya of Kfar Tehumin interpreted a halakhah before the patriarch, who ordained him as a sage” (based galilee  of R. Hama of Kfar Tehumin, apparently was active in the fifth talmudic generation, and in all likelihood studied in Caesarea. Hama (hma)and Hiyya (hyya) are probably one and the same, with the letter mem replaced by the letters yud, or perhaps there was an early corruption of the letter mem,whichwasseparatedintotwoyuds.Thus,R.Judanwouldhavebeen the son of fourth-generation R. Hiyya, who was mentioned above.141

. Kfar Neboria This village is identified with Hirbat Nabartin in Upper Galilee, about four kilometers north of Zefat (m.r. .). Jacob of Kfar Neboria, auniquefigure,wasactivethereinthefourthtalmudicgeneration.His relationship with the sages of Caesarea was complicated, and one of them accused him of apostasy. Jacob’s unusual halakhic rulings brought him into conflict with one of the most prominent sages of his generation, R. Haggai of Tiberias, who may have been his teacher.142 The conflict may have been related to the issue of rabbinic ordination, which Jacob, along with other sages of this period, opposed granting to individuals who he felt were not fit to teach or to make halakhic rulings. Indirectly, this was a conflict with the patriarch and his close associates.143

on Neusner, :). We may deduce from this statement that the patriarch knew him well. For information on the settlement, see Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv, ; Reeg, ibid., –. The term “border of Tiberias” (= tehum Tiberias) is mentioned in m. Shevi"it : and in j. Shevi"it :, c. Its mention in the British Mandate Map is cited in Grootkerk, ibid., . 141 Albeck, ibid., , lists R. Judan, son of R. Hama of Kfar Tehumin, among the sages whose time period is not known. However, in j. Ketubot :, d, R. Judan cites a halakhah in the name of Hezekiah, one of the leading fourth-generation Caesarean sages. It is therefore likely that R. Judan was a member of the fifth generation, the last generation mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud, and that he may have studied under Hezekiah in Caesarea. Establishing his time of activity supports the assumption that R. Hiyya, who wasactiveinthefourthgeneration,wasR.Judan’sfather. 142 For the identification of Kfar Neboria, see Klein, Galilee, ; Tsafrir, Map, ; Frankel et al., Upper Galilee, , No. . Frankel implies that the settlement was quite large and covered an area of twenty dunams. Jacob was a translator, as implied in j. Berakhot :, d. On the conflict with R. Haggai, see j. Shabbat :, b; j. Yevamot :, a; the parallels j. Kiddushin :, d; Genesis Rabbah, :, eds. Theodor-Albeck, –. He was accused of apostasy—Ecclesiastes Rabbah : (c): “R. Nisi of Caesarea: ‘But the sinner, i.e. Jacob of Kfar Neboria’” (Soncino, :). On this passage, its interpretation andJacob,seeIrshai,“Niburaia,”esp.nn.–. 143 J. Bikkurim :, d lists Jacob among the sages who fiercely opposed the appointment, for money, of judges who were not knowledgeable in the Law; thus they expressed their opposition to the patriarch who had the authority to appoint judges. Basing his judg- ment on his own familiarity with the city’s sages, Jacob praised an important  chapter three

. Kfar Dan According to one commonly accepted opinion, the location of this village was biblical Dan in Upper Galilee. But it also has been suggested that Kfar Dan be identified with Kfar Danna in Ramat Issachar (m.r. .), about three kilometers west of Belvoir / Kaukab el Hauah.144 Another, and more likely, suggestion is to identify it with a settlement by the same name, Kfar Dan, located in northern Samaria between Jenin and Ti"innik (the biblical Ta"anakh; m.r. .). This settlement was situated not far from Beth She"an, which was the subject of a teaching cited by R. Jose of Kfar Dan. The advantage of this suggestion is that it locates the village in an area with a sizable Jewish population.145 The customary identification of the village with biblical Dan is problematic, since there were very few Jewish settlements in that area.

Caesarean sage, stating that he was worthy of such an appointment. See Levine, “Patri- arch,” –. However, Jacob apparently had opponents in Caesarea as well, as R. Nisi of Caesarea accused him of apostasy. This accusation also may have been related to the conflict, mentioned in the previous note, with R. Haggai, who, as one of the eminent Tiberian sages, was involved in the appointing of judges. The Babylonian Talmud states twice, in b. Megillah a and in b. Ketubot a, that “R. Judah of Kfar Neboraia expounded . . ..” But the reading of Ms. Munich and others identifies R. Jacob and not R. Judah. See Rabbinovicz, Dikduke Sofrim, Megillah, ibid., n. het.AlsoseethenotesinMarmorstein, “Geniza,” ; Lieberman, “Studies,” . Jacob of Neboraia is identified in the parallel j. Berakhot :, b, as well. Thus, it is unlikely that there was a sage by the name of Judah of Neboria. See also Albeck, ibid., , and n. . 144 J. Demai :, c; Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv, , ; Avi-Yonah, Geography, . Both Klein and Avi-Yonah identify Kfar Dan with the well-known Dan. For the suggestion of Kfar Danna, see Foerster, Mashkof, Gal, Gazit, entry ; Reeg, Ortsnamen, –; Tsafrir, Map, ; Sussmann, “Boundaries,” , and n. . 145 Elitzur, Place Names, , n. . There is uncertainty about the generation of R. Jose of Kfar Dan. Prior to the teaching that R. Jose cites, the Talmud tells a story about R. Joshua b. Levi, a member of the first to second talmudic generations. The Talmud then presents R. Jose’s teaching in the name of an unknown sage, R. b. Maadia, who was probably a member of the generation that preceded R. Jose or of an even earlier generation. If we take the talmudic sequence into account, the redactor placed R. b. Maadia after R. Joshua, and thereby possibly situated the former in the second to third generations. R. Jose cited R. Maadia, which brings us to the third to fourth generations. In addition, R. Zeira responded to a teaching of R. Jose. Two sages had the name of Zeira, one of whom was active in the third to fourth talmudic generations, and the other in the fifth generation. Therefore, if the text is referring to the former R. Zeira, then R. Jose was active no later than the third to fourth generations. However, if the text is referring to the other R. Zeira, R. Jose was active no later than the fifth generation. Thus, it is most logical to place R. Jose between the third and fifth generations, i.e., in the fourth generation. galilee 

. Hutra(?) Hutra may have been a settlement in Galilee whose name perhaps was preserved in the name of the spring Ein Hatra near Meiron (m.r. .). Mention is made in the fourth talmudic generation of R. Idi of Hutra, who was one of the younger sages of that generation.146

. Ein Tora(?) Rabbinic literature mentions R. Judan Antadoria (Anatoria) who, as some scholars claim, was active in the fourth generation. Ein Tora may perhaps be identified with Tel Tora, located about five kilometers east of Yokne"am in Jezreel Valley (m.r. .). The suggestion that the reference is to Ein Te"ena, mentioned in R. Judah ha-Nasi’s generation, is less plausible, since there is no similarity between the words Tora and Te"ena.147

Fifth Talmudic Generation, –ce

. Kifra KifrawasasuburbofTiberias.Somesagesofthetalmudicperiodwereof the opinion that the beginnings of Tiberias were in Kifra, but its location is uncertain. In this generation we know of R. Hillel of Kifra.148

146 In Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv, , Hutra is listed as a questionable entry. He cites b. Eruvin a, where R. Idi holds a conversation with R. Jeremiah of the third to fourth generations, who emigrated from Babylonia to Tiberias. In contrast, in n. , he cites j. Shabbat :, a, which presents an example of two places that are situated within close proximity to each other: “For instance, from Hutra to Nehardea.” According to this statement, Hutra is a settlement in Babylonia, an opinion that Klein also held. However, in Klein, Galilee, , he posits that Hutra is a settlement in Palestine, and he even identifies its location as Ein Hatra, a spring in the vicinity of Meiron. Oppenheimer, Babylonia Judaica, –, also maintains that Hutra is the name of a place in Palestine. 147 Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv, , and Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, , prove that R. Judah ha-Nasi was active in the fourth generation. In contrast, see Reeg, Ort- snamen, –, who states that all of R. Judan’s teachings contain nearly identical wording, Antadoria/Anatoria, terms that are difficult to associate with Anatonia, which is Ein Te"ena mentioned above. Therefore, it is more likely that they are two different settlements. 148 R. Mana, the generation’s outstanding sage, taught halakhah to R. Hillel of Kifra. This lone teaching is mentioned in three parallel passages in the Jerusalem Talmud. Aside from these three instances, no other teachings are presented in his name, and he did not cite any teachings in the names of other sages. Yet, in all three parallels, he holds the  chapter three

. Kfar Imi(?) The location of this village is uncertain. Some scholars have identified it with Kfar Yama, today’s Yavne"el (m.r. .). R. Judan (or Jonah) of Kfar Imi, a pious figure, was active in the fifth talmudic generation.149

. Shunnem Shunnem is presently Sulam, located about eight kilometers south of Mt. Tabor (m.r. .). R. Justa of Shunnem was a member of this generation.150

. Kaskesaah Kaskesaah is Kuskus, near Tivon. There is mention of R. Isaac Kaskesaah, a member of the fifth talmudic generation. He perhaps may be identified with R. Isaac bar Meri or Merion.151 title rabbi, which indicates that he was a sage. See Reeg, ibid., –, who also offers suggestions for the identification of Kifra. His name, Hillel, which was a common name in the patriarchal family, and his place of residence, which was in the vicinity of Tiberias, indicate that he was possibly a member of the patriarchal family. Yet perhaps R. Hillel of Kifraistobeidentifiedwith“R.Hillelb.R.Berakhiah,”whoismentionedinLamentations Rabbah :, which probably should read that he cited a teaching in the name of the fourth-generation R. Berakhiah. In any case, this R. Hillel also, was a member of the fifth generation, as was R. Hillel of Kifra. 149 In j. Shabbat :, d, he is called R. Judan, and he performs a miracle. In j. Nedarim :, d, he is called R. Jonah. Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv, , ; Reeg, ibid., –; Safrai, “Pious-Hassidim,” –, hesitantly identify the place with Kfar Yama, contemporary Yavne"el. In j. Ta"aniyot :, b, we find that the sages asked the pious man of Kfar Imi topray,andrainfell.Thepassagesinj.Shabbat and in j. Ta"aniyot correspond with both person and place, and therefore, we may deduce that the pious man was R. Judan. The request made by the sages to R. Judan demonstrates his unique status. In addition, he is referred to as rabbi in all of the sources. Thus, we may assume that he was regarded as a sage. 150 R. Justa’s teachings appear four times in the Jerusalem Talmud, and his halakhic questions posed to the fifth-generation R. Mana appear three times; see Kasovsky, Yerushalmi—Onomasticon, –. We may deduce from this information that he was among the younger fifth-generation sages. R. Justa also cited a teaching in the nameof the fourth-generation R. Joshua of Sikhnin. See Hyman, Toldot, ; Tsafrir, Map, ; Gal, Tavor, #En Dor, No. . 151 He is mentioned in b. Berakhot a: “Rav Isaac Kaskesaah explained the reason for this ruling before R. Jose bar Abin, in the name of R. Johanan.” Rav Isaac explained the reason for a halakhah to R. Jose bar Abin (Bun) of the fourth to fifth generations, ascenariothatislikeastudentexplainingtohisteacher.Thus,R.Isaacprobablywas younger than R. Jose bar Abin. See also Rabbinovicz, Dikduke Sofrim, Berachot, ibid., galilee 

Other Possible Settlements with Rabbinic Activity (Time Frame Uncertain)

. Hipushia(?) OnesourcementionsR.IsaacHipushia.152 His time period and place of activity are not known, but he may have been from Galilee.

. Zeitur(?) There is mention of a Jose of Zeitur. The time period and place ofhis activity are not known, but he was active no later than the third talmudic generation. It is not clear whether or not he was a sage.153 n. zayin, which provides the reading in Ms. Munich—R. Isaac Sakah—a shortened form of Kaskesaah. Conceivably, Sakah could be the name of another settlement in which R. Isaac had been active, but all other manuscripts preserve the name Kaskesaah with minor variations. Thus, Kaskesaah is the name of the settlement in which R. Isaac was active. See Dimitrovsky, S"ridei Bavli, :; Zaks, Rav Alfas, :. In the parallel j. Berakhot :, b, the reading is: “R. Isaac bar Meri before R. Jose bar Abin in the name of R. Johanan.” The Kaskesaah appearing in the Babylonian Talmud is the bar Meri that appears in the Jerusalem Talmud; see Ratner, Ahavat Zion, Berakhot, –; Rabbinovicz, Sha"arei,.ButthissageisnotthesameasR.IsaacbarMerion,whowas active in the third talmudic generation. See Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud,  and n. . 152 R. Isaac Hipushia is mentioned in Genesis Rabbah, :, eds. Theodor-Albeck,  and n. . In addition, that is the reading in Ms. Vatican . The supposition that R. Isaac was from Galilee is based on the fact that he is mentioned in Genesis Rabbah,whichwas compiled in Galilee and preserved the names of several Galilean sages who were members of the generation in which the Jerusalem Talmud was redacted, as well as those of the following generation. 153 He is mentioned in Leviticus Rabbah, :, ed. Margulies, : “R. Berakhiah in the name of R. Simon said: ‘It once happened in a village that Abba Jose of Zeitur was sitting and studying at the mouth of a fountain.’” In this passage, Abba Jose is referred to as kartani (= a village), i.e., a resident of a local village. But in his notes to line , Margulies states that the reading in the parallel Midrash Tanhuma,Kedoshim,iskiryatenu (= our village), and in Yalkut Shimoni, Psalms,  it is iraynu (= our town/village: “an incident occurred in our village”). Thus, based on Leviticus Rabbah,thefountainisnot associated with the village of R. Simon, who is the source of the incident and who lived in Lod; therefore, it is difficult to determine the location of Abba Jose of Zeitur’s place of residence. In Tanhuma and Yalkut Shimoni, on the other hand, R. Simon associates the fountain where Abba Jose sat with his place of residence, and therefore, Abba Jose may have lived in Lod. The Leviticus Rabbah version of the incident is the preferable one, as it is an earlier source and is more reliable than the other sources, and therefore, we cannot associate Abba Jose with the area of Lod. The Leviticus Rabbah version states that Abba Jose sat and studied alongside a fountain, apparently in Kfar Zeitur. This is a typical description of a local scholar who sits and studies alongside a spring; see, for example,  chapter three

. Galia(?) One halakhic and two aggadic teachings are attributed to Menahem of Galia. He is cited by R. Johanan of Tiberias, and therefore, obviously preceded R. Johanan. In the talmudic period there is mention of R. Judan of Galia.154 It is not clear whether Galia was in Galilee, or whether it refers to the Roman province of Galia Narbonasis.155

Summary of the Data

According to the data presented in the previous section, sages were active in a total of sixty-eight settlements during the mishnaic and talmudic periods. The two main rabbinic centers, Sepphoris and Tiberias, were urban centers, and each was the scene of a lengthy period of uninterrupted rabbinic activity. Sepphoris was a rabbinic center throughout the entire mishnaic and talmudic periods, and Tiberias, only during the talmudic period. The other sixty-six settlements, including those about which we are uncertain, were rural rabbinic centers, with the exception of Akko, which was a large city. We do not know of rabbinic activity that endured in any of these sixty-six places; most saw rabbinic activity for no longer than one generation, a small number for two generations, while

Büchler, “Open Air.” R. Berakhiah cited this teaching in the name of R. Simon, who was active in the third talmudic generation. Thus, this incident proceeded R. Berakhiah’s time of activity. In any event, it is difficult to determine whether or not this Abba Jose wasa sage or just a respected literate local. The title “Abba” is also not evidence that he was a sage, since it was an accepted title of respect and not the title of a sage; see Lerner, “Abba.” In Midrash on Psalms, :, the person is referred to as Abba Jose b. Dosai, and a sage by this name was known to have been active in the generation after the Bar Kokhba Revolt. 154 Menahem of Galia is mentioned in t. Eruvin :, ed. Lieberman, ; Lieberman, Tosefta ki-Fshutah, Moed, :, lines –. Lieberman states that he is referred to as R. Menahem in the Tosefta but that he is called simply Menahem, without the title rabbi, in the Talmud and in the aggadic midrashim. In the parallel b. Ketubot a, he is called Nahum Ish (= of) Galia. In j. Berakhot :, b, and in the parallel in Genesis Rabbah, :, eds. Theodor-Albeck, , he is called Menahem de-Galia. In both these sources he is cited by R. Johanan, from which we may deduce that Menahem preceded him. The reference to Menahem of Galia in the Tosefta indicates that he was active in mishnaic times. It should be noted that the form “Ish Galia” (lit. man of Galia) is replaced in the amoraic sources by the Aramaic word “de-Galia” (= of Galia). This change is typical of changes between the mishnaic and talmudic periods. R. Judan is mentioned in an aggadic teaching in Leviticus Rabbah, :, ed. Margulies, . 155 Bacher, Tana"im,:,andn.;Leviticus Rabbah, :, ed. Margulies, –, and the editor’s note to line ; Reeg, Ortsnamen, . galilee  three generations of rabbinic activity was the exception. In general, a settlement received mention in rabbinic literature because of a sage who was active there. If the sage left or died and no other sage was active in that settlement, rabbinic literature made no further mention of it. Almost half of the settlements (thirty-three, of which seven are settlements about which we are uncertain) were the scene of activity of only a single sage throughout the entire mishnaic and talmudic periods. The distribution of the total number of sages in different rural settlements, and in Akko, during the mishnaic and talmudic periods was as follows: Number of settlements with  sage:  (including  whose names and/or locations are uncertain) Number of settlements with  sages:  (including  whose names and/or locations are uncertain) Number of settlements with  sages:  Number of settlements with  sages:  (including  whose location is uncertain) Number of settlements with  sages:  (including  sage whose identity is uncertain) Number of settlements with  sages:  (including  sage whose identity is uncertain)156 However, in spite of the sporadic nature of rabbinic activity in rural settlements,thenumbersaretestimonytoitsconsiderablescale,andit had a major impact on the status and influence of Galilean sages. During the five generations of the mishnaic period, thirty-two sages (and another five whose identities are uncertain) were active in twenty-five settlements (and in three about which we are uncertain). At the same time, six sages were active in Sepphoris, and perhaps three in Tiberias. During the five generations of the talmudic period, we are witness to a significant expansion of rabbinic activity. Sixty-seven sages known by name (and twelve whose identities are uncertain) were active in forty-five

156 The settlements with one sage: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , a total of thirty-two settlements, including seven locations which are uncertain. The settlements with two sages: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , —a total of  settlements, of which seven are settlements whose locations are uncertain. The settlements with three sages: , , , —a total of four settlements. The settlements with four sages: , , , —four settlements; settlements with five sages: ; with seven sages: —one settlement.  chapter three settlements (and in seven whose locations are uncertain). These figures include twenty-five sages (and two whose identities are uncertain) who were active in fourteen settlements (and in two settlements about which we are uncertain) that saw rabbinic activity at some point during the mishnaic period, and later these settlements again saw a resurgence of rabbinic activity during the talmudic period. In addition, a further forty- two sages (and ten whose identities are uncertain) were active in thirty- one settlements (and in five settlements about which we are uncertain) that saw rabbinic activity during the talmudic period only. At the same time, we know of sixteen sages (and two whose identities are uncertain) in Sepphoris during the talmudic period, and an almost equal number, fifteen sages (and three whose identities are uncertain), in Tiberias. Thus, the talmudic period was witness to a considerable increase in the scope of rabbinic activity, which spread to many settlements in which no sages had previously been active.

Rabbinic Activity in the Mishnaic and Talmudic Periods: Urban and Rural Settlements Numberof Sagesin Sagesin Number of sages rural settlements Sepphoris Tiberias Mishnaic    ? period (+  uncertain) (+ uncertain) Talmudic     period (+ uncertain) (+ uncertain) (+  uncertain) (+ uncertain)

Rabbinic Activity in the Talmudic Period: Rural Settlements Number of Number of sages rural settlements Settlements with rabbinic activity in both   the mishnaic and talmudic periods (+  uncertain) (+  uncertain) Settlements with rabbinic activity   in the talmudic period only (+  uncertain) (+ uncertain)

The gradual increase in the number of sages who were active during the mishnaic period and the sharp increase in the number of sages active during the talmudic period, coupled with the sages’ broad dispersal across different areas of Galilee, led to widespread contact with the local Jewishpopulationanditheightenedtheimpactandinfluenceofthe rabbinic class on Jewish society in the region.157 The sages in the rural

157 Levine, Rabbinic Class, –. galilee  settlements became part of local Jewish society on the periphery, which enabled them to consolidate their status as they transmitted their socio- religious messages to Jewish settlements of Galilee. Most of the rural sages received infrequent mention in rabbinic literature. An analysis of the number of teachings recorded for each of the rural sages reveals that, with two or three exceptions, only one to ten teachings of each rural sage were recorded, as compared to dozens and even hundreds of teachings of the prominent sages in the large urban rabbinic centers. The number of recorded teachings is not an accurate reflection of the status of the rural sages, since rabbinic literature was compiled in the urban centers, in Tiberias in particular, and the sages in these centers established the criteria for determining the teachings and the names of sages that were recorded. In other words, there may have been teachings of rural sages that were not mentioned in rabbinic literature or sages who lived in rural areas whose places of residence were not noted. Thus, the information about the sages obtained from rabbinic literature, and especially the information about the rural sages, is incomplete at best.

Discussion and Conclusions

Scope and Significance of Rabbinic Activity According to Time Period and Generation We can increase our understanding of the data concerning the distribution of rabbinic activity in the different settlements in Galilee by exam- ining them in terms of the relative status of Galilee as a place of rabbinic activity and the status of its sages in the rabbinic world. The data have beendividedintotwoperiods.Thefirst,andshorter,istheYavnehperiod, during which the seat of rabbinic leadership was in Judea where most of the known sages were active. During this period, Galilee was secondary to Judea in terms of rabbinic activity. The second period dates from the generation after the Bar Kokhba Revolt and continues into the mishnaic and talmudic periods, when Galilee became an important center of Jew- ish population and of rabbinic activity. During this period, rabbinic leadership moved to Galilee, and the sages’ main activities and cultural works developed there. Information exists about three generations of Galilean sages during the Yavneh period. The information about the first two is scant indeed. In the first generation, we know of two sages in non-urban Galilean  chapter three settlements, Tivon and Arav (nos.  and  in the list of settlements above), and essentially they are the only known sages in Galilee in this generation. In the second generation, rabbinic literature mentions three or four sages, two in the rabbinic center in Sepphoris and one or two in the rural areas. Based on rabbinic sources, the Torah center in Sepphoris appears to have been the more important center, due to the presence of R. Halafta, who was held in great esteem by Judean sages as158 well. It is unclear which academies the above Galilean sages, with the exception of R. Hanina b. Dosa, attended. R. Hanina b. Dosa attended the academy presided over by Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai before the destruction of the Second Temple, perhaps in R. Hanina’s town, Arav, or in Jerusalem.159 R.Halafta,too,mayhavestudiedinJerusalem160 or under Galilean sages unknowntous.Wecaninferfromthepaucity ofinformationonGalilean sages in the first two generations of the Yavneh period that sages did not operate as an elitist group that was concentrated in the large urban centers, but they also lived in the villages as ordinary members of Jewish society, the majority of which lived in the rural settlements. In the third generation of the Yavneh period, there is a sharp increase in available information, and of the eight or nine sages about whom we have information, only one resided in Sepphoris. The rest were dispersed among the various rural settlements in Galilee. Some of these settlements, such as Arav and Zidan (Bethsaida), which at the time were administrative centers in their regions, are known to us.161 This dispersion of sages among the different settlements reflects a considerable

158 Bacher, Tana"im, :, ; :, , ; Oppenheimer, Galilee, , , . The sources imply that his activities continued on into the third generation. 159 From j. Berakhot :, c, we may deduce that R. Hanina lived in Arav. J. Shabbat :, d cites a tradition that his teacher, Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai, lived in Arav in Galilee, and according to the talmudic sage Ulla, he remained there for eighteen years. While scholars are skeptical about Ulla’s testimony (see Oppenheimer, Galilee, ), this skepticism does not detract from the tradition that Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai lived in Arav. Perhaps R. Hanina b. Dosa, who was a local resident, studied there under him. According to b. Berakhot b, R. Hanina studied under Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai, but it does not state where. 160 T. Shabbat :, ed. Lieberman,  states that when Rabban Gamliel of Yavneh visited Tiberias, R. Halafta came to him and, in the course of their conversation, told him that he had witnessed a deed performed by his grandfather, Rabban Gamliel, in Jerusalem. The grandfather died between  and ce, and it is conceivable that R. Halafta studied under him in Jerusalem. 161 On Arav, see Safrai and Safrai, “Beth Anath,”–; Safrai, Temple, –; Safrai, Boundaries, –,  (Arav), – (Bethsaida, Zidan). galilee  increase in rabbinic activity and hence an increase in the sages’ impact on Jewish society in Galilee in this generation. The increase in rabbinic activity appears to be due to the stronger ties that were formed with Judean sages in the second generation, mainly under the leadership of Rabban Gamliel of Yavneh. He strove to strengthen the ties with the Jewish population in Galilee, inter alia by visiting Galilee together with other prominent Judean sages. As a result, many disciples from Galilee attended academies in Judea, after which they returned home and became local Galilean sages. This was the case with R. Johanan b. Nuri; he attended the academy and was a close associate of Rabban Gamliel. Later he returned to Galilee where he was active in Beth She"arim and in Ginneigar. The same was true of R. Ilai, who returned to Usha after being a close disciple of R. Eleazar b. Hyrkanus in Lod and of Rabban Gamliel, whom he accompanied on the journey to Galilee.162 These sages, who were active in different rural settlements in Galilee in this generation, were considered sages of great prominence. By contrast, Sepphoris,whichwasthemainJewishcityinGalilee,wasthesceneof activity of only one sage of stature, R. Halafta. In the three generations of the Yavneh period, nearly a dozen sages were active in the villages of Galilee, compared to three sages in Sepphoris. In other words, the information garnered from rabbinic literature implies that rural rabbinic centers were no less important than the center in Sepphoris, despite the fact that Sepphoris was the main Jewish city in Galilee and an important rabbinic center. Furthermore, because the sages resided in the villages of Galilee, they exerted an influence on the local rural Jewish society as early as the generation preceding the Bar Kokhba Revolt, before rabbinic leadership relocated to Galilee, even though they were not as influential as the sages in the main Judean rabbinic centers. It is noteworthy that the Yavneh period produced sages only from Lower Galilee, Jezreel Valley and the Beth She"an area, with no known sages from Upper Galilee. After the Bar Kokhba Revolt, rabbinic leadership relocated to Galilee, and that region became the scene of activity of all of the known sages of the Usha generation. These sages were active in different settlements. They strove to broaden the scope of their influence in Galilee and attain the level of influence they had enjoyed in Judea prior to the Bar Kokhba Revolt. The main rabbinic center in this generation was not located in one of the large cities of Jewish Galilee, Sepphoris or Tiberias, but rather in

162 Urbach, “mi-Yehudah la-Galilee.” Oppenheimer, Galilee, –, and n. .  chapter three the town of Usha, where R. Judah b. Ilai, one of the generation’s leading sages,wasactive.HewasfollowedbyR.Simeonb.Gamliel,whorelo- cated to Usha. There were other important centers of rabbinic activity in rural settlements, and most of the extant rabbinic teachings of this generation emerged from these settlements. R. Nehemiah was active in Shihin,locatednorthofSepphoris.R.MeirwasactiveinHamat,near Tiberias, and R. Simeon bar Yohai was active in Tekoa in Upper Galilee. Oneprominentsage,R.Joseb.Halafta,wasactiveinSepphoris,and R. Hananiah b. Akaviah may have been active in Tiberias. In this generation, rural centers reached the height of their prominence during the mishnaic and talmudic periods, even overshadowing the urban centers, with the main rabbinic center located in rural Usha. From the sociological perspective of the relationship between center and periphery, centers of rabbinic activity were concentrated mainly in the villages, with the most important center located in Usha. By contrast, the main Jewish city of Sepphoris was not the main center of rabbinic activity. The important city of Tiberias, as well, did not serve as a center of rabbinic activity in this generation. The shift in the location of rabbinic centers occurred only inthe following generation, during the era of R. Judah ha-Nasi, who resided initially in the rural settlement of Beth She"arim, which consequently became the most important rabbinic center. He later relocated to Sep- phoris, and as a result, Sepphoris emerged as the center of Jewish leadership in Palestine. Due to R. Judah ha-Nasi’s special status as patriarch and sage, most of the sages and disciples flocked to Sepphoris, and because of his centralized leadership, other Galilean centers were subordinate to and overshadowed by him. Sepphoris’ status in the rabbinic world also led to a new phenomenon—the main rabbinic centers were now located in the cities. From this point onward, the status of rural centers was secondary to that of urban centers, and their importance gradually declined. Nonetheless, we know of approximately ten rural sages in R. Judah ha- Nasi’s day, a number which is a quantitative increase over the number of sages in the previous generation. However, very few of the teachings of these rural sages are extant, since their importance decreased in the eyes of the rabbinic world relative to the main rabbinic center that had developed in Sepphoris as a result of R. Judah ha-Nasi’s presence there. The rabbinic center in Sepphoris was also more influential in this generation than Usha had been in the previous generation. Yet, despite the greater importance of the center, the dispersion of sages throughout most oftheregionsofGalileereflectsabroadscaleofruralrabbinicactiv- galilee  ity that enabled rural sages to exert great influence on Jewish society in Galilee in R. Judah ha-Nasi’s generation (–ce). R. Judah ha-Nasi’s generation witnessed an increase in the scope of rabbinic activity also in the Hellenistic areas along the Galilean seacoast. Already at the end of the Yavneh period, R. Judah b. Agra (or Gamda) was active in Kfar Akko (no. ), near the city of Akko. Two generations later, duringR.Judahha-Nasi’stime,R.Simeonb.JudahofKfarAkkowas active there. R. Mana lived in Akko proper (no. ). There also may have been a sage in Haifa (no. )—Jose of Haifa, a close associate of R. Judah ha-Nasi. In any event, there was a definite rabbinic presence in Haifa in the following generation, the first generation of the talmudic period. The emerging of centers of rabbinic activity along the Hellenistic seacoast on the outskirts of the Jewish population is an interesting phenomenon and was the product of two simultaneous developments. The first was the urbanization process, which prompted sages from other areas who had studied in Galilee to relocate to the settlements along the seacoast that were not geographically distant from the centers of Jewish population (see the Introduction and Chapter ). The second involved disciples from the Hellenistic coastal areas with a Jewish population in the generation after the Bar Kokhba Revolt; they attended the academies of Galilean sages and returned to their own settlements on the coastal plain, such as Akko and Haifa, where they served as sages in R. Judah ha-Nasi’s generation. Thus, for example, R. Mana of Akko had been a disciple of R. Judah bar Ilai in Usha, which was not far from Akko, and R. Simeon of Kfar Akko had been a disciple of R. Simeon bar Yohai, apparently in Tekoa in Upper Galilee. These are instances of disciples who had studied under rural sages in settlements, which, in their generation, were important centers of Jewish learning due to the presence of the sages who resided there. This situation changed when R. Judah ha-Nasi lived in the city of Sepphoris, the main rabbinic center of that time, and most of the disciples came to study in the urban centers rather than in rural rabbinic centers. The change is reflected, for example, in the close ties that formed between Jose of Haifa and R. Judah ha-Nasi. In this case, the disciple from the village came to study in the urban rabbinic center. It also is likely that ties existed between the Jewish population of Haifa, which was the Hellenistic area in which Jose of Haifa resided, and the Jews of Sepphoris, which was not far from Haifa. Ties such as these promoted the advent of sages to the coastal cities to set up centers of rabbinic activity there. The first talmudic generation (–ce) saw a decentralization of the rabbinic class. There was no one of R. Judah ha-Nasi’s stature to  chapter three succeed him, and the importance of the rabbinic center in Sepphoris declined to some extent. Some of R. Judah ha-Nasi’soutstanding disciples left Sepphoris for other rabbinic centers, and some left for settlements in which they established new rabbinic centers. While the academy in Sepphoris headed by R. Hanina bar Hama was still the most important rabbinic center in this generation, Lod too had an important, long- standing rabbinic center. R. Joshua b. Levi returned to the rabbinic center in Lod after studying in Galilee under R. Judah ha-Nasi and became the most prominent sage of that generation. Similarly, R. Hoshaiah, a disciple of R. Judah ha-Nasi, established a new rabbinic center in Caesarea, the provincial capital, which became one of the leading rabbinic centers of the entire talmudic period. Later in the first talmudic generation, R. Johanan, a young disciple of R. Judah ha-Nasi and R. Hoshaiah, established the academy in Tiberias, which developed into the most important center of Jewish learning in that generation. All of this rabbinic activity increased the status of the urban rabbinic centers. Thus, in spite of the decentralization that occurred, the rabbinic class was not weakened, and rabbinic activity actually increased, primarily in the cities, which had now become the dominant Torah centers. By contrast, the rural centers— even the most important ones—no longer exerted a major influence. Nonetheless, important rural centers still existed: Akhbara in Upper Galilee, near Zefat or near Sepphoris, was the seat of activity of R. Jannai, adiscipleofR.Judahha-Nasi,whoheadedagroupofdisciplesofhis own, and Usha was the seat of activity of the eminent R. Joshiah of Usha, whoalsoattractedagroupofdisciples.163 By comparison, little remains of the teachings of other rural sages of this generation. The number of rural sages, too, dwindled to less than half their number in the previous generation, in spite of the decentralization that occurred. This decline in the number of rural sages may have been due to the strengthening of the urban rabbinic centers, resulting from the growth of the center in Caesarea and, later in this generation, the development of the center in Tiberias. The rural centers might also have been adversely affected by the upheavals that shook the Roman Empire (–ce), which left their mark on the Jewish population of Palestine

163 See above, no.  in the list of settlements and n. . On the change in the focus of rabbinic activity from the village to the city beginning in the time of R. Judah ha-Nasi, see Oppenheimer, “Batei Midrash”; idem, Rabbi Judah, –; Cohen, “The Place,” –, –; idem, “The Rabbi,” –, –, –. galilee  and caused a deterioration in its economic condition.164 Perhaps it was a combination of the two reasons—the stronger urban rabbinic centers and the detrimental impact of the upheavals on the villages—which led to a decline in rural rabbinic activity in this generation. In the second talmudic generation (–ce), Tiberias became the largest and most important rabbinic center in Palestine with the advent of R. Johanan, followed by the relocation of the patriarchate to Tiberias. R. Johanan’s unique personality brought him and his academy great acclaim, and during his time period more sages and more disciples were produced than in any other generation of the talmudic period.165 His academy overshadowed the academies in other large rabbinic centers in the country, including those of Sepphoris, and it eclipsed the Galilean sages in rural areas. Nevertheless, eight to ten rural sages are mentioned in this generation, an estimate that is an increase over the number of sages in the previous generation. These rural sages included important figuressuchasR.AbedimiofHaifa(no.),agroupofsagesreferredto collectively as “the House of R. Jannai” (de-bai R. Jannai) (no. ) and R. Shila of Kfar Tamarta (no. ), who was known as an expounder of halakhah and aggadah. Our discussion is enhanced by a single source, which the Babylonian Talmud attributes to this generation, that enables us to learn something about the relationship between sages in the urban rabbinic centers and their colleagues in rural centers. The Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah a states: “For when R. Johanan happened to be in Farod, he enquired if there was [anyone there who knew] the teachings of bar Kappara; and R. Tanhum of Farod quoted to him [the following]: Wine which had been deposited with an idolater is permissible for drinking. R. Johanan applied [to bar Kappara] the verse, ‘In the place where the tree falleth, there it shall be’ (Ecclesiastes :). [He commented:] How can it be assumed that there it shall be? But it means that there shall its fruit be.”(According to the interpretation of R. Johanan, this means that the teachings of that scholar endure). R. Johanan was not acquainted with R. Tanhum of Farod, a rural sage who resided in a rural village in Upper Galilee (no. ), far from the main rabbinic centers. However, the very fact that R. Johanan even inquired whether anyone in the village was familiar with

164 For information on the period and on the decentralization of the rabbinic class, see above, Sepphoris, no.  in the list of settlements, and n. . 165 See above, Tiberias, no.  in the list of settlements, and n. . See also Kimmelman, Rabbi Yohanan, –, – and esp. a.  chapter three the teachings of bar Kappara implies that he expected to find a sage who wasfamiliarwithoraltraditionssuchastheteachingsofbarKappara even in this outlying area. Thus, the passage implies that the fruit of a sage, his teachings and disciples, reach everywhere, even remote areas.166 The source thus reveals that R. Johanan, the most important sage of that generation, had expectations of finding knowledge of the Oral Law even in villages that were distantly located from his Torah center in Tiberias. But R. Johanan was not acquainted with the rural sage who lived in a village that was a day’s journey from Tiberias. He learned of his existence only upon his arrival in the local sage’s village, apparently for the purpose of strengthening ties between the rabbinic centers and expanding the influence of the urban center over this area. This indicates that strong ties were not always the norm between rural sages and the large rabbinic centers, due to the geographical distance between them. Yet, the rural sage had attended the academy of an important sage of the previous generation, as was the accepted practice throughout that entire period. Rural sages were influenced by their teachers’ methods and ideas, whichtheyinturnpassedon,resultinginadependencyofruralsages on their urban colleagues. This one source in the Babylonian Talmud also indirectly reveals one of the reasons why the words and teachings of rural sages were not recorded and their importance sometimes was downgraded. Large rabbinic centers simply were not always aware of the existenceofsomeoftheruralsages. The total number of sages grew dramatically throughout the country in the third talmudic generation (–ce), and most of the sages livedinGalilee.Thesourceofthisremarkablegrowthwastheacademy presided over by R. Johanan who attracted many disciples who became sages in their own right in this generation. Tiberias continued to be the main rabbinic center, and Sepphoris was an important center as well. The importance of the rabbinic center in Lod also increased during this period, and its most eminent sage, R. Simon, tried to compete, albeit

166 The idea appears anonymously also in Ecclesiastes Rabbah with regard to the same verse. Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, , is of the opinion that bar Kappara lived in Farod, apparently because he interpreted the meaning of R. Johanan’s words “in the place where the tree falleth” as referring to bar Kappara who lived in Farod and attracted manydisciples.ButitismorelikelythatR.Johananwasreferringtotheteachingsof bar Kappara, teachings that bore fruit wherever bar Kappara taught. It is also likely that R. Tanhum studied under Bar Kappara elsewhere, such as in Sepphoris, another place wherehehadlived.AlbecknotesthatbarKapparalivedindifferentplaces,includingthe South, Caesarea and Sepphoris. For more on the issue of his place of residence, see the chapter on Golan, settlement no. . galilee  unsuccessfully, with Tiberias, demanding that Lod, and not Tiberias, be the main center for appointing rabbis and judges.167 Caesarea’s rabbinic center also grew, primarily as a result of the unique status of R. Abbahu, its foremost sage, who established ties with the Roman authorities in Caesarea.168 The number of known rural sages in Galilee reached its height in the third talmudic generation, as did the total number of known sages throughout the country at this time. Twenty-two or twenty-three sages were active in nine or ten rabbinic centers. Some of the sages in rabbinic centers located on the periphery were great halakhists. Such, for example, was R. Abedimi of Haifa, who began his rabbinic activity at the end of the previous generation and became an important sage of the present generation. He formed ties with the sages of Tiberias, Caesarea and Lod, and the Caesarean sages even cited his teachings and referred halakhic questions to him. Almost twenty teachings of his are extant.169 Mention is made of R. Abba bar Memel of Mamla (no. ), who maintained close ties with the Tiberian sages. We can deduce from his discussions and disputes with them that he had studied in Tiberias, spent time there even as a sage and was held in great esteem by them. The sages of Lod and Caesarea, as well, cited teachings in his name. About one hundred and fifty of his teachings, mostly on matters of halakhah, were recorded, presumably because of the high regard in which he was held. This is an extraordinary number of recorded teachings for a rural sage in the talmudic period. It is also a reflection of the fact that this rural sage had studied in urban rabbinic centers and had maintained close ties with its sages. We also find mention of rural sages who held the position of reciter of beraitot in the study halls. Thus, there is mention of Osha"ya Zeira of Hivria (no. ) and Abba Benjamin of Arbel (no. ), who may have held this position in one of the study halls in Tiberias. This notation serves as an example of the close ties that were maintained between large rabbinic centers and the periphery. The fact that these rural sages were responsible for reciting beraitot implies that they were rural sages of high

167 J. Horayot :, c; Schwartz, Judaea, –. The status of R. Simon’s family also grew because of its marital ties to the patriarchal house. See Rosenfeld, “The Crisis,”– . 168 Levine, Caesarea,index,s.v.R.Abbahu;idem, “Rabbi Abbahu.” 169 See above, no.  in the list of settlements, and n. .  chapter three standing, thus perhaps necessitating a reinspection of the conclusion that rabbinic centers on the periphery had declined in importance. Biria (Birai or Baram—no. ) in Upper Galilee was another important rural rabbinic center. In the third talmudic generation it was the scene of activity of three sages. One of them, R. Dosetai of Biri, was an expounder of halakhah and aggadah. Even though there is little information about these sages, their combined activity is testimony to a vibrant religious center, which must have been highly regarded in that area and which existed for at least another one, if not two, generations. The volume of quantitative testimony in this generation indicates extensive rural rabbinicactivity,whichmadeitpossibleforsagestoexertconsiderableinflu- ence on the primarily rural Jewish population of Galilee. Yet, most of the rural sages were not adequately represented in rabbinic literature, which was compiled in the large rabbinic centers, primarily Tiberias. Appar- ently, in order for a rural sage to be noticed and to make an impression on urban sages, he either had to live in proximity of a city or be so highly gifted that sages in the great rabbinic centers were compelled to take notice of him and his teachings. That R. Abba bar Memel apparently met both criteria explains why he left such an exceptional imprint on talmudic literature. A similar impression was left by R. Abedimi of Haifa. Although he did not live near an urban rabbinic center, he was apparently highly gifted. In the fourth talmudic generation (–ce), the dominant rabbinic center was located in Tiberias, and it was headed for most of that period by R. Jonah and R. Jose, the generation’s outstanding sages. There were many rural sages in this generation as well; we know of fifteen sages who were clearly members of the fourth talmudic generation and four others who may have been members of this generation. R. Haggai was the most eminent Tiberian sage at the beginning of this period. He opposed the halakhic rulings of a rural sage, Jacob of Kfar Neboria in Upper Galilee, north of Zefat (no. ), who may have been his disciple. R. Hag- gai even wished to have him flogged. Thus, the most notable sage of the main urban rabbinic center regarded himself as the authority in matters of Jewish law, and he expected to overrule the rural sage, even though the rural sage lived far from Tiberias. The Tiberian sage presumably had the support of the patriarch, who resided in Tiberias. Jacob of Kfar Neboria maintained ties with the Caesarean sages; he fought against the establishment and severely criticized the judges appointed by the patriarch. R. Haggai’s behavior towards Jacob may also have been due to the latter’s antiestablishment attitude. galilee 

Close ties existed between the Tiberian sages and another rural sage, R. Hananiah Anatonia of Ein Te"ena (no. ), a settlement situated between Zefat and Sepphoris. R. Jonah and R. Jose attended R. Hana- niah’s wedding, which apparently was held in Ein Te"ena. Rabbinic literature mentions R. Hananiah’s association with other Tiberian sages who preceded him by about half a generation. Thus, we find that R. Jose reminded R. Hananiah Anatonia that he had cited a teaching together with R. Jeremiah. R. Hanina also accompanied R. Zeira to the hot springs at Hammat Gader.170 R. Zeira and R. Jeremiah were active in Tiberias during the third to fourth generations of the talmudic period. It can be inferred from R. Hananiah’s ties with them, and with R. Jonah and R. Jose who came after them, that R. Hananiah had studied in Tiberias and had remained in close contact with its sages over a long period of time. His extended contact with the Tiberian sages left its impression on the main rabbinic center and accorded him greater status among Galilean sages. He enjoyed the halakhic support of the establishment and of the sages of the main rabbinic center in Tiberias. Ties also existed between the Tiberian sages and another rural sage, R. Isaac of Attushiya, near Yavneel (no. ). The information about R. Joshua of Sakhnin (no. ) is unique. He was a master of aggadah and is mentioned six times in the Jerusalem Talmud, once in the Babylonian Talmud and about one hundred and twenty times in the aggadic midrashim. However, R. Joshua cited all but five of his many teachings in the name of R. Levi, his main rabbi in Tiberias. These citations reflect an almost total dependence of a rural sage on his important Tiberian teacher. And yet, relative to rural sages of the talmudic period, R. Joshua’s uniqueness lies in the fact that a very large

170 The sources for these three occurrences, according to the order in which they are presentedare:R.Hanina’swedding,j.Berakhot :, c; with R. Jeremiah, j. Avodah Zarah :, b; in Hamat Gader, j. Terumot :, b. In addition, according to j. Pe"ah :, b, “R. Hanania Anatonia taught before R. Mana.” While not completely inconceivable, it is unlikely that the source is referring to the fifth-generation R. Mana. Such an assumption would imply that R. Hanania was active for one and a half generations, since he was active with R. Zeira and with his friend-disciple R. Jeremiah, both of whom belonged to the third to fourth generations, and with sages who followed them, until the fifth-generation R. Mana. Perhaps the R. Mana mentioned here refers to a different sage with the same name who was a member of the third generation and was active in Tiberias. In any event, R. Hanania may have held the position of tanna (someone who memorizes and recites tannaitic traditions) in R. Mana’s academy, and that is what is meant by he taught before R. Mana.  chapter three number of his teachings are extant. However, R. Joshua seems to have been recording the teachings of his urban rabbi rather than introduc- ing new halakhic teachings of his own, a practice which is unusual. That he was an aggadist and mostly preserved the teachings of others may explain why he received little mention in the Jerusalem Talmud and why he is not mentioned with the Tiberian sages of his generation, who regarded him as a sage of lesser importance even though he had studied there. A comparison of R. Joshua of Sakhnin and R. Abba bar Memel of the previous generation bears out this conclusion. More than a hundred of each of their teachings are extant and both sages had studied in Tiberias. However, R. Abba is mentioned many times in the Jerusalem Talmud, and his own halakhic teachings are recorded. He also maintained close contact with the Tiberian sages even after he became a sage in his own right. In other words, the Tiberian sages regarded R. Abba as an important halakhist and aggadist in his generation, whereas R. Joshua of Sakhnin never achieved such recognition. Thus, the only imprint left by R. Joshua of Sakhnin was his preservation of aggadic traditions. He is hardly mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud and never in association with theTiberiansages.ThecaseofR.JoshuaofSakhninistypicalofmostof the rural sages—that is, most of their teachings recorded in rabbinic literature were aggadic in nature. Since aggadah was perceived to be of lesser importance in rabbinic talmudic circles and since the extant teachings of the rural sages were mostly aggadic, a considerable decline is apparent in the level of learning and scholarly status of rural sages on the Galilean periphery. R. Judan Migdalah, another rural sage who lived near Tiberias, cited his teacher, who was a Lod sage. He informed another sage who came to visithim,“ThisishowR.Simon,mymaster,wouldsayablessingwhen rain came” (Neusner, Ta"anit, :),171 a statement which indicates that R. Simon, the most important third-generation Lod sage, was his rabbi. This is an interesting instance of a Galilean sage who lived near Tiberias but who studied in Lod rather than in Tiberias, the important center of learning in his day. R. Judan might not have been born in Migdalah, but as an adult he may have relocated there from elsewhere. R. Tanhum of Kfar Agin, a settlement located south of Tiberias or in the vicinity of

171 J. Ta"aniyot :, b. For the parallel texts, see Genesis Rabbah, :, eds. Theodor- Albeck, . Another sage, who was a disciple of R. Simon, expressed himself slightly differently: “This is what R. Simon, my teacher did.” See above, n. . galilee 

Caesarea, attended the academy of R. Simon in Lod and apparently the academy of R. Hanina bar Papa in Caesarea, as well. We are thus witness to a phenomenon of rural sages who traveled not only to the nearby urban rabbinic center but also to the more distantly located great Torah centers.172 Hence, the main rabbinic center in Tiberias was not the only place of learning that attracted sages from the periphery; rural sages were able to seek other places in which to study. There are only two extant teachings of another rural sage, R. Hiyya of Kfar Tehumin (no. ). He was a sage of stature, since the patriarch appointed him to be a judge, even though he apparently lived in a village along the border of Upper Galilee, far from the urban centers. A change occurred in the fifth talmudic generation (–ce), and Sepphoris became the main Torah center. R. Mana was the leading sage of this generation, and he left his imprint mainly on the Jerusalem Talmud. He was active in Sepphoris, together with R. Abin (Abun) and R. Hananiah of Sepphoris. The Tiberian sages were less prominent in this generation, while the number of rural sages remained similar to that of the previous generation. We know of eleven rural sages who were clearly members of this generation and another three to five who may have belonged to this generation. However, only one or two teachings of each sage are extant, and therefore little information about them is available. Their ties were primarily with the sages in the urban centers, such as R. Mana of Sepphoris.173 R. Eleazar bar Marom (Meiron), for example, posed questions in halakhah to R. Jonah of Tiberias, the father of R. Mana.174 R. Isaac Kaskesaah is reported to have explained verses oftheBibletoR.JosebarAbin(Abun)whomayhavebeenactivein Tiberias.175 R.JudanofSignahcitedteachingsinthenameofR.Aha of Lod.176 In addition, R. Justa of Shunem cited teachings in the name of R. Joshua of Sakhnin.177 The dialogue between sages and the citation of teachings implies that ties existed among rural sages, and they also point to the cultural vitality of the periphery without the mediation of the urban rabbinic center.

