Rabbi and the Origins of the Patriarchate*

journal of jewish studies, vol. liv, no. 2, autumn 2003

Rabbi and the Origins of the Patriarchate *

Sacha Stern School of Oriental and African Studies, London

urn it and turn it, for all is in it’ (Avot 5:26). The Jewish patriarchate ‘T of late antiquity has been the object of much revisionism in the last decade, not least in recent issues of this journal. Without any new sources coming to light, the same evidence from rabbinic literature, epigraphy, and Graeco-Roman and patristic literature has been turned and turned again in a kaleidoscopic fashion, yielding each time new models and new configurations. In spite of its inherent repetitiveness, this pursuit has not been in vain. Some of the most fundamental aspects of the patriarchate have been questioned and challenged, to the effect that the field appears, at present, to have again become wide open.1 This article joins the revisionist bandwagon, with the familiar ambition of radically transforming the accepted view. My argument can be summarised as follows: 1. The title of nasi, and the patriarchate as a form of socio-religious leadership, only began with Rabbi. 2. Rabbi was not the son of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, but an entirely ‘new man’, who subsequently founded a new dynasty. 3. Rabbi’s origins were probably a local, Galilean aristocratic family. 4. The patriarchate itself was an aristocratic concept superimposed upon the rabbinic movement, which may have had formative, long-term ef- fects on rabbinic Judaism. This theory will appear unlikely at first sight, but it is based on a close as-

* An earlier version of this paper was presented at Martin Goodman’s seminar in Wolfson College, Oxford; I am grateful for his and other participants’ comments. This paper was writ- ten with the help of a research leave award from the Arts and Humanities Research Board. All references to the Tosefta are to the Zuckermandel edition. 1 Important contributions in the last decade include L. I. Levine, ‘The status of the Patri- arch in the third and fourth centuries: sources and methodology’, Journal of Jewish Studies 47, 1996, 1–32 (see also idem, ‘The Jewish Patriarch (Nasi) in 3rd century Palestine’, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt, II.19.2, 1979, 649–88; and idem, The Rabbinic Class of Ro- man Palestine in Late Antiquity, Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi and New York: JTS, 1989); E. Habas Rubin, äéèñàðéã ìù äéúåãìåúì Ñ úéèðæéáÐúéîåøä äôå÷úá àéùðä, PhD Diss. Tel Aviv Univer- sity, 1992; eadem, ‘Rabban Gamaliel of Yavneh and his sons: the patriarchate before and after the Bar Kokhva revolt’, Journal of Jewish Studies 50, 1999, 21–37; D. Goodblatt, The Monar- chic Principle: Studies in Jewish Self-Government in Antiquity, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994; M. Jacobs, Die Institution des jüdischen Patriarchen: Eine quellen- und traditionskritische Studie zur Geschichte der Juden in der Späntantike, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995; C. Hezser, The So- cial Structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997; S. Schwartz, ‘The Patriarchs and the Diaspora’, Journal of Jewish Studies 50, 1999, 208–22. Note in particular Schwartz’s challenge to the notion that the patriarchate constituted a formal ‘institution’. In this article, I shall use the term ‘patriarchate’ in a loose sense, without necessarily implying the institution which Schwartz rightly questions. 194 journal of jewish studies sessment of all the evidence. Many of its features are not original: thus (1) has already been suggested by Martin Goodman, and then more forcefully by Martin Jacobs.2 Indeed, it would not surprise me if many components of my theory were found somewhere in the vast secondary literature of the last fifty years. These ideas have not been articulated, however, into a single coherent theory, and their broader historical significance has not yet been properly realised. More importantly, many of these ideas have been floated as possibil- ities, but without satisfactory substantiation. My debt to Martin Jacobs, for instance, can hardly be concealed—his work is insufficiently known, perhaps because he wrote it in German—but many of his ideas can and should be substantiated through a more detailed analysis of rabbinic sources. For only a strict, empirical approach can lead, in my view, to a reasonable measure of acceptance and scholarly consensus. In one respect, my approach will be everything but revisionist: most of this study will be based on the ‘evidence’ of rabbinic sources. It must be made clear that I am not making any claim about their historicity. In many cases, it will be shown that specific passages must be regarded as literary constructions; and there would certainly be a case to argue, by extension, that the whole of rabbinic literature falls into this category. If this were true, nothing historical could ever be said about Rabbi or the origins of the patriarchate.3 This position, however, would be rather extreme. Rabbinic sources presumably have some relevance to the historical reality that produced them, even if this relevance is difficult to ascertain. It is legitimate, therefore, to use them for historical purposes, provided one remembers that the historical thesis that emerges does not go beyond what it is: a history of the patriarchate as inferable from rabbinic literature.

1. The Origins of the Title ‘nasi’ Textbooks of Jewish history present a chronological list of the patriarchs run- ning from Hillel the Elder (late 1st century BCE) to the last R. Gamaliel (early 5th century CE). Dates in this list are mostly round ﬁgures; they vary slightly from one textbook to the next, and are anyway intended as only approxi- mate:4 Hillel I the Elder 20 BCE–20 CE R. Gamaliel I the Elder 20–50 CE R. Simeon b. Gamaliel I died 70 CE

2 M. Goodman, State and Society in Roman Galilee, AD 132–212, 2nd edn, London: Vallen- tine Mitchell, 2000, 111–18; Jacobs, op. cit. 99–123. 3 See in particular O. Meir, úåøåñî ìù ïúëéøò éëøãá ïåéò ºéáø ìù åúøéèô øåôéñ,inMeh. qerei Yerushalayim be-Sifrut Ivrit 12, 1990, 147–77. For a general discussion, see J. L. Rubenstein, Tal- mudic Stories: Narrative Art, Composition, and Culture, Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999. 4 The list below is drawn from L. H. Schiﬀman, From Text to Tradition: A History of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism, Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1991, 205. It can be traced back to the works of Graetz, in the 19th century. See also Jacobs, op. cit. (n. 1), 205–11. Habas, op. cit. (n. 1) 1992, 138–69, accepts this model with little questioning. rabbi and the origins of the patriarchate 195

R. Gamaliel II of Yavneh 96–115 R. Simeon b. Gamaliel II 140–170 R. Judah I the Patriarch (‘Rabbi’) 170–220 R. Gamaliel III 220–230 R. Judah II the Patriarch 230–270 R. Gamaliel IV 270–290 R. Judah III 290–320 Hillel II 320–365 R. Gamaliel V 365–385 R. Judah IV 385–400 R. Gamaliel VI 400–425 The list implies that the patriarchate originated at least in the 1st century BCE, that Hillel the Elder founded a dynasty that lasted until R. Gamaliel VI, and that the patriarchs succeeded each other from father to son, continuously (at least from R. Simeon b. Gamaliel II), over the period of nearly half a mil- lennium. Early origins, patrilineage, and continuity are comfortable historical notions which we should view, however, with suspicion. As we shall see, there is little evidence in contemporary rabbinic sources to support this model. This sequence of patriarchs, assumed by most modern historians, is only a tradition going back to the synthesising activity of late Geonic Babylonian rabbis, in whose works (e.g. the Seder Tannaim we-Amoraim, Kahan ed., pp. 2–3) this list (or a similar one) is attested for the first time. The integration of early rabbinic history into a simple structure is a specifically Babylonian trend which, as we shall see, is already manifest in various forms in the Babylonian Talmud. Recent revisionists have argued that the patriarchate did not begin, in fact, before Rabbi (R. Judah I). Goodman has largely relied, for this, on external evidence. The earliest reference, in external sources, to something like a Jewish patriarch is in Origen’s famous letter to Africanus, dating from c. 230–240 CE; whilst most of the external evidence (e.g. Roman imperial legislation) dates from the 4th and early 5th centuries.5 External evidence, however, runs counter to early rabbinic literature, which has plenty to say on patriarchs until R. Judah II in the mid 3rd century, but virtually nothing thereafter. Preference for one or the other body of sources has lead historians, not surprisingly, to opposite conclusions.6 This article is not about the 4th and 5th centuries, but about the origins of the patriarchate. I shall be largely restricted, therefore, to rabbinic sources. Nevertheless, I shall show that rabbinic sources confirm, on close examina- tion, the contention that the first patriarch was Rabbi. This contention depends, to a great extent, on what is meant by ‘patriarch’. Patriarchs are usually identified in terms of two criteria: (1) their position as leaders; and (2) their title of ‘patriarch’ or nasi. (1) The functions, scope, and effectiveness of patriarchal leadership has been subject to intense debate in recent years: it is unclear, for example,

5 Goodman, op. cit. (n. 2), 111–18. 6 See on this the disagreement between B. Rosenfeld, §ãä äàîá ìàøùé õøàá úåàéùðä øáùî äøéôñì, Zion 53, 1988, 239–57, and Jacobs, op. cit. (n. 1), 123. 196 journal of jewish studies whether the patriarch’s functions were purely religious, social, or even political in nature. It is also unclear whether his leadership was restricted to the rabbis, or extended more widely to the Jewish communities of Palestine, or wider still, to the Diaspora; and in each of these cases, acceptance of his authority may have been variable and uncertain. Revisionists who argue that Rabbi was the ‘first’ patriarch cannot deny that R. Gamaliel II, two generations earlier, also asserted some form of leadership over other rabbis, as is evidentatleastfromstoriesinM.Rosh Hashanah 2:8–9, Y.Ta anit 4:1 (67d), etc. This obfuscates the argument, because even if the leadership of Rabbi was considerably more developed and more pronounced—which we should not dispute—the claim that he was the ‘first’ leader only becomes a question of intensity or scale. (2) The title of nasi is a more objective, and perhaps more significant, cri- terion for identifying the patriarchate. Although this term can be used in a variety of senses, its use in late antiquity as the title of specific rabbis (i.e. people designated by the title of rabbi or rabban) in a position of leadership is unambiguous and very distinctive. Many have observed that in early rabbinic sources, R. Judah I is the first to whom the title of nasi is consistently applied (‘Rabbi Yehudah ha-nasi’).7 The emergence of this title in Rabbi’s period clearly suggests the institutionalisation of patriarchal leadership, and perhaps, as Jacobs has argued, the very creation of this institution.8 This argument can be pushed much further. It can be shown, indeed, that the title of nasi in its patriarchal sense is never associated with any of Rabbi’s predecessors. The title nasi is attributed to Hillel the Elder,9 and the Baby-

