^{page 134 note 1} See J.R.S. lxi (1971), 171–7, article entitled ‘Diocletian's Currency Reform: A New Inscription’, by Erin, Kenan T., Reynolds, Joyce, and Crawford, Michael.Google Scholar

^{page 134 note 2} Ibid., p. 172.

^{page 134 note 3} Ibid., p. 175.

^{page 134 note 4} On p. 174 n. 4 the editors refer to I.G.R.R. iv. 595, where the word διχáρakΤos occurs.Google Scholar

^{page 134 note 5} For another example of a reference to Diocletian's reformed currency system in Rabbinic literature, see my article in J.R.S. lvi (1966), 190–5.Google Scholar

^{page 134 note 6} DISGNIM—SO in ed. princeps and in MS. Leiden. LSGNIM in Vatican MS. Further variants in Sirilio MS. The reading LSGNIM can best be explained by the ‘dalet’ and the ‘yod’ having joined together to look like a ‘lamed’.

^{page 134 note 7} R. Abbahu died in the year 309. See Lieberman, S., Annuaire de l' Institut de Philologie et d' Histoire Orientales et Slaves, vii (1939–1944), 402.Google Scholar

^{page 134 note 8} θ∈ρμoσáρios. See Lieberman, S., Tosefta ki-fshuṫah, i (New York, 1955), 26; ii. 716.Google Scholar

^{page 135 note 1} See Jastrow, M., A Dictionary of the Talmudim, The Talmud Babli and Terushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (1886–1903), p. 302aGoogle Scholar, s.v., who refers one to p. 302b, s.v. DISCANS, explaining that our word is ‘a popular corruption of dextans …’. His suggestion has no basis and is quite untenable. See further Krauss, S., Griechische und Lateinische Lehnwōrter in Talmud, Midrasch und Targum (= LW), ii (Berlin, 1899),Google Scholar 208b, s.v. (with bibliography). See also Fleischer, apud Levy, J., Neuhebräisches und Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Talmud und Midrasch, i (Leipzig, 1876), 442,Google Scholar who writes against Levy's identification of ‘disignim’ with the Latin dusignum (ibid., p. 400a, s.v.): ‘“dusignum” (“Doppelzeichen”) ist in dieser Form wenigstens nicht lateinisch, da es keine solchen Zusammensetzungen von duo mit einem Singular giebt. Vielleicht ist der Wort ein verstümmeltes designatio, Badenmarke mit bezeichnung der Nummer der Badezelle’. Krauss, , LW, ii.Google Scholar 605a, s.v., also refers to ‘Jost III Noten p. 183 dua signa, doppelgeprägt ??’ See also Zuckermann, B., Ueber Talmudische Münzen und Gewichte (Breslau, 1862), 32–3;Google ScholarKrauss, S., Talmudische Archāologie, ii (Leipzig, 1911), 410.Google Scholar See finally S. Lieberman, ibid. ii. 716 n. 29, who writes that he does not know what ‘disignim’ is.

^{page 135 note 2} See my article in Numismatic Chronicle (1968), 103–9; Segre, A., Byzantion, XV, (1941), 249–62;Google ScholarCali, J.P., La Politique Monétaire des Empereurs Romains (Paris, 1969), 356–64.Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 1} See Jewish Encyclopedia (New York, London, 1901), 485–8, for a survey on the city of Caesarea.Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 2} See Jewish Encyclopedia, i. 36, on Abbahu, R..Google Scholar Note that R. Abbahu knew Greek, and even taught his children Greek (ibid.).

^{page 136 note 3} The term never gained wide circulation. Hence, it remained a hapax in Rabbinic literature. The fact that the Talmudic phrase has ‘ma'ot steel disignim’ (coins of disignim) rather than ‘ma'ot disigniot’ (disignim coins, the term adjectivally used), suggests that its true form and meaning was never really appreciated. Possibly we have in this word a vulgar form; hence its grammatical difficulties. (See above, p. 135, n. 1.) See further below, n. 4. See also what I have written in Erchei (1973), slightly modified here.

^{page 136 note 4} Alternatively, it may be that the term ‘disignim’ was a translation of ‘bicharacta’ that appeared in the edict. The word was created on the pattern of the DIU (or DI)+singular (or plural) noun words, e.g. DIUPARẒUF (singular) = διΠρóσωΠos, which also appears as DIUPARẒUF1N (plural), (LW ii 202a,Google Scholar s.v.) or DIUFRA (DUFRA, DIUFRIN), (LW ii. 201b = 202a, s.v.), or DIUMAD(IN), (LW 200a, s.v.). See LW ii. 198b, S.V. DIU. SIGNIM could, in that case be ‘signum’—yod and waw are readily interchangeable—taken from the Latin signum, rather than the more usual (in Rabbinic Hebrew) σíγvov crlyvov (see LW 327b–373a, s.v. SIGNON, SGNON, a σíγvov). If this is so, we have DU+ sing. (as above DU-PARẒUF). Or, perhaps, SIGNIM was intended as an, albeit somewhat strange, plural form of the Greek σíγvov or the Latin signum, using the -im plural termination (rather than the more usual Rabbinic termination -in). In that case we have here DI+plural (as DUPARZUFIN, see above). Either way Fleischer's queries (above, p. 135, n. I) are answered. The combination of the Greek DU plus the Latin SIGNUM presents no difficulties, as DIU-MAD is actually a combination of the Greek DIU plus the Semitic 'AMAD to stand. However, would such a mongrel form appear in an imperial edict? And if the original Palestinian version of the edict was in Latin (bicharacta, as in the Aphrodisias inscription?) or in Greek (διχáρakΤos, as in I.G.R.R. iv. 595, above, p. 134, n. 4), why was the strange disignum ‘translation’ invented? The word χáρakΤos would have been understood in Rabbinic parlance (cf. LW ii. 291, s.v. CHLAKTORIN). See also Lieberman, S., Greek and Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (Hebrew, edn., Jerusalem, 1962), 32Google Scholar–5, etc. It is possible to argue these points to and fro, but for the moment the questions must remain unresolved. On the reading of edicts during this period, see Lieberman, in J.Q.R. XXXV. 1 (1944), 6–10.Google Scholar It seems quite clear that the Rabbis knew Diocletian's edict of maximum prices, and even referred to it indirectly (see my remarks in Talpiot, ix. 3–4 (1970), 597–602, Hebrew, ).Google Scholar