172 On R. Tanhum of Kfar Agin, see above, no.  in the list of settlements, and n. . 173 R. Mana taught R. Hillel of Kifra. See above, n. . In addition, R. Justa of Shunnem posed a halakhic question to him. See above, n. . 174 J. Ta"aniyot :, b. See also the parallels mentioned above, n. . 175 See above, n. . 176 See above, n. . 177 See above, n. .  chapter three

The discussion elucidates some of the socio-historical foundations of the rabbinic world. Only two urban rabbinic centers claimed long-term, uninterrupted rabbinic activity. Sepphoris, the most important Jewish city in Galilee, was a major Torah center from the second generation of the Yavneh period and the leading rabbinic center from the time of R. Judah ha-Nasi until the beginning of the second talmudic generation. It remained an important Torah center until the end of the talmudic period. Tiberias was home to several sages during the mishnaic period, but they did not constitute a continuous presence there during that period. Tiberias became the leading rabbinic center only from the time of the second talmudic generation, about the middle of the third century. The fact that Sepphoris and Tiberias were the largest and most important Jewish cities in Galilee facilitated an ongoing, long-term presence of sages and the development of Torah centers with a long, uninterrupted existence, due to livelihood opportunities and superior economic conditions in the cities. These centers began to predominate over the rural centers, a development that reached its height in the generation of R. Judah ha-Nasi, when he relocated to Sepphoris. His unique status as a sage and the head of the main academy in Sepphoris, coupled with his position as patriarch and the backing of the imperial authorities, conferred social and legal authority on the rabbinic center in Sep- phoris.178 Two generations later, Tiberias attained the same status for the same reasons. R. Johanan established his academy there, thus creating the conditions for the development of a rabbinic center in this important city. He was the foremost sage of his generation, and more disciples attended the academy over which he presided than that of any other tal- mudicsage.Thestatusofhisacademygrewwhenhewasjoinedbyhis longtime associate, R. Simeon b. Lakish—Reish Lakish—a notable sage in his own right. Tiberias remained the most prominent rabbinic center until the end of the talmudic period. The relocation of the patriarchate to Tiberias from Sepphoris several years after R. Johanan arrived in Tiberias also contributed to the flourishing of the rabbinic center there. Developments on the rural periphery took an opposite turn. The rural rabbinic world flourished over the course of several generations

178 On the status of the patriarch, see the words of R. Mana, j. Horayot :, c; Levine, “Patriarch”; idem, Rabbinic Class, –; idem,“TheStatus”;idem, The Ancient Synagogue, –; Rosenfeld, “The Crisis,” esp. n. ; Goodblatt, Monarchic Principle, –. Goodman (“Jewish Patriarch”) and Jacobs, (Institution,esp.–)havesuggested a different opinion, one in which the patriarch was only an internal Jewish religious leader who was not officially appointed by the Roman government. galilee  following the destruction of the Second Temple and reached its height in the Usha period. The growth of the rural rabbinic world was apparently due to several factors: at that time most of the Jewish population lived in villages; the social structure of Jewish society in Galilee was a rural one; and sages who were part of this structure lived mainly in villages and were an integral part of Jewish society there. Only a small number of sages lived in the cities. However, during that same period, the pace of urbanization began to increase. In addition, the outcome of the Bar KokhbaRevoltledtoalarge-scaleemigrationoffugitivesoftheRevolt to cities. Furthermore, in the second generation after the Bar Kokhba Revolt, R. Judah ha-Nasi relocated to Sepphoris, which paved the way for sages to relocate to cities, a relocation that actually took place among R. Judah ha-Nasi’s disciples in the next generation—the first generation of the talmudic period (–ce). Thus, at the close of the mishnaic period and at the beginning ofthe talmudic period, a shift took place in the importance of rural and urban rabbinic centers. During this period—the first half of the third century— most of the rural sages attended the academies in the large cities and were thus dependent on the sages in urban rabbinic centers for their rabbinic education and status. Although rural sages included masters of halakhah and aggadah,expoundersofhalakhah,ajudgeandrecitersof beraitot who were highly regarded in the rabbinic world, they were by far the minority. The imprint that most of the rural sages left on rabbinic literature of the talmudic period was small. The important urban rabbinic centers mostly regarded the rural sages as lower-level sages who could claim only local status. On the other hand, it was difficult for rural sages to attain prominence and status and realize their potential, because living in rural areas made communication with urban Torah centers difficult. As time went on, the urban rabbinic centers flourished at the expense of the rural periphery. Nonetheless, the periphery was important, because its sages were broadly dispersed throughout the villages of Galilee. Not only did the scope of the rural rabbinic presence there not decline, but beginning with the generation that preceded the Bar Kokhba Revolt, and later in the mishnaic and the talmudic periods, this rural presence grew and spread to all areas of Galilee. It even branched out to the Hellenistic coastal area of Galilee in the form of rabbinic centers in Akko and Haifa. This expansion broadened the sphere of influence and power of local sages on the periphery, and through them, the social power of sages in the great rabbinic centers as well, since these rural sages carried messages of the urban rabbinic centers to the periphery.  chapter three

The Rural Torah Centers Several general characteristics of the rural Torah centers in Galilee are worth noting. We encounter a phenomenon of sages relocating from one settlement to another, and we sometimes can trace their steps. During the Yavneh period, in the generation before the Bar Kokhba Revolt, R. Johanan b. Nuri apparently was active in Ginneigar (no. ), as he was later, in the larger settlement of Beth She"arim (no. ), which offered a broader base for public activity, presumably because of its size. Two generations later, there is no mention of R. Judah ha-Nasi’s association with Usha—the scene of activity of his father, Rabban Simeon b. Gamliel. Instead, R. Judah ha-Nasi is mentioned first in connection with Beth She"arim and later in connection with Sepphoris, where he was active until his death. In his case, the reason for these transitions may have been the accelerated pace of urbanization throughout Palestine, which prompted the relocation of vast numbers to the large cities. In addition, R. Judah ha-Nasi wished to consolidate his leadership and assert his authority over the urban aristocracy in Galilee, especially in Sepphoris, and apparently, once the aristocracy accepted his leadership, he relocated there (nos. , ). Both R. Johanan b. Nuri and R. Judah ha-Nasi moved from small settlements to larger centers, each for personal reasons. R. Jacob bar Idi, of the third talmudic generation, followed a different path. He first studied in Lod, attending the academy of its leading sage, R. Joshua b. Levi. That R. Jacob bar Idi served as a charity supervisor there together with an older local sage indicates that he was a person of stature. He later moved to Tiberias and became a close disciple and associate of R. Johanan, Tiberias’ leading sage. R. Jacob ultimately settled in Sulam Zor (no. ), serving as the local sage until his death, thus abandoning the two large rabbinic centers and relocating to a rural settlement. Over the generations, signs of conflict emerged between the sages on the periphery and the sages of the main rabbinic centers or the patriarch. For example, a strained relationship existed between Rabban Simeon b. Gamliel in Usha and his son, R. Judah ha-Nasi, on the one hand, and R. Simeon bar Yohai and his son, who were important sages in Tekoa and Gush Halav in Upper Galilee, on the other,179 notwithstanding the fact that R. Judah ha-Nasi himself testified that he had attended the

179 Baumgarten, “Opposition”; idem,“Opponents.” galilee  academy of R. Simeon in Tekoa (no. ). The second talmudic generation was witness to a serious confrontation between Jose of Ma"on (no. ), near Tiberias, and the patriarch. According to Jose, the patriarch took tithes, which ought to have gone to the priests. The reason behind this practice was apparently the difficult economic situation throughout the country, which forced the patriarch to seek sources of funding for his activities. In the next generation, there is mention of a confrontation between Osha"ya Zeira of Hivria (no. ) and the patriarch. Likewise, there was a confrontation in the fourth generation between Jacob of Kfar Neboria (no. ) and R. Haggai, the important Tiberian sage. By contrast, in the following generation there is evidence of collaboration between the patriarch and a rural sage, R. Hiyya of Kfar Tehumin (no. ), whom the patriarch appointed to the position of judge. Similarly, in the fifth generation, the patriarch sent R. Hiyya of Farod (no. ) as an emissary to Babylonia. The discord should be regarded as a byproduct of the joint activities of the patriarch and the sages. Lastly, political events in Palestine, such as the Bar Kokhba Revolt and the urbanization process, led to changes in and the consolidation of the rabbinic class in Galilee. Key centers of rabbinic activity were gradually established. The first was in Sepphoris, perhaps as early as the period between the destruction of the Second Temple and the Bar Kokhba Revolt (–ce). But the major change took place in the era of R. Judah ha-Nasi, when the center of rabbinic activity until the end of the talmudic period ultimately shifted to urban settlements, and rabbinic activity in villages acquired peripheral status. Beginning with the second talmudic generation, from the time of R. Johanan (circa –  ce), Tiberias became the main rabbinic center, and Sepphoris was secondary to it. Rabbinic activity in rural areas of Galilee also changed. Due to the paucity of information, little is known about rabbinic activity there between the time of the destruction of the Second Temple and the Bar Kokhba Revolt, but the general impression is that sages in Sepphoris were held in greater esteem than rural sages. However, in the period following the Bar Kokhba Revolt and up until R. Judah ha-Nasi’s generation (–ce), the scope of rabbinic activity in rural areas increased and reached its pinnacle. The centers of rabbinic activity were found mainly in villages, with Usha the most prominent center. In the following gener- ationaswell,R.Judahha-NasispentmanyyearsinruralBethShe"arim, and only later in life, moved to Sepphoris, which became the major urban rabbinic center. From that point onwards, the importance of rural centers gradually decreased, and in the talmudic period their status was  chapter three secondary to that of urban centers. However, compared to other parts of Palestine, Galilee was witness to a unique phenomenon—the decline in the importance of rural sages did not signify an end to their activities. On the contrary, relative to the information available about sages of the mishnaic period, the information about them until the end of the talmudic period increased notably. The widespread rabbinic activity throughout the rural areas of Galilee clearly demonstrates that rural sages constituted a strong periphery. They became increasingly involved in Galilean society, and the scope of their authority and teachings also grew.

Torah Centers in Galilee—Center vs. Periphery The widespread presence of rural sages and the broad scope of their activities in the villages of Galilee, coupled with the activities of sages in Sep- phoris and later in Tiberias, has not been discussed or touched upon in the scholarly research until now. An exploration of this subject can increase our understanding of several key processes in the rabbinic world in Galilee. We will first deal with the nature and scope of the relationship which existed between prominent sages in the main rabbinic centers and the rural sages. The discussion on this topic is divided into two periods. The first is the Yavneh period—from the destruction of the Second Tem- ple until the Bar Kokhba Revolt (–ce). In this period in Galilee, it is difficult to distinguish between center and periphery, that is, between a settlement that was a prominent rabbinic center in which important sages were active and other settlements in which less prominent sages were active, the latter thus constituting the periphery relative to the prominent rabbinic center. This is primarily because rabbinic literature does not provide sufficient information about this period in Galilee, since themain scene of rabbinic activity at the time was in Judea—mostly in Yavneh and in Lod. The information recorded in rabbinic literature about this time period is mostly about Judean sages and less so about the more geographically distant Galilean sages. Evidence that Judea was the focus of rabbinic activity is indicated by the fact that most of the Galilean sages studied in Judea and not vice versa, since the sages of the rabbinic centers in Yavneh and Lod were regarded as more authoritative, even by Galilean sages. While there were important sages in Galilee, such as R. Johanan b. Nuri and R. Halafta in Sepphoris and R. Hanina b. Teradion in Sakhnin, who were highly regarded even by Judean sages, the fragmentary information that exists about Galilean sages in this period makes it difficult to ascertain what would constitute the center in Galilee, the periphery rel- galilee  ative to it and the nature of the relationship between the two. In terms of a general impression only, Sepphoris was probably the more important rabbinic center relative to the other settlements with rabbinic activity. These other settlements would thus constitute the periphery, as Sepphoris was the largest Jewish settlement in Lower Galilee during this period and more important than other villages in which sages were active. The second period, for the purposes of this discussion, dates from the time after the Bar Kokhba Revolt until the end of the talmudic period (/–ce). Following the Revolt, rabbinic activity largely shifted to Galilee, which became the seat of the main rabbinic centers and rabbinic leadership. From this point onwards, the information recorded in rabbinic literature focuses mainly on the sages in Galilee and far less on Judean sages and those in other areas of the country. The data drawn from this large body of information enable us to describe several striking features of the relationship between center and periphery in the rabbinic world in Galilee during this period. Thus, for example, most of the sages fromtheperiphery,primarilyfromthevillages,studiedinthelargeTorah centers and afterwards continued to maintain ties with the sages there. In terms of status and rulings in halakhic matters, this naturally created a certain dependency of rural sages on the important, mostly urban, sages, who were more dominant and wielded greater authority. The questions that arise are whether rural sages were appointed by the main rabbinic centers in an organized, systematic manner to serve as sagesinvillagesorwhethertheirappointmentaslocalsageswasarranged via the patriarch or via the local community. Alternatively, did the sages reach the different settlements independently, via an external arrange- ment, or upon invitation by the local inhabitants? Another possibility is that these sages may have been local residents themselves, and they made their own arrangements without the support of sages in the main rabbinic centers, a situation that would make them more independent and less subject to the authority of sages of the main centers. It is highly doubtful that sages in the first generation after the Bar Kokhba Revolt, who had just reestablished themselves in Galilee, would have been involved in directing sages to the villages in an organized fashion.Themainrabbiniccenteratthattimewasintheruraltownof Usha, and most of the prominent sages were active in rural settlements. Thus, in terms of rabbinic activity, both the center and the periphery were located in rural areas. It would therefore be more reasonable to assume that, at that time, the sages on the periphery acted on their own accord and with the consent of the local population. In the following  chapter three generation, under the leadership of R. Judah ha-Nasi, the rabbinic class became more established and organized. This trend continued into the talmudic period, enabling the rabbinic world to increase its power by appointing sages to rural settlements. This increase in power is evidenced by the information that exists on the widespread distribution of sages who were active in the rural settlements of Galilee—some fifteen sages on average per generation—and it is improbable that the presence of such a large number of sages in so many villages could have occurred by chance. It is far more likely that, for the most part, the leading sages in the large urban centers, first in Sepphoris and later mainly in Tiberias, dispatched rural sages to rural settlements. Sages, who constituted a dominant sector of the religious world and who were in authoritative and educational positions, would not have been willing to forgo a leadership role. As the sociological research has shown, the basic thinking of any dominant social body necessarily leads to a desire for leadership, power and influence on society.180 The sages could exert the greatest influence by dispersing members of their sector among the settlements of Galilee to transmit their ideas and halakhic teachings. The dispersion of members could be achieved by appointing sages to these settlements. In some of the settlements, the inhabitants themselves requested the appointment of sages to their settlement. Some of the sages were also local residents who returned home after completing their studies in the large rabbinic centers, as we have seen in several instances discussed above. Others came from large cities to serve as the local sage of a village, as in the case of R. Jacob bar Idi (no. ). The matter of rabbinic appointments in different settlements is acom- plex issue. Even if these appointments were made by the patriarch, it is not clear whether the appointment granted the sage any form of coercive power or whether it was up to the local inhabitants to decide whether or not to subject themselves to the sage’s authority. This issue is related to the broader issue of the authority and status of the patriarch in Jewish society. Scholars, who are divided on the matter, have discussed the subject widely. The majority of scholars are of the opinion, which is the more likely one, that the patriarch was a major political force and that he possessed broad internal governing powers from as early as the time of Rabban Gamliel in Yavneh, or according to some, from the time of his grandson, R. Judah ha-Nasi.

180 Northouse, Leadership, esp. –, –. See also, Burke, Social Theory, –. galilee 

According to the second opinion, the Roman government did not grant powers of government to the patriarch; instead, he was a local or internal religious leader with an unclear status.181 The answer to the question of whether the patriarch had the authority to appoint a sage goes hand in hand with these two opinions. According to the first, the patriarch had coercive power that Imperial Rome authorized and backed. It was thus the patriarch who appointed sages in different settlements, a practice that explains the sizeable numbers of sages throughout Galilee. The patriarch was also the decisive authority with respect to the appointment of sages in urban centers, although these appointments were usually made upon the recommendation of leading sages in the main rabbinic centers and in cooperation with the leading sages of other centers. In this manner, the teachings and views of the main rabbinic centers were transmitted to the periphery—via a political authority who had the power to make appointments, and subsequently by the appointee, the local sage, on the periphery. The periphery, in turn, also strengthened the main rabbinic center by means of the local sage, who passed on the messages and norms of the main center. According to the second approach, the patriarch and the sages did not have the power to enforce their appointments, and a sage’s power was derived from his voluntary activities. But even according to this opinion, one cannot ignore the large body of information regarding the broaddispersalandsubstantialnumberofsageswhowereactivein different Galilean settlements in talmudic times. Therefore, even ifwe were to assume that rabbinic activity was mostly the product of local initiatives, the broad dispersion and the considerable number of sages indicate that the Jewish population of Galilee desired the presence of sages who fulfilled religious functions in their settlements. As a result, rabbinic influence in Galilee grew, and its representative, the sage, was involved in society and played an influential role. Accordingly, there must have been some general means of directing this large-scale activity, and perhaps some organized framework of sages who dealt with rabbinic appointments, headed by leading rabbis in the large rabbinic centers. There is a non-rabbinic source, Roman Imperial Law, which helps to elucidate the process of rabbinic appointments. One law lists various religious functionaries in different communities throughout the Roman Empire who held religious office in the synagogue and were thus exempt

181 For information on the sages and the patriarch mentioned in this discussion, see above, n. . See also Gafni, Jews of Babylonia, –.  chapter three from certain taxes. Constantine the Great’s Codex Theodosianus,dating to  November ce (CTh ::) states: Qui devotione tota synagogis Iudaeorum patriarchis vel presbyteris se dederunt et in memorata secta degentes legi epsi praesident, inmunes ab omnibus tam personalibus quam civilibus. (“Those who dedicated themselves with complete devotion to the synagogues of the Jews, to the patriarchs or to the Presbyters [= Elders], and while living in the above-mentioned sect, it is they who preside over the law, shall continue to be exempt from all liturgies, personal as well as civil.”) Another law directed at individuals who served in religious offices throughout the Empire, follows immediately in the Codex (CTh ::): “. . . to the Priests, the Archsynagogues, Fathers of Synagogues and the OtherswhoServeintheSamePlace(i.e.,thesynagogues):Weorder that the priests, archsynagogues, fathers of synagogues and the others who serve in synagogues (qui synagogis deserviunt) shall be free from all corporal liturgy.” According to Linder, the word “Priests” is an introductory term which includes all of the religious functionaries listed after it, and the law is directed at all those who held religious office in the synagogue. In his opinion, the patriarch and the presbyters are not mentioned in the second law because it was intended to be sent only to those religious officials who were listed in it. The first law, by comparison, is broader and stresses that all religious officials are subordinate to the patriarchs or to the presbyters, and they therefore are entitled to the above exemption. We may deduce that the patriarch and the elders appointed the religious officials in the different communities—certainly in Palestine—and Constantine conferred the same privileges on them as on the Christian clergy.182 Shaye Cohen translates the first law in the same way that Linder did, but in contrast to Linder’s interpretation that the religious officials were subordinate to the patriarch, Cohen’s interpretation is that their commitment was to the synagogue (and not to the patriarch). Further in the second law, we find the separate addition of the exemption to the patriarchs and the elders. According to Cohen’s interpretation, there is no evidence that the religious officials were subordinate to the patriarch

182 On this topic, see Linder, “Jews,” –; idem, The Jews, –; –. The second source also cites the laws of Codex Theodosianus. The translations of these laws are taken from that source. It should be noted that on July , , Arcadius enacted a new law which confirmed the exemption for religious officials (CTh ::), ibid., –.A year later, in , Arcadius and Honorius abolished the exemption (CTh ::–), ibid., –. galilee  or that the patriarch appointed them. However, according to Cohen, there were several permanent offices of religious synagogue officials, and these offices would have been those of community officials, since the synagogue was the only public institution of the Jewish community and all community officials would have been connected to it.183 Thus, it can be assumed that the local sage or sages did not relinquish a salaried position, particularly since they regarded themselves as religious leaders. Furthermore, it is difficult to make a complete separation between the authority wielded by the patriarch and the appointment of religious officials, at least in Palestine. Cohen himself, prior to this explanation, presents some well-known citations from Origen, who was active in Cae- sarea in  and –ce, and Eusebius, who was active in Caesarea two generations after Origen, in which great authority over the Jews of Palestine, including the power to deliver capital punishment, is attributed to the patriarch.184 Thus, according to Cohen, as well, the patriarch wielded great authority in Palestine. It therefore is unlikely that the patriarch did not have the authority to appoint and to exert control over the country’s elders and religious officials who, had they possessed independent status, would have been the patriarch’s rivals. The above law does not refer specifically to sages. Yet, they should be included among the various functionaries of the synagogue, since the synagogue was the only communal structure in Jewish towns and hence the main arena of public activity and the main scene of religious activity in these settlements. It is likely that the sages took advantage of the opportunity to conduct rabbinic activity in such a place and thus contribute to their status and financial state. This inclination among sages conforms to the approach documented in the sociological research, that no dominant social group is willing to forgo influence and power. Therefore, even if we were to view the sages simply as halakhists and teachers, and not as a leadership group, it is unlikely that they would have been willing to vol- untarily forgo tax exemptions that would have considerably lightened their financial burden. It is also highly improbable that they would have regarded themselves as less worthy of these tax exemptions than

183 See Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, –. 184 See Cohen, “Ancient Synagogue,” –. This is part of his argument that the synagogue was not under rabbinic authority, and that the sages were not involved in the synagogue.Forasummaryofthisargument,seePorton,“Midrash.”Fortheoppositeview, see Levine, ibid., –, –.  chapter three the other exempt officials. And most importantly, based on the particular perspective of this discussion—that the sages were broadly dispersed across rural settlements throughout Galilee from the time of R. Judah ha- Nasi—we can deduce that they were a well-known group, and it would have been unlikely that they would not have been taken into account. Therefore, even if this Roman law did not refer to them by the term used in rabbinic literature, sages/rabbis, it is logical to assume that they would have been included under the term commonly used in Roman law. Since it was directed at all religious officials throughout the Roman Empire, this Roman law would have employed the conventional language and terms that were in use throughout the Empire for these officials and not the specific term used in Palestine, which was only a very small province of the Empire. Therefore, sages would have been classified under one of the types of religious officials to which the Roman law referred. It should be noted that even the positions that were mentioned expressly by name are difficult to define precisely, and their usage differed from area to areaand from country to county. We can thus conclude that according to Imperial Law, the patriarch was authorized to make appointments, at least in Palestine. Sages were included in the list of permanent appointed officials who were exempt from taxes, and they were apparently subordinate to the patriarch, as were other officials. The nature of the various positions is not completely clear, and they differed from community to community in the Roman world. In Palestine as well, it is not completely clear exactly to whom the term “religious officials” referred, but it included sages in Palestine, and particularly those in Galilee, where most of them resided. Testimony to the power wielded by the patriarch exists at least from the time of Origen, who was active in the generation after R. Judah ha-Nasi. Even during the time of R. Judah ha-Nasi, at the beginning of the third century, two or three of the religious officials in different settlements were exempt from the liturgies.185 The exemption apparently was extended during that century and was made official by Constantine. Since Imperial Law dealt with religious officials associated with the synagogue, the existence of a synagogue in a settlement may have been a condition for obtaining the above exemption. In other words, a commu- nitywithasynagoguewasregardedasacommunitywithsomeformof

185 Linder, “Jews”; idem, The Jews, –; Levine, Rabbinic Class, –, – and n. ; idem, “The Status,” esp. –; idem, The Ancient Synagogue, –; Jacobs, Institution, –, –. galilee  organizational framework for the purpose of imperial rights and duties. This view of the community was a yardstick that existed as early as the mishnaic period, rabbinic literature of that period implying that the syn- agoguewasacommunity’sprominentpossessionanditsinhabitantswere responsible for building it.186 Villages should thus be classified into two groups: those that were able to establish some form of organizational framework and build a synagogue, and those, presumably small, settlements that did not have one. Scholarly research has already suggested a distinction of this sort between settlements that had a social framework, namely towns and large villages, and small villages that had no such framework. It has also been suggested that a distinction be made between a village that covered an area of eight to ten dunams or more— which could set up a minimal array of services and which the talmudic sources generally referred to as a city or town—and a smaller settlement, referred to as a village, which did not have the ability to establish these minimal services. Most of the towns occupied an area of up to one hundred dunams.187 Settlements that contained synagogues were those with an organizational framework—large villages and medium-sized towns. It is likely that sages generally were found in settlements that had some form of organizational framework, and the focal point of their activity was the synagogue, which was the main public institution during this period. This can be deduced, as well, from two passages in the Jerusalem Talmud that deal with the appointments of a judge in Simonia and one in Bostra.Aswillbediscussedbelow,bothwerecommunitieswithfinan- cial and organizational means that allowed them to appoint a sage who would fulfill all of their needs. A further question that should be addressed concerns the precise nature of the duties of an appointed sage. Was it the sage’s responsibility to deal with all of the religious matters that were of concern to different segments of society, or was he only meant to teach halakhah and instruct disciples in the Oral Law? Even though the issue of rabbinic appointments has received much attention in scholarly literature, this aspect has not been adequately discussed. The sources that deal with life in Galilee can help shed light on this subject.OnesuchsourceisattributedtoR.Judahha-Nasi’speriod.The Jerusalem Talmud, in Yevamot :, a reports about the residents of

186 M. Megillah :; m. Nedarim :–; t. Baba Metzia :, ed. Lieberman, . 187 Safrai, Temple, –; Safrai, Community, –.  chapter three

Simonia in Jezreel Valley, across from present-day Nahalal: “The people ofSimoniacamebeforeR.Judahha-Nasi.Theysaidtohim:‘Wewant youtogiveusamantoserveaspreacher,judge,reader[ofscripture], teacher [of tradition], and to do all the things we need’” (Neusner, :).188 The source appears to imply that this was a local initiative by residents of the rural settlement of Simonia. Their request listed several specific requirements for the position, which together comprised the religious role of the sage, in their words: “all the things we need.” The list, which includes the role of judge, implies that the position entailed some form of coercive power. The patriarch, R. Judah ha-Nasi, appointed a sage for the people of Simonia, and they tested him in halakhah and aggadah, a process that demonstrates that the inhabitants of Simonia included individuals who were versed in the Oral Law. Finding him to be unsuitable, they did not accept him for the position of sage in Simonia, and R. Judah ha-Nasi did not force this appointment upon them. Thus, it appears that the patriarch played the role of middleman in this matter, and even though he appointed the sages, this appointment was done only upon the request of the inhabitants of a settlement, who had the right to accept or reject his appointment.189 According to this source, the fact that the inhabitants of Simonia initiated the appointment of a sage for their settlement and that there were also individuals in Simonia who were versed in Oral Law, who may themselves have been sages or at least close to rabbinic circles, is evidence that there had been a strong rabbinic influence in this settlement. This case also elucidates the role of the rural sage. The Simonians wanted someone who was not an expert in just one area, but someone who could fulfill all religious functions. As they stated, “all the things we need”—preacher, judge, reader and teacher. A similar case is attributed to a sage who was active two generations later. Reish Lakish, one of the leading Tiberian sages, visited Bostra in southern Bashan, which boasted an important Jewish community during the talmudic period.190 The people of Bostra requested that he: “Find us amantopreachsermons,beajudge,teacher,hazzan [for the synagogue, and] to do all that we need” (j. Shevi"it :, d, Neusner :). Here too, as in Simonia, the initiative came from a community that was situated on

188 See the parallel in Genesis Rabbah, :, eds. Theodor-Albeck, –. On Simo- nia, see Safrai, Galilee, –; Tsafrir, Map, . 189 On the patriarch as a judicial authority, see Levine, “Rabbi Judah,” ; idem, Rabbinic Class, –, Oppenheimer, Galilee, . 190 See Feliks, Shevi"it, :; Kindler, Coinage of Bostra, –, –, ; Sartre, Bostra, –; Habas, “Bostra,” –. galilee  the periphery. Bostra was a large city on the border of Hauran, east of Golan and Bashan, and very far from Tiberias, the main rabbinic center in Reish Lakish’s day. The Jews of Bostra requested someone who could perform all religious functions—preacher, teacher, hazzan—as well as judge, a position with coercive power. In this case, as in the case of the Simonians, we see that a community that resided far from rabbinic centers expected a sage who was not only a teacher but also an expert in all areas of religious activity. The Jerusalem Talmud mentioned two settlements. One of them, Si- monia, was a medium-sized town—not a small village but certainly notacity.Theother,Bostra,wasalargecity,anditconceivablyhada large Jewish community. Thus, we are dealing with communities large enough to have had organizational capacity and the ability to pay a sage’s salary. Small rural communities had neither the organizational ability nor the financial means with which to do so.191 These two sources provide some insight into the world of the rural talmudic sage and the high level of scholarship and expertise in religious matters required of him. Elucidating this is very important, especially in terms of Galilee where rural rabbinic activity was widespread, and presumably, other rural settlements had similar requirements. Furthermore, even though Simonia was located on the outskirts of the Jewish community in Galilee, the source indicates that its requirements of a sage were similar to those of other Galilean settlements. Since there is little other information on what was required of a sage, these sources are a valuable contribution to understanding the role of the sage in the rural settlements of Galilee. In the above case, the inhabitants of Bostra turned to a sage and not to the patriarch. Based on this source, we can deduce that leading sages, such as Reish Lakish in Tiberias, were involved in rabbinic appointments, although Reish Lakish presumably received approval of the patriarch, or hemayevenhavebeenhisemissary. We find no evidence to indicate that those communities with the capacity to maintain a sage actually appointed sages on a continuous basis.ThisisindirectlyimpliedfromthelistofruralsettlementsinGalilee appearing in this book. In none of the villages is there any evidence of an ongoing rabbinic presence over the course of several generations, and in almost half of them we know of only one sage who was active in a particular village throughout the entire period under discussion. This

191 See Alon, Mechkarim, :–; Safrai, Temple, .  chapter three indicates that despite the widespread distribution of the sages among villages, in most cases, rabbinic activity in each generation took place in different villages, and there was no ongoing rabbinic presence of one sage followed by another in the settlements on the periphery. There may have been several possible reasons for this situation: the inhabitants of a settlement might not have wanted a sage in their settlement; the settlementmighthavedeclined;theremightnothavebeenasuitable sage who was able or willing to live in that settlement. The cities, by contrast, were able to offer opportunities for earning a livelihood, and it was therefore natural that they attracted greater numbers of sages on an ongoing basis, conditions which in turn facilitated long periods of uninterrupted rabbinic activity. Furthermore, urban settlements were composed of several communities, and in all likelihood, a sage was able to find his place in one of them. He might have been able establish his own community around his own study hall, and the greater his reputation as an expert in Torah and as a spiritual figure, and perhaps the greater his charisma, the greater was his importance and influence. The conclusions arrived at thus far may be further refined in light of the sociological model of the relationship between center and periphery, which is a core characteristic of many societies. The center is generally the authoritative source of power; it directs the periphery and enables the periphery’s continued existence by assisting in its economic, social and cultural development. The periphery, by contrast, is more passive and dependent, primarily receiving from the center, yet also contributing to it. By imbibing the policy of the center, the periphery becomes a source for strengthening the center’s political and cultural messages.192 This model is instructive in our analysis of the development of the rabbinic class in Galilee. During the time period that followed the destruction of the Second Temple, and up until the Bar Kokhba Revolt, no authoritative rabbinic center existed in Galilee. During that time, centers of rabbinic activity were concentrated in several villages and in Sepphoris, with the rabbinic center in Sepphoris apparently overshadowing those in rural villages.

192 See Introduction. See also Shils, Center, –, –; idem, Constitution, – , –; Eisenstadt and Roniger, Patrons, –, –, –; Burke, Social Theory, –. For research on Mayan society in South America during the parallel time period, with similar results, see Schortman and Urban, “Core / Periphery.” For research on an earlier period of Jewish society with similar results, see Berquist, Persia’s Shadow, –. galilee 

The authoritative rabbinic centers were situated in Judea. Galilean sages constituted the periphery vis-à-vis the Judean centers and were dependent on them. Nonetheless, Galilean sages also contributed to the general strengthening of the status of Judean sages and their influence in Galilee by transmitting the latter’s ideas and teachings. A decisive change occurred in the generation after the Bar Kokhba Revolt, when most of the sages relocated to Galilee. The authoritative rabbinic center was now in Galilee, and rabbinic activity in Judea became peripheral to it. Judean sages became somewhat dependent on Galilean sages, as most of them had attended academies in Galilee. Yet, the Galilean ties with the Judean sagesalsoincreasedthestatusandinfluenceofsagesthroughoutPales- tine. Thus, the periphery also contributed to strengthening the center. In Galilee, too, a center-periphery relationship gradually developed within the rabbinic world. In the generation after the Bar Kokhba Revolt, sages of rural Usha constituted the dominant rabbinic center. The centers of activity of other leading sages in rural villages—such as R. Meir in Hamat near Tiberias, R. Simeon bar Yohai in Tekoa in Upper Galilee and R. Jose b. Halafta in the city of Sepphoris—were secondary to Usha. Thus, other settlements in which the sages of this generation were active were regarded as the periphery. In the following generation, due to R. Judah ha-Nasi’s unique status among sages and his relationship with the Roman government, his settlement developed into the one dominant rabbinic center, and all other centers of rabbinic activity constituted the periphery relative to it. This first occurred in the rural village of Beth She"arim and then in the large city of Sepphoris, which developed into the main urban rabbinic center. Sepphoris was thus a turning point in the history of rabbinic centers, which from this point onward until the end ofthetalmudicperiod,werelocatedincities.Thefollowinggeneration, which was the first generation of the talmudic period, saw four firmly established urban centers of rabbinic activity, Tiberias and Sepphoris in Galilee, Caesarea in the center of the country and Lod in Judea. However, rabbinic activity was widespread in the rural villages of Galilee that served as the periphery to the main urban centers. Rabbinic activity on the periphery was of major significance, primarily in terms of quantity and often in terms of quality, because sages of stature were active there. Sages of the periphery maintained ties with urban centers and were generally dependent on urban sages whose academies they had attended. In some cases, they were sent by urban sages to various settlements, and they passed on the ideas and norms of urban sages. Still, the Galilean periphery was of great importance, and it was unique  chapter three compared to other areas of Palestine in which rabbinic activity in the periphery, especially in rural areas, was scant indeed. The broad scope of rabbinic activity in the rural areas of Galilee must also be evaluated against the backdrop of the political and social climate of that period. The total area of Jewish Galilee was fairly small (see Introduction), with its Jewish population gradually dwindling as a result of different historical events, such as the economic crisis of the Roman Empire in the third century, whose aftermath extended into the fourth century. In addition, Christianity became the prevailing religion in the Roman Empire in the fourth century. In spite of all these events, rabbinic activity in the cities and villages throughout Galilee did not decrease during the third and fourth centuries and continued until the end of the talmudic period. Its endurance, despite adverse conditions, supports the conclusion that the rabbinic activity that existed throughout Galilee until the end of the talmudic period played a major role in shaping rabbinic Judaism, both in that generation and for the future. chapter four

CENTRAL PALESTINE

In contrast to the other regions of Palestine, information about rabbinic activity in Central Palestine is limited to two settlements—Caesarea, the main rabbinic center, and Samuka, a rural settlement. This chapter focuses primarily on Caesarea, Palestine’s capital. An important Torah center during the talmudic period, Caesarea was the scene of activity of almost all the sages mentioned in this chapter. The unique teachings that are cited here emanated mainly from Caesarea’s academies, with only a small number coming from Samuka.

