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 rab- binic 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 refer- ents. 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 339999 221/12/111/12/11 009:139:13 400 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 mean- ings 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 oppo- nents 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 sec- tarianism 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 440000 221/12/111/12/11 009:139:13 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 con- sidering 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 docu- ments 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 440101 221/12/111/12/11 009:139:13 402 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”.