Students of poverty in Jewish, Christian, and Muslim social, literary, and legal contexts in late antiquity and the Middle Ages have noted the phenomenon of wealthy people who fall into poverty and the provision of charitable assistance to them.Footnote ² This essay's principal purpose is to point out an important difference between the development of attitudes toward the formerly wealthy poor in rabbinic literature of late antiquity and in other religious and legal contexts. Peter Brown notes evidence of late Roman empathy for the wellborn poor, hypothesizing that this empathy can be attributed to a desire to preserve these remnants of the old, proud plebs romana in the uncertain sixth century.Footnote ³ Ingrid Mattson demonstrates that between the eighth and tenth or eleventh centuries CE, Islamic jurists moved in the direction of taking the “social and economic context” of a poor person into account in determining that person's legitimate needs.Footnote ⁴ By contrast, as this essay will show, rabbinic literature of late antiquity moved in the opposite direction, from third-century empathy for the formerly wealthy poor to growing ambivalence in the fourth through the seventh centuries.Footnote ⁵

This essay also has two methodological goals, the fulfillment of which will yield evidence for the rabbinic shift from empathy to ambivalence vis-à-vis the formerly wealthy poor. The first goal is to remedy the lack of a comprehensive collection and analysis of the sources about the formerly wealthy poor. The second is to read these sources within the literary and redactional contexts in which they are found and which provide a framework for their proper interpretation.Footnote ⁶ The current lack of a comprehensive and contextual analysis of the traditions about the formerly wealthy poor has left scholars in related fields scratching their heads over isolated and admittedly strange stories. For example, in his important study on poverty and episcopal leadership in late antiquity, Brown notes that the Talmud “toyed with surreal cases” of such persons being maintained in the standards to which they had become accustomed.Footnote ⁷ One “surreal case” to which Brown refers is undoubtedly that of the first-century sage Hillel, who was said to have provided an ‘ani ben tovim (a poor person of good family) with a horse to work with and a slave to serve him, or, according to the Bavli, with a horse to ride on and a slave to run before him—with Hillel serving in the latter role one time when no slave could be found.Footnote ⁸ Mark R. Cohen similarly discusses the “hyperbole” of the story of Hillel supporting the ‘ani ben tovim.Footnote ⁹

While a comprehensive and contextual study of the sources about the formerly wealthy poor may not completely remove the veil of “surreality” and “hyperbole” that surrounds some of these texts, it will enable us to understand better how these texts fit into evolving rabbinic understandings of the formerly wealthy poor. This essay will argue that tannaitic sources are the most generous and least ambivalent toward the formerly wealthy poor. The Yerushalmi begins to display some ambivalence toward this group, and the Bavli also demonstrates ambivalence, expressing it in several new ways. This essay will demonstrate this shift from a predominant posture of empathy to one of increased ambivalence, suggesting that the shift is rooted in both the changing external historical circumstances and the internal social and ideological concerns of Palestinian and Babylonian rabbis.

I. A Philological Preliminary

Formerly wealthy people are referred to in late antique rabbinic compilations by the terms yarad/yardu m'nikhseihem (literally, he/those who came down from his/their possessions or he/those who lost his/their wealth),Footnote ¹⁰ ’itnaḥat min nikhsoi (he who came down from his possessions—found only in Yerushalmi), naḥti . . . m'nikhseihen (those who have come down from their possessions—found only in Bavli), and ‘ani/yyim ben/b'nei tovim (poor of good family). Judging from the terminology, it seems that two groups of people are being described: those labeled in the various rabbinic compilations with some form of the phrase “coming down from one's possessions,” and those described as the “poor of good family.” The former may be people who lost their wealth but did not have the high-status family connections of the latter. While the different terms may have originated in the historical reality of similar, yet distinct, groups of formerly wealthy poor, the poor described by the two sets of terms are not portrayed in rabbinic compilations as being so different that they cannot or should not be studied together.Footnote ¹¹ For ease of reference, this essay will refer to these unfortunates collectively as the “formerly wealthy poor,” employing more specific designations if necessary.