Caesarea—Urban Torah Center and Capital of Palestine

Caesarea was the only Hellenistic-pagan city in Palestine that produced a large rabbinic center with ongoing activity, despite the fact that the majority of its population was non-Jewish. Caesarea had been a city with a mixed population and a large Jewish minority from the time it was established by Herod in /bce. The ongoing strife between Caesarea’s Jewish and non-Jewish populations sparked an outbreak in  ce that was one of the direct causes of the Jewish war against Rome, which led to the destruction of the Second Temple. A large number of the city’s Jews were murdered by their neighbors, and some fled eastward to the area of Narbata in western Samaria. After the destruction of the Second Temple in ce, Caesarea was granted the special status of colony (Colonia Prima Flavia Augusta Caesarensis), and it grew in importance as the capital of Palestine and a national and international center of commerce. Jews graduallybeganreturningtothecity,aprocesswhichgainedmomentum after the Bar Kokhba Revolt in  /  ce. By the time of R. Judah ha-Nasi (circa ce), Caesarea once again had a sizeable Jewish community.1

1 For a comprehensive history of the city and its sages, see Levine, Caesarea, –, ,  and n. ; Schürer, History, :–; Hoppe, “Caesarea Palaestinae”; Sperber, The City,–,andindex,s.v.Caesarea;Carriker,Eusebius, –; Sartre, “Syria,” –. For more on the strife between the city’s Jews and their Gentile neighbors, see Levine,  chapter four

From the time of the destruction of the Second Temple until the generation of R. Judah ha-Nasi, hardly any sages were known to have resided in Caesarea. This was related to Caesarea’s halakhic status. Until R. Judah ha-Nasi’s generation, the sages had considered Caesarea’s location to be outside the halakhic boundaries of Palestine in terms of the laws dependent upon the Land and the laws of ritual purity and impurity. R. Judah ha-Nahtom (= the Baker) testified before the sages that the eastern part of Caesarea was to be regarded as ritually pure and the rest of the city was not. Thus, until his time, most of Caesarea was considered to be ritually impure; it was only when R. Judah ha-Nasi abolished Caesarea’s impure status that its halakhic status became identical to that of the rest of Palestine. We may conclude that R. Judah ha-Nahtom was active before R. Judah ha-Nasi had changed Caesarea’sstatus. This conclusion indicates that he had either been a contemporary of R. Judah ha-Nasi and had given his testimony on Caesarea before R. Judah ha-Nasi abolished its impure status or that he preceded R. Judah ha-Nasi. It has also been suggested that since R. Judah ha-Nahtom’s testimony concerned Caesarea, he perhaps had been active there.2 It has also been argued, though with some incertitude, that a sage by the name of R. Judah b. Nakossa had been active in Caesarea in R. Judah ha-Nasi’s time.3 In addition to abolishing Caesarea’s impure status, thus equating the city with the rest of the country in terms of the laws dependent upon the Land and the laws of ritual purity and impurity,4 R. Judah ha-Nasi carried out the same course of action elsewhere in the country, primarily in Hel-

“Conflict”; idem, Caesarea, –; Kasher, “Isopoliteia.” See also Sussman, “Lamp.” For a summary of the archaeological information about the city, see Olami, Sender, Oren, Binyamina, esp. No. ; Lehmann and Holum, Inscriptions of Caesarea, –; Patrich, “Wall Street.” 2 From the sources in which he is mentioned, we cannot deduce the time period in which R. Judah ha-Nahtom was active. His testimony about Caesarea is cited in t. Ahilot :, ed. Zuckermandel, . Regarding his placement in a particular time period, see t. Menahot :, . Later sources, such as the Jerusalem Talmud and the aggadic midrashim imply that he was a member of the generation that preceded the Bar Kokhba Revolt. See the sources referred to in Hyman, Toldot, . 3 Levine, Caesarea, , . However, he brings inconclusive evidence from a very late midrash. Regarding his time period, see Strack-Stemberger, Introduction, . 4 See t. Ahilot :–; j. Demai :, c. R. Judah ha-Nasi exempted the Jews of several settlements, primarily Hellenistic cities, from the priestly tithes, and this exemption included Caesarea: “Rabbi permitted Caesarea [to be eaten without separating tithes],” (Neusner, :). See Sussmann, “Halakhic Inscription,” –, –; idem, “Boundaries,”  and n. , ,  and n. , –; Levine, Caesarea, –; Feliks, Shevi"it, :–; Patrich, “Wall Street.” central palestine  lenistic cities, as part of his policy of encouraging Jews to settle in areas located on the outskirts of the main centers of Palestine’s Jewish population.5 The purification of Caesarea was apparently also intended to make it easier for the Jewish population, including the sages, to have contact with the capital city, because the country’s inhabitants naturally needed to go there for a variety of reasons, which included trade and commerce as well as matters of state with the representative of the imperial authorities who resided there. R. Judah ha-Nasi’s approach coincided with the Roman policy of actively encouraging the urbanization process. Even though Caesarea was situated in central Palestine midway between Judea and Galilee—the two regions containing the majority of the country’s Jewish inhabitants—it nonetheless constituted the western periphery of Palestine’s Jewish population, as there were no nearby concentrations of Jews at that time. Jews from Galilee and Judea gradually returned to Cae- sarea, as part of the Jewish migration from the established centers of Jew- ish population in the heart of the country to the outlying regions, which began after the destruction of the Second Temple and increased after the Bar Kokhba Revolt.6 In the third and fourth centuries, the talmudic period, a large, pow- erful Jewish community numbering several thousand people emerged in Caesarea. The Jews constituted an important ethnic component of the city’s heterogeneous population. They were involved in various branches of commerce and in maritime trade in particular, because of Caesarea’s large port. The economic factor was presumably the reason that many Jews arrived in Caesarea, whether to trade or to settle there, and a relatively large amount of information exists about Jewish and rabbinic involvement in the local economy and commerce during this period.7 In the generation after R. Judah ha-Nasi, at the start of the talmudic period (–ce), an important rabbinic center that remained active throughout the entire talmudic period was established in Caesarea. This constituted a radical change, as until then there had been no steady

5 Levine, “Rabbi Judah,”–; Tsafrir, “Provinciot,”–; Oppenheimer, Gali- lee, –. 6 Avi-Yonah, Geography, –, –, ; Safrai, Boundaries, –, – . Tsafrir, Map, –. Regarding Jewish migration, see Urbach, “Idolatry”; Levine, Caesarea, . Much has been written on the urbanization process in the Roman Empire. See, for example, Owens, The City, –; Carrie, “Developments”; Wilkes, “Provincial Organization.” 7 Levine, Caesarea, –, –; Holum, “Identity,”– and nn. , ; Lehman and Holum, Inscriptions of Caesarea, –, –.  chapter four rabbinic activity in Caesarea. It was part of the important changes and developments that were taking place in this generation in the main centers of rabbinic activity. Several eminent sages who had been disciples of R. Judah ha-Nasi left Sepphoris and settled elsewhere, including Hellenis- tic cities, where they established rabbinic centers. This was a function of the decentralization that was taking place in the rabbinic world and in rabbinic centers during this generation, in contrast to and instead of the centralization that had existed in R. Judah ha-Nasi’sday, when most of the sages had assembled in his academy in Sepphoris and few other important rabbinic centers existed.8 One of the important settlements affected by the change taking place after R. Judah ha-Nasi’s generation was Cae- sarea, with the arrival of R. Hoshaiah, one of R. Judah ha-Nasi’s most eminent disciples. R. Hoshaiah was originally from Lod but early in life had relocated to Galilee, his main place of study. Throughout his entire period of activity, he maintained close ties with Galilean sages. He had been a close disciple of R. Judah ha-Nasi, of his associate R. Hiyya Rabbah and primarily of bar Kappara, who although from Lod, had himself spent many years as a disciple and associate of R. Judah ha-Nasi in Sepphoris, where R. Hoshaiah attended his academy.9 R. Hoshaiah was active in Caesarea in the first talmudic generation (circa –), established an academy there and attracted many disciples. They included the leading sages of the following generation—R. Johanan and R. Simeon Reish Lakish, foundersoftherabbiniccenterinTiberias—whospentmanyyearsat R. Hoshaiah’s academy and were among his close disciples. R. Eleazar b. Pedat and R. Ami as well, who were disciples of R. Johanan and Reish Lakish in Tiberias, had earlier attended the academy presided over by R. Hoshaiah.10 R.Hoshaiahwastheonlysageofhisgenerationknowntohavebeen active in Caesarea, but his rabbinic activity there produced one of the most important rabbinic centers in Palestine. Probably as a result of his presence, the city gradually began to attract sages who developed its spiritual center, which remained the scene of rabbinic activity throughout theentiretalmudicperiod.R.Hoshaiahwasregardedasoneofhis generation’s leading sages and a figure of great authority. He maintained close ties with the patriarchs of that period, Rabban Gamliel b. Rabbi and

8 Oppenheimer, “Bathei Midrash.” 9 Bacher, Amoraim, :, –; Hyman, Toldot, –; Levine, Caesarea, –. 10 Bacher, Amoraim, :, –; Oppenheimer, ibid.; Levine, Caesarea, , –. central palestine  his son, R. Judah Nesiah I, and he exercised great influence over them.11 He also maintained ties with and visited the sages in Lod, and he followed severalofthelocalhalakhicpracticesofthesouth.12 Among the sages of his generation, R. Hoshaiah was regarded as an exceptionally great authority in matters of halakhic rulings, exegesis and teaching of the Oral Law and was referred to by his disciples as the “Father of the Mishnah.” Yet, in spite of the fact that according to one tradition he possessed the keenest mind of his generation, R. Hoshaiah’s halakhic opinions were not put into practice, as sages did not fully grasp the profundity of his arguments. R. Hoshaiah took an active part in rabbinic leadership and headed the rabbinic court in the town of Ein Tav— located between Lod and Yavneh—which was responsible for declaring the sanctification of the new moon from the time of R. Judah ha-Nasi through most of the talmudic period. The sages highly regarded this rabbinic court, which the patriarch appointed.13 R. Hoshaiah may also have been involved in the intensive interfaith activities which took place in Caesarea between the city’s Jews and members of the local Christian community, including the famous Church father Origen, who was active at that time in Caesarea where he wrote his major literary works. Origen makes several references to his Jewish teacher. It has been argued that some of the ideas in R. Hoshaiah’s midrashic discourses contain echoes of contact with Christians, including Origen, and some suggest that he may have been the Jewish teacher to which Origen refers.14

11 Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, –. For more on his ties with Rabban Gamliel and his broad influence, see j. Hallah :, a: “Rabban Gamaliel, son of Rabbi, proposed to apply the laws of doubtfully tithed produce to Syria, but R. Hoshaiah did not permit him to do so” (Neusner, :). For more on his ties with Rabban Gamliel’s son, R. Judah Nesiah, see j. Beitzah :, d; j. Yevamot :, b; j. Kiddushin :, c; j. Baba Kamma :, d; b. Baba Kamma b.Regardinghisstature,see,forexample,b. Yevamot b, where he is presented as the main figure at a convocation of the sages. See also Bacher, ibid., –. 12 Regarding his visit to Lod, see j. Pe"ah :, b. See also the information in n.  above. 13 For example, in j. Baba Kamma :, c, he is referred to as the “Father of the Mishnah” by his disciple, R. Simeon b. Lakish. See also Epstein, Tanaitic Literature, . In b. Eruvin a, R. Johanan, his close disciple, compares R. Hoshaiah’s standing in the rabbinic world to the special standing of R. Meir in the generation following the Bar Kokhba Revolt. R. Hoshaiah was the head of the rabbinic court whose role it was to sanctify the new moon; see j. Nedarim :, a, and the parallel passage in j. Sanhedrin :, a. See also Safrai, “The Localities,” –; Levine, Rabbinic Class, , and n. ; Rosenfeld, Lod, , , –. 14 See Graetz, “Hillel,” ; Bacher, “Rabbi Hoshaia”; Levine, Caesarea, –; idem, Rabbinic Class,  and n. ; Hirschman, “Aggada”; Lapin, “Academies.”  chapter four

For over a decade following the death of R. Hoshaiah we find no mention of any notable sages in Caesarea. This was apparently due to the fact that at that time, the second talmudic generation (–ce), manysagesanddisciplesflockedtoTiberiastoattendtheacademyof R. Johanan, the leading Palestinian sage of that generation. The rabbinic center in Caesarea, which was new and had no established tradition of rabbinic activity, was unable to attract any important sages. The situation in this center contrasted with other important rabbinic centers that continued their activity as usual in spite of R. Johanan’s influence. Thus, for example, the important, well-established rabbinic center in Lod was the scene of uninterrupted activity of famous local sages, such as R. Joshua b. Levi, his close disciple R. Simeon and others.15 This situation lasted for a relatively short period of time. In the late second talmudic generation (/–ce), R. Jose bar Hanina arrived in Caesarea and became its leading sage. There is no mention of any connection between him and his predecessor, R. Hoshaiah. R. Jose had attended the academy of R. Johanan and R. Simeon b. Lakish in Tiberias, and they may have sent him to Caesarea. In addition to his close ties with Tiberian sages, R. Jose bar Hanina maintained close ties with Babylonian sages. In the following generations as well, close ties were maintained between the rabbinic center in Caesarea and the Babylonian rabbinic centers.16 Thesetiesexistedinspiteofthefiercebattlesthatweretak- ing place between Rome and Persia at that time that were turning journeys into dangerous undertakings.17 R. Jose bar Hanina’s teachings were cited mainly by R. Abbahu, the leading Caesarean sage of the third talmudic generation (–ce), and by R. Hama bar Ukva. Other sages, too, including some of the third-generation Caesarean sages, cited teachings in R. Jose’s name, and presumably some, if not all of them, had been hisdisciples.TheyincludedR.ZeirabarHama,R.Zerikan,R.Hezekiah, R. Jacob bar Aha, R. Nasa and Rabbanan de-Caesarin.18 Another, almost unknown sage, R. Ulla de-Caesarin (= of Caesarea), was active in Cae-

15 RegardingthesagesofLod,seeChapter,Judea,settlementno..Onthesagesof Tiberias, see Chapter , Galilee, settlement no. . 16 Lieberman, “Caesarea,” ; Levine, Caesarea, . 17 SeeforexampleAlon,Toldot, :–; Levine, “Third Century,” –; Frye, “The Sassanians”; Ball, East, –, –. 18 Levine, ibid., –. For more on R. Jose bar Hanina and his disciples, see Hyman, Toldot, ; Zuri, R. Yosi bar Haninah; Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, –. Regarding Hama bar Ukva, see Albeck, ibid., –; Hyman, ibid., . According to talmudic sources, R. Jose bar Hanina had a connection only with the sages of Tiberias and not with the sages of Caesarea. This connection may have been a consequence of the central palestine  sarea in R. Jose bar Hanina’s generation; R. Ulla cited teachings in the name of R. Hanina bar Hama of Sepphoris and perhaps attended his academy.19 An anonymous group of sages, referred to as Rabbanan de-Caesarin (= Rabbis/Sages of Caesarea) is mentioned for the first time in the late second talmudic generation, and their rabbinic activity spanned four generations, continuing until the end of the talmudic period. They were sages with authority and the power to ordain other sages. Most of their teachings are attributed to the third to fifth talmudic generations. This group is similar to other anonymous groups of sages who were active in other rabbinic centers, such as the Elders of the South, Rabbanan de-Naveh (= Rab- bis/ Sages of Naveh) and the Hevraya in Tiberias.20 However, Rabbanan de-Caesarin was the most prominent of the different groups. Only a small number of teachings of each of the other groups are extant, compared to over one hundred halakhic and aggadic teachings that are cited in the name of Rabbanan de-Caesarin in the Jerusalem Talmud along with several teachings in the Babylonian Talmud and in the aggadic midrashim.21 This group probably consisted of more than two sages, as later on, in the third talmudic generation (–ce), rabbinic literature mentions a

smaller numbers of other sages in Caesarea in his generation, and his main interlocutors were members of his generation in the large rabbinic center in Tiberias whose academies he had attended and with whom he had maintained close ties. 19 Albeck, ibid., . Two of his teachings are recorded. In Lamentations Rabbah : there is also mention of a sage by the name of Isi de-Caesarin who disputed R. Simeon b. Lakish, and presumably they were contemporaries. But the preferred reading is the one found in Leviticus Rabbah, :, ed. Margulies, : R. Nisi de-Caesari. According to the editor’s note to line , he is R. Nisa de-Caesarin—a member of the fifth talmudic generation, mentioned below. R. Isi de-Caesarin is also mentioned in Ecclesiastes Rabbah : (). However, in all of the good manuscripts the reading is Nisi, who is R. Nisi de- Caesarin, according to Irshai, “Niburaia,” – and nn. , . It is therefore preferable to assume that we are dealing with a simple textual corruption in which the letter nun was replaced by the letter alef, and there was no sage by the name of R. Isi de-Caesarin. 20 See Beer, “Chevraya”; Miller, Sages, –, and s.v. Rabbanan of Caesarea. This group left a relatively large number of teachings, and their level of importance was similar to that of the Rabbanan de-Caesarin. 21 For more on their teachings, see Reeg, Ortsnamen, –. For a discussion about them, see Levine, Caesarea, –; idem, Rabbinic Class, –. Miller, Sages,ibid.The sages were ordained even though they went abroad, on condition that they eventually return to Palestine; see j. Bikkurim :, d. See Levine, Rabbinic Class,  and n. ; Rosenfeld, Lod,  and n. . For more on the Elders of the South, see Schwartz, Judaea, index, Ziknei Darom; Rosenfeld, ibid., . Rabbanan de-Naveh are mentioned only once in the rabbinic literature; see Reeg, Ortsnamen, –, and the discussion about them in Chapter .  chapter four pair of sages referred to as Zuga de-Caesarin in addition to Rabbanan de- Caesarin in that same generation. This distinction implies that Rabbanan de-Caesarin was a different, larger group that must have numbered at least three to four other sages. Moreover, we can deduce from rabbinic literature that sages known by name are not the same sages as Rabbanan de-Caesarin, and it can be inferred from the fact that the latter was an anonymous group that these sages were less important than sages known by name. Nonetheless, they were influential sages, and they are includedinthelistofsageswhowereactiveinCaesareaduringthose four generations of the talmudic period. In the following generation, the third generation of the talmudic period, there is considerable information about the rabbinic center in Cae- sarea,whichreacheditsheightintermsofitsimportanceintherabbinic worldandthenumberofsageswhowereactivethere.R.Abbahu,who was active from approximately  to ce, was the leading sage in Cae- sarea at the time. He was a member of a highly respected family, traded in valuable commodities and was a wealthy man. In addition, the repre- sentatives of the imperial authorities in Caesarea had a unique regard for him. He was referred to as “the speaker for the nation” of Jews in Pales- tine, because of his connections with the authorities, his great influence and the fact that he could intercede on behalf of the Jewish community. R.Abbahuwasamemberofthecity’swealthyJewisharistocracy,which owned considerable property and goods in the area. These wealthy elites were part of a larger group of Caesarean Jews who were deeply involved in the city’s financial life. R. Abbahu maintained ongoing contact and conducted religious-polemical debates with Caesarea’s influential Chris- tian community, as well as with its Samarian community. He was a close disciple of R. Johanan of Tiberias and had also attended the academy of R. Joshua b. Levi in Lod.22 Many sages, including his close disciples, some of whom resided in Caesarea, cited R. Abbahu’s teachings. Among them were his son R. Zeira, R. Hezekiah, R. Isaac bar Josef, who was a nehuti (a sage who left for Babylonia and then returned to Palestine), Abimi (Abedimi)barTobiandperhapsalsoR.Nahum,whowasR.Abbahu’s attendant.23

22 Levine, “Rabbi Abbahu,” –, , ; idem, Caesarea, , –, , –, – ; Strack-Stemberger, Introduction, . For more on the character of the academies in Caesarea, see Lapin, “Academies.” 23 Hyman, Toldot, –. central palestine 

Other sages were active in Caesarea in the third generation of the talmudic period (–ce), including some of that generation’s prominent sages, but they are overshadowed in rabbinic literature by R. Ab- bahu. These sages included: R. Abbahu’s father-in-law, R. Tahlifa of Cae- sarea, who perhaps may be the same figure as a sage of that generation named Rav Tahlifa bar Ma"arava (= from the west, i.e. Palestine), whom the Babylonian Talmud refers to as a tanna in R. Johanan’s academy in Tiberias; R. Idi (or Ada) de-Caesarin (= of Caesarea), who earlier may have been a disciple and tanna in R. Johanan’s academy in Tiberias, and later, a sage in Caesarea;24 R. Hanina bar Papa, another important sage of that generation, who apparently attended the academy in Tiberias presided over by R. Samuel bar Nahman, a member of the second to third generations, and by R. Zeira/Zira of the third talmudic generation. R. Hanina bar Papa is also associated with other third to fourth- generation sages, primarily those from Tiberias, and thus should be placed in the third to fourth talmudic generations. R. Hanina bar Papa maintained close ties with several of the leading Babylonian sages of his generation, who regarded him as an important halakhic authority. He also was known as a biblical exegete and expounder of the Law. R. Abba bar Meniumi, who recited a beraita before him, was his disciple, as was R. Aha, the leading fourth-generation sage from Lod.25 Like R. Abbahu, R. Aha also was a son-in-law of R. Tahlifa. Thus, there were close cultural and social ties between the sages of Lod and Caesarea in this generation,26 even though the main ties of the Caesarean sages were with the large rab- biniccenterinTiberias.

24 In j. Berakhot :, c (= j. Rosh Hashanah :, c); j. Rosh Hashanah :, c; j. Moed Katan :, c, we find that R. Idi of Caesarea cites a halakhic teaching in the name of R. Johanan. In the passage parallel to the last source, b. Moed Katan a, we find,“R.AddaofCaesareataughtinthepresenceofR.Johanan.”Insomeofthereadings, it is R. Abba; see Ratner, Ahavat Zion, Moed Katan, :. This is a common alteration of this name. His teaching is mentioned in b. Ta"anit b, and many other readings of his name exist; see Malter, Ta"anit, ; Rabbinovicz, Dikduke Sofrim,Ta"anit, n. kuf.Inmost of the manuscripts, the reading is R. Ada, and in some, R. Aha. 25 On R. Hanina bar Papa, see Hyman, Toldot, –; Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, –; Levine, Caesarea, –. For more on his ties with the sages of Lod, see Rosenfeld, Lod, –. 26 See Bacher, “Die Gelehrten”; Lieberman, Caesarea, –; Levine, Caesarea, – ; Reeg, Ortsnamen, –. For more on R. Tahlifa, see Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, , which devotes a separate entry to R. Tahlifa bar Ma"arava. R. Tahlifa was the father-in-law of R. Abbahu according to Ecclesiastes Rabbah :, a and also the father-in-law of R. Aha of Lod, j. Berakhot :, d. See also Hyman, Toldot, , and entries in Hyman on the sages mentioned here; Rosenfeld, “Leadership.”  chapter four

Rabbinic literature also mentions a pair of sages in this generation referred to as Zuga de-Caesarin,aswellasasagenamedR.Paregoriof Caesarea, who may have been active in this generation.27 The younger sages—those of the third to fourth generation—included R. Jacob bar Aha, who apparently had studied primarily in Tiberias but also may have attended the academy of R. Ulla in Caesarea. There is evidence that R. Jacob bar Aha lived in Caesarea and had ties with R. Abbahu, who lived near him, and with R. Abbahu’s disciple, R. Hezekiah, who was active in Caesarea in the following generation. R. Jacob bar Aha must have been a sage of stature, since he was a member of the rabbinic court that dealt with the intercalation of the year and that was composed of the prominent sages of the generation.28 R. Zerika (or Zerikan) was active in Caesarea, where he settled after emigrating from Babylonia and studying mainly in Tiberias. He cited teachings of R. Jose bar Hanina and perhaps attended his academy. He also had ties with R. Abbahu.29 R. Isaac Nafha, sometimes referred to simply as R. Isaac, without further qualification, was a renowned third-generation sage. He studied

27 Zuga are mentioned in j. Demai :, a. R. Isaac b. Eleazar, who was active in Caesarea in the following generation, cited a teaching in their name. According to Epstein, Nusah ha-Mishna, , Zuga meanstwins,thustwopeople,whichisthepreferable interpretation. However, according to Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud,  n. ,  and n. , Zuga is the name of one sage. R. Paregori cited a teaching in the name of R. Eleazar of the second generation, j. Terumot :, d, and therefore he might be a member of the following generation, the third talmudic generation. 28 J. Rosh Hashanah :, b. See also Albeck, ibid., –, who states that R. Jacob bar Aha actually saw R. Johanan and Reish Lakish discussing a halakhic matter, but he primarily attended the academies of their disciples, such as R. Asi, who referred to him as “our associate” (j. Shabbat :, c), and R. Hiyya bar Abba and other third-generation sages. He cited teachings in the name of Ulla de-Caesarin in j. Pesahim :, a; the implication is that R. Jacob was his disciple. The ties between R. Jacob and R. Abbahu are mentioned in j. Moed Katan :, c with regard to an incident that happened in their locality; the implication is that they lived near one another. R. Jacob bar Aha maintained close ties with R. Zeira, the prominent third to fourth generation Tiberias sage. In j. Orlah :, a, R. Haggai states that when he arrived in Palestine and disembarked from the boat, he heard the voice of R. Jacob bar Aha teaching a mishnah,andthisincident may have occurred in the port of Caesarea, near the place where R. Jacob lived. See also Hyman, Toldot, –. 29 In j. Berakhot :, d, Hezekiah cites a teaching in the name of R. Zerika. See also j. Shabbat :, b; j. Pesahim :, a; Levine, Caesarea, . For more on the suggestion of identifying R. Zerika with someone else found on a tombstone inscription in Caesarea who had the identical name, Zerika, see Schwabe, “Inscription”; Levine, ibid., and n. . For more about him, see Albeck, ibid., ; Strack-Stemberger, Introduction, . According to the latter, R. Zerika attended the academy of the second generation R. Eleazar and that of the third generation R. Ami, who were both from Tiberias. He apparently immigrated from Babylonia; see Hyman, ibid., –. central palestine  and served as a sage in Tiberias, left for Babylonia and returned to Palestine. It is likely that he had spent a significant amount of time in Caesarea, where he had officiated as a judge together with R. Abbahu and R. Hanina bar Papa. However, he may have returned to Tiberias later in his life, as he is not associated much in rabbinic literature with the sages of Caesarea, but rather with Tiberian sages, as a disciple and a sage.30 We can deduce from the teachings of Caesarean sages that most of them had studied in Tiberias and they maintained exceptionally close ties with the city’s prominent rabbinic center. We also clearly receive the impression that some of the Caesarean sages were regarded as the prominent sages of their generation. In the fourth generation of the talmudic period (–ce), Cae- sarea was the scene of activity of a sizable number of prominent sages. R. Isaac b. Eleazar was an outstanding master of halakhah and aggadah. He had studied in Tiberias and maintained contact with its sages. His disciples included: R. Hoshaiah bar Shamai, a member of the fifth talmudic generation in Caesarea; R. Mana of Sepphoris, the leading Galilean sage of the next generation; and perhaps R. Samuel bar Abedimi. Even though R. Isaac ben Eleazar was one of the most important sages of his generation, the Jerusalem Talmud specifically notes that he was never officially appointed a judge, apparently because the patriarch, who had the power to make such appointments, did not approve it.31 Three of R. Abbahu’s sons served as sages in Caesarea in the fourth generation. They had studied primarily in Tiberias. The first, and most renowned, was R. Hanina Brei de- (= son of) Rabbi Abbahu. He is depicted as a prominent halakhist and aggadist, and a significantly greater number of his teachings are recorded than those of his two brothers. He was cited by several sages, including R. Hezekiah of Caesarea, and by TiberiansagessuchasR.JosebarBunandR.Eleazarb.Jose.R.Abbahu’s second son, R. Zeira Brei de-rabbi Abbahu, was an expounder of halakhah and aggadah, but little is known about him. R. Abbahu’s third son,AbimiBreide-rabbiAbbahu,wasawealthybusinessmanwhoalso traveled to Babylonia. He was a reciter of beraitot and a sage.32

30 For the sources about R. Isaac, see Bacher, Amoraim, :, –; Hyman, ibid., –; Albeck, ibid., ; Levine, ibid., , –. According to b. Baba Kama b, he held the position of judge in Caesarea. 31 Albeck, ibid., –, . For more on his non-ordination, see above, in Chap- ter , Galilee, no.  in the list of settlements. 32 FormoreonR.Haninab.R.Abbahu,seeHyman,Toldot, ; Albeck, ibid., ; Strack-Stemberger, Introduction, . Regarding his brother, R. Zeira, see j. Berakhot :,  chapter four

R. Nasa was another sage active in Caesarea in this generation. He was the son of R. Tahlifa of the previous generation, and thus, an uncle of R. Abbahu’s sons. R. Nasa studied in Tiberias, and he cited teachings in the name of R. Jose bar Hanina of Caesarea. Rabbinic literature notes his friendship with R. Jonah of Tiberias. Different sages, including Rabbanan de-Caesarin and R. Samuel b. R. Jose bar Bun who apparently was active in Tiberias, cite his teachings. R. Nasa is mentioned fourteen times in the Jerusalem Talmud, mostly in the three Baba tractates, Baba Kama, Baba Metzi"a and Baba Batra, and only four times in other tractates. A large proportion of the material discussed in the Baba tractates, which together form the tractate Nezikin, emanated from Caesarean sages, and later the redactors of the Jerusalem Talmud incorporated it into their Talmud.Thus,thefactthatR.Nasaismentionedrelativelyfrequently in the Baba tractates implies that he was a notable sage in his own city.33 However, the Jerusalem Talmud does not mention R. Nasa frequently, and considering the number of references to other sages, it is difficult to gauge his relative importance as a sage. Therefore, being the son of R. Tahlifa and a member of a well-connected family, both in Caesarea and beyond, would have advanced his religious and social standing and increased the likelihood that he was indeed an important sage. Other sages who were active in Caesarea in this generation include R. Jacob b. Dasai (or Dostai) and R. Jacob de-Caesarin (= of Caesarea), whose teachings were cited by R. Nahman of Jaffa. It has been suggested that these two sages with the same name, Jacob, may perhaps be the

c, which records that he “expounded,” and the parallel passage in Genesis Rabbah :, eds. Theodor-Albeck, , that states that he “expounded in Caesarea.” It is reasonable to state that a sage usually gave a sermon in his own city, which according to this midrash was Caesarea. To this we can add the information that R. Zeira was the son of R. Abbahu, who was active in Caesarea, and deduce that the son, as well, lived in Caesarea and gave public sermons there. For more on his aggadic teachings, see Hyman, ibid., . In j. Avodah Zarah :, c we find “R. Zeira Beria de- (= son of) Rabbi Abbahu expounded before R. Eleazar.” According to this, he gave a sermon as early as the time of the second generation R. Eleazar of Tiberias. But the parallel source, j. Berakhot :, b, does not contain the word “expound,”and it states that he cited a teaching in the name of his father, R. Abbahu, who cited the teaching in the name of R. Eleazar. In other words, R. Zeira did not cite the teaching directly in the name of R. Eleazar, and there is no proof that he actually saw him. Regarding Abimi, his affluence and business affairs in Babylonia, see b. Ketubot a; b. Hullin b; b. Niddah b. For more on his being a tanna and a sage, see Hyman, ibid., . 33 For more on R. Nasa, see Hyman, ibid., –; Albeck, ibid., –,  n. ; Lieberman, “Caesarea,” , –; Assis, “Nezikin,” . central palestine  same person.34 Another sage, R. Shamai, was active at the end of this generation.HeattendedtheacademyheadedbyR.Aha,theprominent fourth-generation sage in Lod, and also maintained ties with leading Tiberian sages of his generation. He is also mentioned as a friend of the leading fifth-generation sage, R. Mana of Sepphoris. R. Shamai’s teachings were cited by fifth-generation sages, among them R. Abin of Sepphoris, R. Eleazar Daroma of Lod and R. Judan bar Shalom, whose placeofresidenceisnotknownbutmayhavebeenTiberias.R.Judan testifies about a halakhic ruling of R. Shamai’s, apparently in Caesarea, and perhaps he was R. Shamai’s disciple. In any event, he appears to have maintained ties with the main rabbinic centers.35 Other sages who were active in Caesarea at the end of this generation include R. Ahva bar Zeira, the son of R. Zeira, who was one of the leading Tiberian sages in the third to fourth generations (–ce). It is of interest that even though Tiberias was the main rabbinic center at the time, the son relocated to the less important center in Caesarea. Apparently he had been a tanna and recited beraitot in the academy in Tiberias, and later on he relocated to Caesarea, where he was known as a master of halakhah and aggadah.36 R. Hezekiah was another prominent sage active in Caesarea in the second half of the fourth talmudic generation. He was a close disciple of R. Jeremiah in Tiberias and a disciple-colleague of the fourth-generation R. Jose of Tiberias. He also had attended the academy of R. Abbahu in Caesarea and cited teachings of fourth-generation Caesarean sages, R. Jacob bar Aha and R. Hanina b. R. Abbahu, in whose academies he had studied the Oral Law. He also cited teachings of the fourth-generation sages in Lod and other locales. R. Mana of Sepphoris, the leading fifth- generation sage, was a disciple-colleague of R. Hezekiah. R. Hezekiah

34 On R. Jacob b. Dasai, see Albeck, ibid., . Albeck places him in the fifth generation, but he should be antedated to the fourth talmudic generation, because Albeck notes that R. Jose bar Bun, who was a member of the fourth to fifth generations, cited a teaching in his name. See also Schwabe, “Judeo-Greek Inscription”; idem,“R.Jakob.” SchwabeidentifiedthenameofJacobb.Dasaifoundonatombstoneinscriptionwiththe above R. Jacob b. Dasai who is mentioned in rabbinic literature and who was active in the middle of the fourth talmudic generation. R. Jacob de-Caesarin is mentioned in Genesis Rabbah, :, eds. Theodor-Albeck, . In the parallel passage in Leviticus Rabbah :, ed. Margulies, , R. Nahman of Jaffa, a member of the fifth talmudic generation, cites a teaching in the name of R. Jacob de-Caesarin. 35 Hyman, ibid., –; Albeck, ibid., . 36 R.AhvabarZeiraismentionedasthesonofR.Zeirainj.Berakhot :, d. See also Ginzburg, Yerushalmi, :–. He is connected with Caesarea in j. Hallah :, a; j. Pesahim :, b. See also Hyman, ibid., –; Strack-Stemberger, Introduction, .  chapter four had another, almost unknown, disciple named R. Taviumi.37 In addition, R. Abimi or Abedimi bar Tobi may have been active in Caesarea. He was a disciple and associate of R. Abbahu and later became a sage.38 In the fifth generation, a sage by the name of R. Hoshaiah bar Shamai was active in Caesarea. From the little information that exists, it appears that he attended the academy of R. Isaac b. Eleazar in Caesarea. Nowhere does it state that he had studied in any other rabbinic center, although he maintained friendly ties with R. Mana of Sepphoris, the leading fifth- generation sage.39 R. Hoshaiah bar Shamai was a sailor. There may have beenanothersageactiveinCaesarea,Hilfaibarbreide-(=sonoftheson of) Rabbi Abbahu, who cited one of his grandfather’s teachings. Hilfai was involved in litigation that was brought before R. Nasa, his father’s uncle and a prominent Caesarean sage of the previous generation.40

37 For more on his rabbinic activity in Caesarea, see j. Demai :, b; j. Kiddushim :, a. See also Hyman, ibid., –; Albeck, ibid., –. R. Taviumi posed a question to R. Hezekiah in the manner of a disciple to his teacher; see j. Berakhot :, b. 38 J. Moed Kattan :, c; j. Nazir :, c. In the latter source, R. Abbahu talks to him and relates to him as his teaching assistant. J. Baba Batra :, b states, “R. Abimi (or Abedimi according to Rosenthal-Lieberman, Yerushalmi Neziqin, ) bar Tobi taught.” The fact that he is mentioned as a teacher inj. Nezikin, in which the Caesarean sages played such a prominent role (see Lieberman, “Caesarea”), and the fact that he was a disciple of R. Abbahu of Caesarea, imply that he had been a disciple and later a sage in Caesarea. 39 An explicit reference to his scene of activity is found in an aggadic teaching in Leviticus Rabbah :, ed. Margulies, : R. Hoshaya son of R. Shamai of Caesarea in the name of R. Isaac b. Ze"iri (Soncino, :). The same is implied in j. Kilayim :, c. On his being a sailor, see Albeck, ibid., –; Levine, Caesarea,  and n. . 40 The teaching of R. Abbahu cited by his grandson, Hilfai, is mentioned inj. Bekhorim :, d: “Hilfai son of the son of R. Abbahu said, ‘I heard my teacher (rabbi) interpret’” (Neusner, :), but it is unclear who this teacher was. The reading in the parallel Midrash Shmuel :, ed. Buber, , may be preferable: “Hilfai, son of the son of R. Abbahu, expounded, ‘I heard the voice of my grandfather (sabbi)expound.’”Inother words, this is a case of a simple and common interchanging between the “r” and the “s” of rabbi (my teacher) and sabbi (my grandfather). Hilfai was referring to his grandfather’s sermon that he had heard in his childhood, and he repeated it many years later. See also Hyman, ibid., ; Midrash on Psalms, ed. Buber, ; Yalkut Shimoni, Tehilim, . Also see the comment in Rabbinovicz, Sha"arei, , that the reading in Yalkut Shimoni is: “R. Halafta in the name of R. Abbahu.”Halafta is the same as Hilfai, who cited a teaching in the name of his grandfather. According to this reading, R. Abbahu’s grandson was a sage. We may deduce from another incident, in j. Baba Batra :, a, that Hilfai was active in the time period of R. Nasa of the fourth to fifth generations and lived nearby: “This isin accord with the following: A woman would make a fire out of coals underneath the house of R. Ilfai (= Hilfai). He went to prevent her from doing so. This case came before R. Nasa. He said, ‘They made the rule only in the case of a continuing cloud of smoke [while in this central palestine 

Hilfai, the great grandson of R. Tahlifa, was actually the last member of a rabbinic dynasty that was almost unique among sages of the talmudic period. The dynasty began in the third talmudic generation with R. Tahlifa and continued with his son-in-law R. Abbahu of the same generation, R. Abbahu’s three sons in the fourth generation and Hilfai in thefifthgeneration.R.Nasab.R.Tahlifaformedanotherbranchofthis dynasty, which was also unique in that all of its sages were active in Cae- sarea over a period that spanned three generations. A phenomenon of this type was most likely to occur in a place where the cultural aristocracy had become an established group that formed strong family ties, and with the passage of time, the different branches of the family developed into a dynasty. It should be noted that R. Mana, who was active in Sepphoris in the fifth generation, apparently had more contact with Caesarea and its sages inthefourthtofifthgenerationsthanwithTiberiasanditssages.This association holds true for other Sepphorian sages of this generation, and perhaps it counterbalanced the power of the patriarchate and the dependency of Tiberian sages on it. The fifth generation witnessed bitter strife between the patriarch, on the one hand, and R. Mana and other sages in Sepphoris and Tiberias, on the other.41 In addition, ties between the Caesarean sages and the Roman government enhanced their status within rabbinic circles and also vis-à-vis the patriarch, and these ties indirectly lent support to and heightened the status of their colleagues, the sages of Sepphoris.

Samuka—Rural Settlement with Rabbinic Activity

Samuka has been identified with Hirbat Sumaka on the southern slopes of Mt. Carmel, two and a half kilometers southwest of present-day Daliat el-Carmel. A sage by the name of R. Abba Samuka was active there in the

case, it is only an occasional nuisance, so one may not prevent the woman from making the fire]’” (based on Neusner, :). See also Rosenthal-Lieberman, Yerushalmi Neziqin, , note to line . 41 R. Mana had close ties with the Caesarean sages of the fourth talmudic generation: R. Isaac b. Eleazar, R. Shemai, R. Hezekia, R. Zerikan, R. Ahva bar Zeira and later on with R. Hoshaiah bar Shamai of the fifth talmudic generation. See Hyman, ibid., –; Albeck, ibid., , , Levine, Caesarea, ; idem, Rabbinic Class, –. For more on the tension between the rabbinic centers, see Levine, “Tiberias”; Rosenfeld, “The Crisis,” –.  chapter four third talmudic generation as was R. Taifah (or Tiufi) Samuka in the fourth generation. That R. Taifah cited teachings in the name of R. Abbahu, and perhaps had been his disciple, implies that he had ties with the rabbinic center in Caesarea.42 In that same generation, a sage named R. Isaac bar Josef may have been active in Samuka. He is referred to twice as Isaac Sumaka, perhaps based onthenameofthesettlementinwhichhelived.HehadstudiedinCae- sarea, was a close disciple of R. Abbahu and served as his emissary. He had also attended the academy in Tiberias presided over by R. Jeremiah, the leading third- to fourth-generation sage. R. Isaac also was involved in commerce, traveling to Babylonia and returning to Palestine. He was called a nehuti, a sage who travels back and forth between Babylonia and Palestine and passes on information from the sages of both countries.43 ItmaybepossibletoreconstructthegeneralcourseofR.Isaac’slife, which began in Samuka. Living in Samuka, he was able to study under R. Abbahu, the leading sage in nearby Caesarea. At some point he left for Babylonia, perhaps against the backdrop of the ties between Pales- tinian and Babylonian sages, an association that included commercial ties as well as the transfer of talmudic information. This phenomenon of merchants transmitting information from country to country was common throughout the ancient world. In Babylonia, R. Isaac may have become acquainted with R. Jeremiah, who was originally a Babylonian. R. Jeremiah later immigrated to Palestine, and R. Isaac went to Tiberias to attend his academy. R. Isaac may have returned to and been active in his village, which was like a suburb of Caesarea. Information available in rabbinic literature about wandering sages is sparse, but we do know of other sages who wandered from place to place.44

42 See Albeck, ibid., – and n. . 43 Isaac Samuka is mentioned twice in b. Yevamot b. Rava, the leading fourth- generation Babylonian sage, referred to him thus, saying that one should not rely on a tradition that Isaac Samuka brought from Palestine, and Rava’s colleague, R. Abbaye, accepted the tradition. For more on R. Isaac, see Hyman, ibid., –; Albeck, ibid., . Albeck places him among the fourth-generation Babylonian sages. But he was clearly a nehuti. 44 These include bar Kappara—a contemporary of R. Judah ha-Nasi—who wandered from Lod to Galilee, and perhaps from there to Devorah in Golan; see the discussion on the Lod sages of R. Judah ha-Nasi’s generation in Chapter , Judea, no.  in the list of settlements. Other wandering sages include R. Jacob bar Idi, a half generation before R. Isaac Samuka, who was originally a disciple of R. Joshua b. Levi in Lod. He relocated from Lod to Tiberias to attend the academy of R. Johanan and ultimately was a sage who was active in Sulam Zur. See Chapter , Galilee, Sulam Zur, settlement no.  in the list of settlements. central palestine 

In the fifth talmudic generation, Samuka may have been the scene of activity of a sage named Abba Hilfai bar Samkai, who perhaps was named after his place of residence. That Abba Hilfai cited teachings in thename of R. Judah bar Simon of the fourth talmudic generation in Lod implies that the former had ties with the rabbinic center there.45 Thus, the sages of Samuka may have maintained ties, although not on a continuous basis, with the three large rabbinic centers, Tiberias, Lod and Caesarea.46 The presence of rabbinic activity in Samuka in the second half of the talmudic period, the fourth century, is consistent with archaeological findings, which indicate that the village had reached the height of its development during this period. Thus, Samuka serves as an example of the correlation that has been found between a village’s economic development and its religious development, since according to the archaeological findings, sages were active in Samuka during the time period that it reached the height of its economic development.47 Information about rabbinic activity in Samuka is of significance, as it is the only settlement in the Carmel Mountains that was known to

45 For more on Abba Hilfai Bar Samkai, see j. Berakhot :, in which he cites a teaching in the name of R. Halbo, a member of the third to fourth talmudic generations. In Midrash Tanhuma, Bereshit , ed. Buber, , he is called Abba ha-Admoni (= the Red), and Buber suggests that he is the same person as Abba Samuka, because Admoni is the Hebrew translation of Samuka and Midrash Tanhuma commonly presents the Hebrew form of Aramaic words and names. The fourth-generation R. Berakhiah cited a teaching inthenameofR.Abba.SeealsoGenesis Rabbah, :, eds. Theodor-Albeck, . He cites a teaching there in the name of the fourth-generation R. Judah bar Simon, and thus R. Abba was presumably a member of the following generation. 46 The suggestion that the word Samuka, in its different declensions, is the name ofa placewasacceptedinscholarlyliteratureprimarilybecauseitsoundssimilartotheArabic name of the place. This suggestion is supported by the fact that the names of two out of the three sages with the appellation Samuka do not include the word “bar,”which is generally the prefix that appears before the name of the father. In the case of the third sage, who is called bar Samkai, Samkai is not necessarily the name of his father, as “bar” can sometimes represent the name of a place. Moreover, except for the three previously mentioned sages who were active in three consecutive generations, rabbinic literature does not refer to sages whose names contain the addition of Samuka. Three consecutive generations of these sages suggests that the sages more likely were named after their place of residence rather than that they may have been redheaded. See also Klein, Galilee, –, and n. ; Reeg, Ortsnamen, ; Dar, “Sumaqa,”. For the second suggestion, see Cotton and Yardeni, Texts, – and n. . A first-century document from the Judean Desert contains the name “Samuka bar Barucha.” Cotton and Yardeni, who decoded and published the document, state in their notes that Samuka means red, which was the nickname of that person, and as examples they mention the three above sages who were called Samuka because of the color of their hair and not their place of residence. 47 Olami, Sender, Oren, Yagur, No. , ,  (Hirbat Sumaq); Dar, Sumaqa, –, –.  chapter four have been the scene of rabbinic activity during the talmudic period. For a time span of three generations during the second half of the talmudic period, two sages, and perhaps also another two sages, were active there. Samuka may be regarded as the periphery of the important rabbinic center in Caesarea, and these were the only two settlements in central Palestineinwhichsageswereactive.However,theexistenceofrabbinic activity in Samuka raises the possibility that there may have been other settlements with rabbinic activity in the Carmel region in the last century of the talmudic period, despite the gradually worsening conditions of the Jewish population in Palestine.

Summary of the Data

Number of Sages in the Rabbinic Center in Caesarea Mishnaic Period The generation of R. Judah ha-Nasi or earlier: R. Judah ha-Nahtom (with great uncertainty as to the generation to which he belongs). Total:  sage (about whom we are uncertain). The generation of R. Judah ha-Nasi: R. Judah b. Nakossa (with some uncertainty). Total:  sage (about whom we are uncertain). Talmudic Period First generation: R. Hoshaiah. Total:  sage. Second generation:  sages—R. Jose bar Hanina, R. Ulla de-Caesarin, and perhaps another three-four Rabbanan de-Caesarin.Total:–sages. Third generation:  sages—R. Abbahu, R. Tahlifa of Caesarea, R. Hanina bar Papa, R. Idi of Caesarea, R. Paregori of Caesarea, R. Jacob bar Aha, R. Zerika, R. Isaac bar Nafha (only part of his period of activity appears to have been in Caesarea), Zuga de-Caesarin (= ) and another  or  Rabbanan de-Caesarin. Total: – sages. Fourth Generation:  sages and  sage about whom we are uncertain— R. Isaac ben Eleazar, R. Shamai, R. Hanina Brei de-Rabbi Abbahu, R. Zeira Brei de-Rabbi Abbahu, Abimi Brei de-Rabbi Abbahu, R. Nasa of Caesarea, R. Jacob bar Desai, R. Jacob of Caesarea (these two sages may be the same person), R. Ahva bar Zeira, R. Hezekiah, another  or  Rabbanan de-Caesarin and R. Abimi or Abedimi bar Tobi (about whom we are uncertain). Total: – sages (+  about whom we are uncertain). Fifth generation:  sage and  sage about whom we are uncertain—R. Hoshaiah bar Shamai, perhaps Hilfai bar Brei de-Rabbi Abbahu and another  or  Rabbanan de-Caesarin. Total: – sages (+  about whom we are uncertain). central palestine 

Number of Sages in the Rabbinic Center in Samuka Third generation: R. Abba Samuka. Total:  sage. Fourth generation:  sages—R. Taifah Samuka and perhaps R. Isaac bar Josef who was called Isaac Sumaka. Total:  sage (+  about whom we are uncertain). Fifth generation:  about whom we are uncertain—R. Abba Hilfai bar Samkai. Total:  sage (about whom we are uncertain).

