Paralleling Shimon Applebaum’s paper about Jews in the Roman Army, which appeared in Roman Frontier Studies, part of the Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress held at Tel Aviv, published by the Students Organization of Tel Aviv University in 1967 is a paper by Shmuel Safrai, entitled “The Relations Between the Roman Army and the Jews of Eretz Israel After the Destruction of the Second Temple”. As such, this paper focuses not on Jewish military service, but instead interactions between Roman soldiers and Jewish inhabitants of Israel.
Terms that may be obscure or little-known are supplemented with with explanatory comments in boldface, like this; and hyperlinked.
Here’s the paper…
To answer the question, what were the relations between the Roman forces and the Jewish people of this country, we have at our disposal, besides the usual sources for provincial history, a special category not available in other provinces. The literary, epigraphical and pypyrological sources available to the scholar were generally written by the authorities, by government or municipal officials and members of the army of various ranks. Even the applications and complaints of city and country-people to the authorities reach us drafted in official language and constitute part of the official documentation. The literary sources too were mostly written by people close to the ruling group or at least belonging to the same cultural and linguistic circles. But for the study of the history of this country and the Jewish people living in it, we have the great corpus of Talmudic literature and its various branches, which in the course of transmitting legal rulings (halakhah) [Halakhah (also spelled halachah) refers to Jewish law. Per its literal translation, “the way,” halachah guides the day-to-day life of a Jew.], anecdotal material (aggadah) [Within the Talmud, non-legal material, including ethical and theological teachings, interpretations of biblical narratives (midrash), excurses on topics from magic to brain surgery to dream interpretation, and stories pertaining to post-biblical events and personalities.], philosophy and biblical commentary, bring before us popular life with all its nuances and struggles. The halakhah and aggadah relate not only numerous stories of the great events engraved in the memory and tradition of the nation, but also small details of the daily life of the individual in town and country as he travels from place to place; and of his relationships with the authorities and its institution’s, or with the army stationed in the district. In the course of elucidating matters of halakhah and aggadah, anecdotes are told of encounters between the army and the local inhabitants; these testify to suffering and acts of oppression on the one hand, and to good relations, assistance and understanding evinced by members of the forces towards the urban and rural population on the other.
After the war of 66 – 70 relatively large forces were stationed in the country; Legio X Fretensis was encamped there permanently, and with it various smaller units. Additional forces were brought into the country during the Jewish revolts under Trajan (115-117), and in the time of the Bar Kokhba rebellion in the ‘thirties, Legio VI Ferrata was sent and remained permanently at the village of Caparcotna near the Vale of Esdraelon. (1) In addition we find, not later than the ‘eighties of the 1st century, permanent burgi placed along the main road from Tyre through Akzib to Akko. In the late period these were dispersed in various localities, including the rural areas, and we shall discuss them shortly.
The Roman army had as a rule arrived in the country in times of rebellion and had sometimes spent the first years of its sojourn in hard fighting; these conditions left more than a mark on the mutual relations between the army and the people of the country. Moreover the Roman army and its commanders came into contact mainly with the hellenized population of the country’s cities and villages. This population was steeped in hatred and contempt for the Jews, and its sentiments were communicated to the army, finding expression in its attitude and behaviour to the inhabitants. The financial exactions and heavy liturgies required of the provincial populations were levied in Judaea with peculiar oppressiveness. Nor was this all: the various demands made by the Roman army upon the inhabitants, and the behaviour of the troops, sometimes created for the Jews peculiar problems, because they collided with their religious requirements and hit directly at their peculiar way of life, whether this was intentional on the part of the Romans or not.
Sources of a general character and concrete occurrences can be cited which inform us of the general aspect of these relations. In Mishnah [The Mishnah is the main text of the Talmud. A collection of terse teachings written in Hebrew, it was redacted by Rabbi Yehudah the Prince, in the years following the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem.]‘Avodah Zarah (V, 6) we read: “If a military patrol enter the town, and it is in peacetime, winejars that have been left open are subsequently prohibited; if they were left closed, they may be drunk from. But in wartime both are permitted, because there is no time for libations.” The halakhah prohibits wine sampled by a non-Jew, for fear that he may have poured a libation to a pagan god, and the Mishnah ruled that in peacetime it was to be feared that the troops had sampled all winejars left open and also poured idolatrous libations; drinking was permitted only in wartime on the assumption that in such circumstances the troops had no time to perform such rites.
