Content uploaded by Joshua Schwartz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Joshua Schwartz on Jun 21, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
On Priests and Jericho in the Second Temple Period
Author(s): Joshua Schwartz
Source:
The Jewish Quarterly Review,
New Series, Vol. 79, No. 1 (Jul., 1988), pp. 23-48
Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1454416
Accessed: 12-02-2017 13:48 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
University of Pennsylvania Press
is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Jewish Quarterly Review
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:48:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW, LXXIX, No. 1 (July, 1988) 23-48
ON PRIESTS AND JERICHO IN THE
SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD
By JOSHUA SCHWARTZ, Bar Ilan University
The history of Second Temple period Jericho was to a great extent
the history of "priestly" Jericho. The fertility of the Jericho region as
well as its adminstrative importance apparently attracted a large
priestly population to the site rather early during the Second Temple
period. The priestly population of Jericho grew when the area was
further developed by the Hasmoneans who built royal estates there.
Talmudic tradition also refers to a large priestly settlement. Accord-
ing to the rabbis, a priestly course would be divided in halves: one half
would go up to Jerusalem to officiate in the Temple while the other
half of the course would go to Jericho to arrange supplies for their
brethren serving in the Temple. It is my contention that this reflects
Hasmonean policy attempting to regulate and control priestly pre-
rogatives. The large priestly population of Jericho is also verified by
the numerous ritual baths discovered there.
Although the fortunes of the Jericho priests took a turn for the
worse after the Hasmonean period, the history of Jericho continued to
be determined to a great extent by the priestly population which
remained there. Talmudic tradition apparently refers to the attempt of
local priests to save their land or crops from being commandeered by
Herod.
The fertile Jericho valley became crown property toward the end of
the Second Temple period. A number of talmudic traditions relating
to the priests of Jericho can be understood only in light of the
imperial status of Jericho and in particular in relation to the economic
and political conditions to which the priests were subject there. In
spite of all this, however, the priests persevered and continued to set
the tone in Jericho.
Many settlements in Palestine had a large priestly population
during the Second Temple period. B. Z. Luria lists some fifteen
"priestly cities" in Judaea and admits that his list is probably
incomplete.1 Priests at a particular site, however, were not always
1 B. Z. Luria, "Priestly Cities during the Second Temple Period," HUCA
44 (1973): 1-18 (Hebrew). Cf. A. Biichler, Die Priester und der Cultus im
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:48:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
the dominant factor in the history of that site.2 The situation at
Jericho, though, was different. The history of Second Temple
period Jericho was, to a great extent, the history of "priestly"
Jericho. This site also maintained a unique relationship with
Jerusalem and its Temple. I shall attempt here to determine the
influence of the priestly inhabitants of Jericho on events in that
city during the Second Temple period as well as the nature of the
Jericho-Temple connection at that time.
The source of the priestly history of Second Temple period
Jericho is not to be found in the biblical period. Jericho was not
among the biblical "priestly cities" whose inhabitants would have
served in the Temple.3 On the contrary, the biblical account
relates that the city was cursed by Joshua after its capture and
destruction.4 A small settlement may have existed there after-
wards,5 but the attempt of Hiel of Bethel to rebuild Jericho as a
fortified city cost him the lives of his sons in accordance with
Joshua's curse.6 Hiel's punishment, however, apparently nullified
the curse, and by the time of Elijah, Jericho had become a
"prophetic city" associated, together with Bethel and Gilgal, with
the "sons of the prophets."7 This status, although it implies that
Jericho was imbued with some kind of holiness, had nothing to
do with priests or the Jerusalem Temple. The sanctity of biblical
Jericho became an important motif in later rabbinic traditions,8
but apparently had no bearing on the priestly status of the
Second Temple period site.
letzten Jahrzehnt des Jerusalemischen Tempels, Jahresbericht der Israelitisch-
Theologischen Lehranstalt in Wien fir das Schuljahr 1894-1895 (Wien, 1895),
pp. 159-207. On the priesthood after the destruction of the Second Temple period
see D. Ben-Haim Trifon, "The Jewish Priests from the Destruction of the Second
Temple to the Rise of Christianity," (Ph.D. diss., University of Tel-Aviv, 1985
[Hebrew]). Cf. also T. Kahane, "The Priestly Courses and Their Geographical
Settlements," Tarbiz'48 (1979): 9-29 (Hebrew).
2 See Luria's discussion of the history of the various priestly sites.
3Josh 21:10-19, 1 Chron 6:39-44, 2 Chron 31:11ff.
4 Josh 6:26.
5 Judg 3:13, 2 Sam 10:5.
6 1 Kings 16:34.
7See B. Uffenheimer, Ancient Prophecy in Israel (Jerusalem, 1973), p. 275
(Hebrew).
8 See yShab 1, 4a, and cf. S. Lieberman, Ha- Yerushalmi Kifshuto (Jerusalem,
1934), pp. 59-60. See also Tanhuma Buber, Naso' 31 (p. 21b).
24
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:48:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
PRIESTS AND JERICHO-SCHWARTZ
25
It is difficult to know exactly when Jericho became priestly.
The Bible relates that 345 people returned there during the time
of Zerubbabel.9 When the walls of Jerusalem were reconstructed
and repaired during the days of Nehemiah, the men of Jericho
built a section next to the one built by Eliashib the high priest
and "his brethren the priests."10 This may be coincidence, but it
suggests that there were priests in Jericho at that time related to
the large priestly family of Jedaiah."
Two factors may have made Jericho and the surrounding region
attractive to priests already in the Persian period. The city at that
time was important, serving as the capital of a district or sub-
district,12 and the Jericho region was recognized as one of the
9 Ezra 2:34, Neh 7:36.
10 Neh 3:1-2.
" Cf. Neh 12:10, Ezra 3:2. On the large priestly families at that time see
J. Liver, Chapters in the History of the Priests and Levites: Studies in the Lists of
Chronicles and Ezra and Nehemiah (Jerusalem, 1968), pp. 43-45 (Hebrew). See
also A. Demsky, "The Days of Ezra and Nehemiah," in H. Tadmor (ed.), The
Restoration--The Persian Period: World History of the Jewish Period (Jeru-
salem, 1983), pp. 53-54 (Hebrew). Nehemiah's undertaking apparently suffered
from a shortage of manpower, and many settlements sent no representatives at
all. Thus the participation of Jericho in the construction of the walls, as well as
the position of its representatives, take on added importance.
12 See E. Stern, The Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian
Period, 538-332 B.C. (Warminster, 1982), pp. 247-49. Cf., however, A. Demsky,
"Pelekh in Nehemiah 3," IEJ 38 (1983): 242-44. A rather enigmatic statement in
the third or fourth century CE, Collectanea Rerum Memorabilium of Solinus,
would also seem to indicate that the city was fairly important during the Persian
period. See M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (Jerusalem,
1980), 2:416-22. Solinus (35.4) states: "The capital of Judaea was Jerusalem, but
it had been demolished. Jericho succeeded it, but it also ceased to fill that place,
since it was subdued in the War of Artaxerxes." The statement is usually associ-
ated with the transportation of Jews from Judaea during the reign of Artaxerxes
III Ochus (358-36 BCE) or connected with the destruction resulting from the
crushing of the rebellion led by Tenes, king of Sidon (351-50 BCE). Solinus gives
the impression that Jericho succeeded Jerusalem as chief city of Judaea. This
strange statement is not corroborated by any other source. It may, however, give
some indication of the importance of Jericho at the time. A document from the
fourth century BCE, discovered in a cave near Jericho and listing Jewish names
and amounts of money borrowed and returned, has been tentatively connected
with the supposed destruction of Jericho at that time. See H. Eshel and H. Misgav,
"A Document from the Fourth Century BCE from a Cave in Ketef Jericho,"
Tarbiz 56 (1987): 461-77.