Number of Sages in Central Palestine by Generation Total no. Generation Certain No. Uncertain No. of sages

Mishnaic Period Caesarea R. Judah R. Judah ? ? ha-Nasi or ha-Nahtom earlier (great incertitude) R. Judah Judah b. ? ? ha-Nasi Nakossa

Talmudic period Caesarea st R. Hoshaiah  nd R. Jose bar Hanina, R. Ulla +–= – de-Caesarin, Rabbanan – de-Caesarin (–) rd R. Abbahu, R. Tahlifa of +– = – Caesarea, R. Hanina bar – Papa, R. Idi of Caesarea, R. Paregori of Caesarea, R. Jacob bar Aha, R. Zerika, R. Isaac bar Nafha (only part of his period of activity), Zuga de-Caesarin (), Rabbanan de-Caesarin (–)  chapter four

Total no. Generation Certain No. Uncertain No. of sages th R. Isaac ben Eleazar, –+– –R. Abimi  –+? R. Shamai, R. Hanina = or Abedimi Brei de-Rabbi Abbahu, – bar Tobi R. Zeira Brei de-Rabbi Abbahu, Abimi Brei de-Rabbi Abbahu, R. Nasa of Caesarea, R. Jacob bar Desai, R. Jacob of Caesarea (latter two may be the same person), R. Ahva bar Zeira, R. Hezekiah, Rabbanan de-Caesarin (–) th R. Hoshaiah bar Shemi, +–= Halfai – Rabbanan de-Caesarin (–) – bar Brei de-Rabbi Abbahu

Samuka rd R. Abba Samuka   th R. Taifah Samuka  R. Isaac bar  Josef (Isaac Sumaka) th R. Abba  Hilfai bar Samkai

During the mishnaic period, two sages about whom we are uncertain mayhavebeenactiveinCaesarea.InthetalmudicperiodCaesareawas the scene of activity of twenty-three sages known by name and three about whom we are uncertain. In addition, three or four anonymous sages known as Rabbanan de-Caesarin were active there in each of the last four generations of the talmudic period, comprising twelve to sixteen sages. In total, thirty-five to thirty-nine sages were active in Caesarea in the talmudic period. If we add to this figure the three sages about whom we are uncertain, we have thirty-eight to forty-two sages who were active in Caesarea. If we further add the sages of Samuka—two sages and another two about whom we are uncertain—we reach a total of twenty- five sages known by name and another five about whom we are uncertain. With the addition of Rabbanan de-Caesarin, we have information about forty-twotoforty-sixsageswhowereactiveincentralPalestineduring the talmudic period and another two sages from the mishnaic period about whom we are uncertain—a total of forty-four to forty-eight sages. central palestine 

Discussion and Conclusions

The above figures demonstrate that Caesarea had become a well-established rabbinic center, which reached its height in the third and fourth generations of the talmudic period when it was the scene of activity of twelve to fourteen sages in each generation, respectively. This is a relatively large number that has no parallel elsewhere, except in Galilee. While Galilee boasted two rabbinic centers, neither center alone, not even the rabbinic center in Tiberias at its height, claimed this number of sages known by name in a single generation. Nonetheless, this statement about the rabbinic center in Tiberias should be qualified. Tiberias was the main destination of sages and their disciples throughout most of the talmudic period. The sages of Caesarea were no exception, and most of them had studied in Tiberias. Tiberias was also the city where the Talmud was redacted. As a result, many of the sages known by name who were active in Tiberias were not referred to by their place of residence, since the redactors felt it unnecessary to mention the name of the center in which they themselves were active.48 Therefore, presumably there were more sagesinTiberiasthaninCaesareaatitsheight.Indeed,rabbinicsources provide incomplete information about sages whose place of activity is known,anditislikelythatagreaternumberofsageswereactiveinthe main rabbinic centers in each generation than is recorded in rabbinic literature. This is true also of Caesarea, which probably had more sages than recorded in rabbinic literature because of its status as the capital of Palestine, but not as many as Tiberias, which was the main rabbinic center. It is an interesting phenomenon that despite the importance of the rabbinic center in Caesarea, most of its sages had studied elsewhere. In the first talmudic generation, they studied in Sepphoris, which was then the main rabbinic center in Palestine; from the second talmudic generation onward, they studied in Tiberias, which had become the most important rabbinic center in the country. In the fifth talmudic generation, we are again witness to a greater affinity of sages to Sepphoris, which hadoncemorebecomethemainrabbiniccenter.Thus,forthemost part, the majority of Caesarea’s sages did not attend the academies of local sages but mainly attended those presided over by sages of Tiberias and Sepphoris. Even though most of Caesarea’s leading sages who had

48 See Chapter , Galilee, in the discussion of settlement no. —Tiberias.  chapter four studied in Tiberias, R. Jose bar Hanina, R. Abbahu, R. Hanina bar Papa andR.Isaacb.Eleazar,attractedlocaldisciples,thesedisciples,too,had studied mainly in Tiberias. It should be noted that a few of the Caesarean sages, R. Hoshaiah in the first generation and R. Abbahu and R. Han- ina bar Papa in the third generation, also attracted disciples from outside Caesarea who later became prominent sages. Evidently, Caesarea’s academies did not enjoy the same status in the rabbinic world as the academies of Tiberias and Sepphoris. Instead, Caesarea was dependent on Tiberias and Sepphoris. Moreover, most of the Caesarean sages had studied in Tiberias. Thus, Caesarea’s sages held a less prominent status than that of their associates in other urban centers outside Caesarea, even though their status in Caesarea itself appears to have been a respected one. Apparently, most of the sages of other urban centers were residents of those cities or their environs. They had deep roots in the areas in which they lived, and they studied and developed there. Thus, Lod’s sages had studied mainly in Lod, even though there were some who had studied in Galilee as well. Sepphoris’ sages had studied locally, or in Tiberias, after it developed into an important rabbinic center. As for Tiberias, with the exception of its founding sages, R. Johanan and Reish Lakish, who hadstudiedmainlyinSepphoris,almostallofthesageswhocameafter them had studied in Tiberias, with a small number having studied mainly in Tiberias and also elsewhere. By contrast, a considerable number of Caesarea’s sages came from outside Caesarea and settled there without having had a deeply rooted connection to the city and after mostly having studied elsewhere. Thus, even though Caesarea was one of the four important rabbinic centers, the circumstances of its sages and disciples were somewhat atypical of the other centers. This rabbinic center lacked a certain degree of self-confidence, as most of its sages did not have roots in Caesarea, and they and their disciples had attended the academies of other rabbinic centers, primarily Tiberias. This situation may have been due to the fact that Caesarea, the capital of Palestine, had a pronounced Hellenistic character, which may have deterred sages from studying and settling there. Caesarea was an important economic center and was involved in international maritime trade. Sages came to settle in Caesarea primarily because of the broad variety of economic opportunities that it offered, coming to terms with its pagan cultural atmosphere that was so different from their own world outlook. They came from many different places and settled in Caesarea in order to earn their livelihood, but because of central palestine  the Hellenistic character and international tone of the city, it was difficult to create an atmosphere there that was suitable for rabbinic academies. Sages were concerned about possible local influences on their disciples and, therefore, sent them to study in other rabbinic centers, primarily Tiberias. There may have been another reason that they sent disciples mainly to Tiberias. From the time of the second talmudic generation, when R. Johanan established his academy in Tiberias, there was a general sense, which was probably shared by sages of Caesarea as well, that the rabbinic center in Tiberias was the main representative of the study and teaching of the Oral Law, and its sages, the most prominent and authoritative. Sending disciples from Caesarea to study in Tiberias was a form of acknowledgement of the supremacy of Tiberian sages, who were perceived as the “academic elite.” It also reflected a feeling of some degree of subordination on the part of Caesarean sages, stemming from the high regard in which Tiberian sages were held, which induced in the sages of Caesarea the need to send disciples to study in Tiberias. There is interesting testimony to this phenomenon in the Jerusalem Talmud, Pesahim :, b, which relates that R. Abbahu had sent his son to study in Tiberias, and instead of studying, the son had become involved in the needs of the community there. R. Abbahu sent his son a message emphasizing that he had sent him to Tiberias to study Torah in order to become a sage and not to engage in community matters. As I noted, R. Abbahu himself had studied in Tiberias and afterwards became the leading sage of his generation in Caesarea. Nevertheless, he sent his son to study Torah in Tiberias, even though he could have relied on himself and his colleagues in Caesarea to teach him. This choice indicates a clear academic preference for the main center of Torah study in Tiberias and for its highly prominent sages.49 Lieberman has suggested that tractate Nezikin of the Jerusalem Tal- mud—i.e., the three Baba tractates: Baba Kama, Baba Metzi"aandBaba Batra—for the most part represents the school of Caesarean sages and was compiled primarily in Caesarea, based on its teachings and halakhic rulings. According to Lieberman, since Caesarea was a major center of commerce, its sages were called upon to deal with monetary matters far more intensively and frequently than were their Tiberian colleagues. In compiling the Jerusalem Talmud, Tiberian sages subsequently incorporated the collection of discussions and rabbinic laws of the Caesarean

49 See Levine, Caesarea, –, –.  chapter four sages.50 Lieberman’s hypothesis has not achieved scholarly consensus, but the Caesarean school of thought had to have been affected by the halakhic questions which arose as a result of the deep involvement of local Jews in the extensive commercial activity that took place in the capital city and itslargeport.Asmentionedpreviously,severaloftheCaesareansages themselves engaged in commercial activity in the city’s markets and its port during the talmudic period. Sages born in the Diaspora, particularly in Babylonia, who were involved in maritime trade via the city’s port, also arrived in Caesarea. Some stayed for lengthy periods of time and then returned home, while others either settled in Caesarea or moved on from there to Galilee, particularly to Tiberias. Caesarean sages maintained active ties with the southern rabbinic center in Lod throughout most of the talmudic period, but these ties were on a smaller scale than those with the rabbinic center in Tiberias. According to the available information, R. Hoshaiah, who was originally from Lod, had studied mainly in Galilee. R. Abbahu had studied in Lod, but he too had studied mainly in Galilee. With the exception of these sages, there is no other information about sages from Caesarea who had studied in Lod. On the other hand, the fourth-generation R. Aha of Lod had studied in Caesarea under R. Hanina bar Papa, a member of the third talmudic generation, and was married to the daughter of R. Tahlifa of Caesarea. In the fifth talmudic generation, there is no mention of anyties between Lod and Caesarea, but this may be due to the fact that rabbinic literature hardly mentions any sages from these two rabbinic centers in the fifth generation. Since Caesarea was the capital of Palestine, it stands to reason that there would have been economic and political ties between it and Lod, and since Caesarea was closer to Lod than to Tiberias, with the Via Maris linking the two, the ties between the rabbinic centers of these two cities also might have been closer than is evident from rabbinic literature. However, rabbinic literature proves otherwise—that the main ties of Caesarea’s sages were with the rabbinic centers in Galilee, and primarily Tiberias, where they had studied. This conclusion is important, given Lieberman’s opinion that the “Talmud of Caesarea” was greatly influenced by the Lod school of thought.51 But in view of the above,

50 Lieberman, “Caesarea,” –. Also see the index of names at the end of the article. By contrast, Epstein, Amoraitic Literature, , posits that tractate Nezikin was compiled in Tiberias. The dispute has not been settled; see Sussmann, “Neziqin.” 51 Lieberman, “Caesarea,” –; idem, Sifre Zutta, , n. . For more on the connection between Lod and Caesarea see Roll, “Roads to Caesarea.” central palestine  it is doubtful whether the Lod rabbinic school of the talmudic period influenced the Caesarean school. Presumably, when the rabbinic center in Caesarea was first established, in the days of R. Hoshaiah who was originally from Lod, it had been influenced by the Lod school because R. Hoshaiah came from there, although he too had studied mainly in Galilee. But from that time onwards, the teachings of Galilean sages formed the basis for the Caesarean rabbinic school of thought.52 The sages of Caesarea also maintained ties with sages of Jaffa, acity that had been the scene of rabbinic activity from the third to the fifth talmudic generations. The few teachings of its sages that are extant give the impression that they were influenced by and may have attended the academies of Caesarean sages. This is conceivable, as Caesarea was situated along the Via Maris, the main coastal highway, and Jaffa was situated not far from the coastal highway, which facilitated contact between the two.TheViaMarisbeganinCaesarea,andoneofitsbranchesreached Jaffa, thus serving as the land link between them. The sea voyage also offered a regular channel of communication between the two, as sea craft that sailed along the Palestinian coast from north to south and vice versa docked in their ports. These connections between Jaffa and Caesarea also facilitated encounters between sages of the two cities and helped nurture ties between them. We can assume that Jaffa sages were more frequent visitors to Caesarea, the capital, than vice versa and met with its sages there.53 Based on the available information, Caesarean sages did not appear to be involved in the internal conflicts that were taking place within the rabbinic leadership or in the conflicts with the patriarchate. According to talmudic sources, Caesarea had been a highly prominent rabbinic center under R. Hoshaiah in the first talmudic generation and under R. Abbahu in the third talmudic generation. Yet, even then, when it wielded great influence in the rabbinic world, the impression is that Caesarea’s sages remained loyal to the rabbinic leadership and to the patriarchate and were less interested in competing with other rabbinic centers for priority in obtaining appointments and achieving status in the rabbinic world. This is reflected, for example, in the unique case of R. Abbahu. According to rabbinic literature, R. Abbahu enjoyed a lofty status in Jewish society, but this prominence was derived from

52 Rosenfeld, Lod, –. 53 See Roll, “Roman Roads,” , , –. Rosenfeld, Lod, –.  chapter four his political standing with the Roman government and senior imperial officials in the capital, a standing which enabled him to intercede on behalf of Jewish society in Palestine. As a sage, he does not appear to have been involved in the internal conflicts of rabbinic leadership. Caesarea’s sages are generally perceived as a group whose interests focused on the study hall and the city’s local society, rather than as a leadership group that wished to extend its authority beyond Caesarea. Lieberman offers a similar explanation for the halakhic subject matter contained in the “Talmud of Caesarea,” which concentrates on the various problems of Caesarea’s local Jewish society, for instance, on the laws of damages that were a more common issue in Caesarea than elsewhere, since the city served as a major center of commerce.54 In other words, Caesarea’s status asthecapitalofPalestineandacenterofcommercewithalargeport generated a long list of halakhic issues of a local nature, which may have shaped the particular character of the local academies. Another impression obtained from rabbinic sources regarding Cae- sarean sages adds to our understanding of their lack of involvement in the internal conflicts of the rabbinic world. Caesarean sages did not enjoy the same halakhic status and influence in the rabbinic world in the talmudic period as did their associates in other urban rabbinic centers. It is evident from rabbinic literature that R. Hoshaiah, who established the rabbinic center in Caesarea, was a prominent and influential sage in his generation. He was also the most prominent sage of the entire talmudic period in Caesarea in terms of expertise in halakhah and rabbinic rulings. No other Caesarean sage was regarded by sages of any other rabbinic center as a halakhic authority of such eminence. However, he was an exception among Caesarean sages, who were held in less regard. In addition, before arriving in Caesarea, R. Hoshaiah had studied and had become an important sage in Sepphoris, the main rabbinic center in his day. When he arrived in Caesarea, he was already a prominent sage. Thus, the rabbinic center in Caesarea did not produce sages who were highly esteemed halakhists, as did other rabbinic centers. Even Caesarea’s most important sage had studied elsewhere and not in Caesarea. R. Abbahu wasnextinimportancetoR.Hoshaiah,becauseofhisuniquepolitical standing, but he was notable for his mastery of customs and the traditions of his teachers and less so for his decisions in matters of halakhah. R. Hanina bar Papa was a master of halakhah and aggadah.However,his

54 See Lieberman, “Caesarea,” esp. –. central palestine  voice was heard less frequently in halakhic literature than the voices of the sages of other urban rabbinic centers of his generation, among them, renownedTiberiansagesR.Ami,R.Assi,R.HiyyabarAbba,andhalf a generation later, R. Zeira and R. Jeremiah,55 as well as R. Simon, the prominent Lod sage who fought, albeit unsuccessfully, to advance rabbinic appointments of Lod’s sages over those of Tiberian sages.56 It should be noted that R. Isaac b. Eleazar, a member of the fourth talmudic generation in Caesarea, was regarded as an exceptionally outstanding sage and particularly worthy of being appointed a judge by the patriarch, who possessed the authority to make such appointments. But R. Isaac did not receivetheappointment,andtheepisodewastheobjectofmuchcriti- cism in the rabbinic world. Apparently, others whom some of the sages regarded as less suitable, were appointed judges. The voice of this eminent sage, too, was heard far less often than the voices of his Tiberian and Lod contemporaries. Perhaps it was a matter of politics, since R. Isaac b. EleazarwasnotacloseassociateofthepatriarchaswerethesagesofLod, such as R. Isaac’s contemporary, R. Judah b. Pazi, who had marital ties with the patriarchal house.57 Thus, even though Caesarea was an important rabbinic center, its sages were not as influential in rabbinic society as their contemporaries from other rabbinic centers. Based on the impression obtained from talmudic sources, rabbinic activity in Caesarea in the fifth generation, at the end of the talmudic period, was beginning to wane. We know the name of only one sage— R. Hoshaiah bar Shamai—who was mentioned infrequently in rabbinic literature, and his status in the rabbinic world is unclear. Hilfai, the grandson of R. Abbahu, was active in Caesarea, but we do not know if he was a sage. The group referred to as Rabbanan de-Caesarin was active there, but since so few sages known by name were active in Caesarea in that generation, the fact that the sages are referred to as a group, and not

55 For more on the importance and status of this sage, see Levine, “Rabbi Abbahu.” Regarding the three Tiberian sages, see Bacher, Amoraim, :, –, –. On R. Hanina bar Papa, see Bacher, ibid., :, –; Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, , –, –. 56 J. Horayot :, c. Compare to the parallel passage in Esther Rabbah : and to Rosenfeld, Lod, . 57 See Chapter , Judea, no.  in the list of settlements, in the discussion on the fourth talmudic generation; Levine, Rabbinic Class, –. While there is mention of a sage by the name of Jacob of Kfar Neboria who criticized the appointments, he was from Upper Galilee and not from Caesarea. He was an exception and came into conflict with sages as well.Formoreabouthim,seeChapter,Galilee,settlementno..  chapter four by name, raises the possibility that they were not regarded as particularly important, at least by the redactors of the Jerusalem Talmud who were active a generation or two later. Caesarea was not the only rabbinic center in which rabbinic activity appeared to be declining in the fifth talmudic generation. The same impression is obtained about rabbinic activity in Lod and Tiberias. In this generation in Lod there were about five sages known by name with the addition of the appellation Daroma, which refers to Lod.58 This geographic appellation implies that they were less highly regarded by the redactors of the Talmud than the sages who preceded them. As for Tiberias, we cannot definitively identify any sage known by name who wasactivethereinthefifthgeneration.Tiberias,too,wasthesceneof activity of a group of anonymous sages referred to as the Hevraya who, like the Rabbanan de-Caesarin, were active between the second and fifth talmudic generations.59 In contrast to these three rabbinic centers, there are no indications in rabbinic literature of any decline in rabbinic activity in Sepphoris in the fifth generation. Some of the most prominent sages in all of Palestine, such as R. Mana and R. Abun, who also attracted many disciples, are mentioned in this generation.60 There may have been a temporary “brain drain” of sages and disciples from Tiberias and Caesarea during this time, as they were drawn to the important sages in Sepphoris. This was a significant change, with Sepphoris thus replacing Tiberias in importance. Regarding Caesarea, R. Mana maintained close ties with the fourth- generation sages in Caesarea, some of whose academies in Caesarea he had attended, in addition to Tiberias, his main place of study. Later, whenhebecameafamoussage,disciplesandsagesflockedtohim in Sepphoris and attended his academy there. Those attracted to him included disciples from Caesarea, who may have come to Sepphoris becauseofhisgreatrenownaswellashisearliertieswithCaesarea. However, the decline in the number of Caesarean sages mentioned in rabbinic literature in the fifth generation is best viewed as a sign that the talmudic period was nearing an end and as the first intimation that the redacting of the Talmud was approaching. A similar phenomenon occurred just before the redacting of the Mishnah. The last generation of tannaitic sages were mentioned far less frequently by the redactor of

58 See Chapter , Judea, settlement no.  in the list of settlements. 59 See Chapter , Galilee, settlement no.  in the list of settlements. 60 See Chapter , Galilee, settlement no.  in the list of settlements. central palestine  the Mishnah who recorded the sages preceding him more than the sages of his own generation.61 The same occurred with the Jerusalem Talmud, which was redacted in the sixth to seventh generations of the talmudic period. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the paucity of teachings recorded in the fifth generation reflects a decrease in rabbinic activity in that generation. It is more likely that the redactor simply mentioned the sageslessfrequentlyandrelatedtosomeofthemasagroup,especially if their rabbinic activities did not take place in his city. This conclusion applies, inter alia, to sages in Caesarea in the fifth generation. Caesarea may have been the scene of activity of other sages, even sages of renown, but they were not mentioned in rabbinic literature. This explanation could also apply to other rabbinic centers that received less attention at the end of the talmudic period. Support for this explanation may be found in a Roman imperial law, which has been widely discussed in scholarly literature, from which we can deduce that there were sages in Caesarea also in the sixth and seventh generations, when the Jerusalem Talmud was redacted. Two emperors, Theodosius (II) and Valentinianus, enacted the law on  May , and it is addressed to Johannes, Comes of the Sacred Largesses. It is found in Codex Theodosianus ::: Iudaeorum primates, qui in utriusque Palaestinae synedriis nominantur vel in aliis provinciis degunt (“The primates [leaders] of the Jews, who are nominated inthe Synedriis of either of the provinces of Palestine or stay in other provinces”). This law, with several omissions, is found also in Codex Justinianus ::. The law refers to the “primates,” the leaders of Jews in Palestine, who were appointed from among the members of two Jewish leadership bodies, the synedriis,intwoprovincesofPalestine.Thecontinuation of the law, not cited here, states that now, after the cessation of the patriarchate, primates have the responsibility of ensuring that the tax referred to as the Aurum Coronarium (Crown Gold), which the Jews used to give to the patriarch, would be transferred to the treasury as a permanenttax.Theseatofonesynedrion was apparently in Palaestinae Prima, the first Palestine, whose capital was Caesarea; the seat of the other

61 More teachings of the generation preceding that of R. Judah ha-Nasi are recorded in the Mishnah than of any other generation, whereas the teachings of the generation of R. Judah ha-Nasi, who was their disciple and the redactor of the Mishnah, receive little attention. See Goldberg, “Mishnah”; Epstein, Tanaitic Literature, –; Urbach, The Halacha, –; Strack-Stemberger, Introduction, –.  chapter four synedrion was in Palaestinae Secunda,thesecondPalestine,apparently Tiberias. In other words, the synedriis were presumably situated in the two important Jewish urban centers in these two districts of Palestine. At that time, Palestine was divided into three administrative districts. The third district was in the Negev, which had a small Jewish population that did not require an additional synedrion. Linder explains the meaning of the synedrii in this law as follows: “Synedriis were the chief legal and political authorities of the Jews in Palestine.” Other scholars agree with him for the most part. Thus, in ce, when the law was enacted, sages, who constituted a legal institution in Jewish society, were still active, and their rabbinic activity continued as in the past. And since rabbinic centers existed in Tiberias and Caesarea until the end of the talmudic period, it is only reasonable to assume that sages continued to be active in these centers even a generation or two later, a period which is the time frame of the above law.62 It should be added that while the word synedrion has been used in a variety of ways in most of the written and epigraphic sources of the third and fourth centuries in the Roman East, it refers to an administrative leadership with religious overtones or to a religious leadership of ethnic or professional groups.63 In addition, the imperial Byzantine government may have been influenced by the Christian meaning of the word, which refers to a religious leadership.64 There are clear indications that Christian leadership, which at that time already exerted considerable influence over the imperial government, influenced the wording of the Codex Theo- dosianus, Book .65 These sources support the likelihood that in this Roman law, which was written in the Byzantine East, the word synedrion referred to a body that consisted, at least partly, of a religious leadership of sages. Moreover, Hieronymus wrote, circa  ce, that sages of Palestine

62 See Linder, The Jews, – and n. ; Avi Yonah, Geschichte der Juden, –; idem, Palestine, ; Jacobs, Institutions, –; Stemberger, Jews and Christians, – ; Irshai, “Priesthood.” Levine, Rabbinic Class, –, presents a different opinion, but he, too, does not reject the possibility that the synedrii in the above law included sages. 63 See, for example Kahrstedt, συν'δριν.Poland,συν'δριν, Liddell and Scott, Lex- icon, . 64 See, for example, Lampe, Patristic Lexicon, –. The word was in use among the Church Fathers as early as the time of Ignatius Antioch, at the beginning of the second century. See Danker, New Testament, ; Lohse, συν'δριν –. 65 See, for example, Salzman, “Book,” , , ; Hunt, “The Code”; Irshai, “Priest- hood,” – and n. . Schrekenberg, Adversus-Judaeos, –, esp. , index, s.v. Patriarchen. central palestine  exerted an enormous influence over Jewish society.66 We therefore can deduce that sages were indeed part of the synedrion referred to in the law promulgated in ce. It is difficult to estimate the number of sages who were members of the synedrii,butinalllikelihood,theymusthavebeenseveralinnumber. They continued the activities of sages of the talmudic period in Tiberias and Caesarea. We can also assume that the synedrii included sages who were active in other settlements, such as Sepphorian sages, who would have been members of the synedrion in Tiberias, and Lod sages, who would have been members of the synedrion in Caesarea, which was not far away. In the discussion on Lod, I have already demonstrated that sageswereactivethereatthebeginningofthefifthcentury,and,atleast according to the testimony of the church father Hieronymus, they were important sages. In summary, the paucity of information that exists about rabbinic activity in Caesarea during the fifth century, at the end of the talmudic period, most probably does not reflect the entire picture. On the contrary, the nugget of information obtained from Roman imperial law and Hieronymus’ statement about the influence exerted by the sages allow us to conclude that there were sages active in Caesarea, as in Tiberias, in ce. We thus can deduce that even in the transition to the post- talmudic, Byzantine period in Palestine, Caesarea’s sages still played an important leadership role in Jewish society in Palestine. If such indeed is the case, this conclusion supplements the answer offered by scholarly literature to the question of who redacted the Jeru- salem Talmud. The redactors were sages of the synedrion in Tiberias, who were outstanding in the rabbinic world. The redactors may also have recruited sages from Caesarea and incorporated into the Jerusalem Talmud parts of what Lieberman referred to as the “Talmud of Caesarea.” TheywerealsojoinedbythesagesofSepphorisandLod,whosatwith them in the synedrii. The main incentive behind their decision to redact the Jerusalem Talmud was the new, almost catastrophic situation alluded to in the Roman law, the dissolution of the patriarchate and the splitting of Jewish leadership into two synedrii in two separate administrative provinces. To the sages, these events clearly signified the end of an era, as it was patently clear to them that the Byzantine government

66 Levine, Rabbinic Class, –, –; Irshai, “Priesthood,” esp., –; Hezser, Social Structure, –; idem, “Jewish Literacy,” –. For a somewhat different opinion about this period, see Schwartz, “The Rabbi”; idem, Jewish Society –.  chapter four was deliberately seeking to undermine and weaken Jewish leadership in Palestine. This situation also adversely affected the relationship between Jews in Palestine and Jews in the Diaspora, as the patriarch was important to Diaspora Jews as well. Diaspora Jews sent the patriarch financial support, referred to as the “aurum coronarium,” which in turn supported the public activities in Palestine which he funded. The patriarch was the figure who fostered the connection between Jews in Palestine and inthe Diaspora, and he served as a religious symbol. He was also involved in the local problems of Diaspora communities. Thus, all of the above were weighty factors which induced sages to face the future and decide to close the talmudic work of the previous generations, the Jerusalem Talmud.67 Doubtless, first the decision and then the redacting were processes that took place over a period of several years. According to scholarly literature, there are clear indications in the Jerusalem Talmud that its final redaction was completed in a single generation. Presumably, this occurred immediately after the publication of the Roman law in  ce, approximately the seventh generation of the talmudic period.

67 See Dan, The City, –; Goldberg, “Palestinian Talmud,” –; Strack-Stem- berger, Introduction, , –; Neusner, Introduction, ,  and n. ; Stemberger, Jews and Christians, –; Irshai, “Priesthood,” –. chapter five

GOLAN, BASHAN, HAURAN AND TRANSJORDAN

Historical and Geographic Background

In the last decades of the Second Temple period and on into the mishnaic and talmudic periods, Jews regarded the Golan Heights as the hinterland of Galilee.1 Jews had also settled to the east of Golan in Bashan (Batanaea) and Hauran. Administratively, Bashan and Hauran were not part of Palestine. Hauran and southern Bashan had been part of the province of Arabia as early as the first half of the second century, and at the beginning of the third century the rest of Bashan and Trachonitis became part of this province. Golan, by contrast, remained within the borders of Palestine during that entire period.2 It should be noted, however, that the sages established their own borders of Palestine for observing the commandments dependent upon theLandofIsrael.Theseborders(discussedbelowandexplainedindetail in Chapter ) incorporate much of these regions. Sages were active in the areas immediately across these borders. They regarded these areas as part of the country’s hinterland and not as part of the Diaspora. Galilean sages maintained ties with the sages in the Golan, Bashan and Hauran, as they did with sages in other parts of Palestine, and from what we can gather from rabbinic literature, these were close ties. During the talmudic

1 Josephus, War, :, . Compare idem, Antiquity, : and Sifra, Behar :, ed. Weiss, c, in which Gamla is regarded as a mountain in Galilee. See also t. Makkot :, ed. Zuckermandel, , Gamla replaces the Galilean Kadesh as a “city of refuge.” 2 For more on the Golan, Bashan and Trachonitis districts, which comprised the kingdom of Agrippa II, see Josephus, War, :; ibid., :, . In scholarly literature, see Meyers, “Galilean Regionalism,” –; Freyne, Galilee, – and n. ; Safrai, “Galilee, Golan,” –; Urman, “Golan in Josephus”; idem, The Golan, –; Groh, “Galilean Synagogue,”–. On the settlements of the Bashan, Hauran and Trachonitis, see Schürer, History, :–; MacAdam, Province of Arabia, –; Reeg, Ortsnamen, , –; Millar, Roman Near East, –, , index, s.v. Hauran, Trachonitis; Sartre, l’Arabie Romaine, –; idem,“Syria”;idem, “Arabs,” –; Hartal, Ituraeans, , –, –, esp. maps in , ; Sartre, Middle East, –, index s.v. Hauran.  chapter five period, sages deliberated as to whether the areas immediately across the border should also be regarded as part of Palestine in terms of the commandments dependent upon the Land. The geographic borders for the material presented in this chapter have been defined as those which were delineated in rabbinic literature and the areas adjacent to them. This approach is based on the fact that information that appears randomly in talmudic sources about rabbinic activity in Golan, Bashan and Hauran in talmudic times corresponds to the areas in these regions that were delineated by the sages as the geographic borders for the commandments dependent upon the Land. Apparently, most rabbinic activity took place within the borders established by the sages and, to a far lesser extent, on the outskirts of these areas, as will be seen in the discussion in the list of settlements below. The borders of Palestine established by the sages are listed in a halakhic teaching cited in several tannaitic sources. Scholarly research has termed this list the Beraita de-Tehumin (= Tannaitic List of Boundaries), and it gives the names of the places that constitute the borders of Palestine on all sides. The territory lying within these borders is the area in which the commandments dependent upon the Land must be observed. The beraita lists, inter alia, several settlements in Bashan and Hauran as constituting the country’s borders, and talmudic literature provides corresponding information about rabbinic activity in these settlements. For example, the beraita mentions the important cities of Naveh in Bashan and Bostra in Hauran. The Talmud even discusses the exact location of the border in the vicinity of these two cities, and from that information we can deduce that Naveh was located within the border while Bostra was perhaps a short distance beyond the border. Another border city mentioned in the beraita is Edrei (Der"a), located about thirty kilometers south of Naveh, in the southwestern corner of Hauran, which is also the southern border of Bashan.3 Talmudic literature, and the Jerusalem Talmud in particular, supplies information on rabbinic activity in the three above settlements, and most of it was recorded because of ties that existed between local sages there and Galilean sages, who apparently regarded the former as members of their social class, albeit distant members.

3 J. Shevi"it :, c. For tannaitic sources and for a scholarly discussion of the beraita, see Sussmann, “Halakhic Inscription,”  and n. ,  and n. , –; idem, “Boundaries,” –, , –; Feliks, Shevi"it, :–, –, –; Habas, “Bostra.” For a different opinion, see Hartal, Ituraeans, –. golan, bashan, hauran and transjordan 

The discussion below treats settlements with rabbinic activity in Go- lan, Bashan and Hauran and then the one settlement with rabbinic activity in Transjordan. Due to the paucity of extant information, the settlements in this chapter are presented simply in chronological order of rabbinic activity.

Settlements with Rabbinic Activity—Golan, Bashan and Hauran

. Kurshi(?) Kurshi(?), or Kurshai, was perhaps El-Kursi, which was located east of the Sea of Galilee (m.r. .). In Roman times, it had been a large rural settlement. R. Jacob b. Kurshai, a member of the generation that followed the Bar Kokhba Revolt, may have been active there. He was one of the teachers of R. Judah ha-Nasi.4

. Beth Hauran Based on the identical names of the places, it is generally assumed that Beth Hauran, or Barat Hauaratan / Bikat Hauaratan5 was located in the Hauran district, east of Golan, but its exact location is not known. It perhaps may be identified with the settlement Havran, located in the western part of Hauran.6 Palestinian rabbinic sources mention R. Hunia (or Nehunia) of Barat Hauran, a member of the first talmudic generation.IntheBabylonianTalmud,heisreferredtoasR.HuniaIshBikat Hauran (Hauaratan) (= R. Hunia of the Hauaratan Valley). About ten of R. Hunia’s teachings are extant—the largest number of any Golan- Bashan-Hauran sage.

4 For more on his name, see Sifre, Deut., par. , ed. Finkelstein, –, and the editor’s notes; j. Shabbat :, c; j. Pesahim :, b; Safrai, “Galilee, Golan,” . Regarding suggestions for the identification of the place, see Klein, Ever ha-Yarden, ; Reeg, Ortsnamen, –, –, ; Urman, “Public Structure,” –; Gregg, Urman, Jews, Pagans, –. 5 According to Epstein, “mi-Dikdukei Yerushalmi,” , the place is called Barat Hau- raninalloftheversionsofhismanuscriptsoftheJerusalemTalmud,whereasinthe Babylonian Talmud, the word “Bika"at” is added. See also Feliks, Shevi"it, :, and notes. 6 For more on the identification of the place, see Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv, , ; Feliks, Shevi"it, :–; Reeg, ibid; Tsafrir, Map, ; Schmitt, Siedlungen Palastinas, –.  chapter five

R.Hunia’snameisassociatedwithmiraculousevents.Inj.Avodah Zarah :, c, (Neusner, :) we find: “When R. Hunia of Beth Hauran died, the Sea of Tiberias split open. They said that [this was to commemorate the miracle that took place] when he went up to intercalate the year, and the sea split open before him.” The first part of the source informsusthattheSeaofTiberiassplitatR.Hunia’sdeath.Thesecond part indicates that this splitting of the sea was a repetition of a miracle that had occurred many times during R. Hunia’s lifetime—the Sea of Tiberias split open when he went to intercalate the year. The wording implies that R. Hunia had done so several times. The information about the Sea of Tiberias splitting open indicates that R. Hunia came from one side of the sea and crossed to the other side. In other words, he probably came from the direction of the Golan, apparently from his place of residence in Hauran, and crossed the sea—that is, the Sea of Galilee—in order to reach Sepphoris, which was the seat of the patriarchate and the scene of activity of the important sages of his day. The intercalation of the year was under the jurisdiction of the patriarch, who established a court of important sages for this purpose. R. Hunia’s participation in the intercalation of the year is evidence that he had established ties with the main rabbinic center in Sepphoris and with the patriarchate and that he was a well-known, prominent sage in his own locale. He also was regarded as such by the most important Galilean sages. R. Hunia’s influential stature can be deduced from the fact that a tradition was cited in his name regarding a halakhic practice observed in the Naveh district, not far from Hauran. This is testimony to his authority in that region, in which apparently he also was active. R. Joshua b. Levi, who was active between  and ce and was the most important Lod sage in his day, cited a teaching in R. Hunia’s name. R. Johanan, who was active circa –ce and who was the leading sage in Tiberias in his generation, also cited several teachings in R. Hunia’s name. These citations may indicate that R. Johanan was a disciple of R. Hunia. The fact that the most eminent sages of the day cited R. Hunia’s teachings shows that they held him in great esteem, that he preceded them and apparently that he was active in the first half of the third century—during the first generation of the talmudic period.7

7 His residence in Hauran is implied in j. Shevi"it :, c, which states, “Said R. Ba bar Zebda, R. Hunia of Hauran taught in Beth Hauran” (based on Neusner, :). This is the wording in all of the versions; see Feliks, Shevi"it, :. R. Abba bar Zebda was a member golan, bashan, hauran and transjordan 

Rabbinic literature also mentions R. Uziel Brei de-R. Hunia de-Beth Hauran (= R. Uziel son of R. Hunia of Beth Hauran). Only two of his teachings are extant, one of which he cites in the name of Hezekiyah, an important Galilean sage of the first talmudic generation. This citation, and the fact that he was the son of R. Hunia, would place R. Uziel in the second talmudic generation, circa ce.

. Naveh Naveh, the capital of Bashan, was also the administrative center of the toparchy of Naveh, which was named after it. Located about twenty kilometers east of the Golan Heights, Naveh is present-day Nawa (m.r. .). Naveh was situated on the main road that ran between Dam- ascus and Edrei. From Naveh, the road ran north to Damascus and then continued towards the Euphrates River. The road ran south from Naveh to Edrei and from there to Transjordan and east to Bostra.8 Naveh is sometimes called Ninveh. Its location facilitated its development into an important settlement and the scene of rabbinic activity in that region. During mishnaic times it had been an important Jew- ish town, along with several other rural Jewish settlements in the Naveh toparchy.9 In the second talmudic generation, circa the middle of the third century, R. Eleazar de-min (= of) Ninveh (or Noi) was active there. His teachings were cited by the Babylonian sage, Rabbah bar bar Hanah, a member of the second to third talmudic generations, who came to PalestinetostudyandthenreturnedtoBabylonia.Hemayhavepassed through Naveh on his journey either to or from Babylonia and thus may have encountered the local sage, since Naveh was situated near the road leading from Babylonia to Palestine. Eusebius, at the beginning of the fourth century, states in his Onomasticon,“Thereisevenuntilnowacity (-π)λις)ofJewscalledNinveh(-Νινευη) near Gonia in Arabia.” He too

of the third talmudic generation, and he cited a teaching in the name of R. Hunia who preceded him. The latter taught in his settlement in Hauran. For sources on R. Hunia, see Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, –; Reeg, Ortsnamen, –. For more on the halakhic practice in the toparchy of Naveh, see j. Shevi"it :, a. Regarding the event related to the intercalation of the year, see j. Avodah Zarah :, c. 8 Habas, “Nawa’ Der"a.” 9 T. Shevi"it :; Safrai, “Galilee, Golan,”–; Reeg, ibid., –. For sources on the history of the place, see Klein, Ever ha-Yarden, –; Schmitt, ibid., ; Sussmann, “Halakhic Inscription,”  and n. ,  and notes –; idem, “Boundaries,” – , –; Rosenfeld, “Nave”; Hartal, Ituraeans, –.  chapter five calls the city Ninveh, as it is sometimes referred to in rabbinic literature, and states that it is not far from a settlement located in the province of Arabia.10 R. Platia of Naveh was active in the third talmudic generation,11 and R. Shila of Naveh may have been active in the fourth talmudic generation. R. Shila perhaps may be identified with a sage in rabbinic literature by thenameofR.ShaulofNaveh.12 Rabbinic literature refers to a group of fifth-generation talmudic sages, collectively named Rabbanan de-Naveh (= Rabbis/Sages of Naveh). A similar group description is found with regard only to sages in the important rabbinic center in Caesarea.13 Another sage, whose period of activity is not established with certainty, is R. Tanhum de-min-Noi (= of Noi). Since Naveh was the most important Jewish settlement in Bashan, it would attract sages. It became the main scene of rabbinic activity in Bashan and the Golan primarily during the second half of the talmudic period. However, it apparently enjoyed only local importance, since its sages left little imprint on talmudic and midrashic literature, and fewer than ten teachings of its sages are extant.

10 The talmudic source is b. Yoma b. Most of the manuscripts and early talmudic commentaries do not mention the words “de-Min Ninveh”; these words are introduced in only a few manuscripts. See Rabbinovicz, Dikduke Sofrim,Yoma,b,n.het.However, in this instance, these two words should be regarded as the original wording of the text, since the name is unusual and easily could be corrupted, with the result that the words are completely deleted from the text. This is a case of lecto difficilior.Thenames of sages in rabbinic literature are especially prone to being corrupted, as is discussed in Chapter . For more on the words of Eusebius, see Klosterman, Eusebius, :–. For a translation into English, see Freeman-Grenville et al., Onomasticon, ; Notley and Safrai, Eusebius, Onomasticon, –, no. . See also Klein, “The Estates”; Oppenheimer, Babylonia Judaica, –. Regarding Rabbah bar bar Hanah, see Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, –. 11 His single teaching is mentioned in Ecclesiastes Rabbah : (), and his teaching is cited by R. Samuel, a member of the fourth generation in Palestine, see Albeck, ibid., . He therefore should be antedated to the previous generation. 12 According to Albeck, ibid., , R. Shila’s time period is known. But in j. Shabbat :, a, the Rabbanan de-Caesarin, who were active between the second and fifth talmudic generations, cited teachings in his name. Since they cited teachings in his name, even if they were members of the fifth talmudic generation, R. Shila probably preceded them by at least one generation. Leviticus Rabbah :, ed. Margulies, , places R. Shila’s teaching between that of the third generation R. Cohen and the fifth generation R. Abun. This too helps place R. Shila in the fourth generation. R. Shaul is mentioned in a midrash in Ecclesiastes Rabbah : (). See also the parallel passage in The Midrash on Psalms :, ed. Buber,  and n. . 13 Rabbanan de-Naveh are mentioned in j. Sanhedrin :, b. On their importance, see Levine, Caesarea, –; idem, Rabbinic Class, –. See also above, Chapter , Central Palestine, nn. –. golan, bashan, hauran and transjordan 

. Idmah Idmah (or Damah) perhaps may be identified with the town in Hauran knowneventodayasDama,situatedashortdistanceeastofNavehand south of Philipopolis.14 In the second to third generations of the talmudic period, we find mention of a local sage named R. Eviatar of Idmahor of Damah. In the third talmudic generation, rabbinic literature reports that a Tiberian sage asked R. Eviatar’s two sons, whose names are not recorded, to inquire of their father about a halakhic practice observed in their region. The two sons apparently were studying under Tiberian sages at the time,15 further supporting the assumption noted many times that the sages from the periphery attended the study houses in the large urban rabbinic centers. There is also mention of R. Kiris of Demah (or, of Idmah), who may have been a member of the fifth talmudic generation.16

. Bostra Bostra was situated near Mount Drus. It was the most important city in southern Hauran and the capital of the province of Arabia during part of the Roman period. During the talmudic period, it boasted a major Jewish community. Bostra and the surrounding area were regarded by the sages as the outskirts of the Jewish population in the Golan and Bashan and as the border of Palestine in terms of the commandments dependent upon

14 Roth-Gerson, Jews of Syria, –. A less likely alternative is that of Klein, Sefer ha-Yishuv, –, who identifies Idmah with A-Damia, or Tel ad-Damia, less than one kilometer east of the Damia Bridge across the Jordan River (m.r. .). According to the survey made by Gluck, Eastern Palestine, –, pottery from the Roman- Byzantine period, as well as remnants of different types of buildings from that period, and perhaps even a synagogue, were discovered there. However, a survey by Yassine, Jordan Valley, –, which was conducted more recently, discovered pottery from the early Roman and later Byzantine periods only, a finding that is not consistent with the source in the Jerusalem Talmud that deals with the late Roman period. See also Reeg, Ortsnamen, –, ; Tsafrir, Map. . 15 J. Shevi"it :,c, which relates that R. Zeira, who was in Hamata de-Fahal (Hamata of Pelah), sent a question to R. Hiyya b. Abba residing in Tiberias, to clarify where the border in the Bostra region lay. R. Hiyya asked the two sons of R. Eviatar, and they supplied the answer. Since the source does not state that R. Hiyya sent the question to them, the implication is that they lived nearby. Thus, since R. Hiyya was one of the leading Tiberian sages, it is reasonable to assume that R. Eviatar’s two sons attended his academy, where he had easy access to them and could send their response to R. Zeira. 16 J. Shabbat :, c, and the parallel j. Beitzah :, d. He is mentioned at the end of a discussion, after fifth-generation sages. See Reeg, ibid., .  chapter five the Land of Israel.17 During the second talmudic generation, R. Simeon b. Lakish, one of the leading Tiberian sages, visited Bostra, and the local residents requested that he find a sage and spiritual leader for them. There is no record of whether a sage was indeed appointed to Bostra, but the request implies that in that generation, prior to the request, Bostra had no sage and also that the local Jewish community indeed desired a sage toserveastheirreligiousleader.Inthefollowinggeneration,R.Abbahu of Caesarea, one of the country’s foremost sages, visited Bostra and was the guest of one of the leaders of the Jewish community there, but it cannot be deduced from the source that R. Abbahu’s host was a sage.18 Only in the fourth generation do we find mention of a sage in Bostra, R. Berekhiah Bozraiah (= of Bostra), who is referred to because of his son, R. Hanan, who was active there a generation later.19 In the fourth to fifth generations we know of a sage by the name of R. Jonah Bozraiah. Ten of his teachings, mostly in halakhah and several in aggadah,are extant. He was apparently an important sage in that region in his day and was well known in Galilee. Yet, he posed halakhic questions to R. Huna, who apparently was active in Tiberias at the time, and to R. Mana, the leading fifth-generation sage in Sepphoris, information implying that R. Jonah was subordinate to the important sages of the

17 See Kindler, Coinage of Bostra, –; MacAdam, Geography,Chapter;Feliks, Shevi"it, :–; Reeg, Ortsnamen, –; Habas, “Bostra,” –. Hartal, Ituraeans, –, has a somewhat different opinion. 18 The first episode is mentioned inj. Shevi"it :, d. The local residents asked R. Simeon b. Lakish to “find us a man to preach sermons, be a judge, teacher, hazzan [for the synagogue, and] to do all that we need” (Neusner, :). The second incident, with R. Abbahu, is related in Lamentations Rabbah :, ed. Buber, . R. Abbahu was a guest of the wealthy Jose Resha (or Rasha), apparently a local leader, but there is nothing to imply that he was a sage. R. Abbahu also taught halakhah in Bostra, see j. Hallah :, a; j. Shabbat :. c. 19 The version “R. Berekhiah Bozraiah” is found in Genesis Rabbah :, eds. Theodor- Albeck, ; see also the notes relating to line . The version in the best manuscript of Genesis Rabbah, Ms. Vatican , is “R. Samuel bar Tanhum R. Hanan bar Berekhiah Bozraiah”; this version appears also in a parallel passage in Leviticus Rabbah :, ed. Margulies, , and see also the note relating to line . The parallel in Song of Songs Rabbah , :, included the important addition that “R. Hanan bar R. Berekhiah Bozraiah said in the name of R. Jeremiah.” Since R. Jeremiah was active in the third to fourth generations, R. Hanan, who cited a teaching in his name, must have been active at least one generation later, that is, in the fourth to fifth generations, but no later. This reasoning is based on the fact that R. Samuel bar Tanhum cited a teaching in the name of R. Hanan one generation later, which brings us to the fifth to sixth generations—the end of the talmudic period. Thus, R. Berekhiah, the father of R. Hanan, was active in R. Jeremiah’s generation. golan, bashan, hauran and transjordan  main rabbinic centers in Galilee.20 R. Hanan bar R. Berekhiah Bozraiah, the son of the aforementioned R. Berekhiah, and R. Tanhum Bozraiah were active in Bostra in the fifth generation. That these two sages cited teachings in the name of R. Jeremiah of Tiberias21 further reinforces the impression that the sages of Bostra were dominated by the main rabbinic center in Tiberias. There is also mention of R. Tanhuma be- Rabbi Jonah me-Mezuzra (= R. Tanhuma, son of Jonah of Mezuzra) or me-Bostra (= of Bostra), who was an aggadist.22 His time period is not known, but he perhaps may be identified with R. Tanhum Bozraiah. He would thus be the son of R. Jonah Bozraiah who was active in the previous, fourth generation. Both the time and the place of his activity correspond to this identification, and it is unlikely that two sages bearing thesamenamewereactiveinasettlementthatwasnotaparticularly important rabbinic center. There also may have been another sage in Bostra in this generation by the name of R. Eleazar Bazra"ah (= of Bostra).23

. Edrei Edrei, south of Bashan (m.r. .) is present-day Der"a. Edrei was an important city located approximately thirty kilometers south of Naveh, bordering on Bashan and western Hauran. During the talmudic period, Edrei belonged administratively to the province of Arabia. A sage named

20 He posed a question to R. Huna in j. Moed Katan :, b. He posed a question to R. Mana in j. Kilayim :, d. He answered a question raised by the fourth-generation R. Jonah in j. Kilayim :, c. See also Hyman, Toldot, ; Reeg, Ortsnamen, . 21 R. Hanan bar R. Berekhiah Bozraiah has already been discussed above n. . AteachinginthenameofR.TanhumBozraiahiscitedinj.Shabbat :, a and is mentioned in Leviticus Rabbah :, ed. Margulies, , as well as in the parallel mentioned in n. , below. However, the version of this text in the genizah fragment, which is included in Leviticus Rabbah, ed. Margulies, Introduction, vol. , , reads “R. Eleazar and R. Jonah Bozraiah in the name of Aha.” Thus, the sage’s name in this text is Jonah and not Tanhum, and he cited a teaching in the name of R. Aha—the eminent fourth-generation Lod sage whose academy he may perhaps have attended—and not in the name of a Tiberian sage of the same generation. In any event, according to this version as well, R. Tanhum (or R. Jonah) Bozraiah was active in the fifth generation. 22 Pesikta Rabati, , ed. Ish-Shalom, a. 23 The printed edition of Lamentations Rabbah,:states“R.EleazarBazra"ah and R. Tanhum in the name of R. Aha.” This passage is parallel to the passage in Leviticus Rabbah mentioned in n.  above. But according to the wording there, R. Tanhum or R. Jonah, and not R. Eleazar, were from Bostra. Therefore it is doubtful whether R. Eleazar actually existed, and we may be dealing with a copyist’s error.  chapter five

R. Tanhum Edreiah (= of Edrei) was active in Edrei in the fifth talmudic generation, and he is mentioned in connection with two aggadic teachings.24

. Dabura Dabura is unique among all of the settlements listed in this book, as the information about it was not obtained from rabbinic literature but from archaeological findings. Remains of a settlement, whose name in Arabic is Dabura, were discovered about three kilometers west of Kazrin, near the upper waterfall in the eastern part of Wadi Dabura (m.r. .). The information about rabbinic activity in this settlement is based entirely on an epigraphic finding. The remains of a public structure— including a lintel with a Hebrew inscription of particular importance: “This is the beth midrash (= study house) of Rabbi Eleazar ha-Kappar”— were unearthed. This is the first and only archaeological finding todate in Palestine and the surrounding area that specifically mentions the words beth midrash. The inscription also states explicitly that the study house belonged to a rabbi, thus clearly associating the title of rabbi with a structure that is a study house, that is, a place for the study of Torah—the usual meaning of the term in rabbinic literature of that time period. This association establishes that the title rabbi in the inscription referstoaTorahsage,R.Eleazarha-Kappar,whoownedandpresided over the study house. Moreover, the lintel upon which the inscription was engraved constituted part of the façade of a public structure. This finding is consistent with the information obtained from the inscription, which states that it was “the study house of,” that is, a building used for communal rather than private purposes. Thus, the lintel was part of the façade of the study house of R. Eleazar ha-Kappar, who was the owner of the building. He evidently resided in the settlement; otherwise it is improbable that this sage’s name would have appeared in a place of such minor importance. The generally accepted dating of the inscription is the beginning of the third century, which is the time period of R. Judah ha-Nasi. Thus, a sage named R. Eleazar ha-Kappar had been active in this nameless

24 Albeck, Introduction to the Talmud, ; Reeg, Ortsnamen, . For more on the history of the city, see Klosterman, Eusebius, :; Kettenhofen, “Derâ”; Habas, “Nawa" Der"a”; Hartal, Ituraeans, –. golan, bashan, hauran and transjordan  settlement, which perhaps may be Devora, an assumption based on the Arabic name of the place and the wadi flowing beneath the building. R. Eleazar ha-Kappar was the name of one of the notable sages of his generation and an associate of R. Judah ha-Nasi. He was known by the name “bar Kappara.” A natural tendency in scholarly research is to identify the sage mentioned in the inscription with the sage bearing the identical name in rabbinic literature who was active during the same time period. However, this identification poses a problem, as rabbinic literature implies that bar Kappara had been active primarily in Lod and also had spent much time in Sepphoris with R. Judah ha-Nasi. It is therefore puzzling that bar Kappara was discovered in the Golan on an inscription that indicates that he presided over a study house there. The generally accepted explanation is that bar Kappara wandered widely, as implied in rabbinic literature, and it is conceivable that at some point he had settled in the Golan and had built a study house there.25 Of the above settlements, the earliest record of rabbinic activity in the Golan, Bashan and Hauran areas is, in fact, in Dabura. Testimony to rabbinic activity in other settlements in the region—with the exception of Kurshi, where R. Jacob b. Kurshai may have been active in the generation before R. Eleazar ha-Kappar of inscription fame—begins only in the following generation, the beginning of the talmudic period. In any event, this finding regarding the sage from Dabura alludes to the possibility of other rabbinic activity in settlements in this area of Golan with its sizeable Jewish population. The inscription also serves as proof that written sources, and rabbinic sources in particular, do not provide a complete list of places in which rabbinic activity existed in mishnaic and talmudic times.