The Talmud cites another parallel ruling: “All the wives of priests in a city captured by siege (Χαρακωμα) are disqualified from the priesthood.” The text explains: “(In wartime troops) have no time for libations; but they do have time for rape.” (2) These were no mere theoretical rulings, and in various passages we read of cases brought before the sages concerning both the purity of women and the permissibility of wine. The Babylonian Talmud, in the Tractate on Idolatry, relates (70b) how a military detachment entered a town and opened numerous winejars; the case was therefore brought before R. Yohanan (3) (who lived in the middle of the 3rd century) and he declared the wine consumable. In Jer. Ket, (II, 2, 26, fo. 4), R. Hayya bar Ashi (4) (also of the middle of the 3rd century), relates an occurrence in which a blind woman succeeded in escaping. The sages inclined to be lenient with her on the assumption that there had been some hiding place or way of escape. We read in Jer. Ned., (XI, 42, fo. 4), in relation to the end of the 3rd or the beginning of the 4th century, of a woman, the wife of a priest, who appeared before R. Hananiah, a member of an association of rabbis, and he relates of her: “Troops had entered the city and a woman came and said: ‘A soldier embraced me’ … and I acquitted her and permitted her to eat of the offerings.” This hard reality applied not merely to times of war and siege, but also to peacetime. In one passage, which belongs to the beginning of the 2nd century, we read: “The story is told of Simeon of Timnah who did not come to the schoolhouse on the nights of the festival. R. Judah ben Babba met him at the hour of early morning prayer, and said to him: Why did you not come to the schoolhouse last night? He replied, I found a duty to perform. A gentile patrol entered the town and I was afraid they were going to create trouble for the townspeople, so we slaughtered a calf for them and gave it to them to eat.” (5) The sage took the initiative in respect of the said military unit, slaughtering a calf and providing them with a feast to prevent them entering the town and afflicting the townspeople during the festival. One sage, R. Isaac, of the late 3rd century, complained, quoting Hosea’s words “And I will cause all her mirth to cease, her feastings, her new moons and her sabbaths and all her solemn feasts” (Hosea, 1:11) that no festival passed but a military patrol came to Sepphoris.
At times the inhabitants even chose to desert the town and leave it to the fury of the soldiery, to save themselves from physical injury. The halakhah prohibits a man from walking more than 2,000 cubits (about two stades) outside the town, in any direction, but on the eve of the Sabbath he could place an ‘Erub [An eruv (ערוב, pronounced ay-roov), in modern terminology, is a technical boundary that allows Jews to carry in public areas on Shabbat. It is one of those traditions which has blossomed from a basic Torah principle into a highly complicated legal matter.], i.e. the food for a meal, at the limit of that distance, and having thus fixed his abode there, could walk another two stades on the Sabbath. Of this the Mishnah states: “A man may make conditions about this ‘Erub and say, if gentiles come from the east let my ‘Erub be to the west; if from the west, let my ‘Erub be to the east”, (6) i.e. he may go two stades from his town in the opposite direction to that from which the gentiles are approaching. In the same paragraph the Jerusalem Talmud cites two versions to this teaching: “If the gentiles come from the east my ‘Erub is to the west, but some teach the other way, to the east”, meaning that some teach that a person does not intend to go far from his town in the opposite direction, but to proceed in the same direction as that whence the gentiles are coming. The Jerusalem Talmud explains these two versions by saying: “Whoso says eastward, refers to a taxiotes, and who says westward, means the Romans.” (7) In other words, the divergent view ruling that the person intends to proceed in the direction from which the gentiles are coming, is speaking of the approach of a commander (taxiotes) whom one must go out to greet, while the view which speaks of the west as the opposite direction, is speaking of the Romans, from whom one must flee. In Palestinian literature the expression “Romans” never denotes Roman civilians, but always Roman soldiers. (8)
Such harassing conduct was not limited to warlike operations or to units on the march, but was also indulged in by individual soldiers in everyday life, even in their pettiest acts. One passage tells of R. Eleazar (d. 279) who “entered (a privy) and there came an optio [The second-in-command of a century, although there were many other roles an optio could adopt.] of the Romans, and forcing him to rise, sat down in his place.” (9) R. Eleazar lived and worked at Tiberias and this incident must have occurred there. Elsewhere we read of an incident in the life of the city of Sepphoris at the beginning of the 3rd century: “Aman of Sepphoris wanted to buy a piece of meat from the butcher and the latter refused him; he told a Roman soldier, who got it for him. … The case came before R. Judah” etc. (10)
