Am Ha-Aretz in the Mishnah1

Rocco BERNASCONI University of Manchester

MEANINGS, FUNCTION AND LINGUISTIC USAGES OF THE TERM ‘AM HA-ARETZ IN THE MISHNAH1

RÉSUMÉ

Dès les premières recherches sur l’expression ‘am ha-aretz dans la littérature biblique et rabbinique, les savants se sont demandés la raison de son instabilité sémantique, de ses nombreux sens et de ses différents référents historiques. Le but de cet article n’est pas de proposer une nouvelle hypothèse historique sur l’identité des ‘am ha-aretz dans la littérature rabbinique. Au contraire, il s’agira de décrire, d’un point de vue thématique et textuel, comment le terme est utilisé dans la Mishnah. Il sera montré que dans ce texte, le sens du terme ne peut être défini que sur la base de ses relations contextuelles et thématiques. Toutefois, malgré son hétérogénéité sémantique, la fonction que la désignation ‘am ha-aretz remplit dans la Mishnah est toujours la même. À savoir, qu’il sert à indiquer un modèle négatif de compor- tement en signalant ce que le ‘am ha-aretz n’est pas en mesure de faire. Ainsi, l’analyse fonctionnelle du terme permet de surmonter les difficultés dérivant de son hétérogénéité sémantique et permet de trouver un élément unifiant à travers ses différents usages.

ABSTRACT

From the time of the first researches on the ‘am ha-aretz in both biblical and rabbinic literature, scholars have been puzzled by the semantic instability of the term, by its wide range of meanings and by its apparently ever-changing historical referents. The purpose of this article is not to propose a new or different historical hypothesis about the identity of the ‘am ha-aretz in Rabbinic literature. Rather, it is to describe and analyse, on a thematic and textual level, how the term is used in the Mishnah. It will be shown that across the Mishnah, the meaning of the term ‘am ha-aretz may only be defined on the basis of thematic and co-textual relations or, in certain cases, thematic relations only. Yet, despite the semantic heterogeneity, the

1. This paper is a condensed and revised version of part of my PhD thesis which I have completed at the University of Bologna in cooperation with the École Pratique des Hautes Études (Paris). I want to express warm thankful wishes to my supervisors, professor Mauro Pesce and professor Simon C. Mimouni. I also want to thank professor Alex Samely of the University of Manchester for having read and commented on an earlier draft of this paper.

Revue des études juives, 170 (3-4), juillet-décembre 2011, pp. 399-428. doi: 10.2143/REJ.170.3.2141800

994816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd4816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd 399399 221/12/111/12/11 09:1309:13 400 THE TERM ‘AM HA-ARETZ IN THE MISHNAH

term as used in the Mishnah displays a stable function in that it is invariably used to refer to a negative model of behaviour pointing out what the ‘am ha-aretz fails to do. As a result, looking at the term from a functional standpoint allows one to overcome the difficulties of its semantic heterogeneity and allows one to find a unifying element across its usages.

Introduction

The scholarly study of the term ‘am ha-aretz in both biblical and Rabbinic literature has a long history dating back to the nineteenth century and to the period of the Wissenschaft des Judentums. Since then scholars have been puzzled by the semantic instability of the term, by its wide range of meanings and by its apparently ever-changing historical referents. As we shall see, to account for that, several historical hypotheses have been formulated. The use of the term ‘am ha-aretz in Rabbinic literature has attracted the attention of both New Testament scholars and scholars of Rabbinics inter- ested in particular in the theme of the origins of both Christianity and the Rabbinic movement. The ‘am ha-aretz has been seen by scholars as opponents of the Rabbis or, more accurately, as individuals who, even if they did not oppose the Rabbis overtly, nonetheless did not fully conform to their teachings. Hence, the study of the ‘am ha-aretz has always been perceived as an important area of study within the wider research area of Jewish sectarianism in Late Antiquity and in relation to the process of the formation, consolidation and institutionalization of the Rabbinic movement. Similarly, many New Testament scholars have tried to establish a link between the ‘am ha-aretz and the movement of Jesus’ followers. Again, historians formulated different historical hypotheses concerning the identity of the people labelled ‘am ha-aretz by the Rabbis. The history of research shows that the optimism of the earlier works as to the possibility of identifying a concrete social entity behind the term has slowly but inexorably faded away. Nowadays, most scholars seem to agree that behind the term ‘am ha-aretz there is no organised movement with any sort of group-awareness. Rather, they existed as such only by virtue of the Rabbis labelling them that way.2 So today, the term ‘am ha-aretz is usually interpreted by scholars as generically referring to the common, unlearned people.

2. It should however be clear that the fact that the ‘am ha-aretz is a constructed category does not entail that it does not refer to an actual social reality. As it is often the case, the Rabbis create an undifferentiated category out of a quite differentiated and heterogeneous social reality. The same happens with other labels such as for instance the Kutim (Samaritans).

994816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd4816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd 400400 221/12/111/12/11 09:1309:13 THE TERM ‘AM HA-ARETZ IN THE MISHNAH 401

The purpose of this paper is not to propose a new or different historical hypothesis about the identity of the ‘am ha-aretz in Rabbinic literature. Rather, it is to describe and analyse, on a thematic and textual level, how the term is used in the Mishnah. Although I do not question that there is a whole document called Mishnah, I wish to take into account the possibility that the Mishnah is not necessarily one text. It is therefore necessary to consider the single tractates as possible textual boundaries as well as considering the possibility that within the Mishnah itself there may be different views about the ‘am ha-aretz in different tractates.

1. The biblical ‘am ha-aretz

In Scripture, the term ‘am ha-aretz is used to refer to both Israelites and non-Israelites alike and, as we shall see, its semantic range is much wider that in Rabbinic literature. If in tannaitic literature the term is mostly found in its singular form, in biblical literature it is found in three different forms: ‘am ha-aretz,3 ‘ammei ha-aretz4 and ‘ammei ha-aratzot.5 It is important to note that in biblical literature, the singular form ‘am ha-aretz is always used as a ‘collective noun’ just like the English ‘population’ and does never refer to a single person, as is normally the case in Rabbinic texts. The term’s polysemy in biblical literature has been variously interpreted. To detect the meaning of the term ‘am ha-aretz scholars usually took into account the historical and geographical context of production of the documents in which it appears. Hence, a first distinction is made between texts of the pre-exilic, exilic and post-exilic period. Another criterion of differen- tiation is the presence or absence of a central state authority.6 Most scholars highlight the semantic change the term underwent. Thus A. H. J. Gunneweg7 speaks of ‘semantic revolution’ and Joel Weinberg8 speaks of ‘semantic evolution’. Both scholars emphasize not only the fact that the term ‘am ha- aretz changed its meaning continually in the course of history, but also that at the end of its semantic trajectory it evolved into the opposite of its origi- nal meaning.

3. Forty five occurrences. 4. Twenty two occurrences, one of which in the Pentateuch (Deut. 28:10). 5. Two occurrences in Ezra 9:11 and 2 Chronicles 32:12. 6. See for instance É. NODET, Essai sur les origines du judaïsme, Paris, Cerf, 1992, p. 237. 7. A. GUNNEWEG, “Am Ha-Aretz — a Semantic Revolution”, Zeitschrift für die Alttesta- mentliche Wissenschaft 95 (1983), pp. 437-40. 8. J. WEINBERG, The Citizen-Temple Community, Sheffield, JSOT Press, 1992.

994816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd4816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd 401401 221/12/111/12/11 09:1309:13 402 THE TERM ‘AM HA-ARETZ IN THE MISHNAH

As for the pre-exilic period, a widespread opinion ever since the work of E. Würthwein9 is that ‘am ha-aretz refers to the full citizens land-owners. According to Würthwein the two words forming the expression ‘am ha-aretz have to be seen as common nouns bearing a general unspecific sense. Hence, ארץ would refer to any people of any country since the word עם the word has to be understood in its general meaning. In this sense then, ‘am ha-aretz was interpreted by Würthwein as a technical term designating a specific socio-political group within any given country. This opinion has recently been reaffirmed by Lisbeth S. Fried who argues that “in pre-exilic and exilic texts, […], the term ‘am ha-aretz refers to the land-owning full citizens of an area”.10 However, against this understanding, E. W. Nicholson maintains that ‘am ha-aretz is not a technical term in that “it is used in a very general manner varying in meaning from context to context”.11 Nicholson does not deny that in many occurrences in the pre-exilic period the term ‘am ha-aretz refers to the class of land owners, but he rejects the claim that the term invariably refers to that class, arguing instead that quite often it is used to refer in general to the entire population of a given area.12 In relation to this, Gunneweg points out that Nicholson’s position “is nothing more than a justified warning of an inflexible and one-sided interpretation, as if the term meant a clearly defined institution”.13 Gunneweg, though accepting the idea that ‘am ha-aretz is a technical term designating the land-owning class, argues that even in pre-exilic times not all the occurrences of the term may be interpreted unequivocally and, therefore, the question of its meaning “has to remain undecided”. In the pre-exilic texts of the Pentateuch the term ‘am ha-aretz is used to refer to non-Israelite individuals or populations in opposition either to individual Israelites, or to the children of Israel in general.14 A different usage

9. E. WÜRTHWEIN, “Der ‘amm ha’arez im Alten Testament”, (Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 4/17), Stuttgart, W. Kohlhammer, 1936, 2010. 10. L. S. FRIED, “The ‘Am Ha’ares in Ezra 4:4 and Persian Imperial Administration”, in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, eds O. LIPSCHITS, M. OEMING, Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns, 2006, pp.125-45, p. 128. 11. E. W. NICHOLSON, “The Meaning of the Expression ‘Am Ha’ares in the Old Testa- ment”, Journal of Semitic Studies 10 (1965), pp. 59-66, p. 60. 12. In her article, Fried considers some of the passages analysed by Nicholson (Gen. 42:6; Exod. 5:5; II Kgs. 15:5; 16:15 and 25:3) arguing that the term ‘am ha-aretz invariably refers to the class of land-owners. Fried’s analysis, though at times convincing, may not be deemed conclusive in that she does not discuss all the passages brought by Nicholson in support of his argument. 13. GUNNEWEG, p. 437. 14. So, for instance it refers to the Egyptians (Gen. 42:6; Exod. 5:5). The same usage may be also found in Gen. 12-13 and 23:7 where it refers to the inhabitants of Hebron and in Num. 14:9 where it is applied to the Canaanites.