Discussion The following is a list of sages who were active in the Golan, Bashan and Hauran in order of generation:

25 Naveh, Stone and Mosaic, –; Tsafrir, Map, . For a more extensive discussion, including another suggestion regarding bar Kappara’s place of residence and reference to additional sources, see Urman, “Bathei Midrash”; idem,“BarQappara”;idem,“TheLower Golan,”–, esp. , index, s.v. Dabura; Gregg, Urman, Jews, Pagans, –; Ben David, Golan, –; Zingboim, “Deborah”; Kahana, “Halachic Midrashim,” –.  chapter five

. The generation following the Bar Kokhba Revolt—one sage: R. Ja- cob b. Kurshai, in Kurshi (the identification of the place is uncertain). . The last generation of the mishnaic period—one sage: R. Eleazar ha-Kappar, in Dabura. . The first talmudic generation—one sage: R. Hunia (Nehunia) of Barat Hauran. . The second talmudic generation—two sages: R. Uziel b. R. Hunia (Nehunia) of Barat Hauran and R. Eleazar de-min-Naveh. . The third talmudic generation—two sages: R. Platia of Naveh and R. Eviatar of Idma. . The fourth talmudic generation—two sages: R. Shila (Shaul?) of NavehandR.BerekhiahBozraiah . The fifth talmudic generation—four sages: R. Jonah Bozraiah, R. Hanan bar R. Berekhiah Bozraiah, R. Tanhum Bozraiah, R. Tanhum Edreiah;oneuncertainsage:R.EleazarBazra"ah; and a group of sages: Rabbanan de-Naveh . A sage whose time period is unknown: R. Tanhum de-min-Noi

Due to the paucity of information in rabbinic literature regarding these areas, only partial and minimal conclusions may be drawn from the data. In the mishnaic period there may have been one sage who was active in Kurshi in the generation after the Bar Kokhba Revolt. In the following generation, that of R. Judah ha-Nasi, there was one sage active in Dabura. ThesetwosageswereactiveintheareaoftheGolan—Kurshiinlower Golan and Dabura on the border of upper Golan—where the main Jewish population resided after the destruction of the Second Temple. Both settlements were situated in the western part of the Golan, near the Sea of Galilee, and neither was an urban settlement.26 Aside from information on these settlements, there is no other information to date about rabbinic activity in the more distant eastern Golan or beyond it in Bashan or Hauran. It is likely that since this outlying area was on the outskirts of the Jewish population in Galilee, it did not attract sages at this point in time. In the talmudic period which followed (–ce), there is no information about rabbinic activity in the Golan. This lack of rabbinic activity mayberelatedtothedecreasingsizeoftheJewishpopulationinupper

26 Maoz. “Juifs”; Hartal, Ituraeans, –; Ben David, Golan, –. golan, bashan, hauran and transjordan  and lower Golan during most of the talmudic period, circa –ce.27 By contrast, rabbinic activity in Bashan and Hauran gradually increased. We know of one sage active in these areas in the first talmudic generation and two sages in the second talmudic generation. In the third generation there are two known sages, although there is uncertainty about the scene of activity of one of them. The activity of two sages there in the fourth talmudic generation was followed by a significant increase in the fifth generation—four sages, and one about whom we are uncertain, as well as a group of sages known as Rabbanan de-Naveh.Thus,thenumberof sages active in Bashan and Hauran reached its height in the last generation of the talmudic period. The explanation for this increase in rabbinic activity is similar to that given for other areas—the development of the areas on the outskirts of the Jewish population in Palestine towards the end of the talmudic period—and has been mentioned in the previous chapters. Three of the five settlements in which sages were known to have been active during the talmudic period were large, important urban centers to the east of Golan. Naveh was the capital of Bashan, while Bostra was a large polis and the capital of the province of Arabia. Edrei was a large city south of Bashan. The locations of Barat Hauran and Idmah, however, are uncertain. They apparently were not located in the Golan, but rather, in distant Hauran, and they were not known to be cities.28 As mentioned, Naveh, the first and most important rabbinic center from the second talmudic generation until the end of that period, was the scene of continuous rabbinic activity. The capital of Bashan, it was located about forty-five kilometers east of the Sea of Galilee. Rabbinic literature refers to the region as the “district of Naveh,” named after the city, and it had asizeablenumberofbothJewishandnon-Jewishsettlements,butitis unclear which comprised the majority. Bostra was the second most important rabbinic center, but only during the fourth talmudic generation when one sage was active there and in the fifth talmudic generation when three or four sages were active. Located more than fifty kilometers southeast of Naveh, Bostra was a Hellenistic city. Administratively, it was part of the province of Arabia, and for a time

27 Ben David, “Jewish Settlement”; idem, Golan, –, –; Hartal, ibid., – . See also the earlier opinions: Gregg, “Ancient Golan”; Maoz, “Comments”; Urman, “Public Structure,” –, –. 28 For more on the villages in Bashan and Hauran during that time period, see MacAdam, Geography, Chap. , ; Villeneuve, “Economie”; Maoz, “Southern Levant.”  chapter five during the Roman period, it also served as the capital. The vast majority of sages in Bashan and Hauran were active in Naveh and Bostra. The fact that we have information about the presence of so many sages in these two settlements, despite the relative paucity of information about the Jewish population in these areas compared to information about the Jewish population in Galilee or even in Judea, reinforces the impression that sages of Naveh and Bostra were men of stature and authority there in their day. The third city, Edrei, was the scene of activity of one sage in the fifth generation, at the end of the talmudic period. Edrei was an important city located about thirty kilometers south of Naveh, and Jewish villages in the southern part of the Naveh district were closer to Edrei than to Naveh. Presumably, commercial as well as cultural ties existed between settlements of the Naveh district and Edrei. These ties also enabled the local sages to wield greater influence in the area. It is conceivable that R. Tanhum, the only sage mentioned in rabbinic literature who was active in Edrei in the fifth talmudic generation, may have studied in the rabbinic center in Naveh, or at the very least, he would have been in contact with Naveh’s sages. Moreover, Bostra was also the scene of activity of sages in the fifth talmudic generation, and it can be assumed that the main highways that ran between it and Naveh and Edrei facilitated intensive contact among the sages of these three settlements. The two rural settlements of Barat Hauran and Idmah apparently were also located in the Hauran district, perhaps near Bostra, and far from the Galilean rabbinic centers. The paucity of information about this area and the sages who were active there makes it difficult to assess whether or not these sages exerted any influence in their area. In all likelihood, the first generation R. Hunia of Barat Hauran had been influential in Hauran and perhaps also in Bashan, as he was held in esteem by Galilean sages as well. In terms of their ties with their colleagues in the region, it should be noted that the sages of Beth Hauran were active in the first and second talmudic generations and the sage from Idmah in the third talmudic generation, before any known rabbinic activity in Bostra. But the sages of Beth Hauran and Idmah may have had ties with the sages of Naveh, who were active earlier in the second and third talmudic generations. Most of the sages of the Golan, Bashan and Hauran are mentioned in the context of Galilean rabbinic centers. Many of them probably had studied in Galilee and had been influenced by its sages, particularly by the Tiberian sages in the talmudic period. The small amount of golan, bashan, hauran and transjordan  extant information from mishnaic times already alludes to close ties with Galilean sages. R. Jacob b. Kurshai, who may have been active in Kurshi, was one of the teachers of R. Judah ha-Nasi and is cited in association with sages of the generation after the Bar Kokhba Revolt who were active in Galilee. R. Eleazar ha-Kappar, as well, who appears in the Dabura inscription and who is generally identified with bar Kappara, a contemporary and associate of R. Judah ha-Nasi, spent many years in Sepphoris and maintained ties with other Galilean sages, even though he was originally from Lod in the South. He apparently was active in his academy in Dabura in the Golan in his later years.29 Mention should be made of both a halakhic question that the inhabitants of Ninveh, alsoknownasNaveh,askedR.Judahha-Nasiandhisresponse,30 the query and answer implying that they regarded R. Judah ha-Nasi as their religious authority. In the first to second talmudic generations there is information about R. Hunia of Barat Hauran. His influence and importance extended beyond the Golan-Bashan-Hauran area. Rabbinic literature mentions him primarily in association with Galilean sages, who held him in esteem and cited his teachings. He participated in the intercalation of the year along with outstanding sages of that generation, an inclusion that demonstrates that he was highly respected, even by the most important Galilean sages. Another indication of the great esteem in which he was held is the fact that R. Joshua b. Levi, the outstanding Lod sage of the first to second talmudic generations, cited his teachings. However, with the exception of R. Hunia, the information available about other sages implies that they were of local importance only, as reflected in how few of their teachings areextant.Thispaucityofteachingsindeedmaybetheresultofthefact that the Talmud was compiled in Tiberias, but nonetheless it reflects the attitudeofTiberiansagestowardssagesintheGolan.R.JonahBozraiah was another exception, as about ten of his teachings are extant. He may have been a sage of eminence in his area, but he, too, is mentioned in the context of ties with sages of the rabbinic center in Tiberias and apparently was subordinate to them. In the second talmudic generation, the Jewish community in Bostra approached R. Simeon b. Lakish, a renowned Tiberian sage who was visiting their settlement, and requested that he appoint a sage to their

29 See above, nos.  and  in the list of settlements. 30 J. Berakhot :, b; j. Ta"aniyot :, d; b. Ta"anit b.  chapter five community. The request is testimony to their dependence on the rabbinic center in Tiberias and their inability to find a local sage for themselves. In the following, third talmudic generation, when R. Abbahu, the leading Caesarean sage, visited Bostra, the community still lacked a sage. It was only in the fourth generation that we know of a sage who was active in Bostra, but the only information that exists about him is his name and place of residence. In the fifth talmudic generation three or four sages were active in Bostra, and almost all of them were subordinate to Tiberian sages. Particularly strong ties were maintained between Naveh, the important rabbinic center in Bashan that was the scene of rabbinic activity from the second to the fifth talmudic generations, and the rabbinic center in Tiberias during that period. The sociological element of center vs. periphery can serve as an index of rabbinic activity in the Golan, Bashan and Hauran regions. It is difficult to regard any one of the settlements in these areas as the center and the others as the periphery. In the first place, it is difficult to draw conclusions due to the paucity of information about these settlements. Secondly, these rabbinic centers enjoyed only local status and were not a dominant factor in the rabbinic world in Palestine. On the contrary, they were dependent in large part on Galilean sages. In other words, sages of these areas constituted the periphery in relation to the rabbinic centers in Galilee at the end of mishnaic times and during the first talmudic generation. They constituted the periphery with respect to Sepphoris, which was then the dominant rabbinic center in Galilee, and later, vis-à-vis Tiberias, with which most of the material dealing with the sages of Bashan and Hauran is associated. The local perspective is not entirely clear either. Here, too, welack information, and it is difficult to ascertain whether one or more dominant rabbinic centers existed in these areas. The sage of the first talmudic generation, R. Hunia of Barat Hauran, was regarded as an important sage even by Galilean sages, and in that generation his place of residence may have constituted a rabbinic center in the area. From the second talmudic generation until the end of the talmudic period, Naveh was slightly more notable as a rabbinic center than were the others. Naveh was a veteran Jewish settlement in the region and the most important in Bashan, and its sages may have wielded greater influence than sages in the other known settlements in Bashan and Hauran. It has also been noted that ties may have existed among the three urban centers in Bashan and Hauran— Naveh, Bostra and Edrei—which would have heightened the status of sages in these areas and the influence that they exerted, and in particular golan, bashan, hauran and transjordan  the influence of the sages of Naveh, the more important rabbinic center of the three. The status of Naveh’s sages might provide an explanation for theappearanceofthegroupofsagescalledRabbanan de-Naveh in the fifth generation of the talmudic period. This designation highlights the fact that a group of sages, similar to Rabbanan de-Caesarin, and not just one sage, was active in the settlement. Thus, Naveh may have been an important local rabbinic center in the region east of the Sea of Galilee, at least from the time of the second talmudic generation. Bostra too should perhaps be regarded as an important rabbinic center in the region in the fourth talmudic generation, and especially in the fifth talmudic generation, when it was the scene of activity of four sages. In contrast, the other settlements with rabbinic activity, Barat Hauran, Idmah and Edrei, were the region’s periphery, with few sages and little rabbinic activity.

Rabbinic Activity—Transjordan

A discussion of rabbinic activity in Transjordan is problematic due to the lack of available information regarding the Jewish population there after the destruction of the Second Temple and particularly after the Bar Kokhba Revolt. Even less information is available about settlements with rabbinic activity. Consequently the conclusions to be drawn about this region are minimal. During the Second Temple period, most of the Jews who had settled in Transjordan lived in its center and south, a region called Περαα (Peraea in Greek), and on its outskirts. This area was regarded by the Jews as the third region of Palestine, in addition to Galilee and Judea.31 Even after the destruction of the Second Temple in ce, this region still had a sizeable Jewish population, which declined greatly after the Bar Kokhba Revolt (–/ce), perhaps because the Jews in the area had participated in this uprising.32

31 Klein, Ever ha-Yarden;AviYonah,Geography, –; –; Schürer, History, :–; Reeg, Ortsnamen, –. In his research, Reeg mentions very few Jewish settlements in Transjordan, compared to the numbers in Galilee and Judea. 32 Millar, Roman Near East, –; Eck, “Procuratorenpaar”; Mor, The Bar-Kochba Revolt, –.  chapter five

Gerasa—Rabbinic Activity and Discussion Gerasa is the only known settlement with rabbinic activity in this area. Located in northern Transjordan, in the middle of the Gilead Moun- tains, Hellenistic Gerasa was one of the Decapolis cities. According to Josephus the settlement was located beyond the northeastern border of Peraea.Jewshadlivedinthiscityasearlyasthefirstcenturyce,anda Jewish presence remained there after the destruction of the Second Tem- ple in  ce. There is no reason to assume that this Jewish presence disap- peared before the Bar Kokhba Revolt in  ce. Even afterwards, nothing suggests that Jews no longer inhabited the area of northern Transjordan, in which Gerasa was located, since there is no evidence that the Jews of Gerasa or of northern Transjordan, unlike the Jews of Peraea, took part in the revolt. Hence, there is no reason to rule out the possibility of a Jewish presence in Gerasa, or in northern Transjordan in general, after the Bar Kokhba Revolt, a postulation that helps clarify the information below about a rabbinic presence in Gerasa in the generation after the Bar Kokhba Revolt.33 A tannaitic source mentions two brothers who are assumed to have been sages and who were active in Gerasa in the generation after the Bar Kokhba Revolt: “Said R. Jose [b. Halafta], Oenimis (or Oenymis), brother of Joshua ha-Garsi (= of Gerasa) said to me” (based on Neusner, :).34 R. Jose b. Halafta was active in Sepphoris in Galilee and was one of the leading sages in the generation after the Bar Kokhba Revolt. In the above source, he refers to a halakhah which Oenimis, the brother of Joshua of Gerasa, had reported to him. Neither brother is referred to by the title rabbi. However, the very fact that R. Jose cited a halakhic teaching in the name of Oenimis indicates that the latter was a sage (see Chapter ). Moreover, it is commonly found in rabbinic literature that when there is a conversation between two sages or when one sage describes his conversation with another sage, as in the above case, the sages refer to the person with whom they are or were conversing by name only, without the title rabbi. In addition, the fact that R. Jose emphasizes that Oenimis (Oenomaos in Greek) is the brother of Joshua of Gerasa indicates that in Galilean rabbinic circles the latter was a more important sage in matters of halakhah than was Oenimis. Furthermore, we can

33 Eck, “Revolt”; idem, “Bar Kochba”; Mor, “Geographical Scope”; Porter, “Amathus”; Sagiv, Transjordan, –; Eshel, “Bar-Kochba,” –. 34 T. Makhshirin :–, ed. Zuckermandel, ; the parallel b. Bekhorot b. golan, bashan, hauran and transjordan  deduce from R. Jose’s words that the two brothers from Gerasa were active in his generation, the generation after the Bar Kokhba Revolt, and that they maintained ties with Galilean sages. Joshua of Gerasa is also referred to in several later sources, together with his place of residence. He is called a disciple of R. Akiva, and according to later midrashic sources, he administered to R. Akiva in the latter’s last days in jail and at his burial. Joshua’s dispute with a heretic also is mentioned,35 an incident that underscores the fact that he was active in a Hellenistic city such as Gerasa, where one regularly encountered non-Jews.36 R. Jose himself had attended R. Akiva’sacademy before the Bar Kokhba Revolt. Presumably, it was then that he had made the acquaintance with Joshua of Gerasa, as Joshua also apparently had attended R. Akiva’s academy. After the Bar Kokhba Revolt, when sages relocated to Galilee, the ties between R. Jose and the two brothers, Joshua of Gerasa and his brother Oenimis, continued, as evidenced by the fact that R. Jose cited a halakhah in the name of Oenimis. There is also the possibility that Oenimis, like his brother, attended R. Akiva’s academy, since as a sage who was active in the following generation, Oenimis would have had to have studied under some other sage, and in all likelihood he would have studied in the same place as his brother had studied. Perhaps he, too, wouldhavemadetheacquaintancewithR.Josethere.

35 Joshua of Gerasa administered to R. Akiva before his death, see b. Eruvin b. He waspresentathisteacher’sdeath,seeLamentations Rabbah :, ed. Buber, . See also The Midrash on Proverbs :, ed. Visotzky, –. For more on Joshua of Gerasa’s response to the Boethusian, see b. Shabbat a. 36 There is an opinion that Simeon Bar-Giora of Gerasa, one of the leaders ofthe revolt against Rome (– ce), came from the city of Gerasa located in Transjordan. However, there are those who identify his place of origin as a village in eastern Samaria named Juerish. Regarding these opinions, see Kasher, Hellenistic Cities,  n. ; Tsafrir, Map, . It has been suggested that Joshua of Gerasa, too, was from Juerish; see Safrai, Boundaries,  n. . However, it should be noted that some of those who identify Gerasa as a settlement in Samaria base their opinion on Press, Topographical- Historical,:andn.,whoactuallysuggestsathirdidentification—avillageinwestern Judea about three-and-a-half kilometers south of Hartuv near Beth Shemesh. Press’ suggestion underlines the problem of making identifications on the basis of similarity of names alone, especially as the name Juerish is not very similar to the name Gerasa. By contrast, the city of Gerasa in Transjordan is identical to the word Gerasa that is added to Joshua’s name. Furthermore, the identification of the city as Gerasa in Transjordan should be preferred because of the other factors mentioned in the text that support this identification, namely Gerasa’s special relationship to its Jewish inhabitants, Joshua’s dispute with a heretic and the Greek name of Oenimis, all of which make the identification of Gerasa with the city in Transjordan more plausible.  chapter five

The presence of the two brothers in Gerasa implies that a Jewish community had existed in Gerasa in Transjordan even after the Bar Kokhba Revolt. Perhaps the relationship between Gerasa’s Jewish and Hellenistic residents may have been more favorable than such relationships in other Hellenistic cities, thus enabling the city’s Jewish residents, and among them the two brothers, to return to their place of birth. Indeed, there is evidence that when bloody riots broke out between Jews and non-Jews in Palestine’s Hellenistic cities in ce, on the eve of the war that led to the destruction of the Second Temple, Gerasa’s residents did not harm their Jewish neighbors, despite the fact that Jews from outside Gerasa had attacked the city earlier.37 Archaeological excavations in Gerasa point to the possibility of a later Jewish presence there as well. Excavators discovered the remnants of a synagogue beneath a church, specifically a mosaic floor with the remains of a dedication inscribed in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, testimony to the existence of an affluent Jewish community there in the fifth century. According to the excavators, the synagogue’s origins indicate that a Jew- ishcommunityhadbeeninexistenceinGerasaasearlyasthethirdand fourth centuries.38 The church was erected over the synagogue in ce, apparently signifying the end of the local Jewish community there.39 Thus, from the information about the two sages from Gerasa who were active in the generation after the Bar Kokhba Revolt it is possible to sur- mise that there may have been a continuous Jewish presence in Gerasa

37 For more on these events, see Josephus, War, :, ; Roth-Gerson, Greek Inscriptions, – and n. ; Kasher, Hellenistic Cities, –, , . 38 See Detweiler, Jerash, who claims that items from the ancient synagogue, such as a candelabrum, were incorporated into Hadrian’s Arch, which was erected in  ce in the southern part of Gerasa. According to this claim, the synagogue’s foundations may date at least to the first third of the second century—the time of Hadrian, which also corresponds to the time of Joshua and Oenimis. However, this is problematic because the candelabrum first was used as a public symbol in synagogues only from the middle of the third century. Thus, it is unlikely that the candelabrum had been incorporated into Hadrian’s Arch before the third century, and it certainly could not have been part of the original arch. Moreover, a synagogue containing a candelabrum cannot date back to Hadrian’s time, but only to a later period. See Levine, “Menorah,” –; idem, The Ancient Synagogue, –. See also Aubin, “Jerash”; and especially Sagiv, Transjordan, –. 39 For more on the city’s history, see Avi Yonah, Geography, –; Schürer, History, :–. On the history of its Jewish residents, see Kraeling, Gerasa, –, – ; Naveh, Stone and Mosaic, ; Tsafrir, Archaeology, –, ; Roth-Gerson, Greek Inscriptions, –; Reeg, Ortsnamen, –; Dvorjetski, “Gerasa.” golan, bashan, hauran and transjordan  from the first century ce (about which there is information from Jose- phus) onwards, past the time of the Bar Kokhba Revolt (the brothers from Gerasa), on through the third, fourth and fifth centuries (about which there is archaeological evidence) and up to the sixth century, when a church was erected over the synagogue there.

Summary of the Data and Conclusions

As I noted at the beginning of the discussion, little information exists on the Jewish population in the Golan, Bashan and Hauran, and even less about Jewish Transjordan. Therefore, the conclusions drawn from the discussion are partial at best. Below is a summary of the information that exists on the numbers of sages and the number of settlements in which sages were active:

Golan, Bashan and Hauran: Number of settlements in which sages were active: Mishnaic period: one (+ one which is uncertain) Talmudic period: five Number of sages: Mishnaic period: one (+one who is uncertain) Talmudic period: thirteen (eleven + at least two Rabbanan de-Naveh + one sage who is uncertain) Transjordan: Number of settlements in which sages were active: Mishnaic period: one Number of sages Mishnaic period: two sages Talmudic period: no sages  chapter five

Rabbinic Activity in the Golan, Bashan, Hauran and Transjordan Mishnaic Period Talmudic Period Golan, Bashan, No. of settlements with (+uncertain)  Hauran rabbinic activity No. of sages  (+  uncertain)  (+ at least  Rabbanan de-Naveh + uncertain) Transjordan No. of settlements with  rabbinic activity No. of sages 

We can draw few general conclusions from these data. The amount of information regarding rabbinic activity in the entire area east of the Jordan River during the mishnaic period is small. By comparison, there is a gradual and significant increase in the number of sages in the talmudic period and in the number settlements in which they were active. In total, there were about four times as many sages during the talmudic period as during the mishnaic period, even though the numbers themselves are small. Another significant difference between the mishnaic and talmudic periods is that there is no extant information on any sage who was active in Golan during the talmudic period, except in Zidan-Bethsaida, which bordered on Galilee and which saw rabbinic activity during the talmudic period.Zidan,however,hasbeendiscussedinthechapteronGalilee, since the sages regarded it as a Galilean settlement, due to its relative proximity to Tiberias and its location north, rather than east of the Sea of Galilee. The information presented here on rabbinic activity during the talmudic period relates to Bashan and Hauran, the areas east of the Golan. Thus, there is information about one sage in that region as early as the first generation of the talmudic period. In the following generations, the number of sages increased slightly to two sages, followed by a further increase of four to six sages and perhaps even more in the fifth generation, at the end of the talmudic period. Mutual ties existed among sages of that region, perhaps primarily with sages of Naveh, which was the more important rabbinic center. However, the close ties that existed were between sages of Bashan and Hauran on one hand and sages of Galilee, whose academies the former had attended, on the other hand. Rabbinic activity in Transjordan existed only during the mishnaic period in the generation after the Bar Kokhba Revolt, and only in one settlement, the Hellenistic city of Gerasa. Two brothers who were sages were active there and they maintained ties with Galilean sages. golan, bashan, hauran and transjordan 

The information that exists regarding rabbinic activity in Golan, Ba- shan, Hauran and in Transjordan is incidental and implies that there may have been other sages and other settlements with rabbinic activity in these areas. The possibility of other sages and settlements is demonstrated by the epigraphic finding on a lintel of a public building in Dabura in the Golan with the inscription “R. Eleazar ha-Kappar,”thus revealing the otherwiseunknownexistenceofasagewho,attheendofthemishnaic period, presided over an academy named after him.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aberbach, “Educational Institutions” = M. Aberbach. “Educational Institution and Problems during the Talmudic Era.” HUCA  (): –. ———,“MasterandDisciple”=M.Aberbach.“TheRelationsbetweenMasterand Disciple in the Talmudic Age.” Essays presented to Chief Rabbi Israel Brodie, London, , –. ——— , Jewish Education =M.Aberbach.Jewish Education in The Mishnah and Talmud. Jerusalem: Reuven Mas,  (Heb.). ——— , Labor, Crafts and Commerce =M.Aberbach.Labor, Crafts and Commerce in Ancient Israel. Jerusalem: Magnes, . Abramson, Avodah Zarah =S.Abramson.Tractate #Abodah Zarah of the Baby- lonian Talmud. Ms. Jewish Theological Seminary of America. New York,  (Heb.). Agur, Rabbi Pinchas =J.Agur.Rabbi Pinchas Ben-Yair. M.A. Degree, Tel-Aviv,  (Heb.). Adan-Bayewitz, “Peddler” = D. Adan-Bayewitz. “The Itinerant Peddler in Ro- man Palestine.” Gross (ed.), Jews in Economic Life, Jerusalem: Shazar Center, , – (Heb.). ——— , Pottery =D.Adan-Bayewitz.Common Pottery in Roman Galilee: A Study of Local Trade. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan Univeristy Press, . ———, “The Evidence” = D. Adan-Bayewitz. “The Evidence from Neutron Acti- vation Analysis.” In Strange, Groh and Longstaff, “Excavations at Seppho- ris: The Location and Identification of Shikhin,” Part II, IEJ  (): – . Adna and Kvalbein, Mission = J.J. Adna and H. Kvalbein (eds.). Mission of the Early Church to the Jews and Gentiles. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, . Albeck, Mishnah =Ch.Albeck.Shishah Sidrei Mishnah.  vols. Jerusalem-Tel Aviv: Devir and Mosad Bialik, – (Heb.). ——— , Introduction to the Mishna =Ch.Albeck.Introduction to the Mishna.Tel- Aviv: Mosad Bialik-Devir,  (Heb.). ——— , Introduction to the Talmud =Ch.Albeck.Introduction to the Talmud, Babli and Jerushalmi. Tel-Aviv: Devir,  (Heb.). Alexander, “In Journeyings Often” = L. Alexander. “‘In Journeyings Often’: Voyaging in the Acts of the Apostles and in Greek Romance.” C.M. Tuckett (ed.), Luke’s Literary Achievement: Collected Essays, JNSTSup . Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, , –. ——— , Transmitting Mishnah =E.S.Alexander.Transmitting Mishnah: The Shap- ing Influence of Oral Tradition. New York: Cambridge University Press, . ———,“Orality” = E.S. Alexander. “The Orality of Rabbinic Writing.” Fonrobert and Jaffee (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,  –. Alon, The Jews =G.Alon.The Jews in their Land in the Talmudic Age I,II. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, , .  bibliography

——— , Mehkarim =G.Alon.Mehkarim be-Toldot Yisrael bi-Yeme Bayit Sheni uvi- Tekufat ha-Mishna veha-Talmud [= Studies in Jewish History: In the Times of the Second Temple, the Mishna and the Talmud].  vols. Tel Aviv: Ha-kibuts Ha-Meuhad, ,  (Heb.). ——— , Toldot =G.Alon.Toldot ha-Yehudim be-Eretz Israel bi-Tekuft ha-Mishnah ve-Hatalmud.  vols. Tel Aviv: Ha-kibuts Ha-Meuhad, ,  (Heb.). Amelig, Inscriptiones Judaicae = W. Ameling (ed.). Inscriptiones Judaicae Orien- tis II, Kleinasien. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, . Aminoah, “R. Jose” = N. Aminoah. “An Inquiry into the Talmudic Tradition of R. Jose Be R. Bun.”The Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, , vol. , – (Heb.). Amit, “Priests” = D. Amit, “Priests and the Memory of the Temple in the Synagogues of Southern Judaea.” L.I. Levine (ed.), Continuity and Renewal: Jewish and Judaism in Byzantine-Christian Palestine, Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak ben Zvi, , – (Heb.). ———, “Architectural Plans” = D. Amit. “Architectural Plans of Synagogues in the Southern Judean Hills and the ‘Halakah’.” Urman and Flesher, Ancient Synagogues, –. Amit et al., “Mount Scopus” = D. Amit et al. “A Quarry and Workshop for the Production of Stone Vessels on the Eastern Slope of Mount Scopus.” Qadmoniot ,  () (): – (Heb.). Anderson, The Second Sophistic =G.Anderson.The Second Sophistic: A Cul- turalPhenomenonintheRomanEmpire. London–New York: Routledge, . ——— , Sage, Saint =G.Anderson.Sage, Saint and Sophist: Holy Men and Their Associates in the Early Roman Empire. London: Routledge, . ———,“The Periphery” = J.D. Anderson. “The Impact of Rome on the Periphery: The Case of Palestine, Roman Period (bce–ce).” Th.D. Levy (ed.), The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, London: Leicester University Press, , –. Ando, Imperial Ideology =C.Ando.Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press, . Appelbaum, “Economy” = S. Appelbaum. “Economic Life in Palestine.”S. Safrai, M. Stern (eds.), Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum: The Jewish People in the First Century, vol. :II, Assen/Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, , –. ———,“Judaea” = S. Appelbaum. “Judaea as a Roman Province: The Countryside as a Political and Economic Factor.” ANRW :, , –. ———,IssacandLandau,“RamatYohannan”=S.Appelbaum,B.Isaac,Y.Lan- dau. “Varia Epigraphia: Ramat Yohannan.” SCI  (/): –. ———, “Jaffa” = S. Appelbaum. “The Status of Jaffa in the First Century ofthe Current Era.” SCI – (–): –. Assis, “Nezikin” = M. Assis. “On the Question of the Redaction of Yerushalmi Nezikin.” Tarbiz  (): – (Heb.), I (English Summary). Aubin, “Jerash” = M.M. Aubin. “Jerash.” E.M. Meyers (ed.), The Oxford Ency- clopedia of Archaeology in the Near East,vol.,NewYork-Oxford:Oxford University Press, , –. bibliography 

Avigad and Mazar, “Beth She"arim” = N. Avigad and B. Mazar. “Beth She"arim.” NEAEHL, :–. Avi-Yonah, Geschichte der Juden =M.Avi-Yonah.Geschichte der Juden im Zeital- ter des Talmud in den Tagen von Rom und Byzanz. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, . ——— , The Holy Land =M.Avi-Yonah.The Holy Land, From the Persian to the Arab Conquest. Grand Rapids: MI: Baker, . ———,“Tiberias”=M.Avi-Yonah,“TiberiasintheRomanPeriod.”InH.Hirsch- berg (ed.), All the Land of Naftali, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, , – (Heb.). ———, “Foundation of Tiberias” = M. Avi-Yonah. “Foundation of Tiberias.” In H. Hirschberg (ed.), All the Land of Naftali, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, , – (Heb.). ——— , Rome and Byzantion =M.Avi-Yonah.IntheDaysofRomeandByzantium. th edition. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute,  (Heb.). ——— , Gazetteer =M.Avi-Yonah.Gazetteer of Roman Palestine (Qedem ). Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, . ——— , Palestine =M.AviYonah.The Jews of Palestine: A Political History from the Bar Kokhba War to the Arab Conquest. Oxford: Blackwell, . ——— , Geography =M.Avi-Yonah.Historical Geography of Palestine.thedition. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute,  (Heb.). ———, “Hammat Gader” = M. Avi-Yonah. “Hammat Gader-Tell el-Hammeh.” NEAEHL, :–. Ayali, Nomenclature =M.Ayali.A Nomenclature of Workers and Artisans in the Talmudic and Midrashic Literature. Tel-Aviv: ha-Kibbuts ha-Me"uhad,  (repr. ) (Heb.). Bacher, Terminologie =W.Bacher.Die Exegetische Terminologie der Jüdischen Traditionsliteratur. Leipzig: Hinrichs, . ——— , Tannaiten =W.Bacher.Die Agada der Tannaiten.  vols. Strasbourg: Trubner, – (repr. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, /). ——— , Amoräer =W.Bacher.Die Agada der palästinensischen Amoräer.vols. Strasbourg: Trubner, – (repr. Hildesheim: G. Olms, ). ——— , Tanaim =B.Z.Bacher.Agadat ha-Tanaim.  vols. Tel Aviv: Dvir, –  (Heb). ——— , Amoraim =B.Z.Bacher.Agadat Amoraei Eretz Israel.vols.TelAviv: Dvir, – (Heb.). ———, “Die Gelehrten” = W. Bacher. “Die Gelehrten von Caesarea.” MGWJ  (): –. ———, “Rabbi Hoshaia” = W. Bacher. “The Church Father, Origen, and Rabbi Hoshaia.” JQR [old series]  (): –. ——— , Tradition =W.Bacher.Tradition und Tradenten in den Schulen Palästinas und Babyloniens. Leipzig: G. Fock, . Bagatti, Villages =B.Bagatti.Ancient Christian Villages of Judaea and the Negev. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, . Ball, East =W.Ball.Rome in the East: The Transformation of the Empire.Lon- don/New York: Routledge, . Bar, “Third Century” = D. Bar. “The Third Century Crisis in the Roman Empire  bibliography

anditsRelevancetoPalestineDuringtheLateRomanPeriod.”Zion  (): – (Heb.). ———,“Frontier” = D. Bar. “Frontier and Periphery in Late Antique Palestine.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies  (): –. ———, “Population” = D. Bar. “Population, Settlement and Economy in Late Roman and Byzantine Palestine (–ad).” Bulletin of the School of African and Oriental Studies : (): –. ———,“Settlement”=D.Bar.“RomanLegislationasReflectedintheSettlement History of Late Antique Palestine.” SCI  (): –. Baras et al, Eretz-Israel = Z. Baras, S. Safrai, Y. Tsafrir, M. Stern (eds.), Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest,Vol.. Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak Ben Zvi,  (Heb.). Bar-Asher, “Mishnaic Hebrew” = M. Bar-Asher. “Mishnaic Hebrew: An Intro- ductory Survey.” Safrai et al., The Literature, –. ———, “Mishnaic Hebrew ” = M. Bar-Asher. “Mishnaic Hebrew: An Introduc- tory Survey.” CHJ  (): –. Baumgarten, “Opposition”= A.I. Baumgarten. “The Akiban Opposition.” HUCA  (): –. ———, “Opponents” = A.I. Baumgarten. “Rabbi Judah I and his Opponents.” JSJ  (): –. Becker, Geniza =H.-J.Becker.Geniza-Fragmente zu Avot de-Rabbi Natan. Tübin- gen: Mohr Siebeck,  (Heb. with German commentary). Beer, “Issachar” = M. Beer. “Issachar and Zebulun.” Bar-Ilan  (): –. ———,“Yissachar”=M.Beer.“IssacharandZebulun.”Bar-Ilan  (): – (Heb.). ——— , Rashut ha-Golah =M.Beer.Rashut ha-Golah be-Bavel bi-Yemei ha- Mishnah ve-ha-Talmud. Tel-Aviv: Devir,  (Heb.). ——— , The Babylonian Amoraim =M.Beer.The Babylonian Amoraim: Aspects of Economic Life. nd ed. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press,  (Heb.). ———, “Chevraia” = M. Beer. “About the ‘Hevraya’ in the Talmudim.” Bar-Ilan / (): – (Heb.). Belayche, Iudaea-Palaestina =N.Belayche.Iudaea-Palaestina, The Pagan Cults in Roman Palestine (Second to Fourth Century). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, . Ben-David, “Jewish Settlement” = Ch. Ben-David. “The Jewish Settlement in the Golan from after Gamla until the Moslem Period: The Contribution of the Archaeological Survey.” M. Reuveni, M. Livneh (eds.), Advances in the Golan Research: Man and Landscape, Tel Aviv University: Ramot Publishers, , – (Heb.). ——— , Golan =Ch.Ben-David.The Jewish Settlement on the Golan in the Roman and Byzantine Period. Golan Studies . Qazrin: Golan Institute Research, Qazrin Museum,  (Heb.). BenShalom,“Ideology”=I.BenShalom.“EventsandIdeologyoftheYavneh Period as Indirect Causes of the Bar-Kokhva Revolt.” Oppenheimer & Rap- paport, New Approach,–(Heb.). ———,“Bar Ilai” = I. Ben Shalom. “Rabbi Judah B. Ilai’s Attitude towards Rome.” Zion  (): –. bibliography 

———, “R. Pinchas” = M. Ben Shalom. “The Images of R. Pinchas ben Yair and his Contemporary.” D. Gera and M. Ben-Zeev (eds.), The Path of Peace: Studies in Honor of Israel Friedman Ben-Shalom, Beer Sheva, , – (Heb.). Berquist, Persia’s Shadow =J.L.Berquist.Judaism in Persia’s Shadow: A Social and Historical Approach. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, . Bintliff, “Settlement” = J. Bintliff. “Settlement and Territory.” G. Barker (ed.), Companion Encyclopedia of Archaeology, London and New York: Routledge, , –. Blau, Erkei Tanaim = M.Y. Blau (ed.). Yehudah bar Kalonimus, Yihusei Tanaim ve-Amoraim—Erkei Tanaim ve-Amoraim.vols.Brooklyn:NewYork:N.Y. Blau, . Boatwright, Cities =M.T.Boatwright.Hadrian and the Cities of the Roman Empire. Princeton: Princeton University Press, . Bonner, Education = S.F. Bonner. Education in Ancient Rome. Berkeley: Univer- sity of California Press, . Borenstein and Rosenfeld, “Narbata” = A. Borenstein and B.Z. Rosenfeld. “The Narbata Strip and the Southern Carmel from the Second Temple Period to the Byzantine Period.” Judea and Samaria Research Studies  (): – (Hebrew). Borger, “Proselytes” = P.Borger. “Proselytes, Conquests, and Mission.”P.Borger, V.K. Robbins, D.B. Gowler (eds.), Recruitment Conquest, and Conflict: Strate- gies in Judaism, Early Christianity and the Greco-Roman World, Atlanta: Scholars Press, , –. Bowersock, Greek Sophist =G.W.Bowersock.Greek Sophist in the Roman Em- pire. Oxford: Oxford University Press, . Bowman, “Cities” = A. Bowman. “Cities and Administration in Roman Egypt.” JRS  (): –. Boxer, “Bibliographical” = B.M. Boxer. “Annotated Bibliographical Guide to the Study of the Palestinian Talmud.” ANRW II, :, (): –. Boyarin, Carnal Israel = D. Boyarin. Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press, . Breuer, “The Aramaic” = Y.Breuer. “The Aramaic of the Talmudic Period.”Safrai et al., The Literature, –. ———, “Aramaic” = Y. Breuer. “Aramaic in Late Antiquity.” CHJ  (): – . Broshi, Bread, Wine =M.Broshi.Bread, Wine, Walls and Scrolls. JSPSup . Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, . Büchler, “Open Air” = A. Büchler. “Learning and Teaching in the Open Air in Palestine.” JQR  n.s. (): –. ——— , Am-ha-Ares =A.Büchler.Der galiläische #Am ha-"Ares des Zweiten Jahr- hunderts. Vienna: Alfred Hölder, . ———,“R.Jehudah”=A.Büchler.“ThePatriarchR.JehudahandtheGreco- Roman Cities of Palestine.” A. Büchler, Studies in Jewish History,London: Oxford University Press, , –. ——— , The Priests =A.Büchler.The Priests and their Cult in the Last Decade of the Temple in Jerusalem. Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook,  (Heb.)].  bibliography