As we have said, sometimes the actions of the Roman troops infringed the Jewish way of life quite unintentionally. We may cite a case with whose participants and occasion we are acquainted. In 351 a Jewish revolt took place against the corrupt rule of Gallus [Cestius Gallus], and Ursicinius commanded the force sent to put it down. Of this time it is related, that the leading men of the Sanhedrin at Tiberias ordered bread to be baked for the troops on Sabbath, being of the opinion that there was no need to resist the order and to court martyrdom, as forced apostasy and persecution were not Ursicinius’ intention, and he merely wished to give his troops fresh bread. (11)
But side by side with the numerous traditions of the meting out of ill treatment and suffering by the troops, there exist throughout the period after the Destruction not a few testimonies to good relations with the Jewish inhabitants, or to assistance rendered by the Roman army, whether by military units or by individual soldiers and commanders, to them. We read in a divergent Talmudic ruling dating approximately from the time of the destruction of the Temple: (12) “A fire broke out on the Sabbath in the yard of Rabbi Joseph ben Simai of Sikhin and the garrison of the castra of Sepphoris came to put it out, but he would not permit them and a cloud came down and extinguished it. And the sages said that there-was no need (to prohibit them); nevertheless at the end of the Sabbath he sent a sela’ to each of them and 50 dinars to their Hipparchus.” (13) The halakhah rules that one should not call in a gentile to desecrate the Sabbath on behalf of Jews, but if he comes of his own accord one may allow him to do so. In the present case the troops came from the castra of Sennhoris on their own initiative, but Joseph ben Simai, adopting the strict interpretation, forbade them to desecrate the Sabbath on his behalf. But he also showed generosity, and sent the soldiers a gift of money (four denarii for each and 50 for the Hipparchus, the commander of the-cavalry unit). One of the sources (14) observes: “Because he was the king’s epitropos (procurator).” It is probable that he was the same procurator of King Agrippa who asked R. Eleazar (15) a question on halakhah, and managed estates which Agrippa, like his sister Berenice, owned in that district. This is more probable than that Ben Simai was in charge of the city of Sepphoris. (16) The foregoing incident, then, belongs to the time just before the destruction of the Temple. In this case the troops rendered aid to a person close to Roman government circles, but there are also reports of friendships with simple people. We read in Mishnah Bekhorot (V, 3): “It once happened that a quaestor [The lowest-ranking regular magistrate in ancient Rome, whose traditional responsibility was the treasury.] saw an old ram with long, dangling hair, and said, What manner of thing is this? They answered, It is a firstling which may be slaughtered only if it suffers a blemish. He took a dagger and slit its ear. The matter came before the Sages and they declared it permitted. When he saw that they had declared it permitted, he went and slit the ear of the other firstlings; and they declared it forbidden.” The halakhah rules that every male firstling must be sacrificed as a peace offering, but after the Destruction when sacrifices could not be offered, the firstling was allowed to grow up till it suffered a blemish and could be butchered in secular fashion, but the blemish must not be intentionally inflicted. This ruling was the outcome of the incident of the Quaestor, since the slaughter of the firstling on which a blemish was inflicted without Jewish request was permitted, but the others on which he inflicted a blemish were prohibited. In the provinces the quaestor served in military capacities, and from the Talmudic sources we hear chiefly of his military character. The story as a whole conveys an attitude of understanding for Jews on the part of the said officer.
In Eccles. Rabba (Ua), R. Isaac (end of the 3rd century) relates: “There is an episode of a merchant who was on a journey when he met a soldier, and as they journeyed together, developed an affection for him. When they came to a town he entertained him with food and drink.” The story goes on to narrate how the merchant was arrested on a charge of murder and how the said soldier saved him from a sentence. Elsewhere (17) we read that R. Immi, a sage of the late 3rd and the beginning of the 4th century, found a purse of denarii. A Roman soldier saw him hesitating, and said to him: “Take it for yourself, we’re not like the Persians who say that all lost property belongs to the king.” R. Immi, (18) who had come from Babylon, hesitated to pick up the purse and take it for himself because according to Persian custom he was dutybound to hand it over to the authorities, but the Roman soldier put him at his ease.
From another source we learn of a Roman army commander’s estimation of the Patriarch Judah Nesiah, who was active in the middle of the 3rd century. We read in this source: “A ducennarius [A social and military position in ancient Rome. The term ducenarius means “containing two hundred.]” presented Rabbi Judah the Patriarch with a dish full of denarii. The latter took one and returned to him the rest.” (19) The subject and discussion of the incident make it clear that it was a pagan festival on which the commander wished to honour the Patriarch; the latter took one coin out of courtesy and restored the dish full. The ducennarius in that period was first and foremost a military post, (20) but it is not impossible that the admiring official was here a civilian.