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:48:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
most fertile in Palestine.13 Hecataeus of Abdera (ca. 300 BCE)
relates that priests received large tracts of land "in order that
they, by virtue of receiving more ample revenues, might be un-
distracted and apply themselves continually to the worship of
God."14 The fertile tracts of land in the Jericho region could
hardly have gone unnoticed by the priests of that time who had
received lands, and indeed crops from Jericho were sent to the
Temple treasury during the Persian period.15 We shall see later on
that the agricultural produce of Jericho was of great importance
both for priests living in Jericho as well as for those serving in
Jerusalem.
The area's fertility attracted also the interest of the Persian
kings who may have even established a royal domain there.16 We
shall see that royal estates in Jericho played an important role in
the later priestly history of the site. There were royal estates in
Jericho also during the Ptolemaic period. This is apparently the
reason why Jericho was included in the itinerary of Zenon (259
BCE) among the towns where a quantity of fine wheat was dis-
tributed to travelers.17
13 See n. 20 below.
14 Hecataeus, Aegyptiaca (apud: Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca historica, 40.
3.7). Cf. M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (Jerusalem,
1974), 1:26-35. The reference theoretically refers to the time of Moses, but as
Stern states (p. 32), it is quite possible that the account reflects actual conditions
in Judaea in the Hellenistic age, when priests were the ruling class and also
enjoyed material benefits.
15 See N. Avigad, "A New Class of Yehud Stamps," IEJ 7 (1957): 146-53 and
bibliography cited there. Among the many seal impressions found in Jericho one
discovered by K. Kenyon and deciphered later by Avigad reads "Yehud/Urio."
Avigad identified Urio with Uriah, father of Meremoth. This Meremoth was
apparently treasurer of the Temple (Ezra 8:33), and his father Uriah undoubtedly
preceded him (Cf., however, W. F. Albright, "The Seal Impression from Jericho
and the Treasurers of the Second Temple," BASOR [1957], 28-30). Meremoth,
interestingly enough, took part also in the building of the wall of Jerusalem not
far away from the place where the men of Jericho engaged in the task (Neh 3:4).
As treasurer of the Temple Uriah would have been in charge of offerings, tithes,
and the like due to the Temple treasury (cf. Neh 13:12). The jar from Jericho on
which the seal was impressed was apparently used to send tithes or other offerings
from Jericho to the Temple treasury in Jerusalem.
16 See Z. Safrai, Boundaries and Administration in Eretz-Israel in the Period
of the Mishnah and Talmud. (Tel-Aviv, 1980), p. 67 (Hebrew).
17 V. Tcherikover (ed.), in collaboration with A. Fuks, Corpus papyrorum
judaicarum (Cambridge, Eng., 1957), 1.121-22. Pliny, Naturalis historia, 12.111,
26
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:48:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
PRIESTS AND JERICHO-SCHWARTZ
This fertile area was under some form of Hasmonean control
during the time of Simeon, who appointed his son-in-law Ptolemy
son of Abubus as governor, and most likely had already come
under some Hasmonean control or influence by the time of
Jonathan. The flight of this murderous governor brought the
region under even more direct Hasmonean rule.18
The Hasmoneans showed great interest in Jericho, building
winter palaces and aqueducts, thereby allowing for the further
agricultural development of the region.19 They established large
agricultural plantations in the plain southwest of Jericho and
controlled a good part of this fertile region, or as Josephus puts
it, the most fruitful district of Judaea.20 The extensive farmsteads
as well as the first Hasmonean palace certainly existed in the
reign of Alexander Jannai (103-76 B.C.E.) or perhaps even during
the reign of his father John Hyrcanus. It has even been suggested
that the plantations may have been established in the time of
Simeon, under the supervision of his son-in-law Ptolemy, the
governor of the region.21
The plantations are usually described as "state-owned." It is
difficult to determine to what extent they were state controlled
in describing the balsam of Judaea (Jericho and En Gedi), mentions that it was
grown in gardens belonging to the king. It is hard to know which type of king
Pliny had in mind. Millar suggests that the garden belonged to the Seleucids;
see F. Millar, "The Fiscus in the First Two Centuries," Journal of Roman
Studies 53 (1963): 30. The area thus had quite a long history as a royal domain.
18 Jericho was fortified by Bacchides in 160 BCE and was undoubtedly under
Greek control until 152 BCE, when Bacchides left Judaea. See also Josephus,
Ant. 13.230-35
19 See J. Porat, "Aspects of the Development of Ancient Irrigation Agriculture
in Jericho and Ein-Gedi," in A. Kasher, A. Oppenheimer, and U. Rappaport
(eds.), Man and Land in Eretz-Israel in Antiquity (Jerusalem, 1986), pp. 127-41
(Hebrew). On the palaces see E. Netzer, "The Winter Palaces of the Hasmonean
Kings and of the Herodian Dynasty at Jericho," Qadmoniyyot 7 (1984): 27-36
(Hebrew); idem, "The Winter Palaces of the Judaean Kings at Jericho at the End
of the Second Temple Period," BASOR 228 (1977): 1-13; idem, "Recent Dis-
coveries in the Winter Palaces of Second Temple Times at Jericho," Qadmoniyyot
15 (1982): 22-29 (Hebrew).
20 Josephus, Bellum Judaicum, 1.38. In fact there was hardly a crop that was
not grown in the region. Josephus, as well as other ancients, describe the date
palms, honey, balsam, cypress, grains, and rarest and choicest plants cultivated
there. See Josephus, BJ 4.468-71; 1.324. Some of these crops, such as balsam,
were quite precious and fetched very high prices. See Strabo, Geographica 16.2.41.
21 Porat (above n. 19), p. 132.
27
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:48:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
and to what extent they were considered the private property of
the Hasmoneans. Such distinctions, in any event, were not very
clear in the ancient world. I have already suggested that at least
part of the region was owned by the Achemenids, Ptolemies, and
Seleucids. The Hasmoneans, however, were somewhat limited in
their ability to create and control "state" (personal) lands. Their
rise to power was based on the war of liberation, and they would
22
hardly have been recognized as landlords of the entire country.2
In the case of the fertile Jericho region, however, it is not surpris-
ing that it has been suggested that the lands were royal Has-
monean estates.23 The Hasmoneans, to be sure, were not just
kings but also high priests. As we shall see, Jericho at this time
was clearly priestly. Did the high priestly status of the Hasmo-
neans have a bearing on their possession of Jericho?
Talmudic tradition indicates that Jericho and the surrounding
region possessed some type of unique status as sanctified Temple
lands.24 This would undoubtedly have included the possessions of
the Hasmoneans. Thus in bTa'an 27a we read,
Our rabbis taught: There were twenty-four priestly courses
[mishmarot] in Eretz-Israel and twelve in Jericho. Twelve in
Jericho? That would make too many courses. Rather, twelve
of them were in Jericho. 25
22 On the different types of crown lands in the Hellenistic world, see A. Schalit,
Konig Herodes (Berlin, 1969), pp. 702-03 (Zusatz 21).
23 Schalit, pp. 260-61.
24 Cf. Philo, De specialibus legibus, 1.76: "The revenues of the Temple are
derived not only from landed estates," etc. (Loeb Classical Library, p. 145). Out-
right Temple ownership of lands, common in other countries, did not seem to have
been accepted practice in Palestine. Lands sanctified or donated to the Temple
were usually redeemed and the revenues transferred to the Temple treasury. See
m'Arak 3.2, 7.3-4. An inherited field (cf. Lev 27:16ff.) may be dedicated to the
Temple, and theoretically, if not redeemed by the Jubilee year, becomes the
property of the priests. This, however, was dependent on the observance of the
Jubilee year, which was not in force in Second Temple period Palestine. See
b'Arak 29a, 32b. Talmudic tradition, however, refers to Jericho sycamores, or part
of them, dedicated to the Temple during the Herodian period, which had not yet
been redeemed years later in the first century CE. See my discussion below.