7 The equation of Rabbi (or Rabbenu)andRabbi Yehudah ha-nasi is explicitly stated in Y.Sanhedrin 11:4 (30a) and B.Shabbat 32b, but evident from numerous other sources. These names, however, can sometimes be applied to R. Judah II (see Jacobs, op. cit. (n. 1), 122–23); only context can determine which R. Judah is meant, although R. Judah I is considerably more common in rabbinic literature (see Rosenfeld, op. cit., n. 6). H. Mantel (Studies in the History of the Sanhedrin, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1961, 40; followed by Goodblatt, op. cit. (n. 1), 183 and n. 19.) asserts that the use of the name Rabbi Yehudah ha-nasi for R. Judah I is only attested in the Babylonian Talmud, with only very few exceptions in Palestinian sources (which he assumes are the result of Babylonian ‘contamination’ of the manuscripts). This, however, is completely incorrect. Whilst I have found approximately 15 cases of this usage in the Babylonian Talmud (depending on how ‘cases’ are counted), mainly in baraitot, Rabbi Yehudah ha-nasi is applied to R. Judah I in at least 5 Palestinian sources, and probably more; the difference between Babylonian and Palestinian sources is therefore insignificant. Space prevents me from elaborating, but the Palestinian sources are: Avot 2:2 (cited by Mantel), possibly (pace Good- blatt) T.Sotah 3:16 (p. 297), definitely T.Sotah 6:8 (p. 305), Mekhilta de-R.Yishmael, Amaleq 1 (Horovitz and Rabin, eds, p. 1), possibly Avot d.R.Natan (B) 32, definitely Y.Berakhot 3:1 (6a), possibly Y.Peah 1:5 (16c), definitely Y.Bava Metzia 4:3 (9d), probably Y.Sanhedrin 11:4 (30a), probably Genesis Rabbah 100:7 (Theodor-Albeck ed. p. 1289), probably Avot d.R.Natan (A) 16, and possibly ibid. 18 and 28. Jacobs (ibid. 115–23) is right to acknowledge that the name Rabbi Yehudah ha-nasi (as opposed to Rabbi) remains relatively rare. Nevertheless, its occurrence in fairly early sources (Avot, Tosefta, Mekhilta) suggests that it is early, and that R. Judah I might have been called Rabbi Yehudah ha-nasi already in his lifetime. 8 Jacobs, op. cit. (n. 1). For earlier proponents of this argument see E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 BC– AD 135), revised and edited by G. Vermes and F. G. B. Millar, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973–1987, ii. 217, n. 72; Goodman, op. cit.(n.2), 111–18; and for further references, Goodblatt, op. cit. (n. 1), 183–84. 9 T.Pesah. im 4:2 (p. 163); Y.Pesah. im 6:1 (33a); B.Pesah. im 66a. rabbi and the origins of the patriarchate 197 lonian Talmud does state that ‘Hillel, Simeon, Gamaliel, and Simeon held their position of nasi (nesiut) during the period of the Temple’,10 but this is in the significantly different sense of ‘head of the Sanhedrin’ or of some other, specific assembly.11 The nasi as head of the Sanhedrin would have differed completely from Rabbi and his successors. Firstly, it is clear from rabbinic sources that the Sanhedrin no longer existed in Rabbi’s period, and that indeed it ceased to exist after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE;12 the later nesi im would have had no Sanhedrin or equivalent assembly to preside over. Secondly, the Tosefta describes Hillel, subsequently to his appointment, as ‘instructing the laws of Passover’, which implies that as nasi,hecarried supreme authority in halakhah;13 whereas Rabbi and his successors, in spite of all their alleged powers, are never presented as supreme halakhic authorities.14 After 70 CE, the title nasi (in whatever sense) among rabbis appears to have fallen in complete disuse. It is never attributed to R. Yoh.anan b.Zakkai, in spite of the belief of many scholars that he was nasi.15 A few sources appear to attribute it to R. Gamaliel II, but this is probably a misinterpretation. One passage, T.Shabbat 7:18 (pp. 118–19), discusses funeral pyres of nesi im and then cites the case of the pyre of R. Gamaliel. Many scholars believe this means R. Gamaliel II, because of the involvement in the same story of On-

10 B.Shabbat 15a; it is significant that this passage is only in the Babylonian Talmud, and com- prises already a segment of the patriarchal lists that are found in late Geonic Babylonian sources. The identity of the first Simeon is subject to debate; the second Simeon is clearly R. Simeon b. Gamaliel I. 11 As in T.Sanhedrin 8:1 (p. 427) (cited further below). In M.H. agigah 2:2, the title nasi is associated with that of av beit din (‘head of the Court’)—although it is unclear which of the two was Hillel, and which his contemporary Shammai. See Goodblatt, op. cit. (n. 1), 184–87; Jacobs, op. cit. (n. 1), 27–29 and 99–102. Whether nasi in this early, pre-70 context means head of the Sanhedrin specifically (as opposed to some other assembly) remains unclear: see Jacobs, op. cit. (n. 1), 60–90, and on this passage 104–05; also Habas, op. cit. (n. 1) 1992, 30–37. 12 The Sanhedrin is never mentioned in connection with any subsequent rabbi, whether in a halakhic or aggadic context, throughout the Tannaitic and Amoraic periods (on R. Gamaliel in T.Sanhedrin 8:1 (p. 427), see presently below). M.Sotah 9:11 refers to the end of the Sanhedrin, although no date for this is supplied; another source, however, associates the end of the Sanhedrin with the destruction of the Temple (B.Ketubot 30a–b, B.Sanhedrin 37b, B.Sotah 8b; see Good- blatt, op. cit. (n. 1), 233–35). In M.Makkot 1:10, R.Tarfon and R.Aqiva (younger contemporaries of R. Gamaliel II) are cited as saying ‘if we had been in the Sanhedrin’, which might imply that there was no Sanhedrin for them to be in (Goodblatt, op. cit. (n. 1), 236; but see reservations of Hezser, op. cit. (n. 1), 188). The only contradictory source is Genesis Rabbah 97:13 (Theodor and Albeck, eds, pp. 1220–21), with a parallel in B.Rosh Hashanah 31a–b, which describes the San- hedrin as going into exile after 70 CE from Jerusalem to various places including Yavneh, Usha, Sepphoris, and eventually Tiberias. However, none of these localities are otherwise associated with a Sanhedrin. The historicity of this passage has been widely rejected (Levine, op. cit.(n.1) 1989, pp. 78–82; Hezser, op. cit. (n. 1), 171–72 and 186–90); in this passage, ‘Sanhedrin’ is best interpreted, I would suggest, as metaphorical for the rabbinic movement. 13 See n. 9 above, and on this passage Jacobs, op. cit. (n. 1), 102–03. 14 Note also that contemporary, external sources (Acts 5:34–39; Josephus, Jewish War 4:159, and Life 190–96, 309) suggest that Gamaliel I and Simeon b. Gamaliel I (whom they are os- tensibly referring to) were neither leaders nor heads of the Sanhedrin, but rather only eminent Pharisees (Schürer, op. cit. (n. 8), ii. 216–17; Goodblatt, op. cit. (n. 1), 212–14). Obviously, the historicity of rabbinic sources for this period should not be taken for granted. 15 Jacobs, op. cit. (n. 1), 105–06. 198 journal of jewish studies qelos the convert, who is generally dated to the early 2nd century.16 However, the text explicitly reads (in all its recensions) ‘R. Gamaliel the Elder’, and so the parallels in B.Avodah Zarah 11a and Semah. ot 8:6 (Higger ed. p. 151). I see no reason why this reading should not be accepted.17 Another passage, T.Sanhedrin 8:1 (p. 427), describes the nasi as sitting at the centre of the San- hedrin, and then cites the case of R. Gamaliel who sat, at Yavneh, in the centre. This is a clear reference to R. Gamaliel II,18 with an intimation that he was nasi. But this raises a difficulty, as no Sanhedrin appears to have survived into the Yavnean period (see above). It should be noted, however, that in this passage the terms ‘Sanhedrin’ or ‘nasi’ are not mentioned explicitly with reference to R. Gamaliel. It is likely, therefore, that in this story R. Gamaliel was sitting at the centre of some other meeting, and that this story is only cited by the Tosefta for associative purposes.19 Another passage, the Vatican manuscript of Y.Shevi it 1:1 (33a) reads ‘R. Gamaliel the nasi and his court permitted’, but as has been widely recognised, this passage refers to R. Gamaliel III.20 The only passages that clearly suggest R. Gamaliel II as nasi are in the Babylonian Talmud (three in total). Two of these are statements by the ‘stammaitic’, anonymous redactor (B.Rosh Hashanah 24b (= B.Avodah Zarah 43a), and B.Qiddushin 32b). Jacobs rejects them on the grounds of their lateness; one may add that the Babylonian Talmud is generally sloppy with titles, especially those from Palestine.21 However, a stronger argument is needed for the third passage, which would appear, as a baraita, to have a reasonable claim of historical reliability. The baraita reads as follows: ïáøá äùòîå ®àéùð äöøé ïë íà àìà äðùä úà ïéøáòî ïéà ºø¢ú ¬àáì ääùå àéøåñáù ãçà ïåèìù ìöà úåùø ìåèéì êìäù ìàéìîâ ìàéìîâ ïáø àáùëå ¬ìàéìîâ ïáø äöøéù úðî ìò äðùä úà åøáéòå ®úøáåòî äðùä úàöîð ¬éðà äöåø øîàå