The terms yarad m'nikhasav (the one who lost his wealth) and yardu m'nikhseihen (the ones who lost their wealth) are Palestinian expressions that appear overwhelmingly in Palestinian compilations and in Palestinian contexts in the Bavli.Footnote ¹² The Bavli stam only once utilizes the related phrase shema’ yered m'nikhasav—“lest,” or “in case one loses his wealth”—on B. Ketubot 67b, in the context of reconciling R. Ila'i's ruling that one must not give more than 20 percent of one's wealth as almsFootnote ¹³ with Mar Ukba's deathbed charitable gift of 50 percent of his wealth. Unsurprisingly, the Yerushalmi's expression ’itnaḥat min nikhsoi, phrased as it is in Palestinian Aramaic, is not found in the Bavli.Footnote ¹⁴ A similar expression meaning “loss of wealth” appears only once in the Bavli in reference to conditions in Babylonia; Rabbah presents three reasons why ba‘alei batim (householders) lose their wealth (naḥti m'nikhseihon).Footnote ¹⁵ The term ‘ani ben tovim in all of its manifestations is of Palestinian provenance, with occurrences of the term in one form or another fairly equally weighted between tannaitic and Palestinian amoraic compilations.Footnote ¹⁶ The latest Palestinian occurrence of the term appears in a story told about R. Yonah (of the fifth Palestinian amoraic generation) in the Yerushalmi and Vayikra Rabbah.Footnote ¹⁷ It should also be noted that Palestinian compilations refer to a possibly related category known as ben gedolim (the son of great ones), but this very small category includes only one reference to poverty.Footnote ¹⁸

The term ‘ani ben tovim appears three times in the Bavli (B. Ketubot 66a and 67b), twice in Palestinian sources, and once in Babylonian discussion of a mishnah. One occurrence on 67b is simply the Bavli's repetition of the phrase found earlier in the tannaitic and Yerushalmi versions of the story of Hillel and his generosity to an ‘ani ben tovim. The second occurrence of ‘ani ben tovim on 67b appears in the Bavli's version of a tannaitic story about a formerly wealthy person who was lavishly provided with meat in the Upper Galilee.Footnote ¹⁹ In the latter case, the Bavli replaced the Tosefta's and the Yerushalmi's references in the story to a zaken (elder) and the Sifrei's reference to an oreaḥ (guest) with the phrase ‘ani ben tovim. This example suggests that the Bavli does not necessarily see a distinction between the ‘ani ben tovim and other cases of formerly wealthy people, which, in turn, buttresses this essay's methodological contention that these various categories of poor should be studied together. The only truly “Babylonian” use of ‘ani ben tovim is found on B. Ketubot 66a, where Ravina uses the phrase in asking Rav Ashi whether someone who humiliated an ‘ani ben tovim should have to pay boshet (embarrassment) to the ‘ani's entire family, who were also humiliated by their poor kinsman's humiliation (Rav Ashi answers in the negative). Ravina's use of ‘ani ben tovim in an exchange with Rav Ashi does not necessarily mean that the term was widely used in Babylonian legal discourse. Ravina was using the Palestinian term in asking a question about the local mishnah (M. Ketubot 6:1), and, judging from the sugya as a whole, he was most likely posing a theoretical question. Although useful as an indicator of the social historical reality that the sorry state of an ‘ani ben tovim would bring shame on his family as well as himself, we cannot generalize from this case that Babylonian rabbis typically utilized the term ‘ani/yyim ben/b'nei tovim in discussing their own native formerly wealthy poor. Moreover, unlike the Palestinians Hillel and R. Yonah, no Babylonian rabbi is described as interacting personally with a poor person labeled an ‘ani ben tovim (however, as we will see, Mar Ukba and Rava interact with poor people who fit the profile of such poor, although they are not so labeled). Therefore, we may conclude that while the Palestinian terms ‘ani/yyim ben/b'nei tovim persisted in Babylonia for use in dealing with Palestinian sources, Babylonian rabbis did not themselves regularly use such terms in describing the formerly wealthy poor in their own environment.Footnote ²⁰ The fact that the terms yarad m'nikhasav/yardu m'nikhseihen and ‘ani/yyim ben/b'nei tovim are used in mostly—by far—Palestinian contexts strongly suggests that the category of poor represented by these terms was not necessarily of great interest to the Bavli, an issue to which we will turn later.

II. Tannaitic Compilations and Empathy for the Formerly Wealthy Poor

Tannaitic compilations display the least ambivalence toward the formerly wealthy poor. We will begin with M. Bava’ Kamma’ 8:6. The mishnah opens with the Tanna Kamma'sFootnote ²¹ ruling that the fines imposed on a perpetrator for humiliating a person in public must be calibrated in accordance with the victim's social standing: “All goes according to his [the victim's] honor.” R. Akiva disagrees, holding that “Even the poor in Israel—we see them as if they are freemen who have lost their wealth [sh'yardu m'nikhseihem], for they are the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”Footnote ²² According to the Tanna Kamma, a chronically poor person would be entitled to less compensation for a public humiliation than a wealthy person of high standing. Presumably, a person who had lost his wealth would, like his wealthy brethren, be entitled to more compensation. R. Akiva instead constructs all Jews, even poor Jews—whatever the cause of their poverty—as being among the formerly wealthy poor, and thus he sees them as entitled to higher compensation for humiliation. It is important to point out that the Tanna Kamma and R. Akiva agree that, in principle, the formerly wealthy poor are entitled to more compensation for public humiliation