994816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd4816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd 402402 221/12/111/12/11 09:1309:13 THE TERM ‘AM HA-ARETZ IN THE MISHNAH 403

is found in the post-exilic passage of Lev. 4:27-35, where the term ‘am ha-aretz is used in the context of a distinction within Israel, to refer either to the land-owning full citizens, or to the ordinary members of the community, as distinct from the priesthood. In both the Second Book of Kings15 and in Jeremiah16 the term ‘am ha- aretz is applied to the population of Judah: be it in general, or in reference to the specific class of land- owners. In the book of Ezekiel, written during and after the exile, the term ‘am ha-aretz is used in two different ways: to indicate geographical provenance and to refer to a specific (and not easily identifiable) class of people within the Judean society.17 In post-exilic books such as Ezra and Nehemia, the term ‘am ha-aretz (often in its plural form) comes to identify the people (either Judean or pagan) hostile and opposed to the new cultic community formed by the returnees from Babylon (the benei ha-golah). The usage of the term ‘am ha-aretz in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah is particularly relevant for this study because of the elements shared with the usage of the term in Rabbinic literature. In Ezra 10:11 for instance, the term is used in the context of a discourse of identity definition and serves the purpose of representing the entity from which the ‘true’ Israel needs to differentiate and separate itself. In Ezra 4:1-4 the term ‘am ha-aretz is probably used to refer to the Samar- itans as opposed to Judeans, whereas in Ezra 9:1 it is used in the plural form (‘ammei ha-aratzot) to refer to the pagan populations of Judea as opposed, again, to the Judeans. The opposition between the ‘am ha-aretz and the benei ha-golah is first and foremost one between a construction of identity based on the land on the one hand and a construction based on the observance of the Law (e.g. Ezra 10:2 and Neh. 10:31) on the other. As Gun- neweg points out: ;the land given by God ,ארץ Formerly full citizenship was derived from the as lay people. But עם were equally derived the cultic rights of the ארץ from the ,having been banned by God’s judgement ,גולה now […], the members of the having been purified in the judgement, and having been rescued from the judgement, are God’s true Israel-congregation.18

Beside the connection to the land, the observance of the law became a relevant criterion of definition of ‘Israel’ and eventually superseded it. There is however also a semantic link between the ways the term ‘am ha-aretz is used in the book of Ezra and Nehemiah and in tannaitic litera-

15. See for instance II Kgs. 15:5; 16:15; 23:35 and 25:79. 16. Jer. 1:18; 34:19; 37:2 and 44:21. 17. Ezek. 7:27; 22:29; 45:16; 45:22; 46:3 and 46:9. 18. GUNNEWEG, p. 439.

994816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd4816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd 403403 221/12/111/12/11 09:1309:13 404 THE TERM ‘AM HA-ARETZ IN THE MISHNAH

ture. That stems from the thematic connection between the ‘am ha-aretz and the theme of impurity, and in both bodies of literature this also plays a role as an identity marker (e.g. Ezra 9:11). S. M. Oylan writes: The removal of all persons classified as aliens from the midst of Israel is justified through a variety of strategies, all of which draw in an innovative way on precedents in the biblical text, some from the rhetoric and ideology of the purity tradition. […] A powerful and novel purity and pollution discourse explicitly informs several of the narratives that describe and justify the forced removal of persons classed as aliens from temple and assembly.19

The ideological use of the rules of purity for purposes of identity definition is also found in the Mishnah where the observance of such rules according to Rabbinic standards is used as a means of exclusion from or margin- alisation within ‘Rabbinic Israel’.

2. The status of research into the use of the term ‘am ha-aretz in Rabbinic literature

The first scholar who scientifically looked at the question of the ‘am ha- aretz was Abraham Geiger. In his attempt to reconstruct the socio-historical reality of ancient Judea, he dealt with the question of identifying the historical group of persons referred to by the term.20 Geiger depicted a society divided into two clearly distinct classes in conflict with one another: on the one hand the socio-political aristocracy formed by Sadducees and Pharisees, on the other hand the uncultivated mass of the population represented, among others, by the ‘am ha-aretz, which in terms of religious observance was compared by Geiger to gentiles. In a similar argument, Solomon Zeitlin pointed out that at the base of the conflict between the ‘am ha-aretz and the socio-economic aristocracy was the question of tithes which, as he claimed, constituted a heavy burden on the ‘am ha-aretz.21 Zeitlin argues that before the period of the Hasmoneans the population of Judea was split into two: priests and Levites on one side and the ‘am ha-aretz on the other. The latter represented the rural class which constituted the numerical majority of the population and that, by pay-

19. S. M. OLYAN, “Purity Ideology in Ezra-Nehemiah as a Tool to Reconstitute the Com- munity”, Journal for the Study of Judaism 35 (2004), pp. 1-16, p. 3. 20. A. GEIGER, Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel, Breslau, Julius Hainauer, 1857. 21. S. ZEITLIN, “The Am Haaretz: A Study in the Social and Economic Life of the Jews before and after the Destruction of the Second Temple”, Jewish Quarterly Review 23 (1932), pp. 45-61.

994816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd4816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd 404404 221/12/111/12/11 09:1309:13 THE TERM ‘AM HA-ARETZ IN THE MISHNAH 405

ing tithes on agricultural produce, provided the main contribution to the maintenance of the two other classes. According to Zeitlin, things began to change after the Hasmonean revolt with the growth of an urban commercial class which was not subject to the payment of tithes. That situation would have brought forth a sense of discrimination and frustration of the ‘am ha- aretz that induced them to cease paying tithes regularly, thereby eliciting a reaction of the priests.22 The view of a class struggle was shared among others by scholars such as Emil Schürer, George F. Moore and Joseph Klausner. It is within this framework that the idea took shape which identifies the ‘am ha-aretz with the followers of Jesus and Jesus himself as an ‘am ha-aretz. The birth of Jesus’ movement was interpreted from the perspective of a class struggle, whereby the rural class of the ‘am ha-aretz, oppressed by the onerous tithing system, rebelled against priests and Levites and eventually joined the movement of Jesus, which was seen as an opportunity for social and economic redemption. The identification of the ‘am ha-aretz with the followers of Jesus was rejected by Adolph Büchler on the basis of the observation that the majority of references to the ‘am ha-aretz date to the second half of the 2nd century and it would hence be anachronistic to apply them to the situation of the time of Jesus.23 Büchler is probably right in arguing that most references to the ‘am ha-aretz in tannaitic literature are of Ushan origin and later.24 How- ever, as we shall see, that does not mean that the actual social reality referred to by the term did not exist before the time of Usha. Therefore this dating does not a priori exclude the possibility of identifying the ‘am ha-aretz with the followers of Jesus. Also problematic seems Büchler’s idea that the majority of the rabbinic norms concerning the ‘am ha-aretz in matters of tithing and purity were addressed primarily to the priests and not to Israelites in general. Although it is true that in Rabbinic texts the term ‘am ha-aretz is at times used as an adjective and may serve to qualify a priest (e.g. mHor. 3:8), nonetheless, in most cases, the term ‘am ha-aretz is employed as a noun and refers to non-priestly Israelites. However, Büchler contributed a second important insight by saying that the rabbinic notion of the ‘am ha- aretz could be a literary creation and that, therefore, its interpretation depends on the literary context in which it appears. This idea, which was

22. According to Zeitlin, it is in this context that the decree of Johanan the High priest reported in Rabbinic texts (mM. Sh. 5:15; mSot. 9:10 and bSot. 48a-b) should be interpreted. 23. A. BÜCHLER, Der galiläische ‘Am ha ’ares des zweiten Jahrhunderts, Vienna, A. Hölder, 1906. 24. Usha is the name of a Galilean town which became the centre of the Rabbinic movement after the Bar Kokhba revolt of 135 CE.

994816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd4816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd 405405 221/12/111/12/11 09:1309:13 406 THE TERM ‘AM HA-ARETZ IN THE MISHNAH

taken up by both Jacob Neusner and Peter Haas, seems by far the most fruit- ful analytical perspective in dealing with the topic of ‘am ha-aretz. This perspective, as we shall see below, also accounts for the presence of a number of passages where the term is not actually used but where its notion seems to be presupposed in other terms. The only systematic analysis of the ‘am ha-aretz in Rabbinic literature is by Aharon Oppenheimer of 1977.25 Oppenheimer provides a thorough scru- tiny of the Rabbinic references to the ‘am ha-aretz and analyses them against the background of pseudepigraphic and apocryphal literature, the New Testa- ment, Philo and Josephus. Oppenheimer’s more relevant conclusions are as follows: firstly, that it is not possible to locate the ‘am ha-aretz within a specific social component like farmers, as opposed to traders, or like villag- ers as opposed to city-dwellers, and that “the ‘ammei ha-aretz are to be viewed as constituting a social stream which belonged to no defined class and had no separate organizational framework”.26 Secondly, that the ‘ammei ha-aretz are not to be considered as opposing the Rabbis or the principle of the Oral Torah, but only as careless in the observance of Rabbinic tithing and purity rules and as lacking in Torah learning. Although it is certainly possible to agree with the first point, the second seems more difficult to assess on the basis of tannaitic references. For these do not seem to allow placing the ‘am ha-aretz at a precise point in the line going from merely slack observance to open opposition. The term ‘am ha-aretz is opaque enough to potentially con- tain more than one single attitude towards Rabbinic authority. I shall now consider two positions which, although neglected by most scholars dealing with the ‘am ha-aretz, have widely influenced the present work: the first is Jacob Neusner’s History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities27 and the second is the article by Peter Hass, “The Am Ha’Arets as Literary Character”.28 In his commentary to tractate Tohorot, Neusner makes the observation that the term ‘am ha-aretz is almost always found in passages attributed to Ushan authorities.29 He interprets this fact as a result of an effort of sys-

25. A. OPPENHEIMER, The Am ha-Aretz, Leiden, Brill, 1977. 26. Ibid., p. 21. 27. J. NEUSNER, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities, Leiden, Brill, 1976-1979. 28. P. J. HAAS, “The Am Ha’arets as Literary Character,” in From Ancient Israel to Modern Judaism. Intellect in Quest of Understanding. Essays in Honor of Marvin Fox, eds J. NEUSNER, E. FRERICHS, N. SARNA, Atlanta, Scholar Press, 1989. 29. The reliability of attributions is of course a critical issue and cannot be taken for granted. In his later works, Neusner himself became more and more sceptical in relation to the usefulness of attributions for the purpose of dating individual sayings. See for instance J. NEUSNER, “Evaluating the Attributions of Sayings to Named Sages in Rabbinic Literature”,