16 E.g. Goodblatt, op. cit. (n. 1), 188. 17 See discussion in Habas, op. cit. (n. 1) 1992, 35; Jacobs, op. cit. (n. 1), 52–56 and 108, n. 462. The reference to Onqelos remains chronologically inconsistent, but this diﬃculty does not justify emending the text. The text appears however to have been emended (with the omission of ‘the Elder’) by the author of Aggadot ha-Talmud, the Rif, and the Rosh (see Diqduqei Sofrim). 18 Only R. Gamaliel II is associated with Yavneh (in M.Rosh Hashanah 2:8–9, etc.). 19 So Goodblatt, op. cit. (n. 1), 189–90; Jacobs, op. cit. (n. 1), 62–64. 20 See S. Lieberman, Tosefta Kifeshutah, vol. 2, New York: JTS, 1955, 483; also Jacobs, op. cit. (n. 1), 107, and Goodblatt, op. cit. (n. 1), 188, n. 29. The Leiden manuscript, and so all parallel sources (T.Shevi it 1:1 (p. 61), B.Mo ed Qatan 3b), read ‘R. Gamaliel’ (tout court). The identiﬁ- cation of this R. Gamaliel with R. Gamaliel III is supported by a number of indications, such as his sequential position in the Tosefta passage (ibid.), and the occurrence of the same phrase (‘Rabbi and his court permitted’) with reference to R. Judah I, his father, in T.Shevi it 4:17 (p. 67; cf M.Shevi it 6:4), and again with reference to his son R. Judah II in the interpolated gloss in M.Avodah Zarah 2:6 (on which see J. N. Epstein, äðùîä çñåðì àåáî, 2nd edn, Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1964, 949). But the strongest argument for R. Gamaliel III is that the Tannaim of the generation of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel II that are cited in M.Shevi it 1–2 (passim)andinT.Shevi it 1:1, and indeed M.Shevi it as a whole, are completely unaware of this enactment (Epstein, ibid., 245, n. 4). 21 Jacobs, op. cit. (n. 1), 107 and 199–200; see also Hezser, op. cit. (n. 1), 410. For the Babylo- nian Talmud’s sloppy use of titles, see for example B.Sanhedrin 11a, cited and discussed below. rabbi and the origins of the patriarchate 199

Our rabbis taught: one may not intercalate the year unless the nasi agrees. And it happened that Rabban Gamaliel went to obtain permission from some oﬃcial in Syria, and was delayed in returning, and they intercalated the year on condition that Rabban Gamaliel agree. And when Rabban Gamaliel returned and said ‘I agree’, the year turned out to be intercalated (B.Sanhedrin 11a).22 Again, there is no explicit statement that R. Gamaliel was nasi,butthe story is clearly cited to conﬁrm the ruling that intercalation requires the nasi’s agreement; one must assume, therefore, that R. Gamaliel (probably II)23 was a nasi.Thisbaraita has, however, a parallel in the Mishnah, which reads as follows: ®éàðú ìò äðùä úà íéøáòîù åãéòä íä ääùå àéøåñá ïåîâäî úåùø ìåèì êìäù ìàéìîâ ïáøá äùòîå àáùëå ¬ìàéìîâ ïáø äöøéùëì éàðú ìò äðùä úà åøáòå ¬àáì ®úøáòî äðùä úàöîðå ¬éðà äöåø øîà

They testified that one may intercalate the year conditionally. And it happened that Rabban Gamaliel etc. (M.Eduyot 7:7). In this version, the same story of R. Gamaliel is adduced for the very different purpose of confirming that one may intercalate the year conditionally; here, there is no implication that R. Gamaliel was nasi. Although it is possible that both versions are authentic Tannaitic sources, the Babylonian Talmud version shows clear signs of editorial revision. For example, its reference to ‘some official’ (ãçà ïåèìù) in Syria is a sloppy substitute for the Greek term hegemon (‘governor’) that appears in the Mishnaic source; hegemon is more precise, but would have meant little to the Babylonian editors of the Talmud. There is thus a reasonable case to argue that this baraita, like many other baraitot in the Babylonian Talmud,24 is a late, editorial modification of the original Mishnaic text, and therefore no reliable evidence that R. Gamaliel was nasi. The assumption in these three Babylonian Talmud passages that R. Gamaliel was nasi reflects a typically Babylonian attempt to rationalise or homogenise the history of the rabbinic movement in Palestine, by identifying single leaders for each of its generations and ascribing them the standard title of nasi. The same applies to the figure of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel II, who is nowhere called nasi (not in any Palestinian source) except in two passages of the Babylonian Talmud: a stammaitic (thus late) discussion in B.Mo ed Qatan 22b, and a story in B.Horayot 13b. The latter has been identified as a literary creation of the Babylonian Talmud, reflecting the reality of

22 See Jacobs, ibid., 108 and 197–98. 23 But note Habas’s argument, against common opinion, that the reference is to R. Gamaliel I(op. cit. (n. 1) 1992, 144–46). 24 See J. Hauptman, Development of the Talmudic Sugya: Relationship between Tannaitic and Amoraic Sources, Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1988; S. Y. Friedman, úåúééøáä àúôñåúáù ïäéúåìéá÷îì ïñçéå éìááä ãåîìúá, in D. Boyarin et al., Atara l’Haim: Studies in the Talmud and Medieval Rabbinic Literature in Honor of Professor Haim Zalman Dimitrovsky, Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2000, 163–201. 200 journal of jewish studies late Amoraic Babylonian institutions far more than of Tannaitic Palestinian society.25 Goodblatt argues, in particular, that the tripartite structure of nasi, av beit din (‘head of court’), and h. akham (‘sage’) that is assumed in this story is distinctly Babylonian, as the oﬃce of h. akham is not attested in Palestinian sources.26 By extension, it is reasonable to assume that the title nasi,inthis story, is similarly contrived. We may conclude that the title nasi in its patriarchal sense (as opposed to the pre-70 CE, Sanhedrin-related sense) is never applied to any of Rabbi’s predecessors, except in Babylonian sources that are historically unreliable. This would suggest that the patriarchate—i.e. the title nasi, and in a certain sense, its institutionalisation—did not begin before Rabbi, who is the ﬁrst in the sources to have the title nasi attached to his name.

2. The Lineage of Rabbi Another indication that Rabbi was the ﬁrst nasi appears in a passage of Gen- esis Rabbah on Genesis 49:10: íò úà ïéãåøù ìáááù úåéìâ éùàø åìà º¢äãåäéî èáù øåñé àì¢ ®ì÷îá ìàøùé äøåú íéãîìîù éáø úéá ìù íéàéùð åìéà º¢åéìâø ïéáî ÷÷çîå¢ ®ìàøùé õøàá íéáøá

‘The sceptre shall not depart from Judah’: these are the exilarchs in Babylonia, who rule over the people of Israel with a rod. ‘Nor the staﬀ from between his legs’: these are the patriarchs of the house of Rabbi, who teach Torah in public in the land of Israel (Genesis Rabbah 97:10, Theodor-Albeck p. 1219). The phrase that interests us here is ‘patriarchs of the house of Rabbi’: it suggests that Rabbi founded the patriarchal dynasty in the land of Israel. The parallel sources in B.Sanhedrin 5a and B.Horayot 11b read instead ‘the descendants of Hillel’ (ììä ìù åéðá éðá); but this is clearly a Babylonian editorial emendation, to make the polemical point that even the Palestinian patriarchs were descended from the Babylonian Hillel.27 This Babylonian version, along with other similar sources, has misled historians into believing that the patriarchate could be traced back to Hillel. But this belief is challenged by the Genesis Rabbah passage, which shows all the signs of being more authentic.28

25 On B.Mo ed Qatan 22b see Jacobs, op. cit. (n. 1), 112. On B.Horayot 13b see D. Goodblatt, éðùä ìàéìîâ ïá ïåòîù ïáø ãâð §øù÷§ä øåôéñ ìò, Zion 49, 1984, 349–74; Jacobs, ibid. 66–68; Rubenstein, op. cit. (n. 3), 176–211. 26 Goodblatt, ibid., 362–71. 27 See Jacobs, op. cit. (n. 1), 35–39 and 218–20. The Babylonian origins of Hillel are stated and emphasised in B.Pesah. im 66a (but also in the parallel in Y.Pesah. im 6:1 (33a)). The Babylonian Talmud’s tendency to champion Hillel ﬁnds further expression in B.Bava Metzia 85a, on which see below. 28 Goodblatt’s argument (op. cit. (n. 1), 157–60) that the Babylonian version is more authentic does not convince. The omission in the Paris and Munich Genesis Rabbah manuscripts of the clause containing the phrase ‘patriarchs of the house of Rabbi’ is clearly due to a homoioteleuton. rabbi and the origins of the patriarchate 201