——— , Mechkarim =A.Büchler.The Political and Social Leaders of the Jewish Community of Sepphoris in the Second and Third Centuries.London:Jews’ College Publications,  [= idem. Mechkarim bi-Tekufat ha-Mishna ve-ha- Talmud. Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook,  (Heb.)]. Burke, Social Theory =P.Burke.History and Social Theory. nd edition. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, . Butcher, Roman Syria =K.Butcher.Roman Syria and the Near East.London: British Museum Press, . Cappelletti, Jewish Community =S.Cappelletti.The Jewish Community of Rome: From the Second Century bc to the Third Century C.E. Leiden: Brill, . Capper, “Southern Palestine” = B.J. Capper. “The New Covenant in Southern Palestine at the Arrest of Jesus.” J.R. Davila (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls as Background to Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity: Papers from an International Conference at St. Andrews in , Leiden: Brill. , –. Carrie, “Developments” = J-M. Carrie. “Developments in Provincial and Local Administration.” CAH  (): –. Carriker, Eusebius = A.J. Carriker. The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea.Leiden: Brill, . Champion, “Introduction” = T.C. Champion. “Introduction.” T.C. Champion (ed.), Centre and Periphery: Comparative Studies in Archaeology,London: Routledge, , –. Chancey, Gentile Galilee =M.A.Chancey.The Myth of a Gentile Galilee.Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press, . Chase-Dunn and Hall, “Core/Periphery” = C. Chase-Dunn and T. Hall. “Con- ceptualizing Core/Periphery Hierarchies for Comparative Studies.” C. Chase-Dunn and T. Hall (eds.), Core/Periphery Relations in Precapitalist Worlds, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, , –. Cherry, North Africa =D.Cherry.Frontier and Society in Roman North Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press, . Chiesi,“NetworkAnalysis”=A.M.Chiesi.“NetworkAnalysis.”IESBS.Oxford: Elsevier, , :–:. Cohen, “Sugyot” = A. Cohen. “Non-Chronological Sugyot in the Babylonian Talmud: The Case of Baba Qamma a.” Review of Rabbinic Judaism : (): –. ———, “Epigraphical Rabbis” = S.J.D. Cohen. “Epigraphical Rabbis.” JQR  (–): –. ——— , Jewishness = S.J.D. Cohen. The Beginning of Jewishness.Berkley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press, . ———, “Yavneh” = S.J.D. Cohen. “The Significance of Yavneh: Pharisees, Rabbis, and the End of Jewish Sectarianism.” HUCA  (): –. ———, “Ancient Synagogue” = S.J.D. Cohen. “Pagan and Christian Evidence on the Ancient Synagogue.” L.I. Levine (ed.), The Synagogue in Late Antiquity, New York/Philadelphia: ASOR, , –. ———,“The Place” = S.J.D. Cohen. “The Place of the Rabbi in Jewish Society of the Second Century.” Levine, The Galilee, –. ———,“TheRabbi”=S.J.D.Cohen.“TheRabbiinSecond-CenturyJewishSoci- ety.” CHJ  (): –. bibliography 

Collins, Jewish Cult =J.J.Collins.Jewish Cult and Hellenistic Culture; Essays on the Jewish Encounter with Hellenism and Roman Rule. Leiden: Brill, . Cotton and Yardeni, Texts =H.M.CottonandA.Yardeni.Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek Documentary Texts from Nahal Hever and Other Sites. DJD XXVII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, . Dan,“Leadership”=Y.Dan.“TheLeadershipoftheJewishCommunityinEretz Yisrael in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries.” Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies. Division B, :, , – (Heb.). ——— , The City =Y.Dan.The City in Eretz-Israel During the Late Roman and the Byzantine Periods. Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak ben Zvi,  (Heb.). Danker, New Testament =F.W.Danker.AGreek-EnglishLexiconandotherEarly Christian Literature. rd edition. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, . Dar, Sumaqa =S.Dar.Sumaqa: A Roman and Byzantine Jewish Village on Mount Carmel, Israel. BAR International Series . Oxford: Archaeopress, . De-Ligt, “Roman Peasantry II” = L. de Ligt. “Demand, Supply, Distribution: the RomanPeasantryBetweenTownandCountryside:Supply,Distributionand aComparativePerspective.”MBAH X,  (): –. Derks, Gods =T.Derks.Gods, Temples, and rural practices: the transformation of religious ideas and values in Roman Gaul. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, . Dessel, “Jaffa” = J.P. Dessel. “Jaffa.” E.M. Meyers (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East,vol.,NewYork/Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press , –. Detweiler, “Jerash” = A.H. Detweiler. “Some Early Jewish Architectural Vestiges from Jerash.” BASOR  (): –. Dimitrovsky, S"ridei Bavli = H.Z. Dimitrovsky (collected and edited). S"ridei Bavli. I:. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America,  (Heb.). Di Segni and Tsafrir, “Ethnic Composition” = L. Di Segni and Y. Tsafrir. “Eth- nic Composition of the Population of Jerusalem in the Byzantine Period.” Tsafrir and Safrai, The History of Jerusalem, Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, – (Heb.). Dothan, Hammath Tiberias =M.Dothan.Hammath Tiberias: Early Synagogues. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, . Duling, “Movement, ” = D.C. Duling. “The Jesus Movement and Social Net- work Analysis (Part : The Spatial Network).” BTB  (): –. ———,“Movement,”=D.C.Duling.“TheJesusMovementandSocialNetwork Analysis (Part : The Social Network).” BTB ; (): –. Dvorjetski, “Gerasa” = E. Dvorjetski. “The Synagogue-Church at Gerasa in Jordan. A Contribution to the Study of Ancient Synagogue.” ZDPV : (): –. Dyson, Society =S.L.Dyson.Community and Society in Roman Italy.Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, . Eck, “Procuratorenpaar” = V. Eck. “Eine Procuratorenpaar von Syria-Palaestina in P. Berol .” ZPE  (): –. ———, “Revolt” = W. Eck. “The Bar Kokhba Revolt: The Roman Point of View.” JRS  (): –.  bibliography

———,“BarKochba”=E.Eck.“DerBarKochbaAufstand,derkaiserlicheFiscus und die veteranenversorgung.” SCI  (): –. Efron, “Traditions” = J. Efron. “Bar Kokhva in the Light of the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmudic Traditions.” Oppenheimer & Rappaport, New Ap- proach, – (Heb.). Eisenstadt, Power, Trust =S.N.Eisenstadt.Power, Trust, and Meaning: Essays in Sociological Theory and Analysis. Chicago / London: University of Chicago Press, . Eisenstadt and Roniger, Patrons = S.N. Eisenstadt and L. Roniger. Patrons, Clients and Friends. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, . Eisenstadt and Shachar, Society, Culture = S.N. Eisenstadt and A. Shachar. Society, Culture, and Urbanization. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, . Elgavish, Shiqmona =J.Elgavish.Shiqmona on the Seacoast of Mount Carmel. Tel Aviv: Ha-Kibuts Ha-meu"had,  (Heb.). Elitzur, Place Names =Y.Elitzur.Ancient Place Names in the Holy Land.Jerusa- lem/Winona Lake: Magnes Press, . Elman, “Orality” = J. Elman. “Orality and the Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud.” Oral Tradition ,  (): –. ———, “Response” = Y. Elman. “How Should a Talmudic Intellectual History Be Written? A Response to David Kraemer’s Responses.” JQR  (): – . Epstein, “mi-Dikdukei Yerushalmi” = J.N. Epstein. “mi-Dikdukei Yerushalmi.” Tarbiz  (): – (Heb.). ——— , Nusah ha-Mishna = J.N. Epstein. Mavo le-Nusah ha-Mishna. Jerusalem/ Tel Aviv: Magnes-Dvir,  [repr. ] (Heb.). ——— , Tanaitic Literature = J.N. Epstein. Introduction to Tanaitic Literature: Mishna, Tosefta and Halakhic Midrashim. Jerusalem: Magnes Press,  (Heb.). ——— , Amoraitic Literature = J.N. Epstein. Introduction to Amoraitic Literature, Babylonian Talmud and Yerushalmi. Ed. by E.Z. Melamed, Jerusalem: Magnes Press,  (Heb.). Erdkamp, “Agricultural Underemployment” = P.Erdkamp. “Agricultural, Under- employment, and the Cost of Rural Labor in the Roman World.” CQ . (): –. Erickson, “Networks—Cultural Aspects” = B.H. Erickson. “Networks and Link- age: Cultural Aspects.” IESBS. Oxford: Elsevier, , :–:. Eshel, “Bar-Kochba” = H. Eshel. “The Bar-Kochba Revolt, –.” CHJ  (): –. Fabian and Goldfus, “Horbat Rimmon” = P. Fabian, H. Goldfus. “The Cemetery of Horbat Rimmon in the Southern Judean Shephelah.” Atiqot  (): – . Feldblum, Dikduke Sopherim =M.S.Feldblum.Dikduke Sopherim, Tractate Gittin. New York: Horeb, Yeshiva University, . Feliks, Shevi"it =Y.Feliks.Talmud Yerushalmi Tractate Shevi"it, I–II. Jerusalem: Zur-Ot, Mass Publications, , , (Heb.). bibliography 

Fine, “Liturgy” = S. Fine. “A Liturgical Interpretation of Ancient Synagogue Remains in Late Antique Palestine.”L.I. Levine (ed.), Continuity and Renewal: Jews and Judaism in Byzantine-Christian Palestine, Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak ben Zvi, , – (Heb.). ——— , Art =S.Fine.Art and Judaism in the Greco-Roman World: Toward a New Jewish Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, . Finkelstein, “Bene-Berak” = I. Finkelstein. “Soundings at Ancient Bene-Berak.” #Atiqot  (): – (Heb.), * (Heb., with English summary). Fischer, “Yavneh-Yam, A” = M. Fischer. “Yavneh-Yam –: Interim Re- port.” Qadmoniot  (): – (Heb.). ———, “Yavneh-Yam, B” = M. Fischer. “The Archaeology and History of Yavneh- Yam.” M. Fischer (ed.), Yavneh, Yavneh-Yam and their Neighborhood: Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Judean Coastal Plain, Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, , – (Heb.). Fischer, Isaac and Roll, Roman Roads II =M.Fischer,B.IsaacandI.Rol.,Roman Roads in Judaea II, The Jaffa-Jerusalem Roads. BAR International Series . Oxford: Tempus Reparatum, . Fleisher, “Lament” = E. Fleisher. “A Lament for the Jews Killed in Eretz Israel in the Days of Heraclius Caesar.” Shalem  (): – (Heb.). Foerster, “Mashkof” = G. Foerster. “AMenorah on a Lintel from Danna.” #Atiqot [Hebrew Series]  (): –, * (Heb. with English summary). Fonrobert and Jaffee, The Talmud = C.E. Fonrobert and M.S. Jaffee. The Cam- bridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press, . Fortner, “Bethsaida” = S. Fortner. “Hellenistic and Roman Fineware from Beth- saida.” R. Arav, R.A. Freund (eds.), Bethsaida: A City by the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee,vol.,Kirksville,MO:ThomasJeffersonUniversityPress, , –. Frankel, Mevo ha-Yerushalmi =Z.Frankel.Mavo ha-Yerushalmi. Jerusalem [Breslau: Schletter],  [Repr., Jerusalem: Amanim, ] (Heb.). ——— , Darkhei ha-Mishnah =Z.Frankel.Darkhei ha-Mishnah. Warsaw: Cailin- gold,  (Heb.). ——— , Aggadah =J.Frankel.Darkhei ha-Aggadah veha-Midrash. Givatayim: Yad la-Talmud,  (Heb.). Frankel and Finkelstein, “Boundaries” = R. Frankel and I. Finkelstein. “‘The Northwest Corner of Eretz-Israel’ in the Baraita ‘Boundaries of Eretz-Israel’.” Cathedra  (): – (Heb.). Frankel and Kochavi, “Aphek-Antipatris” = R. Frankel and M. Kochavi. “His- tory of Aphek-Antipatris.” M. Kochavi, P. Beck and E. Yadin (eds.), Aphek- Antipatris, I, Excavations of areas A and B: the – Seasons,TelAviv: Tel Aviv University, , –. Frankel et al., Upper Galilee =R.Frankel,N.Getzov,M.Aviam,A.Degani.Set- tlement Dynamics and Regional Diversity in Ancient Upper Galilee: Archae- ological Survey of Upper Galilee, IAA Reports. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, . Freeman-Grenville,Onomasticon=G.S.P.Freeman-Grenville, R.L. Chapman III, J.E. Taylor. Palestine in the Fourth Century ad: The Onomasticon by Eusebius of Caesarea. Jerusalem: Carta, .  bibliography

Freund, “The Search” = R.A. Freund. “The Search for Bethsaida in Rabbinic Literature.”R.Arav,R.A.Freund(eds.),Bethsaida:ACitybytheNorthShore of the Sea of Galilee, vol. , Kirksville, MO.: Thomas Jefferson University Press, , –. ———, “Bethsaida” = R.A. Freund. “The Incense Shovel of Bethsaida and Syna- gogue Iconography in Late Antiquity.” R. Arav and R.A. Freund (eds.), Beth- saida:ACitybytheNorthShoreoftheSeaofGalilee,vol.,Kirksville,MO: Thomas Jefferson University Press, , –. Frey, Corpus =J.B.Frey.Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum.vols.Rome:Pon- tificio Instituto di Archeologia Cristiana, , . Freyne, “Elites” = S. Freyne. “Elites of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods.” E.M. Meyers (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, , New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, , –. ——— , Galilee =S.Freyne.Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian, bce to ce. Wilmington, DE: M. Galzier, . ——— , Galilee and Gospel =S.Freyne.Galilee and Gospel: Collected Essays. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, . ———,“Sepphoris Mosaic” = S. Freyne. “Dionysos and Herakles in Galilee: The Sepphoris Mosaic in Context.” D.R. Edwards (ed.), Religion and Society in Roman Palestine, London: Routledge, , –. ———,“Galilee and Judaea” = S. Freyne. “Galilee and Judaea in the First Century.” M.M. Mitchell, F.M. Young (eds.), The Cambridge History of Christianity: Origins to Constantine, vol. , New York: Cambridge University Press, , –. Friedman, “Aggadah” = S. Friedman. “La’aggada Hahistorit Betalmud Bavli.” S. Friedman (ed.), Saul Lieberman Memorial Volume, New York: Jewish The- ological Seminary, , –. ———,“Akiva Legend” = S. Friedman. “A Good Story Deserves Retelling: The Unfolding of the Akiva Legend.” J.L. Rubenstein (ed.), Creation and Com- position; The Contribution of the Bavli Redactors (Stammaim) to the Aggada, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, , –. Frye, “The Sassanians” = R.N. Frye. “The Sassanians.” CAH  (): – . Fuks, Scythopolis =G.Fuks.Scythopolis: a Greek City in Eretz-Israel. Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak ben Zvi,  (Heb.). ——— , Ashkelon, “Judaea” = G. Fuks. “Antagonistic Neighbours: Ashkelon, Ju- daea, and the Jews.” JJS : (): –. ——— , Ashkelon =G.Fuks.A City of Many Seas: Ashkelon during the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak ben Zvi,  (Heb.). Gafni, “Background” = I.M. Gafni. “The Historical Background.” Safrai, Litera- ture, –. ——— , Jews of Babylonia =I.Gafni.The Jews of Babylonia in the Talmudic Era, A SocialandCulturalHistory. Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center,  (Heb.). ——— , Land, Center and Diaspora =I.Gafni.Land, Center and Diaspora: Jewish Constructs in Late Antiquity. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, . ———,“Literature” = I.M. Gafni. “Jerusalem in Rabbinic Literature.” Tsafrir and Safrai, The History of Jerusalem, – (Heb.). bibliography 

———,“Education” = I. Gafni. “On the Education of Children in the Talmudic Era: Tradition and Reality.” R. Feldhay, I. Etkes (eds.), Education and His- tory: Cultural and Political Contexts, Jerusalem: Shazar Center, , – (Heb.). ———, “Achievement” = I.M. Gafni. “A Generation of Scholarship on Eretz Israel in the Talmudic Era: Achievement and Reconsideration.” Cathedra  (): –. Gal, Gazit =Z.Gal.MapofGazit(),ArchaeologicalSurveyofIsrael,IAA. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, . ——— , T a v o r , #En Dor =Z.Gal.Map of Har Tavor (). Map of #En Dor (), Archaeological Survey of Israel, IAA. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, . Galsterer, “Provincial Institutions” = H. Galsterer. “Local and Provincial Institu- tions and Government.” CAH vol.  (): –. Garnsey, Cities =P.Garnsey.Cities, Peasants and Food in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, . ——— , Food =P.Garnsey.Food and Society in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, . Garnsey & Saller, Economy, Society =P.Garnsey&R.Saller.The Roman Empire: Economy, Society and Culture. London: Duckworth, . Gilat, R. Eliezer =Y.D.Gilat.R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanus: A Scholar Outcast.Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, . Ginzburg, Seridei Yerushalmi =L.Ginzburg.Seridei Yerushalmi.NewYork: Jewish Theological Seminary of America,  [reprinted, Jerusalem: Makor, ]. ——— , Yerushalmi =L.Ginzburg.Perushim ve-Hidushim ba–Yerushalmi.vols. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, – (Heb.). Gluck [Glueck], Eastern Palestine =N.Gluck.Explorations in Eastern Palestine. vol. IV. (Part : Text). AASOR, XXV–XXVIII. New Haven: ASOR, . Glucker, Antiochus =J.Glucker.Antiochus and the Late Academy.Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, . Goldberg, “Palestinian Talmud” = A. Goldberg. “The Palestinian Talmud.” Saf- rai, Literature, –. ———, “Mishnah” = A. Goldberg. “The Mishnah: A Study Book of Halakhah.” Safrai, Literature, –. Goldhill, “Agenda” = S. Goldhill. “Setting an Agenda: ‘Everything is Greece to the Wise’.”S. Goldhill (ed.), Being Greek under Rome: Cultural Identity, the Second Sophistic and the Development of Empire, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, , –. Gophna and Beit-Arieh, Rosh ha-Ayin =R.GophnaandY.Beit-Arieh.Archaeo- logicalSurveyofIsrael:MapofLod(). Jerusalem: Israel Anitquities Author- ity, . Gophna, Taxel, Feldstein, “Ono” = R. Gophna, I. Taxel and A. Feldstein. “ANew Identification of Ancient Ono.” BAIAS  (): –. Goodblatt, “Rehabilitation” = D. Goodblatt. “Towards the Rehabilitation of the Talmudic History.”B.M. Boxer, History of Judaism: The Next Ten Years,Chico, CA: Scholars Press, , –.  bibliography

———, “Definite Article” = D. Goodblatt. “The Definite Article Before Names of Towns in Post-Biblical Hebrew.” Le˘ˇsonénu  (): – (Heb.). ——— , Monarchic Principle = D. Goodblatt. The Monarchic Principle.Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, . ———, “Rimmon Valley” = D. Goodblatt. “From History to Story to History: The Rimmon Valley Seven.” P. Schäfer (ed.), The Talmud Yerushalmi and Greco- Roman Culture, vol. , Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, , –. ———, “End” = D. Goodblatt. “The End of Sectarianism and the Patriarchs.” M.Mor,J.Pastor,I.Ronen,Y.Ashkenazi(eds.),For Uriel: Studies in the History of Israel in Antiquity, Presented to Professor Uriel Rappaport, Jerusalem: Shazar Center, , – (English Section). ——— , Jewish Nationalism = D.M. Goodblatt. Elements of Ancient Jewish Nation- alism. New York: Cambridge University Press, . Goodman, Roman Galilee = M. Goodman. State and Society in Roman Galilee ad–. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld, . ———,“JewishPatriarch”=M.Goodman.“TheRomanStateandtheJewish Patriarch in the Third Century.” Levine, The Galilee, –. ———,“Scribes”=M.Goodman.“Texts,ScribesandPowerinRomanJudaea.” A.K. Bowman, G. Wolf (eds.), Literacy and Power in the Ancient World, Cambridge: Cambridge Univeristy Press, , –. Goshen, “Rabbi Eleazar” = A. Goshen-Gottstein. “Rabbi Eleazar ben Arakh: Symbol and Reality.” I. Gafni, A. Oppenheimer, M. Stern (eds.), Jews and Judaism, in the Second Temple, Mishna and Talmud Period: Studies in Honor of Shmuel Safrai, Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak ben Zvi, , – (Heb.). Graetz, “Hillel” = H. Graetz. “Hillel, der Patriarchenson.” MGWJ  (): – . Grantham,“Sepphoris”=B.Grantham.“TheButchersofSepphoris:Archaeo- logical Evidence of Ethnic Variability.” D.R. Edwards and C.T. McCollough (eds.), The Archaeology of Difference: Gender, Ethnicity, Class and the “Other” in Antiquity: Studies in Honor of E.M. Meyers, AASOR, vol. /, Boston: ASOR, , –. Green, “Rabbinic Biography” = W.S. Green. “What’s in a Name? The Problematic of Rabbinic ‘Biography.’” W.S. Green (ed.), Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Practice, Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, , –. Greenfeld and Martin, “Center” = L. Greenfeld and M. Martin. “The Idea of the ‘Center’: An Introduction.” L. Greenfeld and M. Martin (eds.), Center: Ideas and Institutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, . Gregg, “Ancient Golan” = R.C. Gregg. “Marking Religious and Ethnic Bound- aries: Cases from the Ancient Golan Heights.” Church History  (): – . Gregg and Urman, Jews, Pagans =R.C.Gregg,D.Urman.Jews, Pagans, and Christians in the Golan Heights; Greek and Other Inscriptions of the Roman and Byzantine Eras. Atlanta: Scolars Press, . Groh, “Galilean Synagogue” = D.E. Groh. “The Stratigraphic Chronology of the Galilean Synagogue from the Early Roman Period Through the Early Byzantine Period (ca. ce).”Urman and Flesher, Ancient Synagogues, :– . bibliography 

———, “Clash” = D.E. Groh, “The Clash Between Literary and Archaeologi- cal Models of Provincial Palestine.” D.R. Edwards, C.T. McCollough (eds.), Archaeology and the Galilee: Texts and Contexts in the Graeco-Roman and Byzantine Periods, Atlanta: Scholars Press, . Grootkerk, Ancient Sites =S.E.Grootkerk.Ancient Sites in Galilee: A Toponymic Gazetteer. Leiden: Brill, . Habas, “Bostra” = E. Habas. “The Halachic Status of Bostra.” Zion  (): – (Heb.). ——— , “ N a w a ’ D e r "a” = E. Habas (Rubin). “The Nawa" Der"aRoad.”SCI  (): –. ———, “Caesarea” = E. Habas. “The Halachic Status of Caesarea as Reflected in the Talmudic Literature.” Raban and Holum, Caesarea Maritima,Leiden: Brill, , –. Hachlili, “Family” = R. Hachlili. “A Jerusalem Family in Jericho.” Eretz-Israel  (): – (Heb.). ——— , Jewish Funerary =R.Hachlili.Jewish Funerary Customs, Practices and Rites in the Second Temple Period. Leiden: Brill, . ———, “Masada” = R. Hachlili. “Names and Nicknames at Masada.” A. Demsky (ed.), TheseAretheNames,StudiesinJewishOnomastics,vol.,RamatGan: Bar-Ilan University Press, , –. Hartal, Ituraeans =M.Hartal.Land of the Ituraeans: Archaeology and History of Northern Golan in the Hellenisticoman and Byzantine Periods, Golan Studies . Qazrin: Golan Institute Research, Qazrin Museum,  (Heb.). Heller, Printing  =M.J.Heller.Printing the Talmud: A History of the Earliest Printed Editions of the Talmud. Brooklyn, New York: Im Hasefer, . ——— , Printing  =M.J.Heller.Printing the Talmud: A History of the Individual Treatises Printed from  to . Leiden: Brill, . Herr, “Persecutions” = M.D. Herr. “Persecutions and Martyrdom in Hadrian’s Days.” Scripta Hierosolymitana  (): –. Hezser, Form =C.Hezser.Form, Function and Historical Significance of the Rabbinic Story in the Yerushalmi Neziqin. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, . ——— , Social Structure =C.Hezser.The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Move- ment in Roman Palestine. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, . ———,“JewishLiteracy”=C.Hezser.“JewishLiteracyandtheUseofWritingin Late Roman Palestine.”R. Kalmin and S. Schwartz (eds.), Jewish Culture and Society Under the Christian Roman Empire, Leuven: Peeters, , –. Hingley, Roman Officers = R. Hingley. Roman Officers and English Gentleman: The Imperial Origins of Roman Archaeology. London and New York: Rout- ledge, . Hirschfeld, Tiberias Foundation = Y. Hirschfeld (ed.). Tiberias: From its Founda- tion to the Muslim Conquest. Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak ben Zvi,  (Heb.). ———, “Tiberias” = Y. Hirschfeld. “Tiberias.” NEAEHL :–. ———, “Changes” = Y. Hirschfeld. “Changes in Settlement Patterns of the Jewish Rural Populace Before and After the Rebellions Against Rome.” Cathedra  (): – (Heb.). ——— , Excavation at Tiberias =Y.Hirschfeld.Excavations at Tiberias, –, IAA Reports . Jerusalem: Israel Antiquiites Authority, .  bibliography

———,“Shiqmona” = Y. Hirschfeld. “Excavations at Shiqmona, .” Atiqot  (): –. Hirschman, “Aggada” = M. Hirschman. “Reflections on the Aggada of Caesarea.” Raban and Holum, Caesarea Maritima, –. ——— , Torah = M. Hirschman. Torah for the Entire World.TelAviv:ha-Kibuts ha-Meuchad,  (Heb.). Hoehner, Herod Antipas =H.W.Hoehner.Herod Antipas. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press, . Hogg, “Group Processes” = M.A. Hogg. “Group Processes.” IESBS.Oxford: Elsevier, , :– (also, –). Holum, “Identity” = K.G. Holum. “Identity and the Late Antique City: The Case of Caesarea.” H. Lapin (ed.), Religious and Ethnic Communities in Later Roman Palestine, Bethesda, MD: University Press of Maryland, , – . Hope, “Identity” = M. Hope. “Constructing Roman Identity: Funerary monu- ments and social structure in the Roman World.” Mortality : () – . Hopfe, “Caesarea Palaestinae” = L.M. Hopfe. “Caesarea Palaestinae as a Religious Center.” ANRW : (): –. Horbury and Noy, Jewish Inscriptions, Egypt =W.HorburyandD.Noy.Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt.Cambridge:CambridgeUniveristyPress, . Horden and Purcell, The Corrupting Sea =P.HordenandN.Purcell.The Cor- rupting Sea: A Study of Mediterranean History. Oxford: Blackwell, . Horowitz, Tosefta Atikta =Ch.M.Horowitz.Tosefta Atikta,I.Frankfortam- Main: Bet Mishar ha-Sefarim shel Horowitz,  (Heb.). Horsley, Galilee =R.H.Horsley.Galilee: History, Politics, People. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, . ——— , Archaeology =R.H.Horsley.Archaeology, History, and Society in Galilee: The Social Context of Jesus and the Rabbis.ValleyForge,PA:TrinityPress International, . Hunt, “The Code” = D. Hunt. “Christianising the Roman Empire: The Evidence of the Code.” J. Harries and I. Wood (eds.), The Theodosian Code: Studies in the Imperial Law of Late Antiquity, London: Duckworth, , –. Hyman, Toldot =A.Hyman.Sefer Toldot Tanaim ve-Amoraim.vols.London: Author publication,  [repr. Jerusalem: Kiria Ne"emana, ] (Heb.). Ilan, Ancient Synagogues =Z.Ilan.Ancient Synagogues in the Land of Israel.Tel Aviv: Ministry of Defense,  (Heb.). Irshai, “Niburaia” = O. Irshai. “Ya"akov of Kefar Niburaia: A Sage Turned Apos- tate.” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought  (/): – (Heb.). ———, “Priesthood” = O. Irshai. “The Priesthood in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity.” L.I. Levine (ed.), Continuity and Renewal: Jews and Judaism in Byzantine-Christian Palestine, Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak ben Zvi, , – (Heb.). Isaac, “Roman Administration” = B. Isaac. “Roman Administration and Urban- ization.” Cathedra  (): – (Heb.). ——— , Limits of Empire =B.Isaac.The Limits of Empire. Oxford: Clarendon Press, . bibliography 

———,“SeleucidInscription”=B.Isaac.“ASeleucidInscriptionfrom-on- the-Sea: Antiochus V Epiphanes and the Sidonians.” IEJ  (): – . ———,“Jews,Christians”=B.Isaac.“Jews,ChristiansandOthersinPalestine; the Evidence from Eusebius.” M. Goodman (ed.), Jews in a Graeco-Roman World, Oxford: Clarendon Press, , –. ——— , Near East =B.Isaac.The Near East under Roman Rule. Leiden: Brill, . ——— , Racism =B.Isaac.The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity.Prince- ton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, . Isaac and Oppenheimer, “Revolt” = B. Isaac and B. Oppenheimer. “The Revolt of Bar Kokhba: Ideology and Modern Scholarship.” JJS  (): –. Jacobs, Institution =M.Jacobs.Die Institution des jüdischen Patriarchen. Tübin- gen: Mohr Siebeck, . Jaffee, Torah =M.S.Jaffee.Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, . ———, “Rabbinic Authorship” = M.S. Jaffee. “Rabbinic Authorship as a Collective Enterprise.” Fonrobert and Jaffee, The Talmud, –. Jensen, Herod Antipas =M.H.Jensen.Herod Antipas in Galilee. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, . Jones, Archaeology =S.Jones.The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identi- ties in the Past and Present. London: Routledge, . ———,“Identities” = S. Jones. “Identities in Practice: Towards an Archaeological PerspectiveonJewishIdentityinAntiquity.”S.JonesandS.Pearse(eds.), Jewish Local Patriotism and Self-Identification, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, , –. ———, “Urbanization” = A.H.M. Jones. “The Urbanization of Palestine.” JRS  (): –. ——— , The Cities = A.H.M. Jones. The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces. Oxford: Clarendon Press,  (rep. Oxford: Oxford University Press ). Joshel, Work Identity =S.R.Joshel.Work Identity and Legal Status at Rome. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, . Judah bar Kalonimus (Rabbi), Yichusei tana"im ve-Amora"im =RabbiJ.D.Mai- mon, (ed.). Rabbi Judah bar Kalonimus, Yichusei Tana"im ve-Amora"im.Jeru- salem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook,  (Heb.). Kahan, Seder Tannaim =K.Kahan.Seder Tannaim weAmoraim.Frankfurta.M.: Herman-Verlag, . Kahana, “Critical Edition” = M. Kahana. “The Critical Edition of Mekilta De- Rabbi Ishmael in Light of the Genizah Fragments.” Tarbiz  (): – (Heb.). ———, “Dwelling” = M. Kahana. “The Importance of Dwelling in the Land of Israel According to the Deuteronomy Mekhilta.” Tarbiz  (): – (Heb.). ——— , Mekhiltot =M.I.Kahana.The Two Mekhiltot on the Amalek Portion. Jerusalem: Magnes,  (Heb.). ———, “Halachic Midrashim” = M.I. Kahana. “The Halachic Midrashim.” S. Saf- rai,Z.Safrai,J.Schwartz,P.J.Tomson(eds.),The Literature of the Sages, Second  bibliography

Part: Midrash and Targum, Liturgy, Poetry, Mysticism, Contracts, Inscriptions, Ancient Science and the Languages of Rabbinic Literature,Assen:VanGorcum, , –. ———, “Settlements ” = T.Kahana. “Settlements in Eretz Israel in the Talmudim and Midrashim.” Sinai  (): – (Heb.). ———, “Settlements ” = T.Kahana. “Settlements in Eretz Israel in the Talmudim and Midrashim.” Sinai  (): – (Heb.). ———, “Settlements ” = T.Kahana. “Settlements in Eretz Israel in the Talmudim and Midrashim.” Sinai  (): – (Heb.). ———, “Priestly Courses” = T. Kahana. “The Priestly Courses and Their Geo- graphical Settlements.” Tarbiz  (): – (Heb., with English Sum- mary). Kahrstedt, συν'δριν =K.Kahrstedt.“συν'δριν.” PW, RE, A, , – . Kalmin, Sages, Stories =R.Kalmin.Sages, Stories, Authors, and Editors in Rab- binic Babylonia. Atlanta: Scholars Press, . ——— , The Sage =R.Kalmin.The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity. London/New York: Routledge, . ——— , Jewish Babylonia =R.Kalmin.Jewish Babylonia between Persia and Roman Palestine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, . Kaplan, “New Readings” = Y. Kaplan. “New Readings in Two Damaged Ara- maic Inscriptions from the Ancient Jewish Cemetery at Jaffa.” Eretz-Israel  (): – (Heb.). Kaplan and Kaplan, “Jaffa” = J. Kaplan and H. Ritter-Kaplan. “Jaffa.” NEAEHL , [E. Stern (ed), Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, ,] –. Karmon, Israel-Geography =Y.Karmon.ISRAEL-A Regional Geography.Lon- don: Wiley-Interscience, . Kasher, “Isopoliteia” = A. Kasher. “The Isopoliteia Question in Caesarea Mar- itima.” JQR  (): –. ———,“Install an Idol” = A. Kasher. “The Connection between the Hellenistic Cities in Eretz-Israel and Gaius Caligula’s Rescript to Install an Idol in the Temple.” Zion  (): – (Heb.). ———, “Foundation” = A. Kasher. “The Foundation of Tiberias and its Role as the Capital of Galilee.” Hirschfeld, Tiberias Foundation,–(Heb.). ——— , Hellenistic Cities =A.Kasher.Jews and Hellenistic Cities in Eretz-Israel. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, . ———, “Greek Inscription” = A. Kasher. “A Second-Century bce Greek Inscrip- tion from Iamnia.” Cathedra  (): – (Heb.). ——— , Against Apion =A.Kasher.Josephus Flavius: Against Apion: A New Hebrew Translation with Introduction and Commentary.  vols. Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center,  (Heb.). Kasher et al., Synagogues in Antiquity = A. Kasher, A. Oppenheimer, U. Rap- paport (eds.). Synagogues in Antiquity. Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak ben Zvi,  (Heb.). Kasovsky, Mishnae =C.Y.Kasovsky.Thesaurus Mishnae: Concordantiae Verbo- rum quae Sex Mishnae Ordinibus Reperiuntur.  vols. Jerusalem: Massadah, – (Heb.). bibliography 

——— , Yerushalmi-Onomasticon =M.Kosovsky.Concordance to the Talmud Yerushalmi—Onomasticon, Thesaurus of Proper Names. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities,  (Heb.). ——— , Yerushalmi =M.Kasovsky.Concordance to the Talmud Yerushalmi (Pales- tinian Talmud). Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences, – (Heb.). ——— , Bavli =H.J.Kasovsky.Thesaurus Talmudis: Concordantiae Verborum quae in Talmude Babilonico Reperiuntur.  vols. Jerusalem: Ministry of Education and Culture, – (Heb.). Kehoe, Investment =D.P.Kehoe.Investment, Profit and Tenancy: The Jurists and the Roman. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, . Kettenhofen, “Derâ”=E. Kettenhofen. “Zur Geschichte der Stadt Derâ in Syrien.” ZDPV  (): –. Kimmelman, “Rabbi Yohanan” = R. Kimmelman. “Rabbi Yohanan of Tiberias, Aspects of the Social and Religious History of the Third Century Palestine.” Dissertation, Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, . Kindler, Coinage of Bostra = A. Kindler. The Coinage of Bostra.Warminster,UK: Aris & Phillips, . Klein, “ha-Shemot” = S. Klein. “le-Heker ha-Shemot ve-ha-Kinuiim.” Le˘ˇsonénu  (): – (Heb.). ———,“ha-Shemot ”=S. Klein. “le-Heker ha-Shemot ve-ha-Kinuiim.” Le˘ˇsonénu  (): – (Heb.). ———,“TheEstates”=S.Klein.“TheEstatesofR.Judahha-NasiandtheJewish Community in the Trans-Jordanic Region.” JQR , n.s. (/): –. ———, “Ortsnamenkunde” = S. Klein. “Ortsnamenkunde Palästinas.” MGWJ  (): –. ——— , Ever ha-Yarden = S. Klein. Ever ha-Yarden ha-Yehudi. Vienna: Menurah,  (Heb.). ——— , Yehudah = S. Klein. Eretz Yehudah. Tel-Aviv: Dvir,  (Heb.). ——— , Galilee = S. Klein. Eretz ha-Galil (Galilee). Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook,  (repr. ) (Heb.). ——— , Sefer ha-Yishuv = S. Klein. Sefer ha-Yishuv (Palestina Judaica).vol.. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute & Dvir,  [repr. Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak ben Zvi, ] (Heb.). Kloner, “Shefelat Yehudah” = A. Kloner. “ha-Yishuv ha-Yehudi bi-Shefelat Yehu- dah bi-Tekufat ha-Mishnah ve-Hatalmud (Le"acharMeredBarKokhba)al- pi ha-Mimtsa ha-Archaeology.” M. Broshi (ed.), Between Hermon and Sinai: Memorial to Amnon, Studies in the History, Archaeology and Geography of Eretz Israel, Jerusalem: private publication, , – (Heb.). ———, “Beth Guvrin” = A. Kloner. “Beth Guvrin.” NEAEHL :–. Kloner and Zissu, “Hiding Complexes” = A. Kloner and B. Zissu. “Hiding Com- plexes in Judaea: An Archaeological and Geographical Update on the Area of the Bar Kokhba Revolt.” P. Schäfer (ed.), The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck , –. ——— , Necropolis = A. Kloner and B. Zissu. The Necropolis of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period. Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak ben Zvi,  (Heb.). Klosterman, Eusebius =E.Klosterman(ed.).Das Onomastikon der Biblischen Ortsnamen/Eusebius. Leipzig: Hinrichs, .  bibliography

Kochavi and Beith Arieh, Rosh Ha-"Ayin =M.KochaviandI.Beith-Arieh. Map of Rosh Ha-"Ayin (), Archaeological Survey of Israel. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, . Kokkinos, Herodian Dynasty =N.Kokkinos.The Herodian Dynasty: Origins, Role in Society and Eclipse. JSPSup . Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, . ———, “Peraea” = N. Kokkinos. “AReconnaissance Trip to Peraea (– October ).” ADAJ  (): –. Kolska-Horwitz, “Mount Carmel” = L. Kolska-Horwitz. “Roman / Byzantine Pastoral Practices in the Mount Carmel Region.” A.M. Maeir and P. de Miro- schedji (eds.), “I Will Speak to the Riddle of Ancient Times”: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, , –. Kosowsky, Thesaurus Bavli =B.Kosowsky.Thesaurus Nominus Quae in Talmude Babylonico Reperiuntur.vols.Jerusalem:MinistryofEducationandCulture, –. Kraeling, Gerasa = C.H. Kraeling (ed.). Gerasa, City of the Decapolis.NewHaven: American Schools of Oriental Research, . Krauss, Lehnwörter =S.Kraus.Griechische und lateinische Lehnwörter im Tal- mud, Midrash und Targum, I–II. Berlin: Calvary,  (rep. Hildesheim: Olms, ). ——— , Kadmoniot ha-Talmud =S.Kraus.Kadmoniot ha-Talmud (Talmudische Archäologie). vol. . Odessa: Moriah  (Heb.). Kutscher, Words =E.Y.Kutscher.Words and their History. Jerusalem: Kiryat- Sefer,  (Heb.). ——— , Studies =E.Y.Kutscher.Hebrew and Aramaic Studies. Jerusalem: Magnes,  (Heb.). Lampe, Patristic Lexicon = G.W.H. Lampe. A Patristic Greek Lexicon.Oxford: Oxford University Press, . Lapin, “Academies” = H. Lapin. “Jewish and Christian Academies in Roman Palestine: Some Preliminary Observations.” Holum and Raban, Caesarea Maritima, –. ———,“Locating Ethnicity” = H. Lapin. “Locating Ethnicity and Religious Com- munity in Later Roman Palestine.” idem (ed.), Religious and Ethnic Commu- nities in Later Roman Palestine, Bethesda, MD: University Press of Maryland, , –. ———, “Rabbis and Cities” = H. Lapin. “Rabbis and Cities in Later Roman Palestine: The Literary Evidence.” JJS ,  (): –. ———,“Rabbinic Movement” = H. Lapin. “Rabbis and Cities: Some Aspects of the Rabbinic Movement in its Graeco-Roman Environment.” P. Schäfer and C. Hezser (eds.), The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture,vol., Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, , –. ——— , Economy = H. Lapin. Economy, Geography, and Provincial History in Later Roman Palestine. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, . Lee Lyman, O’Brien, Dunnell, Culture History = R. Lee Lyman, M.J. O’Brien and R.C. Dunnell. The Rise and Fall of Culture History.NewYork/London: Plenum, . bibliography 

Lehmann and Holum, Inscriptions of Caesarea = C.M. Lehmann and K.G. Ho- lum. The Greek and Latin Inscriptions of Caesarea Maritima: The Joint Expe- dition to Caesarea Maritima: Excavation Reports. Boston: ASOR, . Lerner, “Abba” = M.B. Lerner. “Enquiries into the Meaning of Various Titles and Designations . Abba.” Te"uda  (): – (Heb.). Levine, “Conflict” = L.I. Levine. “The Jewish-Greek Conflict in First Century Caesarea.” JJS  (): –. ———, “Rabbi Abbahu” = L.I. Levine. “Rabbi Abbahu of Caesarea.” J. Neusner (ed.), Christianity Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults IV, Leiden: Brill, , –. ——— , Caesarea =L.I.Levine.Caesarea Under Roman Rule. Leiden: Brill, . ———, “Tiberias” = L.I. Levine. “R. Simeon B. Yohai and the Purification of Tiberias.” HUCA  (): –. ———,“Patriarch” = L.I. Levine. “The Jewish Patriarch (Nasi) in Third Century Palestine.” ANRW II : (): –. ———, “Rabbi Judah” = L.I. Levine. “The Age of R. Judah the Prince.”Baras et al., Eretz Israel, – (Heb.). ———,“Third Century” = L.I. Levine. “Palestine in the Third Century ce.” Baras et al., Eretz Israel, – (Heb.). ——— , Rabbinic Class =L.I.Levine.The Rabbinic Class of Roman Palestine in Late Antiquity. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary and Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak ben Zvi, . ——— , The Galilee = L.I. Levine (ed.). The Galilee in Late Antiquity.NewYork: Jewish Theological Seminary, Jerusalem, . ———, “The Status” = L.I. Levine. “The Status of the Patriarch in the Third and Fourth Centuries.” JJS  (): –. ——— , Judaism =L.I.Levine.Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, . ———,“Menorah”=L.I.Levine.“TheHistoryandSignificanceoftheMenorah in Antiquity.” Cathedra  (): – (Heb.). ——— , The Ancient Synagogue =L.I.Levine.The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years. nd edition. New Haven/London: Yale University Press, . ———,“R.Elazar”=N.Levine.“TheStoryofR.Elazarb.Arach:The“Overflow- ing Spring. The Emmaus Hot Spring, Enigma and Intertextual Irony.” JSJ : (): –. Liddell and Scott, Lexicon = H.G. Liddell and R. Scott. AGreek-EnglishLexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press, . Liberman-Mintz and Goldstein, Printing the Talmud =S.Liberman-Mintzand G.M. Goldstein (eds.). Printing the Talmud: From Bomberg to Schottenstein. New York: Yeshiva University Museum, . Lieberman, On the Yerushalmi = S. Lieberman. On the Yerushalmi. Jerusalem: Darom, . ———, “Caesarea” = S. Lieberman. “The Talmud of Caesarea.” Supplement to Tarbiz  (): – (Heb.). ——— , ha-Yerushalmi ki-Fshuto = S. Lieberman. ha-Yerushalmi ki-Fshuto.Jeru- salem: Darom,  (Heb.).  bibliography

———, “Third and Fourth Centuries” = S. Lieberman. “Palestine in the Third and Fourth Century.” JQR  (–): –. ibidem,  (–): – . ——— , Tosefta ki-Fshuta =S. Lieberman.Toseftaki-Fshuta,AcomprehensiveCom- mentary on the Tosefta, Order Zera"im. New York: Jewish Theological Semi- nary of America, ; Order Moed. New York: JTSA, ; Order Nashim. New York: JTSA, –; Order Neziqin. New York: JTSA,  (Heb.). ——— , Sifre Zutta = S. Lieberman. Sifre Zutta (The Midrash of Lyda).NewYork: Jewish Theological Seminary of America,  (Heb.). ——— , Studies = S. Lieberman. Studies in Palestinian Talmudic Literature.D.Ro- senthal (ed.), Jerusalem: Magnes Press,  (Heb.). Linder, “Jews” = A. Linder. “The Roman Imperial Government and the Jews Under Constantine.” Tarbiz  (/): – (Heb.). ——— , The Jews =A.Linder.The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation.Detroit: Wayne State University Press, . Lohse, συν'δριν =E.Lohse.“συν'δριν.” G. Friedrich (ed.), G.W. Bromiley (ed. and translator), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.vol.. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, , –. Lomas, “The City” = K. Lomas. “The Idea of a City: Elite Ideology and the Evolution of Urban Form in Italy, bc–ad.”Parkins, Roman Urbanism, –. Luomanen, “Nazareans” = P. Luomanen. “Nazarenes.” A. Marjanen and P. Luo- manen (eds.), A Companion to Second-Century Christian ‘Heretics,’ Leiden: Brill, , –. MacAdam, Geography =H.I.MacAdam.Geography, Urbanisation and Settle- ment Patterns in the Roman Near East. Aldershot, Hampshire/Burlington, Vermont: Ashgate, . ——— , Province of Arabia =H.I.MacAdam.Studies in the History of the Roman Province of Arabia: The Northern Sector. BAR International Series . Ox- ford: B.A.R., . Malter, Ta"anit =H.Malter.The Treatise Ta"anit of the Babylonian Talmud.New York: American Academy of Jewish Studies, . Mann, Text =J.Mann.Text and Studies in Jewish History and Literature.Vol.. Cincinnati, Ohio: Hebrew Union College, . Mantel, Sanhedrin =H.D.Mantel.Studies in the History of the Sanhedrin.Cam- bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, . Maoz, “Comments” = Z.U. Maoz. “Comments on Jewish and Christian Com- munities in Byzantine Palestine.” PEQ  (): –. ———,“Juifs”=Z.U.Maoz.“Ya-t-ildesjuifssanssynagogue?LecasduGolan dans l’antiquité.” REJ  (): –. ———, “Southern Levant” = Z.U. Maoz. “The Civil Reform of Diocletian in the Southern Levant.” SCI  (): –. Marmorstein, “Geniza” = A. Marmorstein. “Mitteilungen zur Geschichte und Literatur aus der Geniza, VIII.” MGWJ  (): –. Masuzawa, “Culture” = T. Masuzawa. “Culture.”M.C. Taylor (ed.), Critical Terms for Religious Studies, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, . bibliography 