994816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd4816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd 406406 221/12/111/12/11 09:1309:13 THE TERM ‘AM HA-ARETZ IN THE MISHNAH 407

tematization of such areas of law which deal with matters of doubts related to questions of purity, and specifically to the assessment of how people, whose reliability is in doubt, act in a given situation. When we come to the ‘am ha-aretz, we form the similar impression that the laws of Tohorot take shape and are more or less thoroughly systematized only in the middle of the second century. One fundamental principle of systematiza- tion is that ordinary folk know part of the laws governing the cleanness of those who wish to preserve cleanness (for one reason or another) and faithfully keep those laws in a negative way, by trying not to contaminate the people who keep cleanness. Not only so, but very specific language is now consistently used, ‘am ha-aretz for ordinary folk, Ìaber for those who keep cleanness.30

Thus, Neusner maintains that that evolution has been brought about by the necessity to systematise the area of law concerning the interactions between those who observe purity and tithing rules and those who do not, and the problems arising from these interactions. Those issues, Neusner remarks, had already been dealt with by Yavnean Rabbis but it would only be in Usha that they were systematically tackled. Among the main effects of that systematisation, Neusner maintains, was the elaboration of technical terms, such as ‘am ha-aretz and Ìaber, used instead of the other expressions which were previously employed (e.g. ‘one who does not tithe’ in mDem. 6:7).31 Neusner’s intuition can hardly be demonstrated on diachronic grounds, given the problems connected with the reliability of attributions and more generally of dating Rabbinic dicta. Yet, Neusner’s hypothesis, as

Journal for the Study of Judaism 26 (1995), pp. 93-111, J. NEUSNER, “What Use Attributions? An Open Question in the Study of Rabbinic Literature”, in When Judaism & Christianity Began. Essays in Memory of Anthony J. Saldarini. Volume Two. Judaism and Christianity in the Beginning, eds D. HARRINGTON, J. NEUSNER, A. J. AVERY-PECK, Leiden, Brill, 2004, pp. 441-60. For a more general overview on this see also David KRAEMER, “On the Reliabil- ity of Attributions in the Babylonian Talmud”, Hebrew Union College Annual 60 (1989) pp. 175-90, ID., “Rabbinic Sources for Historical Study”, in Judaism in Late Antiquity. Vol- ume Two. Part Three, Section One, eds J. NEUSNER, A. J. AVERY-PECK, Leiden, Brill, 2001, pp. 201-12, S. STERN, “Attribution and Authorship in the Babylonian Talmud,” Journal of Jewish Studies 45 (1994), pp. 28-51, ID., “The Concept of Authorship in the Babylonian Talmud”, Journal of Jewish Studies 46 (1995), pp. 183-95. 30. NEUSNER, A History (n. 27 above), Part Twenty-Two, p. 253. 31. Of the same period is the creation of a so called ‘vocabulary of orthodoxy’ comprising terms like min (heretic) and meshummad (apostate). The function the Rabbis attributed to those labellings is, as P. S. Alexander points out, “to apply to themselves terms that assert that their views are normative and those of their opponents deviant”. At the linguistic level, which is the level of interest in this paper, this process of labelling “fundamentally involves each party trying to appropriate society’s core values by claiming the right to certain epithets which express those values, while at the same time labelling its opponents in ways that stig- matise them as deviant”. In P. S. ALEXANDER, “Insider/Outsider Labelling and the Struggle for Power in Early Judaism”, in Religion, Language, and Power, eds N. GREEN, M. SEARLE- CHATTERJEE, London-New York, Routledge, 2008, pp. 83-100, p. 83.

994816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd4816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd 407407 221/12/111/12/11 09:1309:13 408 THE TERM ‘AM HA-ARETZ IN THE MISHNAH

this paper will attempt to do, can be reinforced on textual grounds by trying to show the co-referentiality existing between the term ‘am ha-aretz itself and expressions like ‘one who does not tithe’. Of great interest is also the article by Peter Haas, especially for the emphasis he places on the literary nature of the term ‘am ha-aretz. From that it follows that the attempt to see the term as a stable, identifiable historical reference is a paradox, since the documents in which the term ‘am ha-aretz appears were written in different times and places, with the conse- quence that “it seems highly unlikely that a social group of some sort in Roman Palestine could ‘evolve’ into a social group in Persia”.32 Significantly, Haas also highlights the fact that the term has an instrumen- tal function for the Rabbis, namely as referring to a negative model of behaviour. […] The ‘am ha-aretz are ascribed traits that define the systemic opposite of what the author wishes to promote. Thus far from being a description of an actual social group, the Rabbinic ‘am ha-aretz, though fashioned out of historical material, is the creation of an author’s mind and reflects in a clear, albeit inverse way the image that author has of the good life.33

This is evident in all passages where the term is placed in direct opposition to other terms such as ne’eman or Ìaber (e.g. mDem. 2:2-3). In all those cases, the behaviour of the ‘am ha-aretz is invariably contrasted with that of the Ìaber or the ne’eman. This shows the oppositional function the term performs in Rabbinic thematic (as opposed to lemmatic) literature. Treating the term ‘am ha-aretz as a literary creation allows us to avoid trying to harmonise the sources so that they fit one single social entity.34 But it also permits us to account for the semantic heterogeneity of the term without having to explain it in terms of socio-historical changes. As Haas puts it, “the different connotations of the ‘am ha-aretz in the Mishnah and Gemara [may be seen as reflecting] differing theories of the nature of the good life within Judaism”.35

32. HAAS, “The Am Ha’arets” (n. 28 above), pp. 144-5. 33. Ibid., pp. 139-40. The same aspect has been pointed out also by David Neale who writes: “the definition of the ‘amei ha-’aretz is based on what they do not do. It is a lack of conformity to a supposed ideal that identifies the ‘amei ha-’aretz”. In D. A. NEALE, None but the Sinners: Religious Categories in the Gospel of Luke, Sheffield, JSOT Press, 1991, p. 66. 34. This also seems to be the standpoint of Lee I. Levine who, in a section dedicated to the am ha-aretz, points out that “Were the ‘ammei ha-aretz a highly definable group, we might expect to find more concrete references to their beliefs or practices”. In L. I. LEVINE, The Rabbinic Class of Roman Palestine in Late Antiquity, New York, The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1989, p. 113. 35. HAAS, “The Am Ha’arets” (n. 28 above), p. 151.

994816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd4816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd 408408 221/12/111/12/11 09:1309:13 THE TERM ‘AM HA-ARETZ IN THE MISHNAH 409

It is thus from the specific worldview of the single Rabbinic texts that, according to Haas, the interpreter should begin in order to start substanti- ating the notion of ‘am ha-aretz. To this end, one has to take into account on the one hand the actual historical conditions of the time and place of redaction of the single document and, on the other hand, the literary and conceptual characteristics of the documents themselves. Hence, the meaning of the term ‘am ha-aretz in the Mishnah, and also within the different mishnaic tractates, has to be considered as potentially peculiar, and the same is true for the other documents of Rabbinic literature and their individual tractates. Those differences, according to Haas, have to be assessed against the literary characteristics of the different documents but also in the light of their specific finalities, the worldview(s) they reflect as well as their actual historical context. Haas correctly argues that the term ‘am ha-aretz is semantically unstable but functionally steady and responds to the necessity of each of the single documents to create a different type of outsider. Before concluding this short overview of the state of research, two other works merit a mention. The first is Sacha Stern’s Jewish Identity in Early Rabbinic Writings.36 Stern places the ‘am ha-aretz within the category of what he calls liminal groups together with, among others, the kutim, the minim, the meshummadim and the gerim. His main interest lies in whether or not and to what extent these groups are deemed as Jewish by the Rabbis. He adopts an inclusive definition of the term ‘am ha-aretz identifying them with the undifferentiated mass of the Jewish population whose main distinctive feature is their slackness of observance.37 Despite that slackness and despite their lack of knowledge, Stern observes that Rabbinic sources generally assume “that the amei haAretz nominally affiliate to the rabbis and their teachings”.38 Nonetheless, Stern wonders […] whether this relative slackness of observance meant, in Rabbinic terms, that the common people failed to achieve, effectively, the distinctive features of the Rabbinic ‘Israel’; and hence, whether the distinction of the rabbis from the common people may have extended as far as excluding the latter, in some way, from the distinctive category of ‘Israel’.39

36. S. STERN, Jewish Identity in Early Rabbinic Writings, Leiden, Brill, 1994. 37. Stern translates the term as ‘common people’ which is on the whole adequate. It must however be pointed out that that translation does not account for all the occurrences especially when the term is used in its adjectival function, like for instance in the case of a priest ‘am ha-aretz (mHor. 3:8) or of a Rabbi ‘am ha-aretz (bB.B. 8a). 38. STERN, Jewish Identity (n. 36 above), p. 115. 39. Ibid., p. 114.

994816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd4816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd 409409 221/12/111/12/11 09:1309:13 410 THE TERM ‘AM HA-ARETZ IN THE MISHNAH

To this question there is of course no definitive answer and Stern effectively shows several cases where the ‘am ha-aretz is treated as a Jew and others where he is deemed as a non-Jew. What results is an ambivalent and even contradictory attitude of the Sages towards the ‘am ha-aretz. However, unlike most of the previous and later scholars, Stern does not try to explain that attitude in terms of historical evolution, or of different social realities, or as representing divergent Rabbinic opinions. Rather, he argues that the ‘am ha-aretz belongs to a sort of ‘grey area’ being in fact “emphatically Israel but simultaneously akin to the non-Jews, in view of his failure to adhere to ‘Israel’ in all its constituent features”.40 Stern convincingly explains that ‘dual identity’ in terms of the dynamic and changing nature of identity which is time and context bound. This conclusion is not far from that of Haas, who argued that the term ‘am ha-aretz is to be understood as representing the negative face of the idea of Israel conveyed by the Rabbis at different time and places. The second recent work which I would like to mention here is Le judaïsme et l’avènement du christianisme by Dan Jaffé.41 The author examines the function of the Sages as gatekeepers by considering how they dealt with what he considers the two main heterodox groups representing the principal threats to Rabbinic authority, in doctrinal and ritual questions: the Judeo– Christians, and the ‘am ha-aretz. Jaffe takes a socio-cultural and historical- critical approach, based on the assumption that textual history allows us to gain insight into the actual Jewish society of late antiquity. The author highlights the polysemic nature of the term, shifting according to time, place, and literary environment. He also correctly stresses the fact that the ‘am ha-aretz did not constitute a sect provided with any kind of group-awareness. In the same line as Oppenheimer, Jaffé problematically depicts a three- stage evolution in the relations between the Sages and the ‘am ha-aretz. A first period of friendly relations before 70 CE, a second period of growing enmity on the part of the Sages aimed at marginalising and even excluding the ‘ammei ha-aretz, and a third period of greater tolerance where ‘ammei- ha-aretz were reintegrated. Despite the fact that Jaffé shows not to be una- ware of the recent scholarly debate concerning the historical use of Rabbinic writings, the diachronic picture he outlines suggests that the author places perhaps too much confidence in the possibility of dating Rabbinic texts.