25 Cf. the translation of H. Malter, The Treatise Tacanit of the Babylonian
Talmud (Philadelphia, 1967). See also yPes 4, 30c and yTa'an 4, 67d. These
traditions are occasionally cited as parallel versions of bTa'an 27a. Such being
the case, it would admittedly be strange to examine the BT tradition regarding
28
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:48:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
PRIESTS AND JERICHO-SCHWARTZ
This would certainly imply a rather large number of priests in the
city. The continuation of bTa'an is very important, albeit difficult:
When it was time for the course to go up [to Jerusalem], half
of the course would go up to Jericho26 in order to supply water
and food to their brethren in Jerusalem.
According to this, half of every priestly course would go up to
Jerusalem to officiate in the Temple, while the other half of the
priestly course would go to Jericho to arrange supplies for the
priests serving in Jerusalem. This tradition has baffled scholars
and has been rejected by some as nonhistorical.27 Is it conceiv-
able, these scholars ask, that Jerusalem could not provide suffi-
cient supplies for the priests officiating there on a weekly rotation
basis?28 The availability of the produce, however, need not have
been the issue. Rather, it may have been one of regulation and
Second Temple period Jericho before the PT version. In my view, however, the
PT and BT traditions need not be parallel and may represent different descriptions
of the priestly presence in Jericho. See my discussion of PT Pesahim and Ta'anit.
In any case, there are a number of instances in which the BT version of events
related to Palestine may be more reliable than the PT version. See S. Safrai,
"Early Palestinian Historiographic Sources in the Tradition of the Babylonian
Talmud," in J. Salmon, M. Stern, and M. Zimmerman (eds.), Studies in His-
toriography (Jerusalem, 1987), pp. 73-83 (Hebrew).
26 The reading "to Jericho" is to be preferred to "from Jericho." See the
detailed apparatus of H. Malter, The Treatise TaCanit of the Babylonian Talmud
(New York, 1930), ad loc. See also S. Safrai, Die Wallfahrt im Zeitalter des
Zweiten Tempels (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1981), pp. 51-52, n. 48.
27 Bichler, Die Priester (above, n. 1), pp. 161-62; Safrai, Die Wallfahrt,
pp. 51-52.
28 There are many descriptions of the market places of Jerusalem bursting, as it
were, with cheap produce at holiday or pilgrimage time. The priests, however,
officiated not only during festival periods, and food prices were usually higher in
Jerusalem than in the surrounding rural countryside. In any event, the produce
had to be brought to Jerusalem. This was also the case with first and second tithes
brought to Jerusalem. See Safrai, Die Wallfahrt, p. 200. See also M. Bar-Ilan,
"The Influence of Illiteracy on the Laws Pertaining to the Reading of the Megillah
and the Hallel," PAAJR 54 (1987): 1-12, and especially p. 3. Bar-Ilan cites bMeg
4a which relates that the rabbis allowed residents of rural villages to hear the
Megillah early, particularly when they came into town on market day "in order to
supply water and food to their brethren in the cities." According to Bar-Ilan, the
use of the same phrases to refer to the supplying of food in the case of priests and
villagers proves that both traditions lack any historical foundation. At best it
would seem that the traditions underwent a similar process of editing.
29
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:48:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
control of the priests serving in Jericho. The possessions of the
Hasmoneans in Jericho may well have served this purpose. It is
my contention that the tradition in bTa'an should be understood
in this manner.
Supplying the priests working on a weekly basis in Jerusalem
would not have been a Hasmonean innovation. According to the
author of Chronicles, tithes and hallowed things were brought to
the chamber in the Temple during the reign of Hezekiah.29 The
priests who went up to Jerusalem to work, as well as their
children who went along with them to learn, received a stipend in
addition to tithes or heave offerings.30 The stipend was theoreti-
cally regulated by officials operating under the auspices of the
king and the high priest.31 Since the Chronicler often combined
past and present in his description of the cult, it is difficult to
know whether these arrangements really date to the days of
Hezekiah.32 It is more likely that they reflect the reality of the
Chronicler's own days, and thus the stipend provided for priests
going up to work in Jerusalem was instituted some time in the
Persian period.33 We have already seen that during this time
crops were sent up from Jericho to Jerusalem, and perhaps this
was actually part of that system described in Chronicles.34
The Hasmoneans apparently continued this practice. In a series
of traditions regarding the decrees of Johanan the High Priest,
commonly identified with John Hyrcanus I,35 we read: "R. Heze-
kiah (in the name of) R. Eleazar be-Rabbi Jose, R. Tanhum bar
Hiyya in the name of R. Joshua ben Levi: at first the tithe was
divided into three parts: a third for the acquaintances ("Inn) of
the priesthood and Levites, a third to the Temple treasury, and a
third to the poor and the haverim who were in Jerusalem."36 The
29 2Chron 31:12.
30 2 Chron 31:16.
31 2 Chron 31:13.
32 See S. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in
Biblical Thought (Jerusalem, 1977), p. 192 (Hebrew).
33 See the discussion of B. Mazar, "Chronicles," in Encyclopaedia Biblica,
2:605-06 (Hebrew).
34 See above, n. 15.
35 E. Schtirer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175
B.C.-A.D. 135), revised and edited by G. Vermes et al. (Edinburgh, 1973), 1:214.
36 yMSh 5, 56d; ySot 9, 24a. On the custom of bringing tithes to Jerusalem see
A. Oppenheimer, The 5Am ha-Aretz: A Study in the Social History of the Jewish
30
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:48:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
PRIESTS AND JERICHO-SCHWARTZ
word "acquaintances" has caused much difficulty. It has been
suggested, however, that these were the priests serving in the
weekly courses who were given an additional portion during the
time when they officiated in Jerusalem.37 The tripartite division
described here did meet with some priestly opposition, particu-
larly regarding the distribution of the tithe proper.38 Nowhere in
these traditions relating to Johanan the High Priest, however, is
there any indication that the supplying of the priestly courses had
ceased. On the contrary, Hyrcanus' decrees regarding tithes and
the like represent an attempt to control strictly the economic
sources of the maintenance of the priests.
The supplying of the priestly courses, then, was accepted policy
during the reign of Hyrcanus I. It is, however, difficult to deter-
mine when this policy began, or particularly what is meant by the
phrase "at first." This is usually explained as implying great
antiquity, that is to say, that the practice began long before the
reign of John Hyrcanus. On the other hand, "at first" can likewise
indicate a relatively short time before that in the tradition to
which it refers, or in our case the time of John Hyrcanus. The
phrase can even relate to events more or less contemporary with
that period.39 Thus the supplying of the courses might have begun
long before the reign of John Hyrcanus, perhaps even continuing
People in the Hellenistic-Roman Period (Leiden, 1977), pp. 30-38. On the
haverim see Oppenheimer, pp. 118-69.
37 S. Lieberman, "Emendations on the Jerushalmi," Tarbiz, 3 (1932): 211,
n. 15. See also Oppenheimer, p. 34. Cf. yBik 3, 65c. For a different interpretation
see G. Alon, " On Philo's Halakha," in G. Alon, Jews, Judaism, and the Classical
World (Jerusalem, 1977), pp. 98-99, n. 18.
38 See yMSh and ySot (above n. 36): "When Eleazar ben Pehorah and Judah
ben Peterah [Sot: Pekhorah] came, they used to take [the tithes] by force. He
[= Johanan the High Priest] could have protested, but he did not." We follow
here Lieberman's interpretation that these personae were two priests who had
been appointed to supervise the distribution of tithes in Jerusalem, but instead
took some of the tithes for themselves. Apparently they were opposed to the
attempt of John Hyrcanus to control the priestly gifts. See S. Lieberman, Tosefta
kifshutah (New York, 1973), 8:738-49. For a different view see Alon (above, n. 37),
p. 100. However, Alon also interprets the actions of these priests as a reaction to
the systematic control of John Hyrcanus.