The phrase ‘patriarchs of the house of Rabbi’ suggests not only that Rabbi founded the patriarchate, but also, perhaps, that he was the first known mem- ber of his dynastic family. In this section, I shall argue that Rabbi was in fact a ‘new man’, without any known ancestors in the rabbinic movement. This will entail, in first instance, that he was not the son of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel II, nor the descendent of Hillel. Before examining the evidence—which goes well beyond this suggestive statement in Genesis Rabbah—a general point needs to be made about hereditary succession, which too often has been overlooked. The traditional table of patriarchs that I have laid out above (at the beginning of section 1) implies, as stated, an unbroken succession of patriarchs from father to son, stretching over some 14 generations from Hillel in the 1st century BCE to R. Gamaliel VI in the 5th century CE. This remarkable line of succession appears, apri- ori, unique in world history and indeed, too good to be true. For reasons including early mortality and limited fertility, the probability of a father having a male heir surviving him at death would not have exceeded 60%.29 On statistical grounds alone, therefore, it is more than likely that in the course of 14 generations, breaks in the father-to-son succession occurred. Further- more, the ‘reign’ lengths in this dynasty are remarkably long (about 35 years on average), considering an average total life expectancy of 30–40 years in late antiquity.30 This dynastic list shows all the signs, therefore, of being an idealised construction, which, as I have suggested, would have taken shape in Babylonia in the Geonic period. Without subjecting the list to a comprehensive investigation, I shall only question the link between Rabbi and his predecessor, R. Simeon b. Gamaliel II.31 The suggestion that Rabbi was not his son has already been made by Jacobs, but without much substantiation or elaboration.32 There is, however, good evidence to support this. The only sources that present Rabbi as the son of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel II are in the Babylonian Talmud (again, three passages). This, I would argue, reflects a Babylonian agenda of integrating earlier Palestinian rabbinic leaders into a single hereditary dynasty. Two of these sources have been discussed above: B.Mo ed Qatan 22b is a late, stammaitic passage, whilst the story in B.Horayot 13b–14a—which ends with Rabbi (Judah I) talking to his son R. Simeon about R. Simeon

29 This tentative (and not necessarily universal) percentage is drawn from K. Hopkins, Death and Renewal, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983, 99–100, itself based on estimates of historical demographers. More generally see ibid., 69–74 (chapter co-authored with G. Burton). Roman emperors overcame this problem by adopting their successors; adoption, however, is not attested as a Jewish practice. 30 I am grateful to Joseph Sievers for drawing my attention to the latter point. Life expectancy of 30–40 years is again a very tentative figure: see W. Scheidel, ‘Roman age structure: evidence and models’, Journal of Roman Studies 91, 2001, 1–26. 31 Jacob Neusner has suggested that Gamaliel I was not related to Hillel, for the simple reason that there is no evidence in the sources to support this; this, however, would only reduce the dynasty by one generation (see references in Goodblatt, op. cit. (n. 1), 210, n. 79). Habas (op. cit. (n. 1, 1999)) argues that R. Gamaliel II was initially succeeded by R.H. aninah b. Gamaliel, an older brother of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel II, who died and thus made way for the latter to succeed; this, however, does not fundamentally upset the pattern of father-to-son succession. 32 Jacobs, op. cit. (n. 1), 206–07. 202 journal of jewish studies b. Gamaliel II as their ‘forefather’—is a literary creation with little or no historical reliability. The third passage, a story in B.Bava Metzia 84b–85a, deserves more attention. The story tells how R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon and Rabbi were eminent disciples of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel (identified here as Rabbi’s father) and R. Joshua b. Qorh. ah, but became rivals of each other. When R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon had humiliated Rabbi, the latter went to complain to his father. The story continues as follows (I have added comments in square brackets): He [his father] answered: ‘My son, do not be upset, for he is a lion son of a lion, and you are a lion son of a fox.’ [The story ends here.] To this Rabbi referred to when he said: ‘Three were humble: they are my father, the sons of Batera, and Jonathan son of [King] Saul.’ R. Simeon b. Gamaliel—as has been mentioned. The sons of Batera—as the master said: ‘they placed him [Hillel] at the head and appointed him as nasi over them’ [ B.Pesah. im 66a]. Jonathan son of Saul—as he said to David: ‘you shall reign over Israel, and I shall be your auxiliary’ [1 Samuel 23:17]. Why so? Maybe Jonathan son of Saul saw that the people were going after David? And the sons of Batera, likewise, saw that Hillel was better than them? But R. Simeon b. Gamaliel was certainly humble. Jonathan son of Saul and the sons of Batera both have in common that they surrendered their kingship or presidency to another person; but R. Simeon b. Gamaliel did nothing of the kind—his humility consisted only of a concil- iatory statement made to his son Rabbi. And yet, the Talmud considers his humility to be more genuine than that of the other two. This incongruity is easily accountable, however, by identifying the literary sources of this passage. For this story is clearly the Babylonian, modified version of a similar text in Y.Pesah. im 6:1 (33a), which follows the story of the ‘elders of Batera’ (as they are called here) and Hillel: Three surrendered their crown in this world, and inherited life in the world- to-come: they are Jonathan son of Saul, Eleazar b. Azariah, and the elders of Batera. Jonathan son of Saul—said R. La, even women behind the loom knew that David was destined to reign! Eleazar b. Azariah—he was [only] standing in [lit. second] ! 33 [But] there was none like the elders of Batera, who released themselves from the nesiut and appointed [Hillel] nasi. ‘Eleazar b. Azariah’ is a reference to the story in Y.Ta anit 4:1 (67d), where following an argument between R. Gamaliel II and the other rabbis, R. Gamaliel was deposed and R. Eleazar b. Azariah appointed instead as ‘head of the yeshivah’. After reconciliation was made, R. Eleazar b. Azariah gracefully allowed R. Gamaliel to resume his position—but then again, as R. La argues in our passage, he had only been standing in. This passage, which makes no mention of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, is much more coherent than that of the Babylonian Talmud, and would seem to be more authentic:

33 Goodblatt, op. cit. (n. 21), 363, n. 51. rabbi and the origins of the patriarchate 203 all three ‘surrendered their crown’, and there is at least a plausible argument that the elders of Batera were the most worthy. The Babylonian Talmud appears to have drawn on this tradition, but to have modiﬁed it for polemical reasons. Whereas the Palestinian Talmud con- cludes that the elders of Batera were most worthy by giving way to Hillel— who was a Babylonian, as mentioned above in the same passage—the Babylo- nian Talmud does not consider this a great achievement, since the superiority of Hillel was obvious and ‘the sons of Batera, likewise, saw that Hillel was better than them’. The substitution of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, in this version, would have been necessary for the passage to conclude with someone who was undisputedly humble (this substitution leading, however, to the incongruity I have noted above). As a literary construction, therefore, the historical reliability of this passage, with its assumption that R. Simeon b. Gamaliel was Rabbi’s father, is considerably reduced. The assumption in B.Bava Metzia 84b–85a that R. Simeon b. Gamaliel was Rabbi’s father depends, furthermore, on the conﬂation and reinterpretation of another tradition represented in the Palestinian Talmud (Y.Shabbat 10:5 (12c)), which reads as follows: ºàçà §ø íùá àñé §ø éîå÷ §îà àéîåøã òåùåé §ø ®áééçî ïåòîù §øéá øæòìà §ø ¬øèåô §ø ºéãøéâ éð÷ ¡êéáàî éúòîù êë º§ø åì §îà ®úåáéùé åúùîéù àìù äî úåãîåò àáà úà éúùîéù ºåì §îà á÷òé §øã äéãéîìú àì ¿éåäã éçåé øá ïåòîù §øã äéãéîìú éáøåü ¿äåä éùãå÷ øá úà úùîù àìù äî úåãîåò àáà úà éúùîù ºäéì øîà êë àìà 34þ®úåáéùé êáø §øìù åéðô åéä ãòååä úéáì ñðëð ïåòîù §øéá øæòìà §ø äéäùë ïá éøà äúà ìáà ¬éøà ïá éøà äæ ¡úåàéå ºéåáà äéì §îà ®úåøéã÷î ®ìòåù éìë ºäéì äøîà ®äéúúéàá òáú §ø çìù ¬øæòìà §ø êîã ïî ¿ìåçåá ùîúùé ùãå÷ åá ùîúùðù

R. Joshua Daromia said before R. Yosa in the name of R. Ah. a: ‘The weaver’s reed: Rabbi (rules one is) exempt, R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon (rules one is) liable’. Rabbi said to him: ‘So I have heard from your father!’ [i.e. as I am ruling] He [R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon] replied: ‘I served my father standing, in a way that you did not serve him sitting’. But was Rabbi a disciple of R. Simeon b.Yoh. ai [R. Eleazar’s father]? Was he

34 The text in square brackets appears in the Leiden manuscript as a marginal, editorial note (see Talmud Yerushalmi according to Ms. Or. 4720 (Scal. 3) of the Leiden University Library with Restorations and Corrections, Academy of the Hebrew Language, Jerusalem, 2001, p. 423). However, there is no reason to suspect its authenticity; indeed, it has a parallel in Y.Pesah. im 10:1 (37b). It would have been omitted here because of the homoioteleuton. 204 journal of jewish studies

not a disciple of R. Jacob b. Qodshai? Rather, this is what he [R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon] replied: ‘I served my father standing, in a way that you did not serve your master sitting’. When R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon came in to the assembly house, Rabbi’s face would seethe. His [Rabbi’s] father said to him: ‘But he is right! He is a lion son of lion, whereas you are a lion son of a fox.’ When R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon died, Rabbi sent to ask his wife [in marriage]. She replied: ‘Should a vessel that was used for the holy be used for the profane?’ This story depicts the rivalry between R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon and Rabbi (though very differently from the story in the Babylonian Talmud); it is resolved, as in the Babylonian Talmud, with Rabbi’s father telling him that he is merely the ‘son of a fox’.35 In the Palestinian version, however, Rabbi’s father is not identified as R. Simeon b. Gamaliel II—indeed, he is not identified at all. The Babylonian Talmud, as we have seen, assumes he was R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, and interprets his statement to Rabbi as an expression of humility (which then furnishes the necessary material for its version of the ‘three humble’ tradition); but in the Palestinian Talmud there is no indication of this at all.36 The plain reading of this passage is that Rabbi’s father, an anonymous figure, was no particular rabbinic authority; when he referred to himself as a ‘fox’, he meant literally what he said. This would also explain why R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon’s widow dismissed Rabbi as ‘profane’.37 This passage conveys in other ways the impression that Rabbi was of (rab- binical) low birth. Had Rabbi been the son of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel II, the scion of a distinguished rabbinic family, one would have expected him to have been educated by an eminent rabbi of the previous generation—if not by his father, then at least by one of his eminent contemporaries. Yet in this passage, as well as in Y.Pesah. im 10:1 (37b), Rabbi is described as the disciple of a mi- nor figure, R. Jacob b. Qodshai (sometimes spelled Qorshai). This is not to say that he did not attend the lectures of eminent rabbis such as R. Eleazar b. Shamua and R. Judah (b. Ilay), as attested in a number of other passages;38 but attending lectures is not the same as discipleship.39 When called upon to identify Rabbi’s master, the Palestinian Talmud’s answer is not R. Eleazar