40. Ibid., p. 126. 41. D. JAFFÉ, Le judaïsme et l’avènement du christianisme. Orthodoxie et hétérodoxie dans la littérature talmudique Ier-IIe siècle, Paris, Cerf, 2005.

994816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd4816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd 410410 221/12/111/12/11 09:1309:13 THE TERM ‘AM HA-ARETZ IN THE MISHNAH 411

3. Analysis of the Mishnah usage in linguistic-literary terms

In this section, I will begin by providing an overview of the use of the term ‘am ha-aretz in the Mishnah. I shall then expound on how I will analyse the term and finally provide a linguistic and literary analysis of some selected examples. My analysis of the occurrences of the term ‘am ha-aretz in the Mishnah has shown that the mishnaic treatment of the ‘am ha-aretz is twofold. On the one hand, and often on the basis of suppositions, the Rabbis sought to regulate situations of interaction where the uncertainty about how an ‘am ha-aretz would behave in a given circumstance, is liable to cause the Mishnah’s addressees to commit an infraction. On the other hand, the Mishnah aims to prevent that the actions of a Ìaber or of any other addressee of mishnaic rulings could cause an ‘am ha-aretz to violate a given norm. The term ‘am ha-aretz appears thirty seven times in the Mishnah42 and it is quite irregularly distributed over the whole document.43 Twenty two occurrences are found in only two tractates, namely Demai and Tohorot, each with eleven references.44 The other fifteen occurrences are found in ten different tractates: Shebi‘it (1), Ma‘aser Sheni (2), Îagigah (1), Gittin (1), ‘Eduyot (1), Abot (3), Horayot (2), Kinnim (1), Makhshirin (2) and Tebul Yom (1).45 From my analysis of the occurrences of the term ‘am ha-aretz it appears that in the Mishnah it is used with three different meanings, as referring to someone who: 1) is not reliable or does not observe purity rules, 2) is not reliable or does not follow tithing regulations46 and 3) is ignorant and/or does not follow the Sages’ teachings. In tractates Demai, Ma‘aser Sheni, Shebi‘it and Gittin47 the term ‘am ha-aretz is used both in relation to tithing and purity. In Makhshirin, Îagigah and ‘Eduyot it is only used in its first

42. This results from a search on the Bar Ilan Responsa Project CD. 43. The occurrences in the Tosefta are 138, with a slightly more regular distribution. 44. Significantly, both Demai and Tohorot deal extensively with questions of doubts in relation to separation of tithes and observance of ritual purity. It has been remarked above that according to Neusner the explicit use of the term ‘am ha-aretz dates to the period of Usha and is to be seen as the result of a rationalisation of legal drafting and in parallel with the beginning of the systematic treatment of the two topics of tithing and purity which, already began at Yavneh but was completed and largely enriched only at Usha, according to the schema that “what Yavneans create, Ushans complicate”. 45. Thirty-five references are in the singular whereas two (mAvot 3:10 and mToh. 10:1) in the plural form ‘ammei ha-aretz. 46. The close relationship between the two themes of purity and tithing may already be seen in Scripture (e.g. Num. 18:11 and Deut. 26:14) and it is hence not surprising that that relation is also present in Rabbinic literature, where the two themes are often connected and often relevant within a single norm. 47. The references in mSheb. 5:9 and mGitt. 5:9 are identical.

994816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd4816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd 411411 221/12/111/12/11 09:1309:13 412 THE TERM ‘AM HA-ARETZ IN THE MISHNAH

meaning, whereas in Tohorot and Tebul Yom it is only used in its second meaning. Finally, in five occurrences in Abot, Horayot and Kinnim the term is used in its third meaning.48 Despite the different meanings, the term as used in the Mishnah displays a stable function in that it is invariably used to indicate what the ‘am ha- aretz fails to do. It is used to represent a negative model of behaviour from which the Mishnah’s implicit addressees are supposed to take distance. This function is often accentuated by the fact that the term ‘am ha-aretz is found in the context of an implicit or explicit opposition to another term, that is, as the second element of a dichotomy, denoting the position against which the governing voice of the text wants to differentiate itself from.49 In my opinion, looking at the term from a functional standpoint allows one to overcome the difficulties of its semantic heterogeneity and allows one to find a unifying element across its usages. To make the distinction between a semantic and a functional analysis clearer, the example of the Rabbinic use of the term Kutim may be of help. Kutim is the term used in Rabbinic literature to refer to Samaritans, and as I have pointed out elsewhere, in Tannaitic texts it “works as a taxonomic marker, not intrinsically meaningful, being in fact substantiated through con- trastive and analogical relations”.50 Just like the term ‘am ha-aretz, the term

48. Abot (2:5, 3:10 and 5:10), Horayot (3:8) and Kinnim (3:6). Kinnim and Abot are known to be later tractates. From Talmudic times onwards, the term ‘am ha-aretz will be mainly used in the meaning of ‘ignorant’, possibly including the other two. This, in the sense that the ‘am ha-aretz is ignorant of Rabbinic norms and therefore fails to observe tithing and purity rules as to comply with Rabbinic standards. 49. Being identity mainly constructed by opposition, the creation of dichotomies is of course functional to the definitional discourse of the Rabbis. The labels used as the elements of the dichotomy homogenise an otherwise complex and heterogeneous social reality empha- sising only what is functional to the Rabbis’ discursive strategy. In relation to the linguistic character of the more common labels used in Rabbinic literature to identify opponents, Alex- ander points out three main elements of interest: “First, they are distinctive of Rabbinic speech, part of the Rabbinic religious idiolect: they are peculiar usages intended to express disapproval of non-Rabbinic groups. Second, they seem to involve a put-down of some kind though the precise nature of this is now a bit obscure. Third, there is a highly significant asymmetry between insider and outsider labelling by the Rabbinic movement. Insider labelling tends to use generic terms, whereas outsider label are idiosyncratic. This is probably the most effective linguistic strategy the Rabbis could have adopted. If both insider and outsider labels are generic then their power to differentiate is limited. The same is true if both are idiosyncratic, with the added problem that the insiders effectively brand themselves as sectarian. The compromise of generic insider labelling and idiosyncratic outsider labelling serves well the purpose of establishing the insiders as holding the centre ground, as being the true faith, and marginalizing the outsiders as the deviants”. In ALEXANDER, “Insider/Outsider” (n. 31 above), pp. 89-90. 50. R. BERNASCONI, “Tannaitic Israel and the Kutim”, in Entre lignes de partage et ter- ritoires de passage. Les identités religieuses dans les mondes grec et romain. «Paganismes»,

994816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd4816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd 412412 221/12/111/12/11 09:1309:13 THE TERM ‘AM HA-ARETZ IN THE MISHNAH 413

Kutim is used in a variety of different meanings, but usually has the same function. Kutim are relevant in Rabbinic discourse in four main areas of law: purity, tithing, marriage and relationships with non-Jews. Hence, the term is substantiated differently according to the specific context in which it appears; what does not change is its function, which as pointed out by Stern, “serves the purpose of testing the limits of many halakhic rulings where the distinction between Jew and non-Jew applies”.51 I have mentioned above that the term ‘am ha-aretz is used in three different meanings in the Mishnah, but I did not mention that, unlike the Tosefta and the Babli, the Mishnah does not provide any explicit definition of the term. In both the Tosefta (t‘A. Zar. 3:10) and the Babli (bBer 47b, bSot. 22a and bGitt. 61a-b) a question of definition is asked. The Tosefta provides two answers, attributed to R. Meir and the Sages respectively. t‘A. Zar. 3:10 And who is deemed an ‘am ha-aretz? “Anyone who does not eat his unconse- crated food in conditions of cultic purity”, words of R. Meir. And the Sages say, “Anyone who does not properly separate tithes”.

Thus two of the three meanings which I have identified for the term ‘am ha-aretz in the Mishnah correspond to the definitions given in the Tosefta. The third meaning, i.e. that of someone who does not follow the teachings of the Sages, is explicitly articulated in the Babli. bBer. 47b Our Rabbis taught: Who is an ‘am ha-aretz? “Anyone who does not recite the Shema‘ evening and morning”, words of R. Eliezer. R. Joshua says: “Anyone who does not put on tefillin”. Ben ‘Azzai says: “Anyone who has not a fringe on his garment”. R. Nathan says: “Anyone who has not a mezuzah on his door”. R. Nathan b. Joseph says: “Anyone who has sons and does not bring them up to the study of the Torah”. Others say: “Even if one has learnt Scrip- ture and Mishnah, if he has not ministered to the disciples of the Sages, he is an ‘am ha-aretz’”. R. Huna said: “The halakhah is as laid down by ‘Others’”.52

All those different definitions are semantically disparate but functionally equivalent, in that they are all based on what an ‘am ha-aretz fails to do. This fact is also reflected by the different usages across the Mishnah, where the meaning of the term ‘am ha-aretz may only be defined on the basis of thematic and co-textual relations or, in certain cases, thematic relations only.

«judaïsmes», «christianismes», eds S. C. MIMOUNI, N. BELAYCHE, Leuven, Peeters, 2009 («Collection de la Revue des études juives» 47), pp. 365-92. 51. STERN, Jewish Identity (n. 36 above), p. 100. 52. The definitions provided here are substantially the same as those found in bGitt. 61a-b and bSot. 22a and are irrelevant for the purpose of the present paper.