39 On the various usages of the phrase "at first" see S. Safrai, "The Practical
Implementation of the Sabbatical Year after the Destruction of the Second
Temple," Tarbiz 35 (1966): 317-18.
31
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:48:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
from the period described by Chronicles. It is just as possible,
however, that the supplying of the priests serving in Jerusalem
during the Second Temple period began during the reign of John
Hyrcanus, or a short time before. A third possibility is that the
arrangement began some time during the early part of the Second
Temple period but was interrupted by the reform of the Temple
under Menelaus and by the general upheavals of the period. A
revival of payment or supplying of the courses could have oc-
curred during the reign of Simeon or John Hyrcanus I. This
would certainly have been considered a favor by the priests and
would have been a good way for the Hasmoneans to consolidate
their hold over the priesthood as a whole.
How were the priests serving in the priestly courses supplied? It
would seem that bTa'an provides at least part of the answer. The
Hasmoneans, as we have seen, attempted to control and regulate
the priestly prerogatives. They also owned or controlled great
fertile tracts in the Jericho region. The tradition in bTa'an indi-
cates that the priests of Jerusalem were supplied with produce
from Jericho. The greatest degree of control and regulation would
have been achieved if these crops had come from the Hasmonean
plantations and were distributed under the watchful eyes of Has-
monean officials or priests. The tradition might also seemingly
imply that some of the crops were sold and the realized revenues
were then used to supply the priests.
Two issues still need to be examined in order to substantiate
my claim: (1) Are there other traditions relating to the supplying
of the priestly courses from Jericho crops or revenues? (2) Can
the Hasmonean background which we have attributed to the
tradition in bTa'an be verified? A positive answer to both of
these questions will do much to strengthen our case.
A number of midrashim state that the fertile region of Jericho
should belong to the tribe in whose territory the Temple was to
be built. Thus, for instance, we read in Sifre Num 81 (p. 77, ed.
Horovitz):
When Israel was dividing the land they left the fertile region of
Jericho, 500 cubits by 500 cubits. They said: He in whose
territory the Temple shall be built shall take the fertile region
of Jericho.
32
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:48:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
PRIESTS AND JERICHO-SCHWARTZ
Here and in the parallel versions40 there is an explicit connection
between the Temple and the agricultural lands of Jericho. The
area of these lands, 500 cubits by 500 cubits, is impossibly small,
but measures the same as the Hasmonean, or pre-Herodian,
Temple Mount.41 The connection here between the fertile region
of Jericho and the Temple can hardly be coincidental. Rather,
this tradition seems to confirm that Jericho crops were supplied
to the Temple.42
This tradition and its parallels also verify the Hasmonean
background. The measurements of the Temple Mount are pre-
Herodian or Hasmonean. The tradition of Sifre and its parallels,
then, seemingly reflects a Temple-Jericho connection in the Has-
monean period. The most important evidence, however, is arch-
aeological. In the course of his excavations at Jericho, E. Netzer
discovered a great many miqwa'ot (ritual baths).43 Some were
part of the palace complexes, while others were located in differ-
ent parts of Second Temple Jericho. The clear majority, however,
40 See, for instance, Sifre Deut 62 (p. 128, ed. Finkelstein), 352 (pp. 411-12)
and the sources cited there ad loc. Most of these traditions state that before the
tribe of Benjamin received the area, the Jericho region had been temporarily given
to Yehonadav ben Rekhav, a scion of the house of Jethro, and to his descendants
who later left the area to study Torah in the desert near Arad. See Z. Safrai, "The
Sons of Yehonadav ben Rekhav and the Essenes," Bar-Ilan 16-17 (1979): 37-58
(Hebrew). Safrai claims that the traditions in rabbinic literature about the family
of Yehonadav ben Rekhav refer to the Essenes. Were there Essenes in the Jericho
region who perhaps left when the area came under direct Hasmonean rule? The
rabbis, however, may simply be influenced by the verse in Judges (1:16) which
states that the Kenites (likewise descendants of Jethro) went up out of the city of
palm trees (= Jericho) into the wilderness of Judah, south of Arad.
41 mMid 2.1. Cf. M. Avi-Yonah, "The Second Temple," in M. Avi-Yonah
(ed.), Sefer Yerushalayim (Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv, 1956), p. 414 (Hebrew).
42 See Safrai, "The Sons," p. 75. Cf. Midrash Leqah Tov (pp. 36a-b): "One
verse states 'in one of your tribes' (Deut 12:14), while another states 'out of all
your tribes' (Deut 12:5), for they knew that the Temple would be built in the
portion of Judah and Benjamin, and therefore they set aside the fertile region of
Jericho . . . and they set up guard-posts [mishmarot] to take money from all the
tribes." The midrash indicates that there was communal support for the priestly
mishmarot. This could just as easily be government or state regulation.
43 E. Netzer, "Ancient Ritual Baths (Miqvaot) in Jericho," The Jerusalem
Cathedra 2 (1982): 106-19. Cf. idem, "Miqwa'ot (Ritual Baths) of the Second
Temple Period at Jericho," Qadmoniyyot 11 (1978): 54-59 (Hebrew).
33
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:48:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
date from the Hasmonean period. Netzer also noted that the
Hasmoneans were particular about the ritual purity of water in
aqueducts and in the water supply of Jericho in general. He
offered two explanations regarding the many miqwa'ot there.
One possibility is that the different ritual baths were for the
different types of people who lived at, or frequented, Jericho,
with special miqwa'ot for women, ordinary priests, royal family,
etc. This might explain to some extent their diversity but not why
the Hasmoneans and the residents of Jericho in general should
have been so particular about such matters of ritual purity.
Netzer also noted the tradition in bTa'an which he understood as
relating to the great number of priests in Jericho during the
Second Temple period. The priests could eat their heave offerings
only in a state of purity, and such a state would require the
construction of ritual baths. Netzer added that many priests
might have preferred to be in a state of ritual purity before
arriving in Jerusalem, rather than undergoing purification in Jeru-
salem itself.44 If, as I suggested, the Hasmonean-priestly regula-
tion of food supplies for the priests officiating in Jerusalem was
based at Jericho, Netzer's suggestions become even more poig-
nant. It would be a matter not of just local priests maintaining a
state of ritual purity but of large amounts of food intended for a
great many priests. This would also explain the apparent Has-
monean stringency regarding the purity of water in Jericho.
I would like to offer an additional explanation regarding the
multiplicity of miqwa'ot in Jericho. This explanation is likewise
dependent on the great number of priests there, but the miqwa'ot
might not have been meant for their exclusive use. Not only
priests officiating in the Temple had to be in a state of ritual
purity. Everyone going on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and up to
the Temple Mount was required to be ritually pure.45 Serious
degrees of impurity, or residence abroad, required the sprinkling
of the ashes of the red heifer as well as a seven day waiting
period. The purification, however, need not have taken place in
Jerusalem. In mPar 3.14 it is stated:
44 See mBik 3.2. Those going on pilgrimage would sleep outdoors to prevent
ritual defilement induced by a death in a building or tent in which they might
sleep.
45 Safrai, Die Wallfahrt, pp. 142-46.
34
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:48:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
PRIESTS AND JERICHO-SCHWARTZ
It [= the ashes] was divided into three parts. One was put in
the he146, one in the Mount of Olives, and one was divided
among the priestly courses [mishmarot]. That which was di-
vided among the priestly courses was for the Israelites, who
were sprinkled from it. That which was put in the Mount of
Olives was for the priests who were sanctified [from it]. And
that which was in the hel was preserved.
