Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 8:11, 46b

Date: 360 CE to 400 CE

Centuries: 4th CE

Languages: Hebrew, Aramaic

Category: Jewish

Literary Genre: Talmud

Reference: Terumot 8:11, 46b

Title: Jerusalem Talmud

Commentary:

These passages from the Jerusalem Talmud discuss a scenario in which a group of Jews is given an ultimatum by non-Jews: they must either turn one of their number over to these adversaries, presumably sacrificing his life, or the entire group would be killed. While Sections A and B address this issue in broad terms, without assigning an identity or motivation to these gentiles, Section C cites an example where Roman authorities are searching for a certain Jew. This last section conveys the Talmud’s approach to informants and collaborators with Rome.

Section A cites a tannaitic tradition (a baraita) that also appears in Tosefta Terumot 7:23 (there in an extended version). According to this teaching, a group of Jews should not hand over one of their number to be put to death by gentiles unless the gentiles pursue a specific individual, in which case it is permissible to surrender that person to them and, thereby, save the others. This teaching mentions Sheba son of Bichri as an example (2 Samuel 20). This member of the tribe of Benjamin encouraged Israelites to rebel against King David, to whom the people of Judah remained loyal. Eventually Sheba son of Bichri fled to Abel of Beth-maacah, which was then besieged by David’s forces. A woman from that city ultimately presented Sheba son of Bichri’s head to David's forces, thus sparing Abel of Beth-maacah. Even though this case depicts a battle between Israelites, it is presented here as an example where handing over a specific person saves an entire community.

While Section A cites a tannaitic tradition, Section B provides a discussion between two second-generation amoraim, who were active in the third century CE, regarding a case where gentiles name a specific person whom they want to kill. Despite the tannaitic instruction that, in such a situation, this person should be handed over, Rabbi Shimon ben Laqish contends that this provision only applies if that individual were already guilty of a capital crime. Jewish law is the prevailing standard here. Indeed, in the parallel in the Tosefta, the woman from Abel of Beth-maacah convinced the people of that city to turn Sheba son of Bichri by saying: “Whoever rebels against the kingdom of the house of David is liable for [the] death [penalty].” This closing phrase is identical to the words of Rabbi Shimon ben Laqish. Thus, if Jewish law has judged a person subject to the death penalty, he may be handed over to gentiles. However, Rabbi Yoḥanan rejects this understanding, claiming that the Jew in question should be surrendered irrespective of his legal status. According to Saul Lieberman, these two sages are debating over the lesson to be learned from the example of Sheba son of Bichri. For Rabbi Shimon ben Laqish, the determination depends on the person's liability for the death penalty whereas, for Rabbi Yoḥanan, the besiegers’ demand for a specific person is the sole decisive factor (Tosefta Ki-Feshutah, Vol. 1, p. 420). We see, therefore, that third-century rabbis had not reached a consensus on the criteria for deciding the fate of a named Jew being sought by gentiles who would surely kill him.

Section C discusses a story about the generation of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, a first-generation amora who was active in the first half of the third century. Despite the fact that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi's career preceded Rabbi Shimon ben Laqish and Rabbi Yoḥanan, this section seems to represent a later stratum of the talmudic text since it includes a narrative in Aramaic. This passage – which also has a parallel in the fifth-century midrash, Genesis Rabbah 94 (Theodor-Albeck edition, p. 1184-1185) – is highly critical of handing Jews over to Roman authorities. According to this narrative, ‘Ula bar Qoshev, an otherwise unknown individual, was being sought by the Roman government. It is not clear what his crime was, yet this story implies that the Roman authorities wanted to execute him. He fled to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi in Lod and, in response, they – probably the Roman army – lay siege to that city. The besiegers announced that they would destroy the city if ‘Ula bar Qoshev were not given to them. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi convinced ‘Ula bar Qoshev to allow himself to be handed over. The sage then turned him over to the Romans.

At that point, the Talmud states that Elijah, who used to reveal himself to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, then ceased to appear. Such visitations from Elijah are indicative of a sage’s piety, whereas their halt signals that a sin or a misbehavior has been committed by that pious man. Only after the sage fasted several times did Elijah reappear, asking: “Should I reveal myself to masorot?” The term masorot (sing. masor) means “informants” or “collaborators with the gentile government” which, in the Jerusalem Talmud’s context, refers to Rome. This term, from the Hebrew root m-s-r, which means “to hand over,” “to deliver,” or “to transmit,” conveys negative connotations. This word also appears in Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 9:14, 24c and Pe’ah 1:1, 15c, where Rabbi Yoḥanan states that the prohibition against teaching Greek to sons (mentioned in Mishnah Sotah 9:14 and Tosefta Sotah15:8) is to avert the possibility that they could become informants (masorot). In the eastern region of the empire, Roman officials often used Greek to communicate with the provincials; thus, knowledge of this language seems to have enabled Jews to communicate with Roman authorities. In Section C of the Talmud, Elijah tells Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi that he ceased appearing to him because this sage is has become a masor. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi answers that he adhered to the tannaitic halakhah, but Elijah counters by asking if that is the law of ḥasidim (the pious). Thus, Elijah reveals himself to the pious, namely those who exceed the basic requirements of the law; in this case, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi did not meet that higher standard. Although the Talmud acknowledges that this sage acted within the bounds of halakhah, it criticizes Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi for handing a Jew over to Roman authorities. Even though Jews had almost entirely desisted from violent rebellions against Rome by the third century, in these sections of the Jerusalem Talmud, collaboration with Roman authorities against other Jews was treated critically.