994816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd4816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd 413413 221/12/111/12/11 09:1309:13 414 THE TERM ‘AM HA-ARETZ IN THE MISHNAH

At times the term ‘am ha-aretz appears in the context of formally and thematically homogeneous units which facilitate the determination of its meaning. This however only happens in tractates Demai and Tohorot. In all other tractates, the term ‘am ha-aretz is mostly used in isolation and its meaning may only be indirectly inferred from the thematic context and/or on the basis of extra-textual information. That said, I shall argue that the opposite is also true, i.e. that at times the term ‘am ha-aretz implicitly defines other terms or expressions, or in other words, that at times the notion of ‘am ha-aretz is presupposed in other terms or expressions.53 This occurs in three different situations: first, when the term ‘am ha-aretz is explicitly used in the same co-text as that of the other terms and expressions, which are co-referential, and the presupposition of its notion is made easier by both thematic and formal homogeneity (e.g. mToh. 7:1-7).54 Second, when the term ‘am ha-aretz is used in a unit thematically but not formally homogeneous and the co-referentiality may only be inferred on thematic grounds (e.g. mÎag. 2:5-3:8). Third, where the term ‘am ha-aretz is not used in textual proximity to terms clearly co-referential and the co-referentiality stems from the presence of semantically transparent expressions (e.g. mMa‘as. 5:3-4). I distinguish between two different types of co-referential expressions according to their semantic transparency. For the first type I have found the following expressions: 1) ‘he who is not trustworthy in relation to tithes’ ’he does not trust him regarding tithes‘ (2 55,(מי שאינו נאמן על המעשרות) אחד שאינו) ’one who does not tithe‘ (3 56,(והוא אינו מאמינו על המעשרות) he is‘ (5 58,(חשוד על המעשרות) ’suspected in relation to tithes‘ (4 57,(מעשר and, 6) only referring to 59(חשוד על הטהרות) ’suspected in relation to purity the purity of wine and oil, ‘they are deemed trustworthy in relation to the 60.(נאמנים על טהרת יין ושמן) ’purity of wine and oil

53. I have identified about forty three such cases. Thirty in Mishnah Demai and Tohorot and twelve in the rest of the Mishnah. Specifically, I have found one in Berakhot (7:1) and Bekhorot (4:10), three in Pe’ah (8:2-4) and Ma‘aserot (2:2 and 5:3-4) and five in Îagigah (3:4-8). The identification of these occurrences is not straightforward and I can therefore not exclude the possibility that there are more. 54. This only occurs in Demai and Tohorot. 55. Found five times in mDem. 4:1 (twice), 4:5, mMa‘as. 5:3-4. The same expression is also found four times in the Tosefta: tDem. 5:1, 5:3, 6:10 and 7:11. .והוא אינו מאמינו על המעשר In mDem. 4:2. tDem. 8:6 has .56 .כל שאינו מעשר In mDem. 6:7, while t‘A. Zar. 3:10 has .57 58. In mBekh. 4:10 and twice in tBekh. 3:12. mBekh. 4:10 also contains the negative expression ‘he who is not suspected in relation to tithes’. 59. In mBekh. 4:10 and tBekh. 3:12. Again, the negative expression ‘he who is not suspected in relation to purity’ is found in mBekh. 4:10. 60. In mÎag. 3:4 and tÎag. 3:25.

994816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd4816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd 414414 221/12/111/12/11 09:1309:13 THE TERM ‘AM HA-ARETZ IN THE MISHNAH 415

The second type of co-referential expressions is context-bound in that the co-referentiality may only be inferred on the basis of contextual and co- textual relations. This second type includes common nouns (e.g. ‘tax collectors’ or ‘thieves’ in mToh. 7:6), pronouns (e.g. ‘two’ in mDem. 6:7-8 or ‘three’ in mBer. 7:1) and impersonal verbal forms (e.g. mÎag. 3:4). The co-referentiality of the term ‘am ha-aretz with other expressions may be explained either diachronically as Neusner did, or synchronically as a form of implicit conceptualisation.61 To my mind the two explanations are not mutually exclusive and I will therefore investigate the occurrences with both possibilities in mind.

3.a. The evidence of the Mishnah as a text

I have mentioned above that in the Mishnah the meanings of the term ‘am ha-aretz are never made explicit. So the question arises as to whether those meanings are taken for granted or else if it is at times possible to work them out, on the basis of thematic and textual relations. No answer can be provided for the whole Mishnah, but rather it is necessary to consider individual tractates as potential textual boundaries. The main divide is between tractates Demai and Tohorot on the one hand and the other tractates on the other. In Demai and Tohorot the term ‘am ha-aretz often occurs within thematically homogeneous and formally cohesive units, where, by virtue of thematic and textual relations, the determination of its meaning is fairly straightforward. In particular, as we shall see below, in mDem. 2:2-3 a negative definition of ‘am ha-aretz can be worked out by opposition to the terms ne’eman and Ìaber. In all other tractates, the term is always used in thematic isolation and its meaning may not be inferred from the context but depends on extra-textual information (e.g. mM.Sh. 3:3 or mMakhsh 6:3). This poses the question of inter-tractate relations, i.e. is it possible to assume that the meanings worked out first for Demai or Tohorot may be deemed as applicable also to other tractates?62 I shall now analyse mDem. 2:2-3 where a ‘negative’ definition of the term ‘am ha-aretz may be worked out.

61. On the activity of ‘implicit conceptualisation’ in rabbinic literature see for instance L. MOSCOVITZ, Talmudic Reasoning: From Casuistics to Conceptualization, Tübingen, Mohr- Siebeck, 2002, pp. 30-3, 63-8, 103-4. 62. To be sure, in both Demai (1:2-3) and Tohorot (4:5) the term ‘am ha-aretz is used in isolation before co-textual usage definitions may be extrapolated. Hence, again, two possibilities arise: either the Mishnah forces the reader to perform a backward reading or its meaning is taken for granted on the basis of extra-textual information.

994816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd4816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd 415415 221/12/111/12/11 09:1309:13 416 THE TERM ‘AM HA-ARETZ IN THE MISHNAH

mDem. 2:263 המקבל עליו להיות נאמן מעשר את שהוא אוכל ואת שהוא מוכר ואת שהוא לוקח ואינו מתארח אצל עם הארץ ר‘ יהודה אומר אף המתארח אצל עם הארץ נאמן אמרו לו על עצמו אינו נאמן כיצד יהא נאמן על של אחרים: Whoever accepts upon himself to be ne’eman tithes what he eats and what he sells and what he buys, and he may not be the guest of an ‘am ha-aretz. R. Judah says, “Even one who is the guest of an ‘am ha-aretz is trustworthy”. They said to him, “If he is not trustworthy regarding himself, how can he be ne’eman concerning that of others?”

mDem. 2:3 המקבל עליו להיות חבר אינו מוכר לעם הארץ לח ויבש ואינו לוקח ממנו לח ואינו מתארח אצל עם הארץ ולא מארחו אצלו בכסותו ר‘ יהודה אומר אף לא יגדל בהמה דקה ולא יהא פרוץ בנדרים ובשחוק ולא יהא מטמא למתים ומשמש בבית המדרש אמרו לו לא באו אלו לכלל: Whoever undertakes to be a Ìaber may not sell to an ‘am ha-aretz anything moist or dry, nor may he buy from him anything moist, and he may not be the guest of an ‘am ha-aretz, nor may he receive him as his guest in his own garments. R. Judah says, “Also he may not raise small cattle, and he may not indulge in vows or levity, and he may not defile himself with the dead, and he should minister in the house of study”. They said to him, “These do not come within the rule”.

The first mishnah in 2:2 sets four conditions required to become ne’eman (trustworthy):64 three positive (to tithe what is eaten, sold and bought) and one negative (not to be the guest of an ‘am ha-aretz).65 This is followed by

63. All Hebrew texts are taken from the Bar Ilan Responsa Project CD and have been compared with Albeck’s edition. I have checked mss Kaufmann and Parma (http://jnul.huji. ac.il/dl/talmud/indexeng.htm) and found no differences, which are relevant for my analysis. Translations are mine on the basis of existing English editions. 64. Here and in other places in the Mishnah (e.g. Îag. 3:4), it is not easy to determine whether ne’eman has to be seen as a general or as a technical term. According to David Rokéah, “this is the only case in the Mishnah where the term ne’eman is used as a terminus technicus for a member of the ne’emanut. In all other places, ne’eman simply means a ‘trustworthy person’”. In D. ROKÉAH, “Am Haaretz, the Early Pietists (Hasidim), Jesus and the Christians”, in Aux origines juives du christianisme, eds F. BLANCHETIÈRE, M. D. HERR, Jeru- salem, Diffusion Peeters, 1993, pp. 159-73, p. 159. 65. Albert I. Baumgarten highlights the social value attributed to sharing food with others writing that “The social consequences of commensality are of the highest significance. Those from whom one accepts prepared food, or are eligible to share one’s own food, are those with whom one identifies to the highest degree. If properly prepared food from an acceptable source is unavailable, wild food, taken directly from nature and eaten without human interven- tion is the only alternative. Rules of commensality thus indicate those whom one considers insiders or outsiders”. In A. I. BAUMGARTEN, “Ancient Jewish Sectarianism”, Judaism 47 (1998), pp. 387-403, p. 388.