Jericho, which was a priestly city with its own course of mish-
mar47 would have possessed the ashes of the red heifer, enabling
those on pilgrimage and passing through Jericho to be purified
before their arrival in Jerusalem. Thus the many miqwa'ot in the
city may also have been for the use of pilgrims going up to
Jerusalem.48
Regarding the Hasmonean period, it remains only to examine
the tradition which might be described as parallel to bTa'an, but
could just as easily represent a different description of the priestly
presence in Jericho. In yPes 4, 30c (= yTa'an 4, 67d) it is stated:
It was taught: there were twenty-four thousand in the 'amud
from Jerusalem49 and half an 'amud from Jericho. Even
46 The hel was the flat surface which surrounded the wall of the inner court of
the Temple. See Avi-Yonah, "The Temple," (above, n. 41), p. 414.
47 yPes 4, 30c. Cf., however, Luria, "Priestly Cities," (above, n. 1), p. 13, who
claims that the priests of Jericho belonged not to a single priestly course but
rather to a number of them, or perhaps even to all of them. This is hardly the
plain meaning of yPes.
48 On the great number of pilgrims from Jericho in the early first century CE
see Josephus, BJ 2.43; Ant. 17.254.
49 The word 'amud should be understood in the sense of ma'amad, generally
a representative group of priests, Levites, and Israelites, part of which went up
on a rotation basis to serve in Jerusalem. In the above-cited source the word
should be understood as mishmar, one of the twenty-four orders or courses of
priests which served in Jerusalem on a rotation basis. The number 24,000 may
be based on the number of Levites who theoretically served in the individual
courses of the Temple during the time of David according to the Chronicler. See
1 Chron 23:4, 27:1. See S. Klein, Eretz-Yehudah (Jerusalem, 1939), p. 256, n. 2.
Cf., however, L. Ginzberg, "Some Abbreviations Unrecognized or Misunder-
stood in the Text of the Jerusalem Talmud," Jewish Theological Seminary,
Students Annual (1914), pp. 142-43, where Ginzberg goes through a rather
complicated explanation to show that "24,000" is based on a scribal error. There
is little to recommend this view. See S. Lieberman, Ha-Yerushalmi kifshuto
(Jerusalem, 1934), 1:428.
35
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:48:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
Jericho could have sent a complete camud, but in order to
honor Jerusalem they used to send only a half 'amud.
Jericho was almost on the same elevation as Jerusalem, but in
order to "honor Jerusalem" a complete priestly course was not
sent from Jericho. According to our interpretation, the cult in
Jerusalem, or at least the work of the priests, was dependent
upon Jericho. This dependence was part of the Hasmonean at-
tempt to control the priesthood and the cult. The priests in
Jericho, therefore, would have become quite important. How-
ever, it was also in the Hasmonean interest to maintain a correct
balance of priestly power. Jerusalem was, after all, the center of
their power as well as of the cult. Thus the priests of Jericho sent
to Jerusalem not a full course but half of one in order to honor
Jerusalem, as well as to recognize the priestly subservience of
Jericho to Jerusalem, in spite of the importance of Jericho and its
priests.
According to my interpretation of events, the Hasmonean pe-
riod saw a close connection between the Temple in Jerusalem and
the priestly city of Jericho. The conditions which allowed for this
relationship did not exist after the Hasmonean period. The close
relationship between Jericho and the Temple as well as the posi-
tion of the priests suffered markedly during the reign of Herod
and afterwards. In spite of all this, however, the history of Jericho
continued to be determined to a great extent by the priestly
population who remained there. As we shall see, both Josephus
and the rabbis attest to this.
The beginning of Herod's relationship with Jericho was some-
what strange, given Herod's attitude towards supporters of Anti-
gonus, the scion of the Hasmonean house who fought Herod's
elevation to the throne.50 By 39 BCE Herod had arrived at the
walls of Jerusalem but was forced to break off his siege because
of a lack of supplies, the area around Jerusalem having been laid
waste by Antigonus' forces. The Roman troops under Silo were
particularly upset by this and in spite of Herod's pleading refused
to continue the siege. Herod then "set out into the country ... for
50 Cf. M. Stern, "The Politics of Herod and Jewish Society Towards the End of
the Second Commonwealth," Tarbiz 35 (1966): 235-53 (Hebrew).
36
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:48:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
PRIESTS AND JERICHO-SCHWARTZ
he brought back a greater mass of provisions than anyone had
hoped for."51 Josephus does not relate where Herod secured these
provisions. One thing, however, seems to be clear: Herod did not
get his supplies at Jericho. Josephus continues to relate that
Herod "also instructed those around Samaria who had become
friends toward him52 to bring down to Jericho grain, wine, oil,
cattle, and all other things, so that there should be no lack of
supplies for the soldiers for some days to come."53 These pro-
visions were most likely transported on the road passing through
Rimmon and Baal Hazor into the Jordan Valley.54
Jericho was theoretically under Herod's control. Why did he
have to forage and then have supplies brought from Samaria?
Was it not simpler just to take the crops, mostly winter crops at
that, from Jericho or even from the stores undoubtedly kept
there? If these were "state" or Hasmonean lands, Herod's niceties
become even less comprehensible, for Herod's taking of these
crops would have shown that he controlled royal Hasmonean
lands. However, if the status of these lands was also tied to the
Temple, Herod's actions become more logical. He would have
been somewhat wary of plundering such a region, especially to
feed Roman soldiers. Other explanations for his behavior are
problematical. It might be argued that since the inhabitants of
Jericho supported Antigonus at this stage, Herod would have
wanted to secure his supplies without fighting. Why then did he
command that the supplies be brought to Jericho?
Antigonus, however, was afraid that with the problem of sup-
plies solved, Herod and his Roman allies would lay siege to
Jerusalem once again. Thus Antigonus' troops, operating behind
enemy lines with the support of the Jewish population of Jericho,
sought to disrupt the transfer of these supplies. Herod set out for
Jericho, captured it, and left a garrison. His behavior was once
again rather strange. Josephus relates that "while he found the
city deserted, he seized five hundred men occupying the heights
51 Josephus, Ant. 14.406-08; BJ 1.297-99.
52 In BJ 1.299: "that city having declared in his favor."
53 Ant. 14.408; BJ 1.299.
54 See B. Bar-Kochba, The Battles of the Hasmoneans--The Times of Judas
Maccabaeus (Jerusalem, 1980), pp. 367-68 (Hebrew). This is not the fourth
century CE Roman road.
37
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:48:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
with their wives and families." Herod captured them and then
proceeded to release them. Moreover, Herod's Jewish forces re-
frained from plunder; it was the Romans alone who pillaged the
city.55 Herod was not known for his magnanimity towards cap-
tives. Perhaps, however, if the priests of Jericho controlled
quasi-Temple lands, his magnanimity would become more under-
standable. These priests may have been Hasmonean officials or
supporters, but the Jericho-Temple connection made it imprudent
to harm the residents or to tamper with. their lands, at least for
the moment.
