Jerusalem Talmud Pe’ah 1:1, 16a-b [ 360

judaism_and_rome 2026-07-22T07:44:42+02:00 1 1269 Text https://heurist.huma-num.fr/heurist/?recID=1269&db=judaism_and_rome Jerusalem Talmud Pe’ah 1:1, 16a-b [ 360 - 400 ] 2022-08-19 20:56:56 2023-10-10 14:02:45 public Jerusalem Talmud Pe’ah 1:1, 16a-b 360 360 400 400 2295 5962 Hebrew Aramaic 4031 <div style="text-align: justify;">This sugya from the Jerusalem Talmud discusses a baraita (1:1, 15d) that has a parallel in the Tosefta:</div> <div style="text-align: justify;" dir="RTL">על אילו דברים נפרעין מן אדם בעולם הזה והקרן קיימת לעולם הבא על ע'ז ועל גלוי עריות ועל שפיכות דמים ועל לשון הרע כנגד כולם</div> <div style="text-align: justify;">For these things, payment is collected from a person in this world while the principal remains intact (lit. is enduring) for the world to come: idolatry, forbidden sexual acts, and shedding blood, but evil speech (lit. evil tongue) is equal to them all [collectively]. (Tosefta Pe’ah 1:2, MS Vienna)</div> <div style="text-align: justify;">The Talmud briefly discusses each of these transgressions: idolatry, forbidden sexual acts, shedding blood. Rabbinic texts categorize the first three sins as the most egregious that can be committed. After its concise treatment of these three offenses, this sugya dedicates an extended discussion to evil speech, literally “evil tongue,” which was not only defined as gossip but also as giving intelligence to outsiders, particularly to foreign governments (for example, Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael Pisḥa, Bo, parasha 5). The Talmud especially refers to Jewish informants who provide incriminating information about other Jews to Roman officials. The attitude toward these informants is negative and their activity is understood as sinful. Although this sugya discusses gossip and slander among Jews alongside Jews divulging information to Roman authorities, this commentary focuses on two passages that concern themselves with informants.</div> In Section A, the Talmud presents a teaching from Rabbi [A]bba bar Kahana, a third-generation amora who was active in the late third century. This passage outlines a comparison between the generation of King David and the generation of King Ahab: in the first, although its members were all just, the informants among them led to their defeat in war; by contrast, despite being populated by idolaters, the latter achieved victory in war since there were no informants among them. While moral behavior and virtues would presumably be the most important factors in deciding the result of a battle, this teaching posits that informants (or, more likely, their sins) may determine the outcome of a war. The word for informants here is diletorin or diletorita, from the Latin word delator, which translates as “accuser,” “informant” or “denouncer.” As Yann Rivière explains, in the Roman Empire's system of justice, a delator would seek out intelligence about activity against the government and testify on their findings. These informants operated at all levels of Roman society, from senators to slaves, and they received economic rewards from the Roman authorities for their services (Les délateurs, p. 1-7). They were charged to disrupt cooperation between criminals – whose activities ranged from economic violations, such as evading taxation, to robbery and anti-Roman political operations – and their supporters within the broader population (Les délateurs, p. 274-277). This corps became indispensable to inquisitorial procedures (in criminal and fiscal cases) from the principate of Augustus onward; throughout the imperial period, they were crucial for the exercise of Roman power. From a Roman perspective, with the notable exception of delatores who gave false testimony, the delatio was a useful tool that helped to guarantee state security and the maintenance of order (Les délateurs, p. 495-498). However, rabbinic texts see such informants’ activities in highly critical terms and Jews who worked as delatores were considered sinners. In the first part of this teaching from the Talmud (A), several verses are cited to prove that David’s generation included informants. Their behavior eventually prompts David to ask God to remove his Divine Presence. The second part, which discusses King Ahab’s time, presents biblical evidence that Obadiah hid a hundred prophets in a cave and provided them with water and bread during a drought. Although such an operation is very difficult to conceal, no one informed the king about these prophets, even when Elijah declared from the summit of [Mount] Carmel: “I only, am left a prophet of the Lord” (1 Kings 18:22, NRSV). While this teaching ostensibly discusses biblical events, it seems that the Jerusalem Talmud is actually referring to contemporary reality under Roman rule, enlisting the Bible to communicate a message against informants, whose actions are included in the category of “evil speech.” Another passage in this sugya mentions Rome explicitly. Although these two passages (A+B) do not appear consecutively in the Jerusalem Talmud, they are brought together in a parallel in the fifth-century midrash, Leviticus Rabbah (26:2). Section B cites a teaching that is attributed to a second- or third-generation amora who was active in the third century. This passage provides an exchange between a snake and an unspecified group of people. Here I cite only the portions that pertain to the topic of evil speech. First, they ask the snake why his tongue is slavering (or sticks out). The snake replies that his tongue brought about his current situation. This answer refers to the role of the snake in the events that led Adam and Eve to eat from forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3). In another fifth-century midrash, Genesis Rabbah (19:3), the snake is presented as uttering diltoria to Eve about his creator (speaking negatively about God). The word diltoria is probably derived from the Latin delatura,which denotes “accusation” or “information.” This anonymous collective also asks the snake is why all limbs hurt when one limb is bitten. Here the snake responds: “And to me you ask [such a question]?! Say [that] to the master of [the evil] tongue who speaks here and kills in Rome. He [who] speaks in Rome and kills in Syria.” The term “the master of the tongue” (ba‘al ha-lashon) is taken from Ecclesiastes 10:11: “If the snake bites before it is charmed, there is no advantage in a charmer (ba‘al ha-lashon)”; yet, in the Talmud, this term refers to an informant rather to a trained charmer. In Genesis Rabbah 98:49, 23 (Theodor-Albeck edition, p. 1269), we see a similar statement, albeit in Aramaic and without reference to a snake: “Such is the evil tongue: it speaks in Rome and kills in Syria.” In these two passages (A+B), evil speech is specifically associated with providing information to Roman authorities against other Jews. Such activity is deemed sinful and equivalent to murder. It is significant that for third-century rabbis, who were active well after Jewish revolts against Rome were subdued, the issue of informants was so acute. While evil speech may be interpreted as gossip between Jews, the Jerusalem Talmud and fifth-century midrashim are particularly concerned with Jewish informants who provided intelligence to the Roman government. evil tongue informant informer Roman officials King David David King Ahab war idolater Divine Presence Obadiah Elijah Roman rule snake Rome (city) Syria Rabbi Abba bar Kahana payment principal world to come idolatry forbidden sexual acts shedding blood evil speech sin Jerusalem Talmud 4th CE 5831 1270 Jewish informants רבי אבא בר כהנא דוד דור צדיק דילטור מלחמה נפל אבנר עמשא תורה דואג אחיתופל לשון הרע שאול לשון הקדוש ברוך הוא רבון העולמים כבוד אחאב עבודה זרה לחם חרב מים אליהו כרמל מלכא פרסם רבי שמואל בר נחמן נחש נשך בעל הלשון רומי סוריה הרג שכינה ארץ Yael Wilfand Syria Palaestina Jewish Talmud Pe’ah 1:1, 16a-b Yes No Yes No Yes 1270 1