35 The fox is considered an inferior animal to the lion: see Avot 4:15; B.Bava Qamma 117a. 36 The Penei Moshe and Qorban Ha edah (on Y.Shabbat 10:5) comment that Rabbi’s father was humble; but this interpretation is based entirely on the Babylonian Talmud. I see no reason why humility should be read into the Palestinian Talmud passage. 37 Both ideas are similarly juxtaposed in Ecclesiastes Rabbah 11:2, Pesiqta deRav Kahana, Beshalah. ,andB.Bava Metzia 84b. 38 E.g. B.Yevamot 84a: R. Eleazar b. Shamua; Y.Bava Metzia 3:1 (9a): Rabbi went to the à÷øéô of R. Judah (b. Ilay). See A. I. Baumgarten, ‘The politics of reconciliation: the education of R. Judah the Prince’, in E. P. Sanders, A. I. Baumgarten, and A. Mendelson (eds), Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, vol. II: Aspects of Judaism in the Graeco-Roman Period, Philadelphia: Fortress Press and London: SCM Press, 1981, pp. 213–25. 39 Indeed, Rabbi is said to have ‘learnt Torah with R. Simeon [b. Yoh. ai]’ in Teqoa (T.Eruvin 8:6, p. 147), yet our passage denies that he was his disciple. rabbi and the origins of the patriarchate 205 b. Shamua or R. Judah, but only R. Jacob b. Qodshai.40 Even if he is the same as R. Jacob (tout court),41 R. Jacob (b. Qodshai) remains a minor figure—not the obvious choice for the son and heir of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel II.42 Palestinian sources confirm elsewhere the impression that Rabbi was not related to R. Simeon b. Gamaliel II. The first chapter of Avot, which describes the transmission of Torah through the generations, finishes with Hillel and his successors, omitting R. Gamaliel II but ending with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel II (Avot 1:12–end); the second chapter begins with Rabbi, followed by his son R. Gamaliel III (ibid. 2:1–2). This sequence is chronologically consistent; but the placement of Rabbi at the beginning of a new chapter suggests a break from his predecessors, which may well be interpreted as the beginning of a new lineage.43 But the most decisive proof, in Palestinian sources, that Rabbi was not R. Simeon b. Gamaliel’s son appears in T.Ma aserot 2:5 (p. 82) (with close parallel in Y.Ma aserot 2:1 (49c)): éàøò íäî ìëåà Ñ ¢åæ äìëìë êì àìîå àö¢ ® ® ® ºåì øîà ®éàîã ïøùòîå ®éáø éøáã ® ® ® ¿ïéøåîà íéøáã äîá ® ® ® ¿ïéøåîà íéøáã äîá ºøîåà ìàéìîâ ïá ïåòîù ïáø ®ìàéìîâ ïá ïåòîù ïáø éøáãî ééøáã úà éðà äàåø 44ºéáø øîà

If one said [to another]: . . . ‘Go and ﬁll this basket’—he may eat them [the fruits] in small quantities and tithe them as demai. What does this apply to? . . . so are the words of Rabbi. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says: What does this apply to? . . . Said Rabbi: I see that my words [are better] than the words of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. That a son should disagree with his father is not inherently problematic, as it is attested elsewhere in rabbinic literature.45 What is surprising about this passage is that Rabbi refers to R. Simeon b. Gamaliel by name, and not as

40 R. Jacob b. Qodshai deserved more than a mere footnote in Baumgarten, ibid., n. 73. Y.Pesah. im 4:1 (30d) does argue that Rabbi was a ‘disciple of R. Judah’, but this is only to justify the Talmud’s suggestion that Rabbi follows R. Judah’s opinion; it is less likely, therefore, to represent a historical tradition (see also B.Shevuot 13a). 41 G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, trans. M. Bockmuehl, 2nd edn, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996, 79. 42 The role attributed to R. Jacob b. Qorshai in the story of B.Horayot 13b–14a may represent an implicit attempt, by the Babylonian Talmud, to explain R. Simeon b. Gamaliel’s relationship with this minor Tanna and why he appointed him as a teacher for his son; but this is only specu- lation. 43 I am grateful to Amram Tropper for his comments. 44 The editio princeps reads here, against both manuscripts, äãåäé éáø (which would designate a completely different person (éòìà øá äãåäé éáø), not R. Judah I the nasi), but this is inconsistent with its reading éáø in the first part of the text (one line above), and thus clearly erroneous. This reading was perhaps a clumsy attempt to overcome the difficulty which I shall presently discuss. 45 It is, however, unusual, as noted by Habas, op. cit. (n. 1) 1999, 22, n. 9. 206 journal of jewish studies abba (‘father’)46 or ‘R. Simeon b. Gamaliel abba’,47 as is standard practice in rabbinic literature.48 In actual fact, it is prohibited for a son to refer to his father by name, even when citing his sayings; this prohibition is explicitly stated in the Babylonian Talmud (B.Qiddushin 31b), but also clearly assumed in the Palestinian Talmud (Y.Megillah 4:10 (75c)). Not surprisingly, in the parallel version of our passage in B.Eruvin 32a, Rabbi refers to R. Simeon b. Gamaliel as abba: this is surely a deliberate correction, consistent with the Babylonian Talmud’s belief that Rabbi was his son. The version of the Tosefta and Palestinian Talmud, no doubt authentic, is easily resolved if one accepts that Rabbi was not the son of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. To conclude, the tradition that Rabbi was R. Simeon b. Gamaliel’s son is purely Babylonian, but Palestinian sources make this most unlikely.49 The lineage of Rabbi remains unclear, but he appears not to have come from an eminent rabbinic family. This explains, for example, why he was educated by a minor rabbinic figure. Rabbi was thus not only the founder of the patriarchate, but also the founder of a new dynasty. The fact that his children bore the names of Gamaliel (III) and Simeon (and later in the line, Hillel II) does not mean that he had a Hillelite or Gamalielite ascendancy:50 for it is quite normal for

46 To cite only a few examples from Palestinian sources: T.Tevul Yom 2:8 (p. 685) (R.Menah. em, referring to his father R. Yose); a baraita in Y.Avodah Zarah 3:1 (42c) (R.H. aninah b. Gamaliel); two different baraitot in Y.H. agigah 2:1 (77d) and Y.Sotah 2:4 (18a), and also in Sifre Deuteronomy 38 (Finkelstein ed. p. 76), where R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon refers to his father R. Simeon b.Yoh. ai as abba (and disagrees with him); an Amoraic saying in Y.Shevi it 10:2 (39c), Vatican ms.; and an Amoraic story in Y.Bava Batra 3:3 (14a) (R.H. iyyab.Rav);etc.SeealsoY.Bava Qamma 1:1 (2b) (Samuel and ‘abba’). 47 In the Palestinian Talmud, R.Mana always refers to his father as ‘R. Jonah abba’(e.g. Y.Demai 4:2 (24a), Y.Shevi it 4:2 (35a), etc.); see also Y.Berakhot 7:2 (11b) (R.Nasa: ‘R.Tah. lifa abba’), Y.Orlah 3:7 (62c) (R.H. aninah: ‘R.Abahu abba’), and Y.Ta anit 1:3 (64b) (R. Judah b.Ezekiel: ‘Ezekiel abba’). This usage is also attested in a baraita in Y.Terumot 8:6 (46a) (R.Yishmael son of R. Yoh. anan b.Beroqah: ‘R. Yoh. anan b.Beroqah abba’). But this usage is much less common than abba on its own (see previous note). 48 This difficulty has frequently been raised, but without any solution: see S. Lieberman, Tosefta Kifeshutah, vol. 2, New York: JTS, 1955, pp. 680–81. The only other passages where a sage calls his father by name (i.e. without ‘abba’) are T.Ma aser Sheni 1:13 (p. 87) and T.Shabbat 13:2 (p. 128), where R. Yose refers to a ‘R.H. alafta’ who is presumably none other but his father. Note that in the parallel of T.Shabbat in B.Shabbat 115a, R. Yose calls him ‘abba H. alafta’, whilst in Sofrim 5:17 (Higger ed., p. 161) the saying is not attributed to R. Yose; both these versions appear to be deliberate corrections of the difficulty in the original tradition (as in the case of B.Eruvin 32a, referred to below in main text). I would treat these Tosefta passages as highly exceptional, and as much in need of explanation as our passage from T.Ma aserot (see on these passages Lieberman, op. cit. p. 725, and vol. 3 (1962) p. 203, with no solution to offer). 49 Even the Seder Tannaim we-Amoraim appears in some passages to refrain from calling Rabbi ‘son of’ R. Simeon b. Gamaliel II (Kahan, ed., p. 2, ll. 6–7); see Jacobs, op. cit.(n.1), 206, n. 974. Note also Epiphanius’ caution when he writes that ‘one may suspect, and others have suggested as well’ that the patriarch Ellel (Hillel II?) was descended from Gamaliel (I) (Pa- narion 30:4:3–4, Williams trans. p. 122; cited in full in Jacobs, op. cit. (n. 1), 330–31). 50 R. Simeon son of Rabbi is mentioned for instance in B.Horayot 13b–14a. The name Gamaliel is particularly rare (also, perhaps to a lesser extent, Hillel) and thus very distinctive (Goodblatt, op. cit. (n. 1) 144–46; Habas, op. cit. (n. 1) 1999, 24 and n. 16); but nothing could be inferred from the names Simeon or Judah, which are very common in Hellenistic and Roman Judaea (Goodblatt, ibid.) as well as in rabbinic sources. There is certainly no reason to assume a rabbi and the origins of the patriarchate 207 founders of new dynasties to claim legitimacy by giving themselves or their heirs their predecessors’ names.51 Similarly, in Y.Kilayim 9:3 (32b), Rabbi refers to Hillel as ‘my ancestor’ (éð÷æ);52 but this does not necessarily mean patrilineal descent, and it is best interpreted as a vague, or even metaphorical, dynastic claim.53 If Rabbi was a ‘new man’, where did he come from? The evidence is limited, but I shall attempt to answer this question now.