Herod's brother, Joseph, however, was not so prudent. Herod,
upon departing for Samosata to aid Anthony, left his brother
under orders to remain on the defensive. Joseph, however, dis-
regarded these orders, borrowed five cohorts from Machaeras,
the new Roman commander, "with the intention of reaping all
their grain," according to Josephus in Ant. (14.448) or "with the
object of carrying off the corn crop in its midsummer prime" in
Bellum (1.323). He was, however, defeated on the way to Jericho
and killed in battle.56
Herod received word of his brother's death while in Antioch
and hastily set out on the journey "to Jericho with the intention
of taking revenge on them for his brother."57 Very little revenge,
however, was exacted from that city. The night before the cam-
paign Herod was saved from death, apparently during an earth-
quake, when the house in which he was staying collapsed. This
was taken as a divine omen and perhaps placated Herod some-
what regarding Jericho. The next day, in battle outside Jericho,
Herod was struck in the side by a javelin, apparently with minimal
damage. Antigonus, however, seemed to be less concerned with
Jericho than with Samaria and attempted to wrest the area from
Herod's control. He did not succeed. Ironically, Herod's bloody
revenge for his brother's death was exacted from villages in
Samaria. The carnage that day was great, but Josephus relates no
action taken against Jericho.58 On the contrary, he states in Ant.
that "meanwhile many people streamed to him from Jericho and
55 Ant. 14.409-11; BJ 1.300-02.
56 Ant. 14.448-49; BJ 1.325.
57 Ant. 14.451-54; BJ 1.328-31.
58 Ant. 14.456-61; BJ 1.332-39.
38
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:48:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
PRIESTS AND JERICHO-SCHWARTZ
the rest of Judaea."59 Bellum is clearer regarding this change:
"Multitudes of Jews now joined him daily from Jericho and
elsewhere, some drawn by hatred of Antigonus, others by his own
successes, the majority by a blind love of change."60 It is hard to
imagine that it was the Hasmonean priests who were so inclined
to switch sides. Rather, the many years of Hasmonean-priestly
control of Jericho had probably taken their toll of the nonpriestly
inhabitants, many of them perhaps working the lands of the
priests. These nonpriests most likely saw Herod as a chance to rid
themselves of their priestly overlords-Herod, after all, had not
been so bad; he had neither plundered nor pillaged.
Herod, as we have seen above, refrained from taking supplies
from the Jericho region. Strangely enough, the impetus for a
change in policy was the result of external political forces. Cleo-
patra sought to restore the ancient rule of the Ptolomies over
Palestine and southern Syria. Antony was unwilling to grant her
request in full, but did give her the Jericho region, as well as the
coastal strip of Phoenicia and Palestine (except for Tyre and
Sidon).61 There has been much debate as to the chronology of
these gifts. According to M. Stern, the gifts were given on two
occasions with Jericho perhaps being taken from Herod as early
as 36 BCE, and the coastal towns being given only in 34 BCE62
Herod, recognizing the economic value of the region, promptly
leased back the land for the annual sum of two hundred talents.63
The Jericho region had ceased to be Temple-state-Hasmonean
land. Herod had to pay rent, but for all intents and purposes this
rich area was now his. This certainly would have become official
after the death of Antony and Cleopatra, when Augustus returned
to Herod the lands taken from him by the Egyptian queen.64 All
59 Ant. 14.458.
60 BJ 1.335.
61 Schiirer, History (above, n. 35), 1:298-300.
62 See M. Stern, "The Reign of Herod and the Herodian Dynasty," in S. Safrai
and M. Stern (eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century (Assen, 1974), 1:305-
07. Others claim that the coastal region was given earlier, while Jericho was taken
from Herod only in 34 BCE. Ultimately conclusions depend upon the somewhat
contradictory accounts in Plutarch and Cassius Dio on the one hand and in
Josephus on the other. See also Schtirer, 1:288-89, n. 5 and Schalit, Konig
Herodes, pp. 772-77 (Anhang 12).
63 BJ 1.362; Ant. 14.132.
64 Ant. 15.215-17; BJ 1.396-97.
39
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:48:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
this need not have totally disrupted the connection with the
Temple, since Herod did control the high priesthood.65 If the
Hasmoneans had used the Temple connection to consolidate their
position, perhaps Herod might have planned to do the same.66
Even so, life in Jericho under Herod did change, and so did
what was left of the Temple-Jericho connection. The Hasmoneans
had built winter palaces in Jericho, but they could not match the
splendor of Herod's palaces there, particularly his third one built
on both banks of Wadi Qelt.67 There were also demographic
changes in Jericho. Strabo, commenting on the ethnic makeup of
certain regions of Palestine, states that Jericho had a mixture of
non-Jewish inhabitants.68 Strabo's comments could conceivably
pertain to various periods, but since in the course of these com-
ments he mentions Herod, it would seem that his statement on
Jericho refers to the same time. There were, as we shall see, still
priests in Jericho, but they were no longer the majority and they
certainly did not rule.
In fact, they probably came under a great deal of economic
pressure during Herod's rule. In tZeb 11.17 it is stated:
Abba Saul69 says: There were trunks of sycamore trees in
Jericho,70 and violent men were taking them. They went and
sanctified them [to the Temple]. They said: The owners did not
sanctify [the trees] to the Almighty, except for the trunks. 71
This tradition has generally been explained as describing rich
priests who stole from poor farmers or sharecroppers, although
the latter were also for the most part priests.72 This explanation is
based on the juxtaposition of this tradition with others describing
65 Ant. 15.22, 39.
66 Cf. M. Stern, "The Politics of Herod" (above, n. 50), p. 245.
67 See above, n. 19.
68 Geographica 16.2.34: "And it is inhabited in general, as is each place in
particular, by mixed stocks of people from Egyptian and Arabian and Phoenician
tribes; for such are those who occupy Galilee and Hiericus (= Jericho) and
Philadelphia and Samaria, which last Herod surnamed Sebaste" (Loeb Classical
Library, p. 281).
69 A sage of the late first and second centuries CE. See J. N. Epstein, Mavo'ot
le-sifrut ha-tanaim (Jerusalem, 1957), pp. 160-63.
70 Cf. Luke 19: ff.
71 See also tMen 13.20; bPes 57a.
72 Biichler, Die Priester (above, n. 1), p. 163; D. R. Schwartz, "Priesthood,
Temple, Sacrifices, Opposition, and Spiritualization in the Late Second Temple
40
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:48:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
PRIESTS AND JERICHO-SCHWARTZ
dastardly acts of rich upper class priests.73 However, those other
traditions specifically mention upper class priests (gedole kehun-
nah), while the various versions of the Abba Saul tradition men-
tion either violent men (ba'ale 'egrof) or mighty men (ba'ale
zero'a). None of the versions of the Abba Saul tradition mentions
rich avaricious priests. In accordance with this, S. Klein sug-
gested that Abba Saul describes Herodian officials requisitioning
or perhaps commandeering wood for the construction of Herod's
palaces.74 This is, of course, difficult to prove, but it would be in
keeping with Herodian policy regarding the area in general.75 The
attempt of the owners to prevent such official theft is also illumi-
nating. They dedicate the trees, or parts of them, to the Temple.
The subterfuge is quite logical if these "owners" were priests
cultivating the crops on what had once been Hasmonean or
priestly lands. These lands had once been under the control of the
Temple, and the farmers were attempting to save them from
Herod by returning them to their former status.
Ironically, the priests of Jericho were to persevere and not the
house of Herod. Archelaus, Herod's son and successor in Judaea,
continued to develop Jericho and its general area,76 but even-
tually, following his exile and the death of Herod's sister Salome,
who also had possessions in this fertile valley, the entire area
became crown property.77 The Romans apparently did not deal
with the day to day affairs of this agricultural region and had
representatives among some of the prominent Jericho families.
Thus Theodotus, a scion of the priestly Goliath family of Jericho
and freedman of Agrippina, the third wife of Claudius, was,
according to some, in charge of Roman property interests in the
area.78
Period," (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, 1979), 1:29-30. See also the rather
unusual interpretation of Luria, "Priestly Cities," (above, n. 1), p. 14, n. 78.
7One such tradition refers to upper class priests forcibly taking skins of
animals offered in the Temple and thus denying them to the priests actually
serving in the priestly courses. bPes 57a included the dirge on the high priestly
families which forcibly took priestly portions. Cf. Ant. 20.181, 206-7.
74 Klein, Eretz- Yehuda (above, n. 49), pp. 104-05.
75 See Porat (above, n. 19), p. 132.
76 Ant. 17.340.
77 Ant. 18.31; BJ 2.167. Cf. Porat, p. 132. Salome bequeathed it to Livia
Augusta, and upon her death (29 CE), it passed to Tiberius.