994816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd4816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd 416416 221/12/111/12/11 09:1309:13 THE TERM ‘AM HA-ARETZ IN THE MISHNAH 417

a dispute where R. Judah takes issue with the fourth condition, arguing that one who is guest of an ‘am ha-aretz may still be considered ne’eman. This view is rejected by means of an a fortiori argument, claiming that if someone is not reliable concerning himself he may not be deemed reliable in relation to others.66 The argument runs as follows: tithes must be paid on produce which is eaten and on produce which is sold and only a person who tithes both is deemed as trustworthy. Usually a person is more scrupulous with regard to himself and his own food than with other people’s food. The person who eats the food of an ‘am ha-aretz is not trustworthy with regard to his own food and therefore may only be deemed as less trustworthy regarding other people’s food. In principle, the prohibition to be guest of an ‘am ha- aretz has not a straightforward logical relation to the question of tithing. This may in fact be motivated by any other reason and may constitute an extra criterion deemed necessary to become ne’eman and unrelated to tithing. However, the dispute between R. Judah and the collective anonymous voice makes it clear that that is not the case. The term ne’eman is in fact repeated in both R. Judah and the anonymous utterances thus clarifying that what is at stake in being guest of an ‘am ha-aretz is his/her unreliability in matters of tithing. There is then a clear relation of antinomy between the two notions of ne’eman and ‘am ha-aretz which allows us to work out a co-textual usage definition of the latter as someone who does not fulfil some or all of the three positive conditions listed above, i.e. to tithe what is eaten, sold and bought. Who are the addressees of this norm? Everyone who intends to become ne’eman. It therefore seems possible to argue that the addressee is the ‘am ha-aretz itself as someone who is not ne’eman and hence in principle willing to become trustworthy in matters of tithing. It is in fact the ‘am ha-aretz in both this and the המקבל עליו who is the implied subject of the expression following mishnah.67 The fact that an addressee is (implicitly) identified, as

66. The same dispute is also found in tDem. 2:2 though differently attributed and ending by another statement supporting the more lenient position (e.g. “They said to him, ‘House- holders have never refrained from eating with one another, nonetheless the produce in their own homes is properly tithed’”). This indicates a different attitude of the two texts, a more stringent attitude in the Mishnah and a more lenient one in the Tosefta. 67. Saul Lieberman points out that it is not clear what formal act, if there was any at all, was required to have his/her personal undertaking recognized and suggests that it may have been a sort of vow or oath: “The manner of this undertaking is not revealed in the sources. […] No oath (or vow) is mentioned. From the Mishnah in Bekhorot (VII end) it appears by itself was accompanied by neither vow nor oath. However, the very declaration קבל על that that one will abide by the laws of the Îaburah may have carried the onus of a kind of ‘handle’ .”oath, in Rabbinic sources ,שבועה is often associated with קבלה ,of an oath. On the other hand In S. LIEBERMAN, “The Discipline in the So-Called Dead Sea Manual of Discipline”, Journal of Biblical Literature 71 (1952), pp. 199-206 p. 200.

994816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd4816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd 417417 221/12/111/12/11 09:1309:13 418 THE TERM ‘AM HA-ARETZ IN THE MISHNAH

it occurs here and, as we shall see below, in Tohorot, is very unusual and may be due to the fact that these tractates deal with relations between a particular religious fellowship and the rest of Israelite society. In fact, as pointed out by Hyam Maccoby, “the rules of demai, so far from being biblical (de’oraita) were not even regarded as being rabbinical (de’rabbanan), but rather as applying only to people who had given a voluntary ‘undertaking’ to observe them”.68 It has been shown that from Demai 2:2 one can derive a negative co- textual usage definition of the ‘am ha-aretz, but only pertaining to the semantic field of tithes. In 2:3, an undeclared semantic shift takes place since a question of ritual purity is now at stake rather than a question of tithes. Demai 2:3 lays out four negative conditions that an individual has to take upon himself in order to be accepted as Ìaber: 1) not sell to an ‘am ha-aretz anything moist or dry, 2) not to buy from an ‘am ha-aretz anything moist, 3) not to be the guest of an ‘am ha-aretz, and 4) not to receive him as a guest in his own garments. The semantic shift from tithing to purity is not declared but is inferable from the context, i.e. from the distinction between moist and dry food. In fact, food impurity is transmitted by moist food but not by dry food. The first requirement forbidding selling moist and dry food may only be understood by presupposing an ‘am ha-aretz to be ritually impure. In so doing in fact, the Ìaber would cause non-sanctified food to become impure. The second condition forbidding buying moist food from an ‘am ha-aretz is again motivated by the presumed ritual impurity of the ‘am ha-aretz which would be transmitted to his moist food. Similarly, the third condition is motivated by the presumption that the food of the ‘am ha-aretz may be impure,69 whereas the fourth is motivated by the impurity of the clothes of the ‘am ha-aretz. The two analysed mishnayot are meant to define the semantic boundaries of the two categories of ne’eman and Ìaber.70 This is done by listing the

68. H. MACCOBY, Early Rabbinic Writings, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1988, p. 69. 69. This condition probably applies to an ‘am ha-aretz having already attained the status of ne’eman since otherwise it would be redundant since the prohibition to be a guest of an ‘am ha-aretz was already laid out in mDem. 2:2. 70. Scholars not only have attempted to understand what the actual terms ne’eman and Ìaber mean but have also tried to figure out what the relationship between the two was. According to some, Neusner and Rabin for example, the status of ne’eman is to be seen as a preliminary stage to the status of Ìaber. This view is criticized by Solomon J. Spiro who writes: “In any case it seems clear that we cannot readily accept the notion that ne’eman is a

994816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd4816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd 418418 221/12/111/12/11 09:1309:13 THE TERM ‘AM HA-ARETZ IN THE MISHNAH 419

specific requirements necessary to become a ne’eman and a Ìaber. In this context the term ‘am ha-aretz works as a contrast term whose meaning can be extrapolated by opposition. The first mishnah in 2:2 implicitly depicts the ‘am ha-aretz only in relation to the slack observance of tithing regulations whereas the second adds a new semantic dimension connected with the observance of purity laws. There thus takes place an undeclared semantic expansion which the Mishnah requires its readers to recognize. I noted that in mDem. 2:2-3 the Mishnah lays out norms the observance of which stems from a voluntary undertaking and which are not meant to apply to the whole society but rather only to particularly pious individuals. From this stems that here the term ‘am ha-aretz does not refer to any specific group of people but rather to any common Israelite and is only used to qualify his/her observance of tithing and purity rules. I shall now turn to the analysis of a literary unit taken again from tractate Demai (6:7-9) where the term ‘am ha-aretz is used alongside other co-referential terms and expressions. I have determined the textual limits of the unit to be discussed on the basis of the presence of either the term ‘am ha- aretz itself or of co-referential expressions. Thematically, the unit has a common concern, namely, as stated by Richard Sarason: “[…] the division of produce or property jointly owned by two men of very different status”.71 This common concern, however, crosses different areas of law: tithing rules in 6:7-8 and tithing and purity rules in 6:9.

pre-novitiate stage in becoming a Ìaber since: ne’eman follows Ìaber in the Tosefta’s order, as Lieberman emends the Tosefta, ne’eman is an aspect of Ìaber itself, ne’eman requirements involve tithes while those of Ìaber involve purity, and it seems illogical that in order to pre- pare for a life of purity and apprentice a Ìaber must go through a stage of discipline not more related to it”. In S. J. SPIRO, “Who Was the Haber? A New Approach to Ancient Institution”, Journal for the Study of Judaism 11 (1980), pp. 186-216, p. 189. What Spiro suggests instead is an historical relationship between Ìaberim and ne’emanim. He maintains that both origi- nated after the Babylonian exile and are to be connected with the function of collecting tithes and the centralisation of this activity. The term ne’eman is found in Nehemia where it is already associated with reliability in matters of tithing. According to Spiro, ne’eman was at the time connected with trustworthiness in handling public wealth. Later on, with the decen- tralization of the collection of tithes instituted by Jochanan Hyrcanus, the term ne’eman, due to its connection to the activity of collecting tithes, came to refer to someone who is personally reliable in separating tithes from his own produce. What takes place, according to Spiro, is a sort of semantic slip from the public to the private sphere. On this basis, Spiro then concludes that “the Mishnah, therefore appropriately separates Ìaber and ne’eman as different institu- tions. The Tosefta, properly emended, presents the older concept of ne’eman as one of the requirements of the Ìaber and the latter concept as a later institution”, p. 211. 71. In R. S. SARASON, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Agriculture: A Study of the Trac- tate Demai, Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1979 (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity, vol. XXVII), p. 227.

994816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd4816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd 419419 221/12/111/12/11 09:1309:13 420 THE TERM ‘AM HA-ARETZ IN THE MISHNAH

mDem. 6:7 שנים שבצרו את כרמיהם לתוך גת אחת אחד מעשר ואחד שאינו מעשר המעשר מעשר את שלו וחלקו בכל מקום שהוא: Two that harvested their vineyards into one winepress, one tithes and one who does not tithe — the one who tithes tithes his, and his part is wherever it is. mDem. 6:8 שנים שקבלו שדה באריסות או שירשו או שנשתתפו יכול הוא לומר טול אתה חטים שבמקום פלוני ואני חטים שבמקום פלוני אתה יין שבמקום פלוני ואני יין שבמקום פלוני אבל לא יאמר לו טול אתה חטים ואני שעורים טול את היין ואני אטול שמן: Two who received a field as sharecroppers, or inherited, or became partners, he can say, “You take the wheat that is in this place, and I the wheat that is in that place, you, the wine that is in this place and I the wine that is in that place”. But he may not say to him, “You take the wheat and I the barley, you take the wine, and I will take the oil”. mDem. 6:9 חבר ועם הארץ שירשו את אביהם עם הארץ יכול הוא לומר לו טול אתה חטים שבמקום פלוני ואני חטים שבמקום פלוני אתה יין שבמקום פלוני ואני יין שבמקום פלוני אבל לא יאמר לו טול אתה חטים ואני שעורים טול אתה הלח ואני אטול את היבש: A Ìaber and an ‘am ha-aretz that inherited from their father, an ‘am ha-aretz, he can say to him, “You take the wheat that is in this place, and I the wheat that is in that place, you the wine in this place and I the wine in that place”. But he may not say to him, “You take the wheat, and I the barley, you take the moist, and I will take the dry”.