3. Wealth and Political Standing Rabbi differed from his predecessors in two respects: his wealth, and his political standing. There may also be a case to argue that his religious authority extended beyond his predecessors’, as illustrated (for instance) by the story of the village of Simonia’s appeal to Rabbi for provision of a rabbi (Y.Yevamot 12:6 (13a)). But inasmuch as Rabbi’s predecessors (such as R. Gamaliel II) also exercised a measure of religious authority, the greater extent of Rabbi’s authority may be difficult to measure or quantify. Wealth and political standing, by contrast, were new. They constitute qualitative differ- ences from Rabbi’s predecessors, that are easier to identify and possibly more significant. Rabbi’s predecessor, R. Simeon b. Gamaliel II, is commonly represented as an impoverished refugee from the Bar-Kokhba war, without evidence of any political standing. It has often been claimed that his father, R. Gamaliel II, was a man of substance; but as Goodblatt rightly argues, evidence for this is unconvincing.54 His own father (presumably, R. Simeon b. Gamaliel I) is said to have owned a number of olive and carob orchards (M.Peah 2:4), which is not surprising for someone who played a prominent role in the Great Revolt;55 but these possessions are likely to have been lost after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE. R. Gamaliel II himself owned some land (M.Bava Metzia 5:8), but this may have been only a small holding. The story is told of his workman carrying 40 seah (of flour?) on his own to the baker,56 which may suggest high levels of production; but this figure is undoubtedly exaggerated. Moreover, 40 seah correspond approximately to the annual sustenance of one person;57 assuming that R. Gamaliel had a household of at least 20 people to connection between Judah I and the name Judah that one of R. Gamaliel’s (II) sons appears to have born (on which see Habas, ibid. 25, 27–29). 51 For instance, Alexander Balas called his son ‘Antiochus’: Schürer, op. cit. (n. 8), i. 183. 52 Parallels are in Y.Ketubot 12:3 (35a) and Genesis Rabbah 33:3 (pp. 305–06); see Goodblatt, op. cit. (n. 1), 150–51. Vatican ms. 60 of Genesis Rabbah reads íéð÷æ (instead of éð÷æ;seeA.I. Baumgarten, ‘Rabbi Judah I and his opponents’, Journal for the Study of Judaism 12, 1981, 135– 72, on p. 145, n. 47), but this reading is unique and highly unlikely (Jacobs, op. cit. (n. 1), 213, n. 1026). 53 Jacobs (op. cit. (n. 1), 214–15) argues that the word éð÷æ is the redactor’s interpolation, but this is not entirely convincing. 54 Goodblatt, op. cit. (n. 1) 194–95. 55 See references to Josephus above, n. 14. 56 Pesiqta de R.Kahana, Vayehi beshalah. 22 (Mandelbaum ed. p. 198). 57 I am following the estimates of Z. Safrai, The Economy of Roman Palestine, London and 208 journal of jewish studies feed (including a slave, and workmen on his land), this story does not imply that he produced any significant surplus. References are frequently made to R. Gamaliel’s II slave, Tavi (e.g. M.Berakhot 2:7); but in the ancient world, ownership of one or two slaves was not necessarily a marker of wealth. The ‘house of R. Gamaliel’ is said to have owned a number of male and female slaves (Y.Niddah 1:4 (49b)), which would indicate wealth, but there is nothing preventing this passage being a reference to R. Gamaliel III. In M.Berakhot 2:6, R. Gamaliel II describes himself as istenis (‘delicate’) and used to bathing, but this does not mean that he was wealthy. The Babylonian Talmud tells how R. Gamaliel II purchased a lulav for 1000 zuz, but this astronomical sum is wildly exaggerated; the version of the Tosefta reads, more reasonably, ‘one golden dinar’, which is expensive but not necessarily indicative of wealth.58 R. Gamaliel II clearly appears to have been economically self-sufficient; but more than that, we cannot tell. The same goes for R. Gamaliel’s II political standing. Much attention has been given to the reshut (‘permission’, the meaning of which must be left open) that he went to obtain from the governor of Syria (M.Eduyot 7:7, cited above). However anyone, even ordinary people, could petition the governor for any- thing (with varying degrees of success—we are not told whether R. Gamaliel achieved his goal), so that the political importance of this incidence is impossible to ascertain. Another story is told of R. Gamaliel II travelling to Rome with some colleagues (Y.Sanhedrin 7:19 (25d)), but again, the purpose of this journey is not explained. More interesting is the statement that ‘they permitted the house of R. Gamaliel to teach their sons Greek, because they were close to the [Roman] State’, and again, ‘they permitted the house of R. Gamaliel to look [at themselves] in a mirror, because they were close to the [Roman] State’.59 Scholars understand this to refer to R. Gamaliel II, following the interpretation of the Babylonian Talmud.60 However, there is a strong case to argue that it is R. Gamaliel III. Firstly, the phrase ‘they permitted’ seems out of character with R. Gamaliel II, who would have been perfectly capable of making these rulings himself; whereas R. Gamaliel III is not known as a halakhic authority of any importance. Secondly, the parallel

New York: Routledge, 1994, 109–10. According to these, 40 seah of grain would have weighed about 150 kg. 58 B.Sukkah 41b; T.Sukkah 2:11 (p. 195)—where the Vienna ms. reads ‘one dinar’, but according to this reading the point becomes unclear. Note also that in Sifra Emor, pereq 16, the value of the lulav is omitted altogether. 59 T.Sotah 15:8 (p. 322, following the Vienna ms. and the editio princeps); T.Avodah Zarah 3:5 (p. 463). 60 This interpretation is evident from the juxtaposition, in B.Sotah 49b (= B.Bava Qamma 83a), of the T.Sotah tradition with a homily attributed to R. Simeon b. Gamaliel (evidently II, pace Tosafot ad B.Avodah Zarah 32a, s.v. aval) on Lamentations 3:51, in which he recalls the 500 students who learnt Greek in his father’s house and who now are no longer (presumably as a result of the Bar-Kokhba revolt and the fall of Betar). In Palestinian sources, however, this homily is not connected with T.Sotah, and indeed the 500 (here explicitly located in Betar) are not mentioned at all as studying Greek (Y.Ta anit 4:8 (69a), Lamentations Rabbah 3:51); a similar version is found in B.Gittin 58a. The passage in B.Sotah 49b is thus most probably a literary construction (pace S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1950, 104). rabbi and the origins of the patriarchate 209 source in the Palestinian Talmud reads not ‘R. Gamaliel’ but ‘Rabbi’.61 It is unclear why this different version should have arisen, unless the tradition was understood to have been about R. Gamaliel III, in which case the difference between the ‘house of Rabbi’ and the ‘house of R. Gamaliel’ (his son) may have been regarded as negligible.62 If wealth and political status are doubtful regarding R. Gamaliel II, they are certainly unlikely regarding R. Simeon b. Gamaliel II, for whom evidence of either is completely lacking. His image as an impoverished refugee remains, therefore, entirely plausible. With Rabbi, the situation alters completely. Evidence that Rabbi was wealthy is slim, but arguably sufficient.63 We may disregard the statement in B.Bava Metzia 85a that ‘Rabbi’s house-steward was wealthier than King Shapur’, not only because it is grossly exaggerated, but also because its Baby- lonian origin is evident from its reference to the Sassanian king.64 But Pales- tinian sources refer to Rabbi’s ownership of mules and a herd of cows,65 which suggest more than mere subsistence economy. Particularly informative is the statement that Antoninus gave Rabbi a lease of two thousand fields.66 Al- though these fields did not belong to him, and although ‘two thousand’ might be a generous estimate, they must have produced a considerable amount of revenue. This story also says something about Rabbi’s political standing. Many or most of the Antoninus stories are undoubtedly legendary, and An- toninus remains impossible to identify; but these stories do suggest that Rabbi had relations with Roman officials of high rank, in a way that is not attested for any of his predecessors.67 The wealth and political standing of Rabbi, which appear to have been