78 R. Hachlili, "The Goliath Family in Jericho: Funerary Inscriptions from a
First Century A.D. Jewish Monumental Tomb," BASOR 235 (1979): 31-65. On
41
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:48:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
There are a number of talmudic traditions relating to the
priests of Jericho at the end of the Second Temple period.
Scholars, however, have neglected to examine these traditions in
the light of the imperial status of Jericho. As we shall see,
however, the position of the priests there was very much affected
by this status. In mPes 4.8 it is stated:
The men of Jericho did six things. For three they [= the
rabbis] reproved them, and for three they did not reprove
them. And these are the things for which they did not reprove
them: they grafted palms the whole day [of the fourteenth of
Nisan]; they did not make the prescribed divisions in the
Shema; they reaped79 and stacked before the 'omer; and they
did not reprove them. And these are the things for which they
reproved them: they permitted the use of the fruit of the
sycamore [gamziyyot; from stems that had been] dedicated to
the Temple80; they ate on the Sabbath81 fruit that lay under the
tree; and they gave pe'ah from vegetables; and for these the
sages reproved them. 82
Theodotus see p. 46. On the priestly status of the family see p. 58. Cf. R. Hachlili
and A. Killebrew, "The House of 'Goliath': A Family at Jericho in the First
Century C.E." Qadmoniyyot 14 (1981): 118-22 (Hebrew). Hachlili is rightly
cautious in examining this suggestion. Salome bequeathed also Jamnia (Yavneh)
to Livia, and this area was governed by the procurator C. Herennius Capito. Cf.
H. G. Pflaum, Les Carrieres procuratoriennes equestres sous le haut-empire
romain (Paris, 1960), 1:23-26. Josephus specifically refers to him as the procurator
of Jamnia (Ant. 18.158), and it might thus be argued that he did not govern
Jericho, the other part of Salome's bequest. On the other hand, an inscription
refers to him as proc(urator) luliae Augustae, which would imply all properties
and not just Jamnia. See L'Annee epigraphique (1941): #105.
79 Missing in MSS Munich and Parma.
80 MS Munich reads: "fruit [gamziyyot] of the carob and sycamore dedicated to
the Temple." We have translated gamziyyot as fruit of the sycamore. See the
comments of Albeck in his additional notes, The Mishnah: Moed (Tel-Aviv,
19582), p. 448, and the literature cited there. See also yPes 4, 31b. The carobs of
MS Munich are a scribal error.
81 "Sabbath" does not appear in MSS Kaufmann, Parma, and Lowe.
82 The translation with some revisions is essentially that of Danby, p. 141. See
J. Neusner, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Appointed Times (Leiden, 1981),
2:189, for a more liberal translation. See also the parallels to the Mishnah in tPes
3(2).19-22 (p. 156, ed. Lieberman); yPes 4, 31b; bPes 56a-b; bMen 71a. Cf.
mMen 10.8.
42
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:48:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
PRIESTS AND JERICHO-SCHWARTZ
Scholars have long recognized that this mishnah describes the
Second Temple period, regardless of the date of its literary formu-
lation.83 The phrase "they permitted the use of the fruit of the
sycamore (from stems that had been dedicated)" is dependent
upon the tradition which we saw above, describing the dedication
of the trunks of the sycamore in Jericho during the reign of
Herod.84 This indicates that the events described in mPes 4.8
would have taken place a few generations later or in the first
century CE, when the area was under Roman control. It would
seem that the farmers in mPes were also priests just as they were
in the Herodian tradition, or in other words, the "men of Jericho"
in this mishnah refers to the priests of Jericho.85
Much of this mishnah can be interpreted in the light of the
status of Jericho as an imperial possession. Thus, unlike the
Galileans who did not work on the entire day of the Passover
sacrifice, or the inhabitants of the rest of Judaea who did not
work after noon on that day,86 the men of Jericho worked in their
83 See J. N. Epstein, Mavo'ot (above, n. 69), pp. 334-35, n. 97. See also the
long discussion of Biichler, Die Priester, pp. 164ff. We shall return to discuss
individual aspects of Biichler's thesis. Biichler claims that this mishnah dates to
the final years of the Second Temple period. His dating, however, is based on his
understanding of tZeb 11.17 which we have not accepted. See our discussion
above on this Tosefta.
84 See tPes 3(2).22: "How do they permit the fruit of the sycamore from stems
dedicated to the Temple? They (= the rabbis) said to them, 'Do you not admit
that sanctified crops are forbidden?' They (= the men of Jericho) said to them:
'Our fathers, when they sanctified them, sanctified only the beams themselves,
because violent men were coming and taking them by force."' This obviously
refers to tZeb 11.17. For a somewhat different interpretation and translation see
Neusner, Appointed Times, p. 190. Cf. Biichler, Die Priester, p. 163.
85 Biichler, Die Priester, p. 178 sees "men of Jericho" as implying the entire
upper class conservative Sadducean aristocracy. He interprets the entire mishnah
in this manner. L. Finkelstein, (The Pharisees: The Sociological Background of
Their Faith [Philadelphia, 19662], pp. 61ff.) thinks that the "men of Jericho" are
the high assimilationist nobility and that the customs of Jericho express the
"mentality of the highest aristocracy in Judah." The use of the phrase "men of
Jericho" in the Mishnah may imply important people. Cf. mSuk 3.8 and mMakh
1.6 on the "men of Jerusalem" who seemed to have belonged to the upper classes
of society. However, see also mShab 3.8 on the problem of the "men of Tiberias,"
or mMakh 3.4 on the "men of Mahoz." In these latter cases there is no indication
that upper-class priests are involved. The use of the phrase "men of" in the
Mishnah does not automatically seem to imply priests or upper classes.
86 mPes 4.5.
43
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:48:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
date groves for the entire day. Various explanations have been
offered. Biichler claimed that this was a Sadducean reaction to
the Pharisee controlled Passover sacrifice.87 Other scholars have
stated that the "men of Jericho" maintained the legal opinion that
work was forbidden on that day only in Jerusalem, the site of the
sacrifice. The most commonly accepted explanation is that the
palm groves were so lucrative, and delay in any agricultural
procedure connected with them was so potentially disastrous,
that the rabbis, despite official disapproval, were willing to look
the other way.88 The rabbis' liberal approach was even more
understandable if many of the farmer-priests were working not
their own lands but rather imperial ones. The economic and
political realities made the work necessary. Not only did the
rabbis not actively protest this point, but they also did not
reprove the priests for not going up to Jerusalem to offer the
Passover sacrifice or to spend Passover in Jerusalem. It is hard to
imagine the attitude of the rabbis if this had been simply a matter
of the priests' own financial gain.
The same is probably true regarding the reaping and stacking
before the 'omer. They may technically have been allowed to
harvest the grain before the bringing of the 'omer but not to
stack it. The rabbis apparently granted special dispensation on
the latter matter.89 If the "men of Jericho" were under Roman
pressure to harvest the grain in order to prepare the fields for
summer crops90, the leniency of the rabbis is clear.
The rabbis, however, did occasionally protest. In these instances
serious legal principles were at stake. The response of the rabbis
87 Biichler, Die Priester, pp. 171-73.
88 See Lieberman, Tosefta kifshutah (New York, 1962), 4:539.
89 "New grain" was permitted after the offering of the Comer on the 16th of
Nisan, the day after Passover. The Comer could not be brought from irrigated
fields, and therefore the rabbis permitted the harvest of such fields before the
Comer if it was an absolute agricultural necessity. The agriculture of Jericho was
of course dependent upon irrigation, and therefore grain could be harvested early.
However, the rabbis did not permit any subsequent action to be taken, such as
stacking. See mMen 8.2, 10.5. The mishnah in Menahot relates that the "men of
Jericho" used to stack the grain harvest against the will of the rabbis. Cf. the view
of R. Meir in tPes 3(2).19 and parallels. mPes 4.8 is in accordance with the view
of R. Judah that the "men of Jericho" both reaped and stacked before the Comer
and that the rabbis did not protest, even if they did not agree.