The unit of mDem. 6:7-9 is characterised by strong formal cohesiveness and thematic homogeneousness. The use of ellipsis reinforces content connections and structural dependency. It is built as a series, i.e. as a set of statements progressively differentiating an overall theme. However, there is no constancy in the ‘nature’ of the elements whose shift fosters the thematic progression. From 6:7 to 6:8 what changes are the factual elements spelled out in the protases (e.g. ‘harvesting a vineyard into one winepress’ as opposed to ‘receiving a field as sharecroppers’), whereas the subjects involved by way of ellipsis are the same, i.e. one person who does and one who does not separate tithes. From 6:8 to 6:9, there is again a change in the situational parameter in the protasis but there is also a semantic difference between the subjects in the two mishnayot. In fact, although I shall argue that it is possible to equate the subjects in 6:7 with those in 6:8 and 6:9, this equation is not perfect in that in 6:9 the two terms ‘am ha-aretz and

994816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd4816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd 420420 221/12/111/12/11 09:1309:13 THE TERM ‘AM HA-ARETZ IN THE MISHNAH 421

Ìaber have a surplus of meaning compared to the two subjects in 6:7-8. In all cases, an opposition is created between two individuals of anti- thetical halakhic status. The first opposition in 6:7 (‘one who tithes’ and ‘one who does not tithe’) is wholly transparent and leaves no room for ambiguity. Conversely, the opposition in 6:8 is entirely implicit and may be unfolded only with reference to the thematic context, and by taking into account co-textual relations with both what precedes and what follows. The opposition in 6:9 makes use of the terms Ìaber and ‘am ha-aretz whose degree of transparency to the intended audience of the Mishnah is difficult to assess. The text’s perspective is in all cases that of the first of the two subjects listed in the protasis, i.e., the one who accepts to observe a more stringent discipline in relation to tithing and purity rules.72 This group of persons is at the same time the addressee of the norms.73 Conversely, the second element of the dichotomic couple may be equated to a mere situational parameter functionally not different from other situational parameters usually found in mishnaic protases. The first mishnah in 6:7 opens with the generic and semantically opaque pronoun ‘two’ but then reveals the identity of its referents specifying that ואחד שאינו) whereas the other does not (אחד מעשר) the one separates tithes and in so doing, the Mishnah allows the reader to understand what 74,(מעשר the halakhic problem is. The apodosis states how the addressee of the norm, i.e. ‘the one who tithes’ is supposed to act in the situation at hand. In 6:8 ellipsis is very strong and the text would not be understandable if read in isolation. The identity of the subjects referred to in the protasis by the pronoun ‘two’ is not spelled out and, if read in isolation, this would

72. Usually in Rabbinic texts the governing voice is third person anonymous and the text’s perspective is almost never made explicit. In relation to this, Alexander points out that “Rab- binic discourse is remarkably weak on distinctive self-designations and this may be precisely because the Rabbis were attempting to claim the centre ground”, in ALEXANDER, “Insider/ Outsider” (n. 31 above), p. 87. As to the anonymity of Rabbinic texts and more generally in relation to the question of self-presentation and addressed audience, I would like to draw the attention to a Manchester-Durham research project led by Alex Samely with the participation of Philip S. Alexander, Robert Hayward and myself, which addresses these and other questions in depth. Preliminary information available online at: http://www.manchester.ac.uk/ ancientjewishliterature. 73. In his introduction to tractate Demai, Richard Sarason explicitly identifies the addressees of the tractate’s rulings with Ìaberim (deemed trustworthy in both purity and tithing rules) or, at least, with the ne’eman who is deemed trustworthy in matters of tithing. SARASON, A History (n. 71 above), pp. 1ff. 74. The above formulation corresponds to the Sages’ definition in t‘A. Zar 3:10 and bBer. .כל שאינו מעשר פירותיו 47b where the ‘am ha-aretz is defined as

994816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd4816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd 421421 221/12/111/12/11 09:1309:13 422 THE TERM ‘AM HA-ARETZ IN THE MISHNAH

prevent us from understanding what the halakhic problem is.75 Ellipsis is a quite common literary device in the Mishnah and often has the function of creating textual and thematic inter-dependency. This is indeed the case here where the meaning of 6:8 becomes clear by reading it in connection with 6:7. The similarity of literary structure and theme (i.e. the situation where produce belongs to two persons) makes it very plausible to assume that the referents of the pronoun ‘two’ in 6:8 and in 6:7 are the same. The next mishnah in 6:9 is not elliptic. It is, however, thematically and formally similar to the preceding two and, just as 6:8, cannot be understood without a prior knowledge of the meaning Ìaber and ‘am ha-aretz.76 Is it possible, as it was the case in 6:8, to infer the meaning of the term ‘am ha-aretz by virtue of thematic and textual connections with 6:7-8? The answer is both yes and no. Assuming a co-referentiality between the ‘am ha-aretz and the expression ‘one who does not tithe’ in 6:7, one can make sense of 6:9 with the exception of the last part of the apodosis (“you take the moist, and I shall take the dry”). For this topic is not related to tithes but rather to purity and therefore the text can only be understood giving the term ‘am ha-aretz the meaning of someone who is not reliable in matters of purity, which is the meaning it has in mDem. 2:3. In other words, on the basis of reading mDem. 6:9 in its immediate literary context alone, it becomes clear that the term ‘am ha-aretz cannot be exhausted by the topic of tithing observance, but must also include information connected with, at least, one further area of law, that of purity. The text suggests that the ‘am ha-aretz is not only to be seen as ‘one who does not tithe’ but also as one who is unreliable in matters of ritual purity. The analysis of mDem. 2:2-3 has shown that a co-textual usage definition of the term ‘am ha-aretz can be worked out on the basis of co-textual relations. On the other hand, mDem. 6:7-9 has demonstrated that even in the case of a tight and cohesive unit, co-textual and thematic relations alone may not be enough to make the term wholly transparent and that extra-textual information is necessary. Also, we have seen that the term ‘am ha-aretz is used with two different meanings, related to the observance of tithing and purity rules. It also appears that if one is considered reliable in relation to purity he or she is also deemed reliable in relation to tithing, but not the other way round.77

75. Significantly, the parallel passage in the Tosefta (tDem. 6:10) instead of the pronoun ומי שאינו נאמן על) ’two’ has Ìaber and ‘one who is not trustworthy in matters of tithing‘ .(המעשרות 76. Interestingly, the fact that a member of the same family may be an am ha-aretz whereas another may be a Ìaber shows that the term as used in the Mishnah does not indicate any social or ethnic affiliation. 77. See for instance mBekh. 3:10 but also yDem. 2:2, 22d.

994816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd4816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd 422422 221/12/111/12/11 09:1309:13 THE TERM ‘AM HA-ARETZ IN THE MISHNAH 423

The next example (mToh. 7:1-7) possibly shows the inverse phenome- non. By this I mean a case where the term ‘am ha-aretz defines other terms found in the same co-text, which are semantically opaque. The term ‘am ha-aretz is used in four of the seven mishnayot below, and I shall argue that in the mishnayot where it is not used, its notion must be presupposed in the other terms in order to make sense of the text. mToh. 7:1 הקדר שהניח את קדרותיו וירד לשתות הפנימיות טהורות והחיצונות טמאות א״ר יוסי במה דברים אמורים במותרות אבל באגודות הכל טהור המוסר מפתחו לעם הארץ הבית טהור שלא מסר לו אלא שמירת המפתח: The potter who set down his pots and went down to drink, the innermost ones are pure but the outer ones are impure. R. Yose said, “When does this apply? When they are loose, but when in bundles — all are pure”. If one gives his key to an ‘am ha-aretz — the house is pure, for he gave him the key for safekeep- ing only. mToh. 7:2 המניח עם הארץ בתוך ביתו ער ומצאו ער ישן ומצאו ישן ער ומצאו ישן הבית טהור ישן ומצאו ער הבית טמא דברי ר״מ וחכ״א אין טמא אלא עד מקום שהוא יכול לפשוט את ידו וליגע: If one left an ‘am ha-aretz awake in his house and found him awake, asleep and found him asleep, awake and found him asleep — the house is pure; asleep and found him awake — the house is impure; so R. Meir. But the Sages say, “Impure only up to where he can stretch out his hand and touch”. mToh. 7:3 המניח אומנים בתוך ביתו הבית טמא דברי ר״מ וחכ״א אין טמא אלא עד מקום שהן יכולין לפשוט את ידם וליגע: If one left craftsmen in his house — the house is impure; so R. Meir. But the Sages say, “Impure only up to where they can stretch out their hands and touch”.

mToh. 7:4 אשת חבר שהניחה לאשת עם הארץ טוחנת בתוך ביתה פסקה הרחים הבית טמא לא פסקה הרחים אין טמא אלא עד מקום שהיא יכולה לפשוט את ידה וליגע היו שתים בין כך ובין כך הבית טמא שאחת טוחנת ואחת ממשמשת דברי ר״מ וחכ״א אין טמא אלא עד מקום שהן יכולין לפשוט את ידן וליגע: If the wife of a Ìaber left the wife of an ‘am ha-aretz grinding in her house, if the mill ceased — the house is impure. If the mill did not cease — it is impure only up to the place she can stretch out her hand and reach. If there were two, in either case — the house is impure, as one grinds and the other handles, so R. Meir. But the Sages say, “Impure only up to the place they can stretch out their hands and touch”.

994816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd4816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd 423423 221/12/111/12/11 09:1309:13 424 THE TERM ‘AM HA-ARETZ IN THE MISHNAH

mToh. 7:5 המניח עם הארץ בתוך ביתו לשמרו בזמן שהוא רואה את הנכנסין ואת היוצאין האוכלים והמשקים וכלי חרס הפתוחים טמאים אבל המשכבות והמושבות וכלי חרס המוקפין צמיד פתיל טהורין ואם אינו רואה לא את הנכנסין ולא את היוצאין אפילו מובל אפילו כפות הכל טמא: If a man left an ‘am ha-aretz in his house to guard it, when he can see those entering and those leaving, the foodstuffs, and the liquids, and the uncovered earthenware vessels — are impure, but the couches, and the seats, and the earthenware vessels that have tightly fitting covers — are pure; but if he can see neither those entering nor those leaving, even if he cannot move by himself, even if he was bound — all is impure. mToh. 7:6 הגבאים שנכנסו לתוך הבית הבית טמא אם יש עמהן גוי נאמנים לומר לא נכנסנו אבל אין נאמנים לומר נכנסנו אבל לא נגענו הגנבים שנכנסו לתוך הבית אין טמא אלא מקום רגלי הגנבים ומה הן מטמאין האוכלים והמשקים וכלי חרס הפתוחין אבל המשכבות והמושבות וכלי חרס המוקפין צמיד פתיל טהורים אם יש עמהן גוי או אשה הכל טמא: If collectors entered a house — the house is impure. If a gentile is with them, they are believed when they say, ‘We did not enter’ but not believed when they say, ‘We entered but we did not touch.’ If thieves entered a house, it is impure only wherever they trod; And what do they render impure? The foodstuffs, and the liquids, and the uncovered earthenware vessels; but the couches, and the seats, and earthenware vessels that have tightly fitting covers — are pure; if a gentile is with them, or a woman — all is impure. mToh. 7:7 המניח את כליו בחלון של אודיארין רבי אליעזר בן עזריה מטהר וחכמים אומרים עד שיתן לו את המפתח או חותם או עד שיעשה סימן המניח את כליו מגת זו לגת הבאה כליו טהורין ובישראל עד שיאמר בלבי היה לשמרם: If a man left his clothes in a window of a bath-attendant — R. Eleazar ben Azariah rules them pure; but the Sages say, “Unless he gives him the key or a seal, or unless he makes a sign”. If one left his vessels from one vintage to the next vintage — his vessels are ruled pure; with an Israelite — unless he says, “It was in my heart to watch over them”.