Mazar, “Beth She"arim” = B. Mazar. “Those Who Buried Their Dead in Beth She"arim.” Eretz Israel  (): – (Heb. with English summary). Meir, R. Judah =O.Meir.Rabbi Judah the Patriarch; Palestinian and Babylonian Portrait of a Leader. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad,  (Heb.). Melamed, “Onomasticon” = E.Z. Melamed. “Onomasticon.” Encyclopaedia Bib- lica. Vol. . Jerusalem, , – (Heb.). ——— , Introduction =E.Z.Melamed.An Introduction to Talmudic Literature. Jerusalem: Galor,  (Heb.). Meshorer, “Coins of Sepphoris” = Y. Meshorer. “The Coins of Sepphoris as a Historical Source.” Zion  (): – (Heb. with English summary). ——— , City Coins =Y.Meshorer.City-Coins of Eretz-Israel and the Decapolis in the Roman Period. Jerusalem: Israel Museum, . Meyers, “Galilean Regionalism” = E.M. Meyers. “Galilean Regionalism as a Factor in Historical Reconstruction.” BASOR  (): –. ———,“Recent Archaeology” = E.M. Meyers. “Recent Archaeology in Palestine: Achievements and Future Goals.” CHJ  (): –. ———, “Jewish Culture” = E.M. Meyers. “Jewish Culture in Greco-Roman Pales- tine.” D. Bilde (ed.), Cultures of the Jews; a New History,NewYork:Schocken Books, , –. ———, “Sepphoris” = E.M. Meyers. “Jesus and His World. Sepphoris and the Quest for the Historical Jesus.” C.G. den Hertog, U. Hübner and S. Münger (eds.), Saxa Loquentur: Studien zur Archäologie Palästinas / Israels: Festschrift für Volkmar Fritz zum  Geburtstag, Münster: Ugarit/Winona Lake: Eisen- brauns, , –. ———, “Jewish Art” = E.M. Meyers. “Jewish Art and Architecture in the Land of Israel, –c. .” CHJ  (): –. Meyers et al., Meiron =E.M.Meyers,J.F.Strange,C.L.Meyers,withspecial contributions by D.H. Groh. Excavations at Ancient Meiron, Upper Galilee, Israel, –, –, . Cambridge, MA: ASOR, . Meyers et al., Gush-Halav = E.M. Meyers, C.L. Meyers, J.F. Strange, with contributions by T. Langstaff. Excavations at the Ancient Synagogue at Gush-Halav. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, . Millar, Roman Near East = F. Millar. The Roman Near East bc–ad.Cam- bridge: Harvard University Press, . Miller, Sepphoris = S.S. Miller. Studies in the History and Traditions of Sepphoris. Leiden: Brill, . ——— , “ Z i p o r a "ei” = S.S. Miller. “Zipora"ei, Tibera"ei and Deroma"ei: Their Ori- gins, Interests and Relationship.” World Congress of Jewish Studies, Pro- ceedings of the Tenth World Congress of Jewish Studies,DivisionB,vol.II, Jerusalem: Magnes, , –. ———, “R. Hanina” = S.S. Miller. “R. Hanina bar Hama at Sepphoris.”Levine, The Galilee, –. ———, “Epigraphical Rabbis, Archeology, Sages” = S.S. Miller. “‘Epigraphical Rabbis,’ Helios, and Psalm : Were the Synagogues of Archaeology and the Synagogues of the Sages One and the Same?” JQR  (): –. ——— , Sages = S.S. Miller. Sages and Commoners in Late Antique #Erez Israel: A Philological Inquiry into Local Traditions in Talmud Yerushalmi.Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, .  bibliography

Mor, The Bar-Kochba Revolt =M.Mor.The Bar-Kochba Revolt: Its Extent and Effect. Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak ben Zvi,  (Heb.). ———, “Geographical Scope” = M. Mor. “The Geographical Scope of the Bar Kokhba Revolt.” P. Schäfer (ed.), The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered: New Per- spectives on the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, , –. Ms. Hamburg = Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Hullin, Codex Hamburg ,ed. A.F. Sherry, Facsimile, Jerusalem,  (Heb.). Ms. Leiden = Talmud Yerushalmi: According to Ms. Or.  (Scal. ) of the Leiden University Library with Restorations and Corrections,TheAcademyof the Hebrew Language, Jerusalem,  (Heb.). Ms. Vatican  = Midrash Bereshit Rabbah Ms. Vatican Ebr.,  Jerusalem, . Ms. Vatican  = Torath Cohanim (Sifra), Seder Eliyahu Rabbah and Zutta: Codex Vatican , ed. Makor, Jerusalem,  Ms. Vatican  = Mass. Vatican , ed. Makor, Jerusalem, . Mulzer, “Jafo” = M. Mulzer. “Andromeda und Jona in Jafo.” ZDPV : (): –. Naveh, Stone and Mosaic =J.Naveh.OnStoneandMosaic:TheAramaicand Hebrew Inscriptions from Ancient Synagogues. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society,  (Heb.). ———, “Varia Epigraphica” = J. Naveh. “Varia Epigraphica Judaica.” Israel Orien- tal Studies  (): –. ——— , Sherd and Papyrus =J.Naveh.On Sherd and Papyrus: Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions from the Second Temple, Mishna and Talmudic Periods. Jerusalem: Magnes,  (Heb.). ———,“Inscriptions” = J. Naveh. “Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions from An- cient Synagogues.” Eretz Israel  (): – (Heb.). ———, “Hebrew” = J. Naveh. “Hebrew Versus Aramaic in the Epigraphic Finds after the Bar Kokhba Revolt.” Le˘ˇsonénu  (): – (Heb.). ———, “Seven Tombstones” = J. Naveh. “Seven New Epitaphs from Zoar [Notes and Comments].” Tarbiz  (): – (Heb.). Neubauer, Geographie =A.Neubauer.La Geographie du Talmud.Paris:Michael Levy Freres,  [repr. Hildesheim: G. Olms, ]. Neusner, Babylonia = J. Neusner. A History of the Jews in Babylonia.vols. Leiden: Brill, . ——— , Eliezer = J. Neusner. Eliezer Ben Hyrcanus: The Tradition and the Man, II. Leiden: Brill, . ——— , The Tosefta = J. Neusner. The Tosefta.  vols. New York: Ktav, . ——— , The Talmud of the Land of Israel = J. Neusner (ed.). The Talmud of the Land of Israel.  vols. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, . ——— , The Mishnah = J. Neusner. The Mishnah.NewHaven/London:Yale University Press, . ——— , Introduction = J. Neusner. Introduction to Rabbinic Literature.NewYork: Doubleday, . ———, “Evaluating” = J. Neusner. “Evaluating the Attributions of Sayings to Named Sages in the Rabbinic Literature.” JSJ  (): –. bibliography 

———, “Rabbinic Sources” = J. Neusner. “Rabbinic Sources for Historical Study: ADebatewithZe"ev Safrai.” J. Neusner, A.J. Avery-Peck, B. Chilton (eds.), Judaism in Late Antiquity, III, , Leiden: Brill, , –. ———, “Attributions” = J. Neusner. “What Use Attributions? An Open Ques- tion in the Study of Rabbinic Literature.” A.J. Avery-Peck, D. Harrington, J. Neusner (eds.), When Judaism and Christianity Began: Essays in Memory of Anthony J. Saldarini, vol. , Leiden: Brill, , –. Noon, “Bethsaida” = M. Noon. “Has Bethsaida Finally Been Found?” Jerusalem Perspective  (): –. Northouse, Leadership = P.G. Northouse. Leadership: Theory and Practice.rd edition. London/New Delhi: Sage, . Notley and Safrai, Eusebius, Onomasticon = R.S. Notley and Z. Safrai. Eusebius, Onomasticon—The Place Names of Divine Scripture. Leiden/Boston: Brill, . Ofer, “Judah” = A. Ofer. “Judah.” E.M. Meyers (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East,vol.,NewYork/Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press, , –. Olami and Gal, Shefar"am =Y.OlamiandZ.Gal.Map of Shefar"am (), Archaeological Survey of Israel. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, . Olami, Ronen, Romano, Haifa West =Y.Olami,A.Ronen,A.Romano.Map of Haifa-West (), Archaeological Survey of Israel (). Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, . Olami, Sender, Oren, Yagur =Y.Olami,S.Sender,E.Oren.Map of Yagur (), Archaeological Survey of Israel. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, . Olami, Sender, Oren, Binyamina =Y.Olami,S.Sender,E.Oren.Map of Binyam- ina (), Archaeological Survey of Israel. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Author- ity, . On and Weksler-Bdolach, “Um el-Umdan” = A. On and S. Weksler-Bdolach. “Khirbet "Um el-Umdan: A Jewish Village with a Synagogue from the Second Temple Period at Modiin.” Qadmoniot  (): – (Heb.). Oppenheimer, Am ha-Aretz = A. Oppenheimer. Am ha-Aretz. Leiden: Brill, . ———, “Batei Midrash” = A. Oppenheimer. “Batei Midrash in Eretz-Israel in the Amoraic Period.” Cathedra  (): – (Heb.). ———, “R. Yannai” = A. Oppeheimer. “Ilein Devei R. Yannai (Those of the School of Rabbi Yannai).” Mehkarim (Studies in the History of the Jewish People and the Land of Israel, Haifa)  (): – (Heb.). ———, “Shikum” = A. Oppenheimer. “Shikum ha-Yishuv ha-Yehudi Ba-Galil.” Z. Baras, S. Safrai, Y. Tsafrir, M. Stern (eds.), Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest,vol.,Jerusalem:YadItzhak ben Zvi, , – (Heb.). ——— , Babylonia Judaica = A. Oppenheimer. Babylonia Judaica in the Talmudic Period. Wiesbaden: Reichert, . ———, “Tiberias Institutions” = A. Oppenheimer. “Tiberias Institutions Leader- ship.” Y. Hirschfeld (ed.), Tiberias: From its Foundation to the Muslim Con- quest, Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak ben Zvi, , – (Heb.).  bibliography

———, “Jewish Lydda” = A. Oppenheimer. “Jewish Lydda in the Roman Era.” HUCA  (): – [= Oppenheimer, Between Rome and Babylon, – ]. ——— , Galilee = A. Oppenheimer. Galilee in the Mishnaic Period. Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center,  (Heb.). ———, “Urbanization” = A. Oppenheimer. “Urbanization and City Territories in Roman Palestine.” Oppenheimer et al., Jews, – (Heb.). [= Oppen- heimer, Between Rome and Babylon, Chap. , –]. ——— , Rabbi Judah = A. Oppenheimer. Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi. Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center,  (Heb.). ———, “Rabban Gamaliel” = A. Oppenheimer. “Rabban Gamaliel and his Jour- neys in Eretz Israel.” Robinson and Roisman, Sefer Perlman,–(Heb.).[= Oppenheimer, Between Rome and Babylon, Chap. , –]. ——— , Between Rome and Babylon = A. Oppenheimer. Between Rome and Babylon: Studies in Jewish Leadership and Society. Tubingen, . ———, “Benei Beraq” = Oppenheimer. “Tannaitic Bnei Beraq: A Peripheral Centre of Learning.” Oppenheimer, Between Rome and Babylon, Chap. , – . ———, “Severan Emperors” = A. Oppenheimer. “The Severan Emperors, Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi and the Cities of Palestine.” M. Perani (ed.), The Words of a Wise Man’s Mouth are Gracious, Berlin: de Gruyter, , –. Oppenheimer and Rappaport, New Approach = A. Oppenheimer, U. Rappaport (eds.). The Bar-Kokhva Revolt, A New Approach. Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak ben Zvi,  (Heb.). Oppenheimer et al., Judaism =A.Oppenheimer,I.Gafni,M.Stern(eds.).Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple, Mishna and Talmud Period: Studies in Honor of Shmuel Safrai. Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak ben Zvi,  (Heb.). Oppenheimer et al., Jews = A. Oppenheimer, J.M. Gafni, D.R. Schwartz (eds.). The Jews in the Hellenistic-Roman World: Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern. Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center,  (Heb.). Owens, The City =E.J.Owens.The City in the Greek and Roman World.London: Routledge, . Parkins, Roman Urbanism = H.M. Parkins (ed.). Roman Urbanism; Beyond the Consumer City. London/New York: Routledge, . ———, “The Consumer City” = H.M. Parkins. “The ‘Consumer City’ Domes- ticated? The Roman City in ‘Elite Economic Strategies.’” H.M. Parkins (ed.), Roman Urbanism; Beyond the Consumer City, London / New York: Routledge, , –. Patrich,“WallStreet”=J.Patrich.“TheWallStreet,theEasternStoa,theLocation of the Tetrapylon, and the Halakhic Status of Caesarea (interpreting Tosefta Oholot :).” Cathedra  (): – (Heb.). Poland, συν'δριν =P.Poland.“συν'δριν.” PW, RE, Stuttgart: Metzler, – , A, , –. Pomeroi, “Center and Periphery” = A.J. Pomeroi. “Center and Periphery in Tacitus’s Histories.” Arethusa  (): –. Porter,“Amathus”=A.Porter.“Amathus:Gabinius’capitalinPeraea?”JJS  (): –. bibliography 

Porton, Rabbi Ishmael =G.G.Porton.The Traditions of Rabbi Ishmael.Vol.. Leiden: Brill, . ———,“Midrash”=G.G.Porton.“Midrash,Definitionsof.”J.Neusnerand A.J. Averi-Peck (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Midrash: Biblical Interpretation in Formative Judaism, vol. , Leiden: Brill, , –. Porush, Variant Gittin = R.H. Porush (ed.). The Babylonian Talmud, with Variant Readings: Tractate Gittin.Vol..Jerusalem:YadHaravHerzogInstituteforthe Complete Israeli Talmud,  (Heb.). Pratt, “Cultural Geography” = G. Pratt. “Cultural Geography.” IESBS , –  (also, ibid., –). Press, Topographical–Historical =I.Press.ATopographical–Historical Encyclo- paedia of Palestine.  vols. Jerusalem: Mass, – (Heb.). Price, “Five Inscriptions” = J.J. Price. “Five Inscriptions from Jaffa.” SCI  (): –. Pritz, Jewish Christianity =R.A.Pritz.Nazarene Jewish Christianity: From the End of the New Testament Period Until Its Disappearance in the Fourth Cen- tury. Leiden: Brill, . Raban, Nahalal = A. Raban. Nahalal Map () –. Jerusalem: Israel Antiqui- ties Authority,  (Heb.). Raban and Holum, Caesarea Maritima = A. Raban and K.G. Holum (eds.). Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective after Two Millennia. Leiden: Brill, . Rabbinovicz, Sha"arei = Z.W.Rabbinovicz. Sha"arei Torat Eretz Israel. Jerusalem: I. Rabbinovicz,  (Heb.). ——— , Dikduke Sofrim = R.N. Rabbinovicz. Dikduke Sofrim (Variae Lectiones in Mischna et in Talmud Babylonicum). Munich: H. Rassel, – (Heb.). Rahmani, Jewish Ossuaries =Y.Rahmani.A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collection of the State of Israel. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority and Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, . Rajak, “The Rabbinic Dead” = T. Rajak. “The Rabbinic Dead and the Diaspora Dead at Beth She"arim.” The Talmud Yerushalmi and Greco-Roman Culture, vol.  (): – (= T. Rajak. The Jewish Dialogue with Greece and Rome: Studies in Cultural and Social. Leiden: Brill, , –). Ratner, Ahavat Zion =B.Ratner.Ahavat Zion vi-Yerushalayim, [commentary on Talmud Yerushalmi].  vols. Vilna: Rom, – (Heb.). Reeg, Ortsnamen =G.Reeg.Die Ortsnamen Israels nach der rabbinischen Liter- atur. Wiesbaden: Reichert, . Responsa Project = The Global Jewish Database, The Responsa Project.Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University, –. Robinson and Roisman, Sefer Perlman =W.Z.RobinsonandH.Roisman(eds.). Sefer Perlman:  studies on Classical Culture and its Inheritance. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University,  (Heb.). Roll, “Roman Roads” = I. Roll. “The Roman Road System in Judaea.” The Jerusalem Cathedra  (): –. ———, “Roads to Caesarea” = I. Roll. “Roman Roads to Caesarea Maritima.” Raban and Holum, Caesarea Maritima, –.  bibliography

Romanoff, “Onomastikon” = P. Romanoff. “Onomasticon of Palestine.” PAAJR  (): –. Rosenfeld,“R.Abun”=B.Z.Rosenfeld.“R.Abun:HisLifeandPublicActivity.” Sinai  (): – (Heb.). ———, “Rabbi Simlai” = B.Z. Rosenfeld. “The Activity of Rabbi Simlai: A Chapter in the Relations between Eretz Israel and the Diaspora in the Third Century.” Zion  (): – (Heb.). ———, “Leadership” = B.Z. Rosenfeld. “Jewish Leadership in Southern Eretz- Israel at the End of the Talmudic Period.” Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies.DivisionB,vol.I,Jerusalem:WorldUnionof Jewish Studies, , – (Heb.). ———, “The Crisis” = B.Z. Rosenfeld. “The Crisis of the Patriarchate in Eretz Israel in the Fourth Century.” Zion  (): – (Heb.). ———, “Sages and Householders” = B.Z. Rosenfeld. “Sages and Householders in Lod in the Yavneh Period.” Sinai  (): – (Heb.). ———, “Rabban Gamaliel” = B.Z. Rosenfeld. “The Standing and Activities of Rabban Gamaliel Prior to his Move to Yavneh.” Zion  (): – (Heb. with English summary). ———,“Akhbara”=B.Z.Rosenfeld.“Akhbara:PriestlySettlementAdjacentto Zippori during the Talmud Period.” Israel—People and Land [Eretz Israel Museum Yearbook], Bar Adon Book – [–] (/): – (Heb.). ———, “Yavneh” = B.Z. Rosenfeld. “The Changing Significance of the Name ‘Yavne’ in Rabbinic Tradition.” I. Gafni, A. Oppenheimer, M. Stern (eds.), Jews and Judaism, in the Second Temple, Mishna and Talmud Period: Studies in Honor of Shmuel Safrai, Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak ben Zvi, , – (Heb.). ———,“R.YoseHa-Gelili”=B.Z.Rosenfeld.“R.YoseHa-GeliliandtheRabbinic Leadership on the Eve of the Bar-Kokhba Revolt.” Sidra  (): – (Heb.). ——— , Lod = B.Z. Rosenfeld. Lod and its Sages in the Period of the Mishna and the Talmud. Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak ben Zvi,  (Heb.). ———,“Galilee” = B.Z. Rosenfeld. “Places of Rabbinic Settlement in Galilee, – ce: Periphery versus Center.” HUCA  (): – (Hebrew section). ———, “R. Simeon” = B.Z. Rosenfeld. “R. Simeon bar Yochai: Wonder Worker and Magician, Scholar, Sadiq and Hasid.” RÉJ :– (): –. ———, “Nave” = B.Z. Rosenfeld. “Nave (= Nawa), The Bashan Capital.” Al Atar – (): – (Heb.). ———, “Josephus” = B.Z. Rosenfeld. “Flavius Josephus and his Portrayal of the Coast (Paralia) of Contemporary Roman Palestine: Geography and Ideology.” JQR :– (): –. ———, “Galilean Valleys” = B.Z. Rosenfeld. “The Galilean Valleys (Beq"aoth) from the Bible to the Talmud.” RB ,  (): –. ———, “Josephus-Mishnah” = B.Z. Rosenfeld. “Josephus and the Mishnah: Two Views on the Outline of the Map of Palestine in the First Two Centuries ad.” REJ  (): –. ———, “Inscriptions” = B.Z. Rosenfeld. “Rabbi Joshua ben Levi and His Wife Kyra Mega: Interpretation of Inscriptions from Beth-She"arim.” Cathedra  (): – (Heb.). bibliography 

———, “Susiya” = B.Z. Rosenfeld. “The Inscription of Rabbi Issi Ha-Cohen from the Synagogue of Susiya.” Judea and Samaria Research Studies  (): –  (Heb.). ———, “The Sages” = B.Z. Rosenfeld. “The Sages in Bar Kochba’s Generation and Their Attitude to the Revolt as Understood in the Tannaitic Literature.” D.Gera,M.BenZeev(eds.),The Path of Peace: Studies in Honor of Israel Friedman Ben-Shalom, Beer Sheva: Ben Gurion University of the Negev Press, , – (Heb.). ———,“Judea” = B.Z. Rosenfeld. “The Places of Rabbinic Settlement in Judea, – ce: Periphery versus Center.” HUCA  (): – (Hebrew section). RosenfeldandBorenstein,“Ramatha-Nadiv”=B.Z.RosenfeldandA.Boren- stein. “The Jewish Settlements in Ramat ha-Nadiv During the Second Temple Period and Their Identification.”Y.Hirschfeld (ed.), Ramat ha-Nadiv Excava- tions, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, , –. Rosenfeld and Menirav, Markets =B.Z.RosenfeldandJ.Menirav.Markets and Marketing in Roman Palestine. Leiden: Brill, . Rosenthal-Lieberman, Yerushalmi Neziqin = E.S. Rosenthal (ed.), S. Lieberman (Introduction and Commentary). Yerushalmi Neziqin. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities,  (Heb.). Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History = M. Rostovtzeff. Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire.Rev.ed.P.M.Fraser.Oxford:ClarendonPress,  (repr. ). Roth-Gerson, Greek Inscriptions = L. Roth-Gerson. The Greek Inscriptions from the Synagogues in Eretz-Israel. Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak ben Zvi,  (Heb.). ——— , Jews of Syria = L. Roth-Gerson. The Jews of Syria as Reflected in the Greek Inscriptions. Jerusalem: Shazar Center,  (Heb.). Rubenstein, “Criteria” = J.L. Rubenstein. “Criteria of Stammaic Intervention in Aggada.” J.L. Rubenstein (ed.), Creation and Composition: The Contribution of the Bavli Redactors (Stammaim) to the Aggada, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, , –. ———,“Rabbinic Literature” = J.L. Rubenstein. “Social and Institutional Settings of Rabbinic Literature.” Fonrobert and Jaffee, The Talmud –. Safrai, “Holy Assembly” = S. Safrai. “The Holy Assembly of Jerusalem.” Zion  (): – (Heb.) = Safrai, Temple, –. ——— , “ B e t h S h e "arim” = S. Safrai. “Beth She"arim in the Talmudic Literature.” Eretz Israel  (): – (Heb. with English summary) = Safrai, Temple, –. ———, “The Localities” = S. Safrai. “The Localities of the Sanctification of Lunar Months and the Intercalation of Years in Palestine after ce” Tarbiz  (): – (Heb. with English summary) = Safrai, Temple, –. ——— , R. Aqiba =S.Safrai.R. Aqiba, His Life and Doctrine. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute,  (Heb). ———, “Synagogues South” = S. Safrai. “The Synagogues South of Mount Judah.” Immanuel  (–): – = Safrai, Temple, –. ———, “Inianim” = S. Safrai. “Inianim Artzisraeliim.” = Safrai, Temple, – .  bibliography

———,“Galilee, Golan” = S. Safrai. “The Jewish Settlement in Galilee and Golan in the Third and Fourth Century.” Baras et al., Eretz Israel, – = Safrai, Temple, – (Heb.). ——— , Second Temple =S.Safrai.IntheLateSecondTempleandtheMishnah Periods. nd edition. Jerusalem: Ministery of Education, Shazar Center,  (Heb.). ———, “Pious-Hassidim” = S. Safrai. “The Pious (Hassidim) and the Men of Deeds.” Zion  (): – (Heb. with English summary) = Safrai, Temple, –. ——— , Literature =S.Safrai(ed.).The Literature of the Sages.PartOne.Assen/ Maastricht: Van Gorcum/Philadelphia: Fortress Press, . ———,“Halakha”=S.Safrai.“Halakha.”Safrai,Literature, –. ———, “Hachmei Yavneh” = S. Safrai. “Bikureihem shel Hachmei Yavneh be- Roma.” = Safrai, Temple, vol. , – (Heb.). ——— , Temple =S.Safrai.Times of Temple and Mishnah: Studies in Jewish History.  vols. Jerusalem: Magnes,  (Heb.). ———, “The Jews” = S. Safrai. “The Jews of Jerusalem During the Roman Period.” Tsafrir and Safrai, The History of Jerusalem, – (Heb.). ———, “Oral Tora” = S. Safrai. “Oral Tora.” Safrai et al., The Literature, – . ——— , Boundaries =Z.Safrai.Boundaries and Administration in Eretz-Israel in the Mishnah and Talmud Periods. Tel Aviv: ha-Kibuts ha-Meuhad,  (Heb.). ——— , Galilee =Z.Safrai.Chapters on the History of the Galilee in the Mishnah and Talmud Period.Ma"alot: Midreshet Shorashim,  (Heb.). ———,“Eretz-Israel”=Z.Safrai.“TheDescriptionofEretz-IsraelinJosephus’ Works.” U. Rappaport (ed.), Josephus Flavius: Historian of Eretz-Israel in the Hellenistic-Roman Period, Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak ben Zvi, , – (Heb. with English summary). ———, “Settlement” = Z. Safrai. “The Bar-Kokhva Revolt and Its Effect on Settle- ment.” Oppenheimer and Rappaport, New Approach, – (Heb.). ———, “Priestly Courses” = Z. Safrai. “Did the Priestly Courses (Mishmarot) Transfer from Judaea to Galilee after the Bar Kokhba Revolt?” Tarbiz  (): – (Heb. with English summary). ——— , Economy =Z.Safrai.The Economy of Roman Palestine.LondonandNew York: Routledge, . ——— , Community =Z.Safrai.The Jewish Community in the Talmudic Period. Jerusalem: Shazar Center,  (Heb.). ———, “Rabbinic Sources” = Z. Safrai. “Rabbinic Sources as Historical: A Re- sponse.” J. Neusner, A.J. Avery-Peck, B. Chilton (eds.), Judaism in Late Antiq- uity, III, , Leiden: Brill, , –. Safrai and Safrai, “Beth Anat” = S. Safrai and Z. Safrai. “Beth Anat.” Sinai  (): – (Heb.) = Safrai, Temple, –, , , –. Safrai et al., The Literature =S.Safrai,Z.Safrai,J.Schwartz,P.J.Tomson(eds.). The Literature of the Sages. Second Part. Assen: Van Gorcum and Fortress Press, . Sagiv, “Transjordan” = N. Sagiv. “Jewish Settlement in the Peraea (Transjordan) bibliography 

During the Hellenistic and Roman Periods: The Historical Data and the Archaeological Evidence.” Dissertation, Bar Ilan University,  (Heb.). Saller, “Status” = R. Saller. “Status and patronage.” CAH  (): :– . Salzman, “Book ” = M.R. Salzman. “The Evidence for the Conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity in Book  of the Theodosian Code.” Historia  (): –. Sartre, Bostra =M.Sartre.Bostra: des origins à l’Islam.Paris:P.Geuthner, . ——— , Middle East =M.Sartre.The Middle East Under Rome. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, . ———,“Syria”=M.Sartre.“SyriaandArabia.”CAH  (): –. ———, “Arabs” = M. Sartre. “The Arabs and the Desert people.” CAH  (): –. ——— , l’Arabie Romaine =M.Sartre.Troisétudessurl’ArabieRomaineetByzan- tine. Latomus . Brussels: Latomus, . Schäfer, Bar Kokhba =P.Schäfer.Der Bar Kokhba Aufstand. Tübingen: Mohr, . ——— , The Jews =P.Schäfer.The History of the Jews in the Greco-Roman World. London: Routledge, . Schäfer and Becker, Synopse = P. Schäfer and H.J. Becker. Synopse zum Talmud Yerushalmi. Band I:–. Tübingen: Mohr, . Scheid, “Oral Tradition” = J. Scheid. “Oral Tradition and Written Tradition in the Formation of Sacred Law in Rome.” C. Ando, J. Rüpke (eds.), Religion and Law in Classical and Christian Rome, Stuttgart: Steiner, , –. Schiffman, History =L.H.Schiffman.From Text to Tradition: A History of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism. Hoboken: Ktav, . ———, “Scrolls and Rabbinic” = L.H. Schiffman. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and Rabbinic Halakhah.” J.R. Davila (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls as Background to Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity: Papers from an International Conference at St. Andrews in , Leiden: Brill, , –. ———, “The Making” = L.H. Schiffman “The Making of the Mishnah andthe Talmud.” Liberman-Mintz and Goldstein, Printing the Talmud, –. ——— , Understanding = L.H. Schiffman, J. Bloomberg (ed.). Understanding Sec- ond Temple and Rabbinic Judaism. Jersey City, NJ: Ktav, . Schmitt, Siedlungen Palästinas =G.Schmitt.Siedlungen Palästinas in Griechisch- romischer Zeit, Ostjordanland, Negeb und (in auswahl) Westjordanland.Wies- baden: Reichert, . Schortman and Urban, “Core/Periphery” = E.M. Schortman and P.A. Urban. “Living on the Edge: Core/Periphery Relations in Ancient Southeastern Mesoamerica.” CA : (): –. Schreckenberg, Adversus-Judaeos = H. Schreckenberg. Die christlichen Adversus- Judaeos- Texte und ihr literarisches und historisches Umfeld (–. Jh). rd edition. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, . Schürer, History =E.Schürer.The History of the Jewish People in the Age Of Jesus Christ ( B.C.—ad).G.Vermesetal.(eds.),vol.I–II.Edinburgh:Clark, , .  bibliography

Schwabe, “Inscription” = M. Schwabe. “A Greek Inscription from the Vicinity of Caesarea.” BJPES  (): – (Heb. with English summary). ———, “Judeo-Greek Inscription” = M. Schwabe. “A Judeo-Greek Inscription from Palestine.” BJPES, : (): – (Heb. with English summary). ———,“R.Jacob”=M.Schwabe.“TheTombInscriptionoftheAmoraR.Jacob son of Dosi.” BJPES :– (): – (Heb. with English summary). Schwartz, “The Wake” = J. Schwartz. “Judea in the Wake of the Bar-Kokhva Revolt.” Oppenheimer and Rappaport, New Approach, – (Heb.). ——— , Judaea = J. Schwartz. Jewish Settlement in Judaea: After the Bar-Kochba War until the Arab Conquest  C.E.– C.E. Jerusalem: Magnes,  (Heb.). ——— , Lod = J. Schwartz. Lod (Lydda), Israel: From its Origins Through the Byzantine Period ( B.C.E.–ce). BAR International Series . Oxford: Tempus Reparatum, . ———, “Lod Economy” = J. Schwartz. “On Economy and Trade in Lydda during the Yavne Period.” Oppenheimer et al., Judaism, – (Heb.). Schwartz,“Language,Power”=S.Schwartz.“Language,PowerandIdentityin Ancient Palestine.” Past and Present  (): –. ———,“Urban Culture” = S. Schwartz. “Gamaliel in Aphrodite’s Bath: Palestinian Judaism and Urban Culture in the Third and Fourth Centuries.” P. Schäfer (ed.), The Talmud Yerushalmi and Greco- Roman Culture, vol.  (): – . ———, “The Rabbi” = S. Schwartz. “The Rabbi in Aphrodite’s Bath: Palestinian Society and Jewish Identity in the High Roman Empire.” S. Goldhill (ed.), Being Greek under Rome: Cultural Identity, the Second Sophistic and the Devel- opment of Empire, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, , – . ——— , Jewish Society = S. Schwartz. Imperialism and Jewish Society: bce to  C.E. Princeton: Princeton University Press, . ———, “Rabbinic Texts” = S. Schwartz. “The Political Geography of Rabbinic Texts.” Fonrobert and Jaffee, The Talmud, –. Segal, City “Landscapes” = A. Segal. “City Landscapes in Roman Palestine and Provincia Arabia.” Eretz Israel  (): – (Heb.). Selinger, “Jifna” = Y. Selinger. “A Jewish Burial Cave at Jifna.” Judea and Samaria Research Studies  (): – (Heb.). Shahar, “Har Hamelekh” = Y. Shahar. “Har Hamelekh: A New Solution to an Old Puzzle.” Zion  (): – (Hebrew with English summary). ———, “Dialogue” = Y. Shahar. “Josephus’ Hidden Dialogue with Strabo.” D. Dueck, H. Lindsay and S. Pothecary (eds.), Strabo’s Cultural Geography: The Making of a Kolossourgia, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, , –. ———, “Talmudic Yavneh” = Y. Shahar. “Talmudic Yavneh: Two Generations, then Eternal Glory.” M. Fischer (ed.), Yavneh, Yavneh-Yam and their Neigh- borhood: Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Judean Coastal Plain, Tel Aviv: Erets-Tel Aviv University, , – (Heb.). Sharvit, Avoth =S.Sharvit.Language and Style of Tractate Avoth Through the Ages. Beer-Sheva: Ben Gurion University of the Negev, . bibliography 

Shaw, “Rebels” = B.D. Shaw. “Rebels and Outsiders.” CAH  (): –. Shils, Center =E.Shils.Center and Periphery: Essays in Macro-Sociology.Chica- go: University of Chicago Press, . ——— , Constitution =E.Shils.The Constitution of Society.Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press, . ———,“Center and Periphery” = E. Shils. “Center and Periphery: An Idea and Its Career, –.” L. Greenfeld and M. Martin (eds.), Center: Ideas and Institutions, Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, , –. Shotola, “Small Groups” = R.W. Shotola. “Small Groups.” E.F. Borgatta (ed.), Encyclopedia of Sociology, vol. , New York: Macmillan, , –. Sirat, Hebrew Manuscripts = C. Sirat. Hebrew Manuscripts of the Middle Ages. N. de Lange (ed. and transl.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, . Sivertsev, Private Households =A.Sivertsev.PrivateHouseholds and Public Politics in rd–th Century Jewish Palestine. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, . ——— , Households =A.M.Sivertsev.Households, Sects, and the Origins of Rab- binic Judaism. Leiden: Brill, . Smallwood, The Jews = E.M. Smallwood. The Jews under Roman Rule.Leiden: Brill, . Smith, “Cartography” = M.L. Smith. “Networks, Territories, and the Cartogra- phy of Ancient States.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers () (): –. Sokoloff, Geniza Fragments = M. Sokoloff. The Geniza Fragments of Bereshit Rabba. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities,  (Heb.). ——— , Dictionary = M. Sokoloff. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period. Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, . Sperber, The Land =D.Sperber.Roman Palestine –: The Land.Ramat- Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, . ——— , Dictionary =D.Sperber.A Dictionary of Greek and Latin Legal Terms in Rabbinic Literature. Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, . ——— , Nautica Talmudica =D.Sperber.Nautica Talmudica. Ramat-Gan: Bar- Ilan University Press, . ——— , Money and Prices =D.Sperber.Roman Palestine –: Money and Prices. nd Edition with Supplement, Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, . ——— , The City =D.Sperber.The City in Roman Palestine.NewYork:Oxford University Press, . Spiegel, Jewish Book =Y.S.Spiegel.Chapters in the History of the Jewish Book: Writing and Transmission.Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, (Heb.). Stark, Rise of Christianity =R.Stark.The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History. Princeton: Princeton University Press, . Stemberger, Jews and Christians =G.Stemberger.Jews and Christians in the Holy Land. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, . Stepansky, “Inscription” = Y. Stepansky. “The Inscription ‘Yosef ben Elazar ben Shila of Horsha’ from Tiberias.” Judea and Samaria Research Studies  (): –. Stern, Authors =M.Stern(ed.)Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, I–III. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, –.  bibliography

———, “Attribution and Authorship” = S. Stern. “Attribution and Authorship in the Babylonian Talmud.” JJS  (): –. ———, “Concept” = S. Stern. “The Concept of Authorship in the Babylonian Talmud.” JJS  (): –. ——— , Jewish Identity =S.Stern.Jewish Identity in Early Rabbinic Writings. Leiden: Brill, . Stokman, “Networks: Social” = F.N. Stokman. “Networks: Social.” IESBS , :–:. Strack-Stemberger, Introduction = H.L. Strack. Introduction to Talmud and Mid- rash. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, . Strange, “Shikhin” = J.F. Strange, D.E. Groh, and T.R.W. Longstaff. “Excavations at Sepphoris: The Location and Identification of Shikhin.” IEJ , – (): –; , – (): –. ———, “Ancient Synagogues” = J.F. Strange. “Archaeology and Ancient Syna- gogues up to about  ce” A.J. Avery-Peck, D. Harrington, J. Neusner (eds.), When Judaism and Christianity Began: Essays in Memory of Anthony J. Sal- darini, vol. , Leiden: Brill, , –. Sossman, “Halakhic Inscription” = J. Sussman. “AHalakhic Inscription from the Beth-Shean Valley.” Tarbiz  (): – (Heb.). Sussman, “Caesarea Lamps” = V.Sussman. “Caesarea Illuminated by Its Lamps.” Raban and Holum, Caesarea Maritima, –. ———,“Lamp” = V.Sussman. “The Seven Branched Menorah as Depicted on Oil Lamps of the ‘Beit Nattif’ Type (The Late Third to Fifth Centuries ce).” Judea and Samaria Research Studies  (): – (Heb.). ———, “Introduction” = Y. Sussman. “Introduction.” Y. Sussman et al., Talmud Yerushalmi According to Ms. Or.  (Scaliger ), Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, , Introduction, *–* (Heb.). Sussmann, “Boundaries” = Y. Sussmann. “The ‘Boundaries of Eretz-Israel.’” Tarbiz  (): – (Heb.). ———, “Neziqin” = Y. Sussmann. “ve-Shuv li-Yerushalmi Neziqin.” Mehqerei Talmud  (): – (Heb.). ——— , “ T o r a h s h e - B a "al Peh” = Y. Sussmann. “Torah she-Ba"alPehPeshutahke- Mashma"ah: Kocho Shel Kutso Shel Yod.” Mehqerei Talmud : (): –  (Heb.). Swidler, “Cultural Expression” = A. Swidler. “Cultural Expression and Action.” IESBS :– (also, –). Tabori, “Esther Rabbah” = J. Tabori. “Some Problems in Preparing a Scientific Edition of Esther Rabbah.” Sidra  (): – (Heb. with English summary). Talgam and Weiss, The Mosaics =R.TalgamandZ.Weiss.The Mosaics of the House of Dionysos at Sepphoris: Excavated by E.M. Meyers, E. Netzer and C.L. Meyers. Qedem . Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jeruslaem, . Tolkowsky, Jaffa =S.Tolkowsky.The History of Jaffa. Tel Aviv: Dvir,  (Heb.). Trifon, “Priestly Courses” = D. Trifon. “Did the Priestly Courses (Mishmarot) Transfer from Judaea to Galilee After the Bar Kokhba Revolt?” Tarbiz  (): – (Heb. with English summary). bibliography 

Tsafrir, “Provinciot” = Y. Tsafrir. “The Provinces in Eretz Israel: Names, Borders and Regional Administrations.” Baras et al., Eretz Israel, – (Heb.). ——— , Archaeology = Y. Tsafrir. Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest, Archaeology and Art. Vol. II. Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak ben Zvi,  (Heb.). ——— , Map =Y.Tsafrir,L.DiSegniandJ.Green.Tabula Imperii Romani, Iudaea, Palaestina: Maps and Gazetteer. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, . ———, “Topography” = Y. Tsafrir. “The Topography and Archaeology of Aelia Capitolina.” Tsafrir and Safrai, The History of Jerusalem, – (Heb.). Tsafrir and Safrai, The History of Jerusalem = Y. Tsafrir and S. Safrai (eds.). The History of Jerusalem: The Roman and Byzantine Periods (– ce). Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak ben Zvi,  (Heb.). Urbach, “Idolatry” = E.E. Urbach. “The Rabbinical Laws of Idolatry in the Second and Third Centuries in Light of Archaeological and Historical facts.” IEJ  (): –. [= idem, Collected Studies, –. idem,Sages World, – (Heb.)]. ——— , The Sages =E.E.Urbach.The Sages, Their Concepts and Beliefs.vols. Jerusalem: Magnes, . ——— , The Halachah =E.E.Urbach.The Halakhah: Its Sources and Development. Givatayim: Massada,  (Heb.). ——— , Sages World =E.E.Urbach.TheWorld of the Sages: Collected Studies. Jerusalem: Magnes,  (rep. ) (Heb.). ——— , Collected Writings =E.E.Urbach.Collected Writings in Jewish Studies. Jerusalem: Magnes, . ———, “Class-Status” = E.E. Urbach. “Class-Status and Leadership in the World of the Palestinian Sages.” idem, Collected Writings, –. [= Sages World, – (Heb.)]. ——— , mi-Yehudah la-Galilee =E.E.Urbach.mi-Yehudah la-Galilee. idem, Sages World, – (Heb.). ———, “Yerushalaim” = E.E. Urbach. “Yerushalayim shel Matah ve-Yerushalaim shel Ma"alah.” idem, Sages World, – (Heb.). Urman, “Golan in Josephus” = D. Urman. “The Usage of the Toponym Golan in Josephus’ Writings.” U. Rappaport (ed.), Josephus Flavius: Historian of Eretz- Israel in the Hellenistic-Roman Period, Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak ben Zvi, , – (Heb.). ———, “Batei Midrash” = D. Urman. “The Location of the Batei-Midrash of Bar Qappara and Rabbi Hoshaya Rabbah.” M. Stern (ed.), Nation and History: Studies in the History of the Jewish People, vol. , Jerusalem: Shazar Center, , – (Heb.). ———, “Bar Qappara” = D. Urman. “Rabbi Eliezer ha-Qappar and Bar Qappara: Father and Son?” Beer Sheva  (): – (Heb.). ——— , The Golan =D.Urman.The Golan. A Profile of a Region During the Roman and Byzantine Periods. BAR International Series , Oxford: B.A.R., . ———, “Beth Guvrin” = D. Urman. “Beth Guvrin: A History of Mixed Popula- tions During the Period of the Mishnah and Talmud.” D. Urman and E. Stern  bibliography

(eds.), ManandEnvironmentintheSouthernShefelah:StudiesinRegional Geography and History, Givaatayim: Masada, , – (Heb.). ———, “The Lower Golan” = D. Urman. “The Lower Golan.” Urman and Flesher, Ancient Synagogues, –. ———, “House of Study” = D. Urman. “The House of Assembly and the House of Study:AreTheyOneandtheSame?”UrmanandFlesher,Ancient Synagogues, –. ———,“PublicStructure”=D.Urman.“PublicStructuresandJewishCommu- nities in the Golan Heights.” Urman and Flesher, Ancient Synagogues, – . Urman and Flesher, Ancient Synagogues = D. Urman and P.V.M. Flesher (eds.). Ancient Synagogues: Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery.vols. Leiden: Brill, . Van der Horst, “Greek” = P.W. van der Horst. “Greek in Jewish Palestine in Light of Jewish Epigraphy.” J.J. Collins, G.F. Sterling (eds.), Hellenism in the Land of Israel, Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, , – . Van Nijf, Associations= O.M. van Nijf. The Civic World of Professional Associa- tionsintheRomanEast. Amsterdam: Gieben, . Villeneuve, “Economie” = F. Villeneuve. “Economie et société des villages de la montage hauranaise à l’époque romaine: l’apport des données archéolo- giques.” Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes  (): –. Wallace–Hadrill, “Elites” = A. Wallace–Hadrill. “Elites and Trade in the Roman Town.” J. Rich & A. Wallace–Hadrill (eds.), City and Country in the Ancient World, London and New York: Routledge, , –. Ward, “Sacred Geography” = S. Ward. “Sepphoris in Sacred Geography.” E.M. Meyers (ed.), Galilee: Through the Centuries: Confluence of Cultures, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, , –. Weiss, Sepphoris Synagogue =Z.Weiss.The Sepphoris Synagogue: Deciphering an Ancient Message Through its Archaeological and Socio-Historical Contexts. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, . Wells, The Roman Empire =C.Wells.The Roman Empire.nd ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, . Wertheimer, Batei Midrashot = S.A. Wertheimer. Batei Midrashot.vols.Jeru- salem: Ktav va-Sefer Institute and Reuven Mass,  (Heb.). Westbrook, Property =R.Westbrook.Property and the Family in Biblical Law. Sheffield: JSOT Press, . White, “Ties” = M.L. White. “Finding the Ties that Bind: Issues from Social Description.” Semeia  (): –. ———, “Social Networks” = M.L. White. “Social Networks: Theoretical Orienta- tion and Historical Applications.” Semeia  (): –. Whittaker, “The Consumer City” = C.R. Whittaker. “The Consumer City Revis- ited: The Vicus and the City.” JRA  (): –. Wilkes, “Provincial Organization” = J. Wilkes. “Changes in Roman Provincial Organization ad–.” CAH  (): –. Williams, “Contribution” = M. Williams. “The Contribution of Jewish Inscrip- tions to the Study of Judaism.” CHJ  (): –. bibliography 

Wolf, “Urbanization” = G. Wolf. “The Roman Urbanization of the East.” S.E. Al- cock (ed.), The Early Roman Empire in the East, Oxford: Oxbow Books, , –. Yadin and Naveh, Masada  =Y.YadinandJ.Naveh.Masada : The Aramaic and Hebrew Ostraca and Jar Inscriptions. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, . Yankelevicz, “Populations” = R. Yankelevicz. “The Relative Size of the Jewish and Gentile Populations in Eretz Israel in the Roman Period.” Cathedra  (): – (Heb.). Yassine, Jordan Valley =Kh.Yassine.The East Jordan Valley Survey, The Archae- ology of Jordan. Amman: University of Jordan, . Yeivin, “Survey” = Z. Yeivin. “Survey of Settlements in the Galilee and Golan from the Period of the Mishna in Light of the Sources.” Dissertation. Hebrew University of Jerusalem,  (Heb.). Zaks, Rav Alfas =I.Zaks.Hilchot Rav Alfas. Vol. . Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook,  (Heb.). Zingboim, “Deborah” = O. Zingboim. “The Cemetery of the Ancient Jewish Set- tlement in Deborah.” M. Reuveni, M. Livneh (eds.), Advances in the Golan Research: Man and Landscape, Tel Aviv: Ramot Publishing, Tel Aviv Univer- sity, , – (Heb.). Zissu, “Sokho” = B. Zissu. “On Ossuary of ‘Imma, Daughter of Hanania,’ and the Second Temple Period Jewish Settlement at Sokho, Judaean Foothills.” A. Faust and E. Baruch (eds.), New Studies on Jerusalem; Proceedings of the Sixth Conference, Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University, , – (Heb.). ———, “Rural Settlement” = B. Zissu. “Rural Settlement in the Judaean Hills and Foothills from the Late Second Temple Period to the Bar Kokhba Revolt.” Dissertation. Hebrew University of Jerusalem,  (Heb.). Zissu and Perry, “Modi"in” = B. Zissu and L. Perry. “Identification of Ancient Modi"in and Byzantine Moditha: Towards a Solution of a Geographical- Historical Issue.” Cathedra  (): –. Zlotnick, Tractate Mourning =D.Zlotnick.The Tractate ‘Mourning’ (Semahot). New Haven: Yale University Press, . Zunz, Ha-Derashot =Y.L.Zunz.Ha-Derashot be-Yisrael. Jerusalem: Bialik Insti- tute,  (Heb.).