A special theme is that of relations with the burgārĭi, [defenders of the borders] who are already evidenced in the country in the ‘seventies or ‘eighties of the 1st century, according to Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai, who was active about the time of the Destruction. A clearer picture of the burgarii is to be found at the beginning of the 2nd century, in the account of the journey of Rabban Gamaliel, who appears to have died before the Jewish rebellion under Trajan (115-117). In the first testimony concerning burgarii in the country, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai bewails the fate of the Jews of the country who, instead of repairing the roads for the pilgrims to Jerusalem, are forced to repair the burgi for those who go up to the imperial cities, (21) i.e. to such cities as Caesarea. But apart from this evidence, the other testimonies show good relations with the burgarii. The second source is, as stated, of the time of Rabban Gamaliel: It is related of Rabban Gamaliel and R. Ilai that they were journeying from ‘Akko to Akzib, and seeing a cake, Gamaliel said to his slave Tabi: Pick it up. R. Gamaliel saw a gentile and said to him, Magbai, Pick up the cake. R. Ilai ran after him and said: What sort of a man are you? He replied: I am from the hamlets of the burgarii. And what is your name? He replied: My name is Magbai. (22) The burgi were situated along the road (as emerges from another passage of the middle of the 2nd century, from the words of R. Simeon) also between Tiberias and Sepphoris, where they were distributed with considerable density. (23) The burgi are connected with small villages or farms, but we are not in a position to say what the connection was. It is possible that these farms were worked by the burgarii who, according to another source, belong with the rest of the agricultural workers who sometimes spent the night in the town and sometimes in the fields. “The shepherds, the burgarii and the crop-watchmen, whose custom is sometimes to sleep in the town … and sometimes to sleep in the field.” (24) What stands out in the traditional story of Rabbi Gamaliel is not only the good relations prevailing between him and the burgarius, but also that the latter possesses, not a Greek or a Roman, but a typically Canaanite name: Magbai. (25) Two later parables again inform us of the existence of burgarii along the roads, and one of them recounts the good relations existing with them. We read in Leviticus Rabba, 10 (VIII, 4): “A king journeying in the desert entered a burgus, and ate and drank there: entered a second, ate, drank and slept the night there.” Here the lodger is “a king”, that is, a high Roman official or commander but in another parable, Midrash Psalms, ad 10, according to R. Hanina of the first half of the 3rd century, we read: “Like unto a caravan which was on a journey: as it grew dark it came to the burgus, and the burgarius said to them: Enter the burgus, for there are evil beasts and robbers. The (head of) the caravan said to him: It is not our wont to enter burgi. He went on, and as late night and darkness overtook him, he returned to the burgarius and shouted, begging that he open to him. The burgarius replied: “It is not the wont of burgarii to open at night, or to receive at this hour.” The burgarius is not only ready to give shelter to a caravan, but even invites it to enter, and the (head of) the caravan, for some reason, refuses, and only at night, as fear prevails, is he ready to enter.
Another source, Jerusalem, Avodah Zarah (IV, 4, 3, 4d), tells how R. Simeon ben Rabbi (first half of the 3rd century) was assisted by a burgarius in the removal from his field of stones devoted to idolatrous rites.
NOTES
(1) Inscriptions relating to the legions stationed in the province of Judaea (Syria-Palaestina) are collected by B. Lifschitz, Roman Legions in Eretz Yisrael, Yediot, XXIII, (1959), pp. 53 sqq. (Heb.). To these texts should be added others scattered in various provinces, whose authors served in this country. For the period immediately before the destruction of the Second Temple, CIL, III, p. 854, DipL XIV.
(2) Ket., 27a, 1; A.Z., 71a.
(3) According to the principal texts.
(4) This is the preferable reading, rather than Rabbi Hama bar Ishi, who is not known to us from any other source.
(5) Tos., Betzah, 11, 6 and parallels.
(6) ‘Erub., Ill, S.
(7) Jer. ‘Erub., Ill, 2lb.
(8) Cf. Hull., 46a.
(9) Jer. Shabb., VI, 8 fin., c and parallels.
(10) Jer. Sheq., VII, 50c.
(11 Jer. Sheb., IV, 35, a. fin; Sanh., Ill, 21b.
(12) Tos. Shabb., XIII, 9, ib., Ned., IV, 38d; B. Shabb., 121a; Deut., Rab., Oxford m.s. (Liebermann, p. 70).
(13) Some versions have: “to the Hipparchus amongst them”.
(14) Tal. Bab., ibid.
(15) Suk., 27a. .
(16 Jos., Vit., 24; cf. Allon, History of the Jews of Eretz Yisrael, I, 91 (Heb.).
(17) Bab. Matz., 28b.
(18) So in most texts, but some read “Rabbi Asi”, which makes no difference to the discussion.
(19) Jer., A.Z., I, 9b.
(20) A.H.M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire, 637 sqq. on the ducennarius.
(21) Mekh., Mes. ba-Hodesh, a, ed. Horowitz-Rabin, p. 307. Also Cant. Rab. Zuta, ed. Buber, p. 12 with some verbal variations.
(22) Tos. Pes., I, 27 and parallels. The name Mambogaios is very common in Syrian inscriptions: see also Honigmann, R.E., Supp. IV, 1924, 733, s.v. Hierapolis.
(23) Tos. ‘Erub., IV, 9, and cf. Jer. ‘Erub., IV, 22b.
(24) Tos. ‘Erub., IV, 9.
(25) Cf. Gen. Rab., 90, 8; Makkot, XI, 2, and the Tosaphot, ibid., fol. b. 5.