I have set the limits of the unit on the basis of the fact that mToh.7:1-7 constitutes a cluster of cases, i.e. a continuous stretch of text which in com- parison to its wider co-text appears to group together sub-topics of one ‘umbrella’ theme in a loosely coherent manner. The thematic uniformity of the cluster is enhanced by the pervasive recur- rence of the verb nuaÌ, which appears in all mishnayot with the exception of 7:6 producing an echo throughout the whole unit. All sub-units deal with

994816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd4816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd 424424 221/12/111/12/11 09:1309:13 THE TERM ‘AM HA-ARETZ IN THE MISHNAH 425

cases of uncertainty about the specific behaviour of one or more individuals who have been left alone in a house or with an object, and consider the issues in relation to purity that arise from that uncertainty.78 More precisely, in all cases what is at stake is the assessment of the status, in relation to impurity, of a house or object belonging to one of the two individuals mentioned in the protasis. The passage of mToh. 7:1 is constituted by two different hypothetical legal cases. In the first, the protasis depicts a potter that sets down his pots and then goes down to drink. In the apodosis a halakhic evaluation is expressed about the status of the pots in relation to purity. From this, it can be assumed that the pots were pure when the potter left them and therefore it can also be assumed that the potter is someone who keeps purity rules. In other words, in this very case ‘potter’ is to be deemed as co-referential with Ìaber. Moreover, implicit is also the fact that the pots have been touched by individuals not keeping purity rules, i.e. by ‘am ha-aretz. Hence, although all material elements in the protasis are implicit, the case can be understood also if read in isolation. The same is true for the second hypothetical legal case where an unqualified individual gives the key of his house to an ‘am ha-aretz and the problem arises whether the house has to be considered as pure or not. Again, it has to be assumed that the implicit subject is someone that keeps purity rules otherwise the house would not be pure and there would be no halakhic problem at all. Similarly, the meaning of the term ‘am ha-aretz is not necessarily to be taken for granted since the mishnah only makes sense if it is assumed that the term ‘am ha-aretz qualifies an individual that does not keep purity rules. The above observations apply to all the following mishnayot with the exception of 7:6. In fact, in mToh. 7:2-5 and 7:7 it is always the case of an individual who leaves his/her house or object to another individual. In all cases, in order to make sense of the text, one has to presuppose that the subjects are individuals that keep purity rules, whereas the other individuals that are left in the house or who have been given an object to guard do not observe purity regulations. In other words, the expressions used to qualify the subjects are always to be deemed co- referential with the term Ìaber unless the term Ìaber itself is not explicitly used as in 7:5. The case of 7:6 is different in that the subject of the protasis, i.e. ‘collectors’ must necessarily refer to individuals that do not keep purity rules otherwise the whole mishnah would make no sense.

78. As Neusner writes, “The main problem [of this tractate] has to do with deciding questions of cleanness in which an object has been left in the care of an ‘am ha-aretz. We do not know for sure that the ‘am ha-aretz has touched said object, so we have nothing other than a matter of doubt”. In NEUSNER, A History (n. 27 above), Part Eleven, p. 158.

994816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd4816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd 425425 221/12/111/12/11 09:1309:13 426 THE TERM ‘AM HA-ARETZ IN THE MISHNAH

We have seen that the situational elements provided in the protases are scanty and the terms used to qualify the subjects in the protases are wholly opaque in relation to the observance of purity rules. Qualifications such as ‘potter’, ‘craftsman’, ‘collector’, ‘thief’ or ‘bath-attendant’ provide circumstantial evidence concerning the intentions of the individuals as well as the actual setting of the ‘scene’, but nothing directly about their halakhic behaviour in relation to purity. However, I have argued that this does not impinge on the understanding of the text, which becomes clear by taking into account the thematic context. So, in principle, in all these cases the meaning of the term ‘am ha-aretz is not necessarily taken for granted. It is in fact possible to assume that, again, it is defined by co-textual relations. However, in my opinion the contrary is true, i.e. the meaning of both Ìaber and ‘am ha-aretz is indeed taken for granted and its usage in this setting has the function of making the meaning of the opaque terms used in the other protases less ambiguous. In fact, by assuming that the notion of ‘am ha-aretz and Ìaber is presupposed in the other terms (e.g. bath-attendant) which would then be co-referential, the whole unit would be much clearer, especially considering that unlike mDem. 6:7-9, here there are no semantically transparent expressions such as ‘one who does not tithe’.

Conclusion

It has been seen that in both biblical and Rabbinic literature the term ‘am ha-aretz is used with several different meanings and is associated with different social referents, according to the historical and the literary context of use. Some semantic connections have been pointed out between the use of the term in biblical and Rabbinic literature; namely in Ezra 9:11 where reference is made to the impurity of the ‘am ha-aretz. I have also tried to show that there is a functional similarity in the uses of the term ‘am ha-aretz in the two different bodies of literature. In Rabbinic literature, the term is always used to represent a negative model of behaviour and the emphasis is on what the ‘am ha-aretz fails to do. Similarly, and particularly in post- exilic books such as Ezra and Nehemia, the term ‘am ha-aretz is used to identify a social entity against which the governing voice of the texts cares to differentiate itself from. Hence, it appears that in Rabbinic literature and in Ezra and Nehemia, the semantic fluidity of the term ‘am ha-aretz is contrasted by a functional stability which constitutes a unifying element against its different semantic usages.

994816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd4816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd 426426 221/12/111/12/11 09:1309:13 THE TERM ‘AM HA-ARETZ IN THE MISHNAH 427

Within the Mishnah itself, the term is used with, at least, three different meanings, indicating someone not observing tithing and/or purity rules according to Rabbinic standards, and as someone who is ignorant of and does not follow Rabbinic teachings. This does not stem from explicit definitions, but rather the different meanings may only be worked out on the basis of co-textual relations. Hence, the undeclared semantic shifts the term ‘am ha-aretz undergoes in the Mishnah show that its meaning is subordinate to thematic orientation and therefore no constancy of meaning may be assumed. As already remarked, despite its polysemy, the term ‘am ha-aretz invariably performs only one function which is that of representing a negative model of behaviour in relation to tithes, purity and study. The level of observance of the ‘am ha-aretz is contrasted to both that of the ne’eman and the Ìaber. Both of these are defined as involving a personal undertaking and are presented as not being the standard level of practice required by Torah or Rabbinic law. In Demai and Tohorot, the term ‘am ha-aretz seems to refer to common Israelites, i.e. to the implied audience of the rest of the Mishnah itself, as opposed to ne’emanim and Ìaberim.79 This may in part explain why the Mishnah does not discourage relations with the ‘am ha-aretz. The analysed passages of Demai and Tohorot allow drawing some observations about the social status of the ‘am ha-aretz. The unit of Tohorot 7:1-7 suggests a social stratification whereby the ‘am ha-aretz occupies a subordinate social position. In fact, with the exception of mToh 7:1, in all other mishnayot the ‘am ha-aretz is depicted as someone who renders a service to a Ìaber. Not so in tractate Demai. In fact, mDem. 2:2-3 depicts the ‘am ha-aretz as any individual who does not keep a sufficient level of observance of tithing and purity rules and mDem. 2:2 states that the ne’eman may not be the guest of an ‘am ha-aretz but implicitly suggests that an ‘am ha- aretz may be the guest of a ne’eman. Moreover, mDem. 6:9, where the text refers to two brothers, one ‘am ha-aretz and the other Ìaber, is evidence of the fact that, at least in tractate Demai, the category ‘am ha-aretz crosses social and even family distinctions. Outside tractates Demai and Tohorot, the term ‘am ha-aretz is usually used in isolation and its meaning is to be taken for granted since it can not be worked out on the basis of co-textual relations. In Demai and Tohorot the term is used in isolation in some case but in others it is used within thematically uniform and textually cohesive units, which provide clear co-

79. This does not contradict my argument that the term ‘am ha-aretz is invariably placed in opposition to the governing voice of the text since in Demai and Tohorot the text’s perspective is that of the Ìaberim.

994816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd4816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd 427427 221/12/111/12/11 09:1309:13 428 THE TERM ‘AM HA-ARETZ IN THE MISHNAH

textual relationships of contrast or synonymy. In the latter case, the term ‘am ha-aretz is usually used alongside more or less semantically transparent terms and expressions which, as I have shown, can be seen as co-referential. When the term is used within tightly crafted units, it is usually possible to infer its meaning by virtue of co-textual and/or thematic relations. But, in these cases, it is also possible to infer the meaning of the co-referential terms as implying the notion of ‘am ha-aretz. As I have already observed, following Neusner, this can be interpreted diachronically as the result of a process of systematisation and rationalisation of tithing and purity rules that took place from the period of Usha onward. This conclusion is supported by the low number of occurrences of the term ‘am ha-aretz and by their uneven distribution throughout the whole Mishnah. In fact, most occurrences are found in Demai and Tohorot — tractates deemed Ushan by Neusner. This interpretation also fits with the ideas that tithing and purity have to be seen as two of the main identitary markers of nascent Rabbinic Judaism. But it also fits the view, advanced among others by Alexander, that the linguistic endeavour set up by the Rabbis in their attempt to gain and consolidate their hold on Jewish society, consisted in the creation of a ‘vocabulary of orthodoxy’. However, I believe that a synchronic explanation is also possible alongside and not as an alternative of the just mentioned diachronic one. The diachronic hypothesis works only in relation to semantically transparent expressions such as ‘one who does not tithe’ whereas it can not be applied to the cases where the notion of ‘am ha-aretz is presupposed in pronouns or in terms such as ‘thieves’ or ‘collectors’. In these cases in fact it is surely not a question of a rationalisation of legal discourse aimed at substituting longer and less abstract expressions such as ‘one who does not tithe’ with more abstract terms such as ‘am ha-aretz (or Ìaber). Rather, in the case of co-referentiality with terms such as ‘potter’ or ‘collectors’ the choice may be motivated by the intention of conveying the notion of ‘am ha-aretz alongside further circumstantial information supposedly facilitating the understanding of the text. However, in cases where the notion of ‘am ha-aretz is presupposed in pronouns and is understandable on the basis of tight co- textual relations, this may simply be motivated by the purpose of strengthen- ing textual and thematic cohesiveness by the use of ellipsis.

Rocco BERNASCONI [email protected]

994816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd4816_REJ_2011-3-4_02_Bernasconi.indd 428428 221/12/111/12/11 09:1309:13