MAPS maps 

Map .  maps

Map . maps 

Map .  maps

Map . INDEX OF NAMES

Note: The names of people and places appearing in the Index are the Hebrew form of the names. The Hebrew names were obtained from many different sources and the same name may have different variations in different manuscripts. Some of the variations are noted in the Index, and where appropriate, the English translation of a complex name is given. In the book, the names often appear in their English translation. For example, “de,” “de-min,” and “me” are translated as “of”; “Ish” is translated as “man of” or simply “of.” In the book, the word “ben” (=son of) is abbreviated “b.”; in the Index, however, it is written out in full. In addition, “bar” and “ben” are sometimes used interchangeably.

Abba (Rabbi) , –, – Abba Jose ben Johanan Ish (man of) , ,  Jerusalem , ,  Abba bar Memel (Rabbi) –, Abba Jose ha-Mehozi , ,  –,  Abba Jose ha-Torti  Abba bar Zebda (Rabbi) ,  Abba Jose Helikopri (Holi Qofri) Abba bar Kahana (Rabbi)   Abba bar Meniumi (Rabbi)  Abba Jose Heres (or Horam)  Abba bar Benjamin of Arbel (also: Abba Jose Ish (man of) Ianoa , Abbaiei brei de-Rav Benjamin b.  Hiyya) ,  Abba Jose of Ketonit (Ketonta) , Abba Bira"ah (Rabbi)  , , , , –, , Abba Cohen bar Delaiah   Abba de-min (of) Akko (Rabbi) , Abba Jose Ish (man of) Zeitur   Abba Judan Ish (man of) Zidan – Abba de-min (of) Haifa (Rabbi)   Abba Mari (Rabbi)  Abba Gurion Ish (of) Zidan , – Abba Samuka , ,   Abba Sarongiah (Rabbi) ,  Abba Guriya  Abba Shaul – Abba ha-Admoni  Abba Shaul ben Batnit  Abba Hilfai bar Samkai , – Abba Zidoni   Abbahu (Rabbi) , –, , Abba Hilphai bar Keruya (Kuriai) , , , –, , – (also Rabbi bar Keruya) , – , ,   Abbaye (Rabbi)  Abba Hilphaii bar Kuriiah (Amora), Abduma de-Ziporin (Rabbi) ,   Abedimi (Abudama) de-min (of) Abba Hoshaiah Ish (man of) Tiriya Haifa (Rabbi)   Abimi (Abedimi) bar Tobi, , , Abba Jose ben Dosai  ,  Abba Jose ben Hannan , , , Abimi Brei de-rabbi Abbahu ,    index of names

Abin bar Bisna (Rabbi)  Dosa (Dosetai) de-min (of) Biri Abun (Abin) (Rabbi) , , , (Rabbi)  , ,  Dosa ben Harkinas (Rabbi)  Ada bar Ateleii ,  Dosa Mamlahia (Rabbi) ,  Ada de- (of) Jaffa (Rabbi)  Agrippa II , , ,  Elders (see Zekenim) –, , , Aha (Rabbi) –, –, , , , –, , , , , –, –, , , , , –, – ,  Elders of the South (Ziknei ha- AhabarShila(Rabbi) Darom) , , , , , –, Ahva bar Zeira (Rabbi) , , ,  ,  Eleazar bar Haggai (Rabbi)  Akiva, (Rabbi) , –, –, , Eleazar bar Meiron (Rabbi) , , –, , , –, ,  , , , , –, – Eleazar(Eliezer)barZadok(Rabbi) ,  –, ,  Alexander Zedoka (Rabbi) , ,  Eleazar Bazra"ah (Rabbi) ,  Alexandri (Rabbi)  Eleazar ben Arakh (Rabbi) ,  Ami (see Imi) (Rabbi) , , , Eleazar ben Azariah (Rabbi) , , ,  ,  Ashian (Rabbi) ,  Eleazar ben Isaac Ish (of) (Kfar) ha- Assi (Rabbi) , , –, , Darom (Rabbi) , ,  ,  Eleazar ben Judah Ish (of) Evlayim Azariah de- (of) Kfar Hitya (Rabbi) (Rabbi) ,  ,  Eleazar ben Parta (Rabbi) – Eleazar ben Pedat (Rabbi) , , Bar Kappara, (see also Eleazar ha- , ,  Kappar) –,  Eleazar ben R. Simeon (bar Yohai) Ben Azai, Simeon (Rabbi) ,  (Rabbi)  Ben Pazi –, – (see also Eleazar ben Shamua (Rabbi)  Pazi) Eleazar Daroma (Rabbi) –, , Berekhiah (Rabbi) ,  , ,  Berekhiah Bozraiah (Rabbi) , Eleazar de-min (of) Naveh (Ninveh) –,  (Rabbi) ,  Biraim (Rabbi)  Eleazar de-min Ruma (of) (Rabbi) Bisa (Rabbi) ,  ,  Bisna (Rabbi)  Eleazar ha-Kappar (Rabbi) –, Bna"ah (Rabbi)  , , , , ,  Bnei (sons of) Betaira , – Eleazar ha-Modai (Rabbi) , ,  Cohen (Rabbi)  Eleazar Hisma (Rabbi)  Constantine ,  Eleazar Ish (man of) Biria (Rabbi) ,  Daroma , , , –,  Eleazar Safra  Daughter of Kura,  Eliasa (Rabbi)  Deromaei , –,  Eliezer ben Hyrcanus (Rabbi) , , Diocletian  –,  index of names 

Eliezer (Eleazar) ben Jacob (Rabbi) Hananiah Anatonia (Rabbi) ,  , , , ,  Hananiah ben Akashiah (Rabbi)  Eliezer ben Judah Ish (man of) Hananiah ben Akavya (Rabbi) , Bartuta (Rabbi) , ,   Elisha ben Abuya  Hananiah ben Rabbi  Epes ha-Deromi (the Southerner, Hananiah bar Akhbari (Rabbi) – Rabbi, see Pas Daroma) –,  , ,  Hananiah Toratia (Rabbi) , – Epiphanius , ,   Eusebius , , , ,  Hanina (bar Hama) (Rabbi) , , Eviatar Ish/de- (man of/of) Idmah –, , , –, , , or of Damah (Rabbi) , ,  , , , ,  Hanina ben Dosa (Rabbi) , – Gamliel be-Rabbi (Rabban) , ,  – Hanina ben Teradion (Rabbi) , Gamliel (Gamaliel) of Yavneh  (Rabban) –, –, , , Hanina bar Papa (Rabbi) , , , , , , , , , , , , –  Hanina Brei de- (= son of) Rabbi Abbahu , , , ,  Hadrian  Hanina de-Ziporin (Rabbi)  Haggai (Rabbi) , –, – Hanina Ish (man of) Ono (Rabbi)  ,  Haninah ben Hakhinai  Haggai II (Rabbi)  Haninah Ish (man of) Tivon (Rabbi) Halafta de-min (of) Haifa( Hawah) ,  (Rabbi) ,  Hasa of Eshtemoa (Rabbi) , , Halafta (Rabbi) , –, – ,  ,  Hevraya –, , , , ,  Halafta Ish (man of) Kfar Hananiah Hezekiah (Rabbi) , , , , (Rabbi) ,  , –, –, ,  Halbo (Rabbi) ,  Hezekiah Abi Ikkesh –,  Hama bar Bisa (Rabbi) –, , Hezekiah Akhiya (Rabbi) – –,  Hezekiah son of R. Hiyya  Hama bar R. Hanina bar Hama Hieronymus (Jerome) , –, , (Rabbi)   Hama bar Ukva (Rabbi)  Hilfa Deromiah (Rabbi)  Hama (or Hiyya) de- (of) Kfar Hilfai bar brei de- (= son of the son Tehumin (Rabbi) , – of) Rabbi Abbahu , , , Hanan (Hanina) bar Pazi (Rabbi) , ,   Hilkiya ha-Dromi (Rabbi) , ,  Hanan (Rabbi) ,  Hillel and Shamai  Hanan bar R. Berekhiah Bozraiah Hillel ben Pazi (Rabbi) –,  (Rabbi) , ,  Hillel ben R. Berakhiah (Rabbi)  Hanan (Hanin) de-Zipori (Rabbi) Hillel de- (of) Kifra (Rabbi) , – , ,  ,  Hanan, father of R. Simeon (Rabbi) Hiyya [Rabbah] (Rabbi) , , ,  ,   index of names

Hiyyab.R.Addade-(of)Jaffa Isaac Kaskesaah (Rabbi) –, (Rabbi) , ,   Hiyya bar Abba (Rabbi) , , Isaac Migdalah (Rabbi) ,  , , ,  Isaac Nafha, (=the smith), (Rabbi) Hiyya bar Luliani (Rabbi)  , – Hiyya de- (of) Kfar Tehumin Isaac Sakah (Rabbi)  (Rabbi) , , ,  Isaiah Ish (man of) Tiriya ,  Hiyya me- (of) Achal Arav (Rabbi) Ishmael (of Kfar #Aziz) (Rabbi) – ,  , , , ,  Hiyya (of) Farodah (Rabbi) , , Ishmael ben R. Jose bar Halafta  (Rabbi) , , ,  Hiyya ben R. Isaac Attushiya (Rabbi) Issachar de-Kfar Mandi (Rabbi) , ,   Hiyya Ziporah (Rabbi) , ,  Issi (Jose) ben Judah (or Jose the Hoshaiah  Babylonian)  Hoshaiah (or Hoshaya) (Rabbi) – , –, ,  , , – Jacob me- (of) Afaratim (Rabbi) , , –, , – , – Hoshaiah (or Hoshayah) bar Shamai Jacob Amsonia (Rabbi) , ,  (Rabbi) , , –, , Jacob bar Abbaye (Rabbi) ,  ,  Jacob bar Ada bar Italei (Rabbi)  Huna (Rav)  Jacob bar Aha (Rabbi) , , , Huna Rabbah de-Ziporin (Rabbi) , , , – , , , – Jacob bar Idi (Rabbi) , , , Hunia Ish Bikat Hauran (Rabbi) , , ,  –, , – Jacob bar Kurshai (Rabbi) , , , –,  Idi de Hutra (Rabbi)  Jacob ben Dostai (Rabbi) ,  Idi (Ada) de-Caesarin (Rabbi) , Jacob ben Isaac me- (of) Beth , – Gophnin , ,  Ilai (Rabbi) , ,  Jacob ben Susi (Rabbi)  Imi (see Ami) (Rabbi) ,  Jacob ben Rabbi  Isaac (Rabbi)  Jacob de-Caesarin (Rabbi) , , , Isaac Attushiya (Rabbi) , ,  , ,  Isaac bar Gufta (Rabbi)  Jacob Deromia (Rabbi) , , ,  Isaac bar Josef (Sumaka) (Rabbi) Jacob Gevulia (Rabbi) ,  , , – Jacob Ish (man of) Kfar Hanan Isaac bar Meri or Merion (Rabbi) (Rabbi) ,  – Jacob Ish (man of) Kfar Hitya Isaac bar Nahman (Rabbi) –, (Rabbi) ,  ,  Jacob Ish (man of) Kfar Neboria , Isaac b. Ze"iri (Rabbi)  , , , ,  Isaac ben Eleazar (Rabbi) , – Jannai (or Yannai) (Rabbi) , , , , , ,  , ,  Isaac Hipushiah (Rabbi) ,  Jannai bar Ishmael (Rabbi)  Isaac Ish (man of) Kfar Akko Jannai Kapodukia (Rabbi)  (Rabbi) ,  Jannai Zeira (Rabbi)  index of names 

Jeremiah (Rabbi) , , , , Jose bar Bun (Abin) (Rabbi) , , , , , , – –, , , –  Jose bar Halafta (Rabbi) –, Jeremiah ben Eleazar (Rabbi) ,  , ,  Jeremiah Bira"ah (Rav)  Jose bar Hanina (Rabbi) –, Johanan (or Jonathan), scribe of –, , , –,  Gufta (Rabbi)  Jose bar Judah (Rabbi) ,  Johanan (Rabbi) , –, , , Jose bar Memel (Rabbi) ,  , –, , , –, Jose [bar Zevida] (Rabbi) , , , , , , , –, , , –, , ,  , , –, –, – Jose ben Huni  , , , –, –, Jose ben Kisma (Rabbi)  , –,  Jose ben Meshullam (Rabbi) ,  Johanan Anataniata (Rabbi) ,  Jose ben Nehorai –,  Johanan ben Arza (Rabbi) –,  Jose ben Petros (Rabbi) –,  Johanan ben Gudgada  Jose brei de- (son of) R. Jacob bar Idi Johanan ben Nuri (Rabbi) –, (Rabbi)  , , ,  Jose Daroma (Rabbi) , , ,  Johanan ben Zakkai (Rabban) , Jose de-Kfar Dan (Rabbi) ,  –, –, , –, , , Jose Gelilia (Rabbi)  ,  Jose ha-Cohen (Rabbi)  Johanan de-Kezion (Rabbi) ,  Jose ha-Galili (Rabbi) , , –, Johanan de-min (of) Ruma (Rabbi) , , ,  ,  Jose Heifani (of Haifa) , , , Johanan ha-Makoti (Rabbi) , , , ,   Jose Ludea (Rabbi)  Johanan (Rabbi), Avi (father of) R. Jose Madah (Manda, Rabbi)  Simeon ,  Jose Mamlahia (of Mamla) (Rabbi) Johannes, Comes of the Sacred , ,  Largesses  Jose Maonah (of Ma"on) , ,  Jonah (Rabbi) , , –, , Jose son of the Damascene (Rabbi) , –, , ,   JonahBozraiah(orMezuzra) Jose Resha  (Rabbi) , – ,  Jose Zeidania (of Zidon) (Rabbi) , Jonah de-Kfar Imi (Rabbi) (see also  Judah de Kfar Imi) ,  Joseh ben Dosetai de-min (of) Kfar Jonatan (Rabbi) ,  Nahum (of Capernaum)  Jonatan (or Johanan) ha-Kitoni JosehbenJudahIshKfarha-Bavli (Rabbi)  (Rabbi)  Jonathan (brother of Rabbi Dosa) Joseph ben ha-Hotef Efrati  (Rabbi)  Joseph ben R. Joshua ben Levi Jonathan ben Hersha of Gennosar (Rabbi) ,   Josephus , , –, , , , Jonathan de-Beth Guvrin (Rabbi) , , , – , , ,  Joshua (ben Hananiah) (Rabbi) , Jonathan, safra de-Gufta (= scribe of , –, –, –, – Gufta) (Rabbi) ,  , , , , ,   index of names

Joshua bar Memel (Mamla) ,  Judah haNasi (Rabbi) , –, – Joshua ben Betaira (Rabbi)  , , , –, –, –, Joshua ben Hyrcanus (Rabbi)  –, –, –, –, Joshua ben Levi (Rabbi) –, , , , –, , –, –, –, , , , –, , , –, – –, , , , , , , , , , –, , , , , , , , , –, –, , –,  , –, , , , , Joshua ben Nehemiah (Rabbi)  , –,  Joshua ben R. Tanhum de-Kfar Agin Judah Nesiah , , , , , (Rabbi)   Joshua de-Sakhnin (Rabbi) , , JudahNesiahII(Rabbi) , , , , ,  Judah Ish (man of) Kfar Neboraia Joshua Deromia (Rabbi) , , , (Rabbi)  –,  Judah Ish (man of) Kfar Tamarta Joshua ha-Garsi (of Gerasa) (Rabbi) (Rabbi)  , ,  Judah son of Jonatan (Rabbi)  Joshua Onia ,  Judan (or Jonah) de-Kfar Imi Joshua Uza"ah (of Uza) (Rabbi),  (Rabbi) ,  Josiah de-min Usha (Rabbi)  Judan (Rabbi)  Judean sages , –, –, – Judan Antadoria (Rabbi) ,  , –, , –, , Judan Arda m-Heimaus (= of , , –, , , Emmaus)   Judan bar Shalom (Rabbi)  Judah ben Agra (Rabbi) , , , Judan bar Signah (Rabbi) –,  ,  Judah ben Baba (Rabbi) , , Judan bar Zereda   Judan Gezuri (Rabbi) , , , Judah ben Betaira (Rabbi) ,   Judah ben Gadish (Rabbi)  Judanha-KohensonofRavNoach Judah ben Ilai (Rabbi) , , ,  , –, , – Judan Migdalah (Rabbi) , , Judah ben Jacob me- (of) Beth  Guvrin (Rabbi) , ,  Judan ben R.Hama de- (of) Kfar Judah ben Levi (Rabbi) ,  Tehumin (Rabbi) , ,  Judah ben Nakossa (Rabbi) ,  Judan ben R. Hiyya [Rabba] (Rabbi) Judah ben Papus   Judah ben Pazi (Rabbi) (= Judah ben Judan, son of R. Tarfon Berebi  Simon) , , , , ,  Judan the Priest (Rabbi)  Judah ben Pedaiah (Rabbi) ,  Judande-min(of)Galia(Rabbi) Judah bar Simon (Rabbi) –, , Justa bar Shunnem (Rabbi) , , ,   Judah ben Gamda (Rabbi)  Justa Havra ,  Judah bar Kalonimus (Rabbi)  Judah bar Titas (Rabbi) , ,  Kiris de-Demah (or Idmah) (Rabbi) Judah ha-Nahtom (Rabbi) , – ,   Kura  index of names 

Levi bar Biri (Rabbi) ,  Oenimis –,  Levi (Rabbi), , ,  Origen –,  Levi Sukhia (Rabbi) ,  Oshaia Zeira de-min Hivria ,  Levitas Ish (man of) Yavneh (Rabbi) Over (Oved) Gelilah ,  ,  Luliani bar Tabari (Rabbi)  Papias Ish (man of) Ono , ,  Luliani Daroma (Rabbi) , ,  Paregori de-Caesarin (Rabbi) , , , – Mana (Rabbi, Tana) , ,  Parta (the Great) (Rabbi),  Mana (Rabbi, Amora) , , , Parta (Rabbi)  , , , , , , – Parta (family)  , ,  PasDaroma(Rabbi,seeEpesha- Mana de-Shaab (Rabbi) , ,  Deromi) – Mar Ukva  Pazi  (see also Ben Pazi) Mataniah, (Rabbi)  Pinhas (bar Hama) (Rabbi) , , Meir (Rabbi) , , –, , – ,  , –, –, –, Pinhas ben Jair (Rabbi) – , ,  Pinhas de-Jaffa (Rabbi) , ,  Menahem Ish Galia,  Platia de Naveh (Rabbi) ,  Menahem Ish (man of) Kfar (or Beth) She"arim (Rabbi) , , Rabbah bar bar Hanah ,   Rabbah Ushaah  Menahem ben Signai , ,  Rabbanan de-Caesarin , , , Menahem Iodfa"ah (of Iodefat) , , , , , –, (Rabbi) , – –, ,  Menhama (Rabbi)  Rabbanan de- (of) Naveh , , , , , , , – Nahman de-Jaffa (Rabbi) , –,  , ,  Rabbi bar Kuriai , ,  Nahum (or Menahem) Ish (man of) Rabbi ben Maadia  Gimzo , , ,  Nahum (or Menahem) ben Simai Samuel (Rabbi)  (Rabbi)) ,  Samuel (Rabbi, brother of R. Pinhas) Nahum (Rabbi)  – Nahum ben Simeon  Samuel ben R. Jose bar Bun (Rabbi) Nasa (Nisa) de-Caesarin (bar R.  Tahlifa) (Rabbi) , , , , Samuel bar Abedimi, Abdima , –, ,  (Rabbi) ,  Nathan Bira"ah (Rabbi) , , Samuel bar Inyia (Rabbi)   Samuel bar Isaac (Rabbi) ,  Nehemiah Ish Shihin (Rabbi) , Samuel bar Nahman (Rabbi) , , , ,  ,  Nehuniah ben Elinatan Ish (man of) Samuel bar Tanhum (Rabbi)  Kfar ha-Bavli (Rabbi) , –, Samuel Kapotkia (Rabbi)   Samuel (ben) Galos Berebi  Nehuniah ben ha-Kaneh (Rabbi) , Samuel of Phrugiah (Rabbi)  , –,  Samuka bar Barucha   index of names

Shabbetai Zedoka (Rabbi)  Simeon ha-Timni , –,  Shalman bar Levi ,  Simeon ha-Zidoni (Rabbi)  Shaul de-Naveh (Rabbi) ,  Simeon Ludia (Rabbi) , , , Shamai (Rabbi) , , –,  ,  Simlai (Rabbi)  Shila de-Naveh (Rabbi) , ,  Shila Ish (man of) Kfar Tamarta Tahlifa of Caesarea (Rabbi) , (Rabbi) , ,  –,  Simeon Ish (man of) Kitron ,  Taifah (or Tiufi) Samuka (Rabbi) , Simeon bar Hillel (Rabbi) – , – Simeon (the) ha-Shilonite (Rabbi) Tanhum de-Jaffa (Rabbi) , –,   Simeon Ahi Azariah  Tanhum de-Kfar Agin (or Agon) Simeon ben Antipatris , , , (Rabbi) , , , –,  ,  Simeon ben Gamliel (Rabban) , Tanhum de-min Noi (Naveh) , , , , , , , (Rabbi) , ,   Tanhum (Rabbi) , , , , Simeon ben Hanania (Rabbi)   Simeon ben Jacob of Diospolis  Tanhum bar Hanilai (Rabbi) ,  Simeon ben Judah Ish (man of) Kfar Tanhum bar Hiyya Ish (man of) Kfar Akko (Rabbi) , ,  Akko , ,  Simeon ben Lakish (Rabbi) , , Tanhum Berebi  , , –, ,  Tanhum Bozraiah (Rabbi) , , Simeon ben Menasyah (Rabbi) ,  ,  Tanhum Edreiah (Rabbi) , , Simeon ben Netanel (Rabbi)   Simeon ben Pazi (Rabbi) –, , Tanhum de-min Farod (Rabbi) , ,  , –,  Simeon ben Jehozadak (Rabbi) , Tanhuma be-Rabbi Jonah me-Bostra ,  (Rabbi) ,  Simeon ben Akashiah (Rabbi)  Tarfon  Simeon ben Nanas (Rabbi)  Tarfon (Rabbi) , –, , –, Simeon bar Halafta (Rabbi) , , , , ,   Tarfon Berebi (Rabbi)  Simeon bar Yohai (Rabbi) , , , Taviumi (Rabbi)  , , , , , –, Theodosianus , ,  –,  Simeon bar-Giora of Gerasa  Ulla (bar Ishmael)  Simeon Berebi (Rabbi)  Ulla de-Caesarin (Rabbi) –, Simeon be-Rabbi (Rabbi)  , – Simeon ha-Mehozi (Rabbi) , , Ulla Bira"ah (of Biria) ,  ,  Uziel Brei de-R. Hunia de-Beth Simeon ha-Pakuli  Hauran (Rabbi) ,  Simeon ha-Shazuri (Rabbi) ,  Simeon ha-Shikmoni (of Shikmona) Valentinianus  , – index of names 

Yakim Ish (man of) Hadid (Rabbi) Zavdi ben Levi , ,  , –,  Zekenim (see Elders) ,  Yosef ben Eleazar ben Shila ben Zeira (Rabbi) , , , , – Horsha  , , , , –, , ,  Zachariah ben ha-Kazzab (Rabbi)  Zeira bar Hama (Rabbi)  Zadok (Rabbi) , , ,  Zeira Brei de-rabbi Abbahu (Rabbi) Zakkai de-Cabul (Rabbi) , – , –, ,   Zerikan (Rabbi) , ,  Zakkai de-Shaab (Rabbi) , , Zugga de-Caesarin , , –   Zakkai Ish (man of) Ianoa (Rabbi) 

INDEX OF GEOGRAPHICAL PLACES

Abu Kabir  Batanaea  Achal Arav ,  Beer Sheva  A-Damia  Belvoir  Aelia Capitolina ,  Bene-Berak , , ,  Afaratah (or Ofaraim, Ofaraia)  Beror Hayil  Agin, Agon , – Beth Arieh ,  Aiitalu  Beth Gophnin , , , ,  Akhbara –,  Beth Guvrin (see also Eleutheropo- Akko –, , , , , , lis) , , –, –, –, –, –, –, , , –, –, , –, , , , –, ,   Beth Guvrin Valley  Akrabata  Beth Hauran, Hauaratan , – Alma  ,  Alma a Shaab  Beth Letpha  Amiad  Beth Ma"on (see also Ma"on)  Antadoria (Ein Tora) ,  Beth Natif ,  Antipatris , , –,  Beth Netofa Valley , , , Anwat Burekais  , ,  Arabia , , , –, , Beth Pagi   Beth She"an (see also Scythopolis) Arad  , –, , , ,  Arav –,  Beth She"arim , , –, Arbel , ,  –, , , –, – Argov  ,  Arnon River  Beth Shemesh  Ashdod  Beth Zedok (see also Zedoka)  Ashkelon , –, , , ,  Bethsaida , , ,  Asia Minor ,  Bikat Hauran (Hauaratan) ,  A-Tell  Biria , , , –,  Attushiya , ,  Bostra (Bozra) , , , –, Avun, Akhun  , , –, – Ayalon Valley  A-Zaharia  Cabul , , , ,  Caesarea , , , –, –, , Babylonia/n , , , , , , , , , , , –, , –, , , –, , , –, –, –, , , –, , , – –, , , , , –  , , , , , , , Baram  –, , , , –, Bartuta  , ,  Bashan –, , – Castra de-Gelil   index of geographical places

Coast, Coastal (see Shefelah) , – –, –, , , , – , , , , , , , , , , –, , , , –, , , , , , ,  –, –, –, , Colonia  –, , –, –, , –, –, –, Dabura (Devora) , –, , –, , –, –  , –, –, –, Daliat el-Carmel  , , , –, – Damascus , ,  , –, –, – Dan  , –, –, –, Daroma –, , , –, ,  –, –, , ,  Galilee, Lower , , , , , Dead Sea , –,  , , , , , , , Decapolis ,  , , , – Degania ,  Galilee, Upper , , , , , , Deir Hanah  , , , , , , , Deir Sa"ad  , , –, , –, Der"a  (see also Edrei) , ,  Dir el Balah  Gamla ,  Dor  Gat Hefer  Gaza , , –, , ,  Edrei , , , , –, Gelil (or Glilia) ,  –, – Gerasa , , – Eilut  Geva-Parashim  Ein el Joz  Gevul  Ein Hatra  Gezer , –, , ,  Ein Tav  Gilead Mountains  Ein Te"enah , , , ,  Gimzo , –, , , , –, Ein Tora ,   Eitarun  Ginneigar , , ,  El Makr  Ginosar Valley  El Midiah  Golan , , –, , –, – Eleutheropolis (see Beth Guvrin) , , , –, , , –,  , , , , , –, El-Kursi  , , –, , – Emmaus , , , –, , , Gonia  –, –, ,  Gophna ,  Eshtemoa –, –, – Gufta (or Guvta de-Ziporin) ,  Evlayim  Gush Halav –, , 

Farod , –, – Hadid , –,  Hamat , ,  Galia  Hamata de-Fahal (Hamata of Pelah) Galia Narbonasis   Galilean Valleys  Hammat Gader , , ,  Galilee , , , , –, , , – Har ha-Melekh (=Royal Mountain) , –, , –, , , , –,  index of geographical places 

Hartuv  Ikkesh –,  Hauaratan Valley  Iodefat , , ,  Hauran , –, , , –, , , –, – Jaffa , , , –, , , , Hebron (see Mount Hebron) , , , –, , Hesban   Hipushia ,  Jamnia (see also: Yavneh. Yavvenai) Hirbat (or Horbat) Rimmon  , ,  Hirbat Amudim  Jebel el Umba  Hirbat A-taibeh  Jenin  Hirbat Attusha  Jerusalem , , , , , , , , Hirbat Duran  , , , –, , , , Hirbat el-Babliya   Hirbat el-Bad  Jezreel Valley , , , , , Hirbat el-Uzeiz   Hirbat eth Thaum  Jish  Hirbat et-Tut  Jordan River , , , ,  Hirbat Fureir  Jordan Valley ,  Hirbat Irbid  Judea , , –, , –, , , Hirbat Jelil  , , , –, , , –, Hirbat Kubeibeh  –, –, –, –, , Hirbat Kur ,  , , –, –, –, Hirbat Luiza  , , , , , , , Hirbat Mimlah  , , , –, , , Hirbat Nabartin   Hirbat Qazion  Judean Desert  Hirbat Sadikin  Judean Hills , , , – Hirbat Serjuna  Judean plain  Hirbat Shema  Judean region ,  Hirbat Shum  Judean Shefelah (coastal region, see Hirbat Shweika  Coast)  Hirbat Sumaka  Judean toparchies  Hirbat Susiya ,  Hirbat Tibnah  Kafarta  Hirbat Tira  Kaskesaah – Hirbat Tiriya  Kazrin  Hirbat Usha  Kedesh  Hirbat Uza  Kerauah Valley  Hirbet Baraka  Kerem be-Yavneh  Hivria , , ,  Keruiah  Hutra  Kesulot  Huwwara  Ketonit – Kezion ,  Ianoa  Kfar (or Beth) She"arim ,  Iblin ,  Kfar #Ana ,  Idmah, Damah , , –, Kfar #Aziz   Kfar Afaratah   index of geographical places

Kfar Agin/Agon , , –, Lod, Lydda , , , –, –, ,  , –, –, , –, , Kfar Akko , , , ,  , , –, –, , Kfar Aqabi(ah)  , , , , , , , Kfar Baka  –, , , , –, Kfar Bartuta , , ,  –, , , , – Kfar Dan ,  , , –, , – Kfar Danna  , –, , , , , Kfar Darom , –,   Kfar Eichos, Avos, Achom (see Kfar Akko)  Ma"alot  Kfar Emum  Mahoz , , , , , –, Kfar Gevirol  – Kfar ha-Bavli , , ,  Makhaeros  Kfar Hananiah (Hanan) , ,  Mamla (or Mamlakh) , , – Kfar Hitya , ,  ,  Kfar Imi ,  Maon (see also Beth Maon)  Kfar Ittush (see Attushiya)  Marut  Kfar Juhanah  Mediterranean Sea , , , , Kfar Juna   Kfar Kana  Memla, Mamlahia (see Mamla) Kfar Mandi , ,  Meron, Meiron , , , –, Kfar Meshhed  , ,  Kfar Nahum  Mezuzra  (see Bostra) Kfar Neboria , –, , , Migdal Nunia (see Migdala)   Migdal Tuta  Kfar Sechania  Migdalah (see Taricheae) , , Kfar Sichni  ,  Kfar Signah – Minet Rubin  Kfar Tamarta , ,  Mishmar ha-Emek  Kfar Tamra  Moab  Kfar Tehumin , –, ,  Modi"in , , , , , ,  Kfar Tela  Montfort  Kfar Uziel  Mount Carmel , , , , , Kfar Yama ,   Kfar Yehoshua  Mount Drus  Kfar Zeitur  Mount Hebron , , –, , , Kibbutz Gvaram  , , –, , ,  Kibbutz Ramat Yohanan  Mount Hermon – Kifra – Mount Hiyya  Kiryat Ata  Mount Meiron ,  Kitron  Mount Scopus  Kurshi , , , ,  Mount Tabor 

Lake Hulah  Nahal Devorah (see Wadi Dabure) Lebanon   Legio  Nahal Sorek  index of geographical places 

Naveh, Nawa –, –, , , Sakah  , , , , , , , Sakhnin , –, , , – –, , –, ,  ,  Nazareth ,  Sakhnin Valley  Negev , ,  Samaria –, , , , , , Ninveh , ,   Samuka , , , – Ono ,  Sarongiah , ,  Scythopolis (see also Beth Shean) , Palaestinae Prima  , ,  Palaestinae Secunda  Sea of Galilee , , , , , Palestine –, –, , , , – , , , ,  , –, –, , , , – Sea of Tiberias ,  , , –, , , –, , Sepphoris , , , , –, , – –, –, –, , , , , –, , , –, , –, , , –, , , , , , –, , , , , , –, , –, , –, , , , –, , , , – , , , , –, – , –, –, –, , –, , , –, –, , –, , , –, , , , –, –, –, , , – –, , , , , , , ,  , –,  Peki"in , , ,  Shaab , ,  Pella , ,  Shazur  Peraea (-Transjordan) –, , Shefelah (see Coast) , , , – – , , – Petra ,  Shekh Shbani  Philadelphia  Shihin , ,  Philipopolis  Shikmona –,  Plain, Akko ,  Shunnem  Plain, coastal (see Coast) –, , Sidon ,  , , , , ,  Simonia – Plain, Judean  Sokho (Sukhia) , , –, – Plain, Lod , , , –, , , ,   Sulam Zor , ,  Plain, southern  Susita  Syria , , , , , , , Rabat Amon   Rafiah  Ramallah  Ta"anakh  Rekem  Taibeh ,  Rome –, , , , , , Taricheae (see Migdalah)  , , , , , ,  Tekoa , , , , , – Rosh Hanikrah  ,  Rosh Pina  Tel Badwiye (-Hanaton)  Royal Mountain—see Har HaMelech Tel el Fuchar  Ruma  Tel Kinerot   index of geographical places

Tel Ma"un  Usha , , , , , –, Tel Mazar  , , –, , , , Tel Tora ,  ,  Temple Mount  Uza  Tiberias , , , , , , , , , , , , –, –, , Via Maris – , , –, –, , –, , , , , Wadi Dabura  –, –, –, Wadi Mugib  –, –, –, , , , , , , –, Yavne"el  –, –, , – Yavneh , , –, –, –, , , , –, –, –, , , , –, –,  , , –, –, , Timnah , ,  –, –, , –, Tirata (or Tortia) ,  , –, , , , , Tiriya ,   Tivon , ,  Yavneh-Yam, , , –,  Trachon ,  Yokne"am  Transjordan , , –, , – , , , – Zedoka , , , –,  Tyre , ,  Zefat , –,  Zeitur  Um el-Umdan  Zidan , –, ,  UmmGuni Zohar ,  INDEX OF SUBJECTS

Academy , , , –, , – Border(s) , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , – –, –, , –, , , , , , , , , , , , –, – , ,  , ,  Aggadah , , , , , , Center(s) , –, , , –, , , –, , –, , –, , , , –, , – , , , ,  , –, , , , , Amora(im) ,  , , –, , –, Aramaic , , , , –, ,  , , , , , ,  Centers, rabbinic –, , , – Archaeological , , , , , , , , , –, –, , –, , , , , , , , –, –, –, –, – – , –, –, , – Assembly house  , , –, , , , Attendant , ,  , , , , , , , Aurum Coronarium  , –, , –, – , , –, –, , Babylonia/n , , , , , –, –, , –, –, , –, , , , –,  –, , , ,  Center(s), spiritual , , , , , Bar Kokhba Revolt , , , , , , , , , –, , , , , –, –, –, , –,  , , –, , –, , , Center(s), Torah , , , –, , , , –, , –, , , , –, , , –, , –, , , , – , , –, , , –, , –, –, – –, , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , –, –, , , –, , , ,  , , , , , – Christian , , , , , ,  ,  Basilica(s)  Chronology , , , – Bath, bathe (Bath/Bathhouse) , , City (Cities) , , –, , , , , – –, –, , , –, – Beraita –, , , , , , , , , –, , , –, , , –, , –, , –, , –, , – ,  , –, , –, , Beraita de-Tehumin ,  –, , , , –, BethMidrash(seealsohouseof , –, , , –, study, study hall)  –, , –, –, Bible , ,  , –, –, –, Boat ,  –, –  index of subjects

Codex Theodosianus , – House of the exilarch  Colony ,  House of Hillel  Commandment(s) , , –, House of R. Jannai , –,   Court , , , –, , Imperial Law , , , ,  ,  Impurity , , , –, , Culture , , , –, , , ,   Inland , ,  Inscription , , –, –, Date(s), dated , , , , , , , , –, , , , , , –, , , , ,  –, ,  Diaspora , , , , , , ,  Jewish society , ,  Disciple , , , , , –, , Judean society  , , –, –, , –, Judge , , , , , , – –, , –, , –, , , –, , , , , –, , , –, –, , ,  , –, , –, , , , , , , –, Land , , –, , , – , –, , , –, , , , , ,  , –, –, –, Law (see Oral law, Written law) , , –, –, ,  , , –, , , , , – , , , , , , , Economy , ,  , , , , , , , Expound(ed) , , , , –, , , , , , –, , , , , , – , –,  List of Boundaries –,  Livelihood , , , ,  Fear, supernatural  Map , , , –, , ,  Geography ,  Maritime , , , , , , Greek , , , , , , ,  – Market  Master(s) (see Rabotenu) , , Halakhah , , , , , , – , , –, , , , , , , , , , ,  , , –, , , , Merchandise  –, , –, , , Metivta Rabba  –, , , , , , Migration , , , ,   Hebrews  Network,, Hellenistic , , , , , , , Nezikin , , – , –, –, –, Non-Jews , ,  , –, , , –, , –, , –,  Oil  Hinterland ,  Oral law , , , , –, Holy Congregation (Assembly)  , ,  index of subjects 

Pagan , , , , , , , , , , –, –,  , –, –, –, –, , –, , – Parnas (see Community Leader) , , –,   Rabbinic traditions  Patriarch (Nasi) , –, , , Rabotenu (see Rabbis)  , , , –, –, Roads , , , , , , , , , , , –, , , , –, –, – , , , –, –, , , , ,  –, , , –, , Roman –, , , –, –, , –, , , , –, –, –, , –, , ,  –, , , –, , , , Patriarchal dynasty  , , , , , , , Patriarchal family –, , , , –, , , , , , ,  , , –, , –, Patriarchal house ,  –, , ,  Periphery , –, , , , , – Rural –, –, , , , , – , , , , –, , , , –, , , , , –, , , , –, , , , , , – –, , , , –, , , –, , , , , , , ,   Pilgrimage  Pious (hassid) , , , , , Sabbatical year  –, ,  Sailor(s) ,  Polis –, , , , , , , Scribe(s) ,  ,  Settlements (urban, rural) –, , Port(s) , , , , , , , –, , –, –, ,  , –, , , , , , – Pottery , , , , ,  , –, –, –, , , Priest , , , , , –, –, –, –, , , , –, , , , –, –, , – , , ,  , –, –, –, Primates  –, –, –, , Profession , ,  , , –, , –, Public , , , , , , , , –, –, –, , , , , ,   Purity , , , , ,  Sabbath , , ,  Ship(s)  Rabbinic Centers, see Centers, Slave(s)  Rabbinic Social , , , , , –, Rabbinic Literature (sources, texts) –, , , , , , –, , –, –, , , , ,  –, , , –, –, – Study hall (see also Study House) , , , , , , , , , , , –, , , , , , , –, –, –, , , , ,  –, –, , , – Study house, (see Study hall, House , , –, , , , of Study) , –  index of subjects

Synagogue , , , , , , , , –, –, –, , , , , , , –, –, –, , , , –, , ,  –, , , , –, Synedrii/ion – –, , , ,  Towns, see also Cities, Villages , , Tanna, tannaitic , , , , –, –, –, , , –, , , , , –, –, , , –, –, –, –, , , , , –, – , , , , , , , , , , , , –, , , , , , , , , ,   Tax , –,  Teacher(s) , , , , , , , Urban –, –, , , , , , , –, –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , –, , , – , –, –, –, , , , , –, , –, , , –, , –, , , , , , , –,  ,  Urbanization , –, , , Temple Mount  , , –,  Temple, Second Temple , , , –, –, , –, , – Vessels  , –, , , , , , – Villages , , –, , , , , , , –, –, –, , , , , , –, , , –, –, – , –, , , –, , , , , , –, –, –, –, , –, , , , , , , –, , –, – –, , , , ,  , –,  Tombstone , , –, , ,  Weight(y) , , ,  Toparchy/ies –, , , , , Wheat  ,  Women, woman , , , – Torah –, –, , , , ,  –, , –, –, –, Written law ,  SUPPLEMENTS TO THE JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF JUDAISM

113. Cappelletti, S. The Jewish Community of Rome. From the Second Cen tury B. C. to the Third Century C.E. 2006. ISBN 90 04 15157 5 114. Orlov, A.A. From Apocalypticism to Merkabah Mysticism Studies in the Slavonic Pseudepigrapha. 2007. ISBN-13: 978 90 04 15439 1, ISBN-10: 90 04 15439 6 115. Macaskill, G. Revealed Wisdom and Inaugurated Eschatology in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. 2007. ISBN-13: 978 90 04 15582 4, ISBN-10: 90 04 15582 1 116. Dvorjetski, E. Leisure, Pleasure and Healing Spa Culture and Medicine in Ancient Eastern Mediterranean. 2007. ISBN-13: 978 90 04 15681 4, ISBN-10: 90 04 15681 X 117. Segal, M. The Book of Jubilees Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology. 2007. ISBN-13: 978 90 04 15057 7, ISBN-10: 90 04 15057 9 118. Xeravits, G.G. & J. Zsengellér (eds.). The Books of the Maccabees: His- tory, Theology, Ideology. Papers of the Second International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 9-11 June, 2005. 2007. ISBN-13: 978 90 04 15700 2, ISBN-10: 90 04 15700 X 119. LiDonnici, L. & A. Lieber (eds.). Heavenly Tablets. Interpretation, Iden tity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism. 2007. ISBN-13: 978 90 04 15856 6, ISBN-10: 90 04 15856 1 120. Assefa, D. (ed.). L’ Apocalypse des animaux (1 Hen 85-90): une propa- gande militaire? Approches narrative, historico-critique, perspectives théologiques. 2007. ISBN 978 90 04 16267 9 121. Boccaccini, G. & J.J. Collins (eds.). The Early Enoch Literature. 2007. ISBN 978 90 04 16154 2 122. Hilhorst, A., É. Puech & E. Tigchelaar (eds.). Flores Florentino. Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Flo- rentino García Martínez. 2007. ISBN 978 90 04 16292 1 123. Cohen, N.G. Philo’s Scriptures: Citations from the Prophets and Writ- ings. Evidence for a Haftarah Cycle in Second Temple Judaism. 2007. ISBN 978 90 04 16312 6 124. Troxel, R.L. LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation. The Strate- gies of the Translator of the Septuagint of Isaiah. 2008. ISBN 978 90 04 15394 3 125. Adams, S.L. Wisdom in Transition. Act and Consequence in Second Tem ple Instructions. 2008. ISBN 978 90 04 16566 3 126. Voitila,A. & J. Jokiranta (eds.). Scripture in Transition. Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo. 2008. ISBN 978 90 04 16582 3 127. Xeravits, G.G. & J. Zsengellér (eds.). Studies in the Book of Ben Sira. Papers of the Third International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Shime‘on Centre, Pápa, Hungary, 18-20 May, 2006. 2008. ISBN 978 90 04 16906 7 128. Gross, A.D. Continuity and Innovation in the Aramaic Legal Tradition. 2008. ISBN 978 90 04 15284 7 129. Lied, L.I. The Other Lands of Israel. Imaginations of the Land in 2 Baruch. 2008. ISBN 978 90 04 16556 4 130. Martin Hogan, K. Theologies in Conflict in 4 Ezra. Wisdom Debate and Apocalyptic Solution. 2008. ISBN 978 90 04 12969 6 131. Wright III, B.G. Praise Israel for Wisdom and Instruction. Essays on Ben Sira and Wisdom, the Letter of Aristeas and the Septuagint. 2008. ISBN 978 90 04 16908 1 132. Rodgers, Z., M. Daly-Denton & A. Fitzpatrick McKinley (eds.). A Wandering Galilean: Essays in Honour of Seán Freyne. ISBN 978 90 04 17355 2 133. Anisfeld, R.A. Sustain Me With Raisin-Cakes. Pesikta deRav Kahana and the Popularization of Rabbinic Judaism. 2009. ISBN 978 90 04 15322 6 134. Batsch, C. & M.Vârtejanu-Joubert (eds.). Manières de penser dans l’An tiquité méditerranéenne et orientale. Mélanges offerts à Francis Schmidt par ses élèves, ses collègues et ses amis. 2009. ISBN 978 90 04 17518 1 135. Gambetti, S. TheAlexandrian Riots of 38 C.E. and the Persecution of the Jews. A Historical Reconstruction. 2009. ISBN 978 90 04 13846 9 136. Bieringer, R., F. García Martínez, D. Pollefeyt & P.J. Tomson (eds.). The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature. 2009. ISBN 978 90 04 17588 4 137. Kraft, R.A. Exploring the Scripturesque. Jewish Texts and their Christian Contexts. 2009. ISBN 978 90 04 17010 0 138. Rosenfeld, B.Z. Torah Centers and Rabbinic Activity in Palestine 700- 400 CE. History and Geographic Distribution. 2010. ISBN 978 90 04 17838 0 139. Schmidt Goering, G. Wisdom’s Root Revealed. Ben Sira and the Election of Israel. 2009. ISBN 978 90 04 16579 3 140. Adelman, A. The Return of the Repressed: Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer and the Pseudepigrapha. 2009. ISBN 978 90 04 17049 0

ISSN 1384-2161