90 Cf. Porat (above, see n. 19), p. 137.
44
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:48:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
PRIESTS AND JERICHO-SCHWARTZ
seemed to be limited to protest and reproof and no action was
taken. Perhaps this was the case, since the priests of Jericho had
by this time apparently accepted the rulings of the rabbis in most
cases, as we shall see. In any event, these instances can also be
understood in terms of the status of the lands at Jericho.
The first instance of protest involves the eating of the fruits of
sycamore trees whose stems had been sanctified years earlier. The
dedication of the trees was, as we remember, a subterfuge to
prevent confiscation by Herod. The rabbis, however, could not
condone such actions regarding dedications to the Temple even if
there had been a good cause, and therefore could not condone
the eating of those fruits. Interestingly enough, the trees had
apparently not been redeemed during all those years since the
original sanctification. This would seem to be one more indication
that the priestly farmers had not been successful in preventing
expropriation by Herod and subsequent possession by the Ro-
mans. This, by the way, might also indicate that Philo was right
in stating that the Temple actually did own lands and that lands
sanctified to the Temple need not be redeemed at once.91
The rabbis also could not condone actions which may have
impinged on the sanctity of the Sabbath. Thus fruits or crops in a
grove or field had to be prepared on the eve of the Sabbath if
they were to be eaten on the Sabbath. Fruits that might have
fallen on the Sabbath could not be eaten on that day.92. The
"men of Jericho," however, did not observe this restriction. From
the Mishnah it is impossible to determine the reason for this
breach of observance. It is also hard to understand why the
rabbis were not more forceful in their reaction. The Tosefta,
however, is clearer. tPes 3(2).21 states:
They used to open their gardens and orchards to the poor
during years of famine, and the poor of Israel used to go in to
eat fallen fruit under date-palms on the Sabbath.
91 See above, n. 24.
92 See n. 81 above. "Sabbath" does not appear in all the manuscripts. In such a
case the issue would be whether the fruit fell on a festival and was forbidden or
fell on the eve of the festival and was therefore permitted. Btichler tries to
combine two aspects of the Mishnah and reads "They permitted the use of the
fruit of the sycamore (etc.) and ate from fruit that lay under the tree." This
suggestion has been rejected by the vast majority of scholars. Cf. Lieberman,
Tosefta kifshutah, 4:541.
45
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:48:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
These farmers appear to have owned their fields and to have been
of a somewhat higher social and economic class than those men-
tioned so far in the Mishnah and the Tosefta here. These farmers
were attempting to help their poorer brethren who undoubtedly
worked on the imperial estates. Once again the "men of Jericho"
resorted to subterfuge, and once again the rabbis objected to such
tactics when important legal issues were at stake.
The last case in the Mishnah can also be explained in terms of
the land status of Jericho. The "men of Jericho" used to leave
"corner-gleanings" (pe'ah) of vegetables, although according to
tPes 3(2).20 this was the case only of turnips, roots of leeks, and
cabbage. At first glance this might indicate a strict observance on
the part of the "men of Jericho." This, however, was not the case.
On the contrary, by leaving pe'ah they considered the produce
exempt from tithes. This, however, contradicted rabbinic rulings.
Corner-gleanings were not left of vegetables, and therefore tithes
had to be set aside from them. Thus the poor who ate these
corner-gleanings were eating untithed food, a serious matter which
evoked the protest of the rabbis. One wonders once again at the
absence of a stronger reaction. The actions of these Jericho
farmers did have some redeeming social value, similar to the
instances cited above, and they were undoubtedly trying to help
their poorer brethren working as tenant farmers for the Romans.
This attempt to aid the poorer residents of Jericho is clear from
the account in tPes 3(2).20, which relates the case of the son of
Bar Bohein who gave corner-gleanings from turnips. Bar Bohein
himself, coming home and seeing a great crowd of the poor at his
garden, chastised his son for not following the teachings of the
rabbis, and ordered the poor to drop what they had received. In
turn, he gave them twice as much produce, but this time from
produce which had been tithed. The Tosefta and parallel versions
point out that Bar Bohein's initial action was not inspired by
miserliness, but rather by his desire to observe the precepts of the
rabbis. This might once again explain the rather limited rabbinic
response to this deviation from rabbinic law on the part of the
"men of Jericho." In the final result the upper classes of Jewish
Jericho, priests probably descended from Sadducean circles,93
93 On the possible observance of "Sadducean halakah" in Jericho see J. Patrich,
"The Aqueduct from Etam to the Temple and a Sadducean Halakhah," Cathedra
46
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:48:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
PRIESTS AND JERICHO-SCHWARTZ
were evincing a concern for, and basic acceptance of, rabbinic or
Pharisaic teachings.94 The exceptions were based on the realities
of the situation in Jericho, and the intentions of the priests in
these cases were honorable.
The connection between Jericho and Jerusalem was still in
existence. It is hard to imagine that the rabbis would concern
themselves with divergences in observance in every settlement in
Palestine.95 What was done in Jericho seems to have been of
great importance to them, and it is likely that the important
priestly population which still resided there and, for the most part,
accepted Pharisaic tenets made this so. Moreover, this new al-
legiance need not have done any harm to the old Temple-Jericho
connection, since by this time the cult was in any event most
likely conducted according to Pharisaic standards.96
The history of Second Temple period Jericho was then to a
great extent the history of priestly Jericho. The Hasmonean plan-
tations supplied the priests who went up to officiate in Jerusalem
17 (1980): 14-15 (Hebrew). However, as Patrich points out (p. 14, n. 23), there is
no clear-cut proof regarding the Sadducees outside of Jerusalem. Cf. J. Le
Moyne, Les Sadduceens (Paris, 1972), pp. 343-44.
94 See tSot 13.3 (pp. 230-31, ed. Lieberman) on the assembly of sages and rab-
bis in Second Temple Jericho in the upper chamber of the house of Guriah. This
was apparently a prominent Jericho family. See the comments of S. Lieberman
on this tradition and parallel versions in Tosefta kifshutah, 8:736-37. Only one of
the issues mentioned in the Mishnah is not dependent to some extent on matters
of land. R. Judah and R. Meir differ as to exactly what the "men of Jericho" did
not do or did differently regarding the recitation of the Shemac According to
R. Judah, they did not recite the refrain "Blessed be the name of his glorious
majesty forever and ever." R. Meir said that they did not stop between individual
words in the recitation of the first sentence "Hear, O Israel," etc. However, it is
possible that even in the opinion of R. Meir the "men of Jericho" did not recite
the refrain. This particular refrain was recited in the Temple. See tTa'an 1.13
(p. 327, ed. Lieberman); yTa'an 2, 65d; bTa'an 16b; mYoma 3.8, 4.2. Perhaps the
"men of Jericho" felt that this refrain should be recited only in the Temple.
Buchler saw this as an anti-Herodian and anti-Roman action, but there is little to
recommend this view.
95 Protest or reproof by the rabbis, or lack of such, is found on other occasions
regarding priests. Cf. mKet 1.5. However, reproof by the rabbis was not limited to
them. Cf. tKet 1.1; b'Er 96a. Moreover, the verb mhh (protest or reproof) was
used not only in the sense of the prerogative of the rabbis. See above, n. 36 on
Johanan the High Priest.
96 Cf., for instance, H. Mantel, "Megillat Ta'anit and the Sects," in H. Mantel,
The Men of the Great Synagogue (Jerusalem, 1983), pp. 213-23 (Hebrew).
47
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:48:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
48 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
and provided the Hasmoneans with a means of control and
regulation. The fortune of the priests of Jericho may have taken a
turn for the worse under Herod and afterwards under imperial
rule, but the priests persevered and continued to set the tone in
Jericho.
This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:48:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