61 Y.Shabbat 6:1 (7d), Y.Avodah Zarah 2:2 (41a). Hezser (op. cit. (n. 1) 437 and 441) treats this as a separate source altogether, but it seems much more likely to be a conflation of the two Tosefta passages. 62 The phrase ‘house of Rabbi’ is used elsewhere for generations subsequent to R. Judah I, e.g. Genesis Rabbah 97:10 (Theodor and Albeck, p. 1219, cited above in section 2); see also below, n. 65.The appearance of R. Gamaliel III in the Tosefta is not unique: see T.Sotah 6:8 (p. 305). The traditional interpretation that T.Sotah 15:8 refers to R. Gamaliel II is also chronologically problematic: the decree against teaching Greek (and hence the exemption granted to the ‘house of R. Gamaliel’) is dated in the same passage to after the ‘war of Quietus’, i.e. the Jewish revolt of 115–17 (S. Lieberman, Tosefta Kifeshutah, vol. 8, New York: JTS, 1973, 767), which R. Gamaliel II is commonly believed not to have lived to have seen. 63 See Hezser, op. cit. (n. 1), 411–12. 64 See also B.Berakhot 57b, B.Avodah Zarah 11a: Rabbi’s table, like Antoninus’, had fresh vegetables in all seasons. 65 Mules: Y.Demai 1:3 (22a), Y.Ta anit 3:1 (66c), B.H. ullin 7b, B.Shabbat 52a. Cows: Genesis Rabbah 20:6 (Theodor and Albeck, p. 190), and parallels in Y.Yevamot 4:11 (6a) and Y.Niddah 1:4 (49b); although the latter read ‘of the house of Rabbi’, the reference is presumably to the period of R. Judah I, since the context is an Antoninus story. However, the wagon of wine belonging to the ‘house of Rabbi’ which ‘our rabbis’ allowed (Y.Avodah Zarah 5:5 (44d), cf. B.Shabbat 121b– 122a) refers most likely to an episode after the lifetime of Rabbi (otherwise, one would presume, Rabbi himself would have issued a ruling). 66 Y.Shevi it 6:1 (36d): åñéøàá ïéðùã ïéôìà ïéøú §øì äáäé ñåðéðåèðà. The Vatican ms. omits ïéôìà, hence only ‘two fields’; but this reading seems less likely, because imperial leases are likely to have much been bigger. 67 See S. Krauss, Antoninus und Rabbi, Vienna, 1910; Jacobs, op. cit. (n. 1), 129–54; Hezser, op. cit. (n. 1), 441–45. Secondary literature on this subject is vast. 210 journal of jewish studies passed on to subsequent generations (e.g. R. Gamaliel III), present however a historical problem which has not been sufficiently noticed. If, as has always been assumed, Rabbi was the son of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel II, an impoverished Judaean refugee from the Bar-Kokhba war, how did Rabbi obtain his wealth and political standing? Alon struggles with this question, whilst Goodman summarily writes that towards the end of the 2nd century, ‘some rabbis’ rose to a higher economic status ‘through patronage by the indigenous richer landowners and through their own secular efforts’.68 But this is purely speculative, as there is no good evidence in rabbinic sources of either patronage from landowners or ‘secular efforts’ by rabbis.69 Rabbi certainly does not present the image of an ambitious, entrepreneurial businessman who built up his fortune from nothing. Socio-economic mobility was possible in the Ro- man world, but not without considerable ambition, effort, and dedication. As a rabbi, Rabbi’s interests would appear to have lain elsewhere. This historical problem, which has never been satisfactorily resolved, is eliminated if—as I have argued—Rabbi was not the son of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel II, nor of any other eminent rabbi. It may be possible to suggest, indeed, that he was born into an existing wealthy family. The story of Antoninus’ lease of two thousand fields makes this very plausible: for it is reasonable to assume that a administrator of the Roman imperial estates would not have leased such a large holding to a person who was not already an ‘aristocrat’ or established landowner. Members of a local, landowning aristocracy are also likely to have had ready-made connections with Roman imperial authorities—which would explain Rabbi’s unique relationship with ‘Antoni- nus’. Whilst it is difficult to understand how a rabbi could have become an aristocrat, the reverse is completely possible. It is therefore most likely that Rabbi was from a local, aristocratic landowning family, who received a rabbinic education and became himself, probably early in life, a rabbi.

4. The Galilean Rabbinic Movement The ﬁgure of Rabbi as an aristocrat-turned-rabbi may be compared to the aristocratic members of the contemporary Second Sophistic,70 or to the aris-

68 G. Alon, The Jews in their Land in the Talmudic Age, trans. G. Levi, Cambridge, MA: Har- vard University Press, 1989, 712–13; Goodman, op. cit. (n. 2) 93 (see also 111). 69 According to B.Nedarim 51a, Ben Elasa was Rabbi’s son-in-law and ‘very rich’. Whether this implies patronage is unclear. Bar Elasa is mentioned in Y.Moed Qatan 3:1 (81c) as a non- rabbi whom Rabbi honoured, but no mention is made there of his wealth. Patronage by Roman imperial officials such as ‘Antoninus’ is more likely to have been the effect of Rabbi’s wealth than its cause; see further below, and note also the story in B.Avodah Zarah 10b that Rabbi turned away Antoninus’ ‘daily’ gift of gold on the grounds that he had ‘enough of his own’. For a possible tradition on Rabbi conducting a business transaction, see B.Bava Metzia 73a; but there is no indication that this transaction would have made him rich. 70 Such a comparison has been suggested by S. J. D. Cohen, ‘Patriarchs and Scholarchs’, Pro- ceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research 48, 1981, 57–85, but without sufficient attention to the aristocratic dimension of the Jewish patriarchate; see also Goodman, op. cit.(n. 2), 115. rabbi and the origins of the patriarchate 211 tocratic (and sometimes even dynastic) bishops of the later Roman Empire.71 However, Rabbi must primarily be viewed in the context of the Galilean rabbinic movement, as I shall now explain. For too long it has been assumed that the expansion of the rabbinic movement from Judaea to Galilee in the mid 2nd century CE was the result of the migration of rabbis, together with much of the Judaean (Jewish) population, in the aftermath of the Bar-Kokhba war.72 The theory of a mass migration from Judaea to Galilee after 135 CE is based, however, on very slender evidence. Very briefly—since this is not the place to discuss this question in detail—our knowledge and interpretation of settlement patterns in 2nd century Galilee are patchy and unreliable, especially as they depend on archae- ological reports that have usually taken the migration theory as a premise (hence, a circular argument).73 Literary evidence is even less satisfactory: traditions implying the relocation of priestly courses in Galilee are unreliable and, in historical terms, of doubtful relevance.74 The rabbinic movement itself did not migrate en masse to Galilee: although some individuals did clearly migrate, such as R. Simeon b. Gamaliel II,75 many rabbis remained in

71 This comparison is particularly apt for the Jewish patriarchs of the 4th century, who may have shared much in common with contemporary bishops. For an example of a dynasty of aristocratic bishops from the 5th-century West, see CIL 12.5336, in translation in A. D. Lee, Pagans and Christians in Late Antiquity: A Sourcebook, London: Routledge, 2000, 221–22. The case of aristocrats who became Christian ascetics (e.g. St Anthony) is different, as unlike Rabbi, they gave up their aristocratic life-style. Rabbi’s dynasty has also been compared to Near Eastern aristocratic dynasties such as the priestly dynasty of Emesa of the early 3rd century, and the dynastic war-lords of Palmyra of the mid 3rd century (K. Strobel, ‘Jüdisches Patriarchat, Rabbinentum und Priesterdynastie von Emesa: Historische Phänomene innerhalb des Imperium Romanum der Kaiserzeit’, Ktema 14, 1989, 39–77; see also Habas, op. cit. (n. 1) 1992, 161 and 345–46, nn. 29– 30, and Jacobs, op. cit. (n. 1), 210). But I do not think this comparison can ever be more than superficial: the only common point between these dynasties is that they belong to the fictitious entity which we call ‘Near East’. 72 This assumption underpins the work of Goodman, op. cit. (n. 2): see pp. 23 (‘the large influx of immigrants’ after the Bar-Kokhba war), 29, 32–33, 93, 137, 177–78 (‘the immigration of huge numbers of Jews after the two revolts brought shock, and rapidly a boost, to the economy’), 235, n. 98, 239, n. 204. Mass migration, or at least population ‘shift’, is also assumed by H. Lapin, ‘Rabbis and cities: some aspects of the rabbinic movement in its Graeco-Roman environment’, in P. Schäfer and C. Hezser (eds), The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture,vol.2, Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2000, 51–80, on p. 77. For a more balanced statement see Alon, op. cit. (n. 68), 645. 73 See Goodman, ibid. 32 (and 196, n. 95), referring to the 2nd-century (apparent) expansion of Meiron, Beth Shearim, and Chorazin. However, the cause of this expansion remains unknown; moreover, individual sites, even if correctly assessed, do not necessarily represent settlement patterns in Galilee as a whole. 74 Their origins are debated by D. Trifon, ãøî éøçà ìéìâì íéðäåëä úåøîùî åøáò íàä ¿àáëåëÐøá, Tarbiz 59, 1990, 77–93 (arguing for the mid 3rd century at the earliest), and Z. Safrai, ïåôéøè äéìã ìù äøîàîì äáåâú ¿ìéìâì íéðäåëä åøáò éúî, Tarbiz 62, 1993, 287–92 (arguing for the mid 2nd century). Both assume, nevertheless, that the allocation of each of the priestly courses to various Galilean villages implies a migration of the priests to Galilee. However, this tradition could be a purely conceptual expression of Galilean patriotism, without relevance to historical reality; and even if it were true that the priests of these villages identified with different priestly courses, this would not prove that all or even most Palestinian priests lived in Galilee, or that they were in Galilee as a result of mass migration. 75 As evident for instance in T.Rosh Hashanah 4:5 (p. 212) (Vienna ms. and editio princeps). 212 journal of jewish studies

Western and Southern Judaea till the end of the Amoraic period and probably beyond.76 Moreover, a number of Galilean rabbis were not immigrants but local. A famous passage in Song of Songs Rabbah (2:16), traditionally used as evidence of the migration and regrouping of the rabbinic movement at Usha (in Galilee) after the Bar-Kokhba war,77 confirms on the contrary that much of the Galilean movement was local. From this passage we learn that R. Ju- dah (b. Ilay), one of the most prominent rabbis of this generation, was himself from Usha78—he may indeed have convened this post-war meeting—and that those who had been called to the meeting were the ‘elders of Galilee’, some of whom—we are told—were already learned. Moreover, in his address, R. Ju- dah (b. Ilay) praises the assembly for having taken the trouble to travel ‘10 mil, or 20, or 30, or 40’; this is clearly local, Galilean traffic—not migration from Judaea, which lies some 100 mil away from Usha. Thus, the rabbinic movement did not spread to Galilee because of the migration of Judaean rabbis, but rather through the ‘conversion’ of local Galileans to it. They formed a new breed of rabbis, who probably made innovative contributions to the rabbinic movement. The migration theory has traditionally appealed because of its implicit claim of continuity (from ‘Yavneh’ to ‘Usha’). Similar theories have been in- voked to explain the spread of the rabbinic movement from Galilee to Babylo- nia in the early 3rd century, with stories about the migration of Rav, and much later in the 10th century, the spread of the rabbinic movement from Babylo- nia to the western Mediterranean and north-western Europe, with the story of the ‘four captives’. These stories, however, must be treated with caution. It is widely recognised that both the 3rd century Babylonian movement and the 10th century western rabbinic movement were largely indigenous, and that this profoundly affected the subsequent development of rabbinic Judaism. The same applies, I would argue, to the 2nd century Galilean movement, which to a large extent would have been home-grown. Rabbi and his anonymous father, members of a local, landowning aristocratic family, were among these new Galilean ‘converts’ who developed an interest in rabbinic Judaism, but soon were to play a leading role in its movement. The image of Rabbi which, as argued above, emerges from the sources was thus not exceptional, but completely congruent with the wider context and development of the rabbinic movement.

76 See J. Schwartz, äãåäéá éãåäéä áåùéä, Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1986; also Goodman, ibid. 232, n. 1. 77 Alon, op. cit. (n. 68), 664–66. Alon (and Goodblatt, op. cit. (n. 1), 256–59) are right to identify this text as more authentic than its parallel in B.Berakhot 63b (contra Hezser, op. cit.(n. 1), 178, who provides no positive evidence for the reverse). 78 This is at least the common interpretation of øéò ïá äéäù äãåäé éáø. rabbi and the origins of the patriarchate 213

5. Patriarchal Aristocracy and the Rabbinic Movement As argued above, Rabbi not just became a rabbi, but also instituted a new concept: the patriarchate. This, I shall now argue, was an aristocratic concept which Rabbi imported into the rabbinic movement. It came together with a number of practices and ideas which appear, till then, to have been alien to rabbinic culture.79 Firstly, there is the claim of Davidic ancestry (with possibly royal or mes- sianic connotations), which appears to have originated with Rabbi or his im- mediate descendents.80 This claim was not necessarily Rabbi’s own invention: it might well have been an earlier tradition which had existed for some time in Rabbi’s aristocratic family. Secondly, there are patronage rituals such as the salutatio, which are said to have been practiced by Rabbi and R. Judah II, but apparently not beforehand; these practices are well attested among the aristocracies of the Roman Empire.81 Thirdly, Rabbi is said in one tradition to have kept an apparently non-rabbinic entourage, with the figures named Yosef Efrati and Yose H. ofni.82 This is congruent with aristocratic behaviour, but hitherto unknown in the rabbinic movement. Fourthly, the title nasi itself, which hitherto had not been used by rabbis (at least not in the 2nd century), may have been previously used by the landowning aristocracies of Galilee. This is implicit, indeed, in a passage in M.Nedarim 5:5, which discusses the practice of writing over one’s share in the city’s public amenities to the nasi (this is a legal fiction to circumvent problems aris- ing from oaths). R. Judah (b. Ilay)—whom we know, from elsewhere, was a Galilean—reports that Galileans do not need to write over their share in this manner, as their forefathers have done so already. This would imply that before the time of R. Judah, there was a nasi in Galilee who acquired and owned, at least nominally (but perhaps literally and really), the public amenities of the cities.83 The identity of the nasi in this passage has been much debated, but the suggestion that each city had its own nasi, who was a landowning aristocrat in a dominant position within the city (e.g. as a magistrate), remains the most attractive.84 This finds confirmation in the public fast-day ritual described in M.Ta anit 2:1: they take the ark out into the city square, put ashes on the ark, on the head of the nasi, and on the head of the av beit din (head of the court). Presumably, this passage is not confined to the city where Rabbi

79 Rabbi’s distinctive aristocratic style is already sensed by Alon, op. cit. (n. 68), 710–18; see also Levine, op. cit. (n. 1) 1989, 33–38; Jacobs, op. cit. (n. 1), 210–11; Hezser, op. cit. (n. 1) 410–12. 80 This is not the place to study the evidence, but see I. Levi, ‘L’origine davidique de Hillel’, Revue des Etudes Juives 31, 1895, 202–11; Baumgarten, op. cit. (n. 52), 146–47; Goodblatt, op. cit. (n. 1), 142–43 and 146–75; Jacobs, ibid. 212–24. 81 R. Judah I: Leviticus Rabbah 18:1 (Margaliot ed. p. 395), Ecclesiastes Rabbah 12:5, and B.Shabbat 152a. R. Judah II: Y.Shabbat 12:3 (13c), Y.Horayot 3:end (48c), and Esther Rabbah 4:4. See Goodblatt, op. cit. (n. 1), 142 (with wrong reference) and 295 (with erroneous reference to R. Judah III); Hezser, op. cit. (n. 1), 268, n. 40, 287–88, 418–23. 82 Y.Ketubot 12:3 (35a), Y.Kilayim 9:4 (32a), B.Ketubot 103a, Genesis Rabbah 100:2 (p. 1285), with numerous variants. 83 The explanatory baraita in B.Nedarim 48a states explicitly that the Galileans’ forefathers wrote over their share to the ‘nasi’. 84 See Mantel, op. cit. (n. 7), 45–49; Jacobs, op. cit. (n. 1), 45–48. 214 journal of jewish studies or his successors happened to reside; the implication, therefore, is that every city was headed by its own nasi.85 There is thus a case to argue that the patriarchate was not invented ex nihilo: it may have been a traditional, aristocratic and civic institution which became ‘rabbinised’ when Judah I became Rabbi. Although civic aristocracy constituted the origins of the patriarchate, Rabbi and his successors are not known to have been involved in city councils (in Sepphoris or Tiberias), let alone to have held magistracies.86 It may be that participation in the city council was perceived as incompatible with halakhah or a rabbinic life-style. It is also possible that the rise of Rabbi, in the early 3rd century, coincides with a period where city councils were beginning to decline (the earliest evidence of anachoresis, flight from city councils, belongs to this period in Egypt), eventually to give rise to new forms of aristocracy in the later Roman Empire. It may thus be suggested that the foundation of the patriarchate or its ‘rabbinisation’ was precisely an attempt to develop alternative forms of political power and social prestige. The ‘rabbinisation’ of Rabbi’s dynasty was, however, only short-lived. From the later 3rd century, Rabbi’s descendants reverted to a more ‘secular’, aristocratic life-style. Although they still called themselves ‘patriarchs’ and developed the institution in important, new directions,87 it is debatable whether they qualified at all as ‘rabbis’; they are hardly mentioned, indeed, in the whole of rabbinic literature.88 Nevertheless, in its short-lived rabbinic period, Rabbi’s aristocratic family made significant, long-term contributions to the rabbinic movement. One was the creation of a distinctive literature, of which one of the earliest works, the Mishnah, owed its existence largely to the resources and leadership of Rabbi.89 Another, of no less importance, was the social improvement of the rabbinic movement, of which one symptom was the shift of 3rd century rabbis to major cities, such as Sepphoris and Tiberias, where the more powerful

85 Note that the nasi is distinct from the zaqen (elder) who is described further in this passage as preaching; this may imply that the nasi himself is not a learned figure. If every city had its own nasi, then at any one time there would have been not a single nasi (over the ‘whole of Israel’) but many. This may find reflection in a Geonic citation of this Mishnaic passage which reads nesi im in the plural (B. M. Lewin, íéðåàâä øöåà, vol. 5, Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1932– 1933, Ta anit p. 23). Note also the reference to ‘the patriarchs’ (in the plural) in the mosaic floor inscription of the Hammat-Tiberias synagogue. 86 S. Safrai, ‘The avoidance of public office in papyrus Oxy. 1477 and in Talmudic sources’, Journal of Jewish Studies 14, 1963, 67–70; Alon, op. cit. (n. 68), 658–59 and 702; Hezser (op. cit. (n. 1), 273–75. 87 See literature cited above in n. 1. 88 Rosenfeld, op. cit. (n. 6); but to interpret this as a ‘crisis’ is only a value judgement. See also Habas, op. cit. (n. 1) 1992, 187–88. 89 Hezser (op. cit. (n. 1), 414, is sceptical about the traditional attribution of the Mishnah to Rabbi. It is clear, however, that the Mishnah could not have been redacted much later than Rabbi’s period, and that Rabbi was a dominant figure (if not the dominant figure) of his generation. This traditional attribution is first attested in Y.Kilayim 3:14 (64c), Y.Yevamot 4:11 (6b); Stemberger (op. cit. (n. 41) 133–34) notes that there is no decisive argument against it. rabbi and the origins of the patriarchate 215 aristocracies would have been located.90 The social rise of the rabbinic movement, facilitated by Rabbi and his aristocratic patronage, was a decisive factor towards the eventual (though perhaps much later) establishment, in Palestine and hence in the Diaspora, of rabbinic Judaism as normative. Without this brief aristocratic association, it is difficult to tell what the future of the rabbinic movement would have been.

90 See Levine, op. cit. (n. 1) 1989, 25–33; S. Cohen, ‘The place of the rabbi in Jewish society of the second century’, in L. I. Levine (ed.), The Galilee in Late Antiquity, New York and Jerusalem: JTS and Harvard University Press, 1992, 157–73; Hezser, op. cit. (n. 1), 159–64 (for a more sceptical view); Lapin, op. cit. (n. 72); idem, ‘Rabbis and cities in later Roman Palestine: the literary evidence’, Journal of Jewish Studies 50, 1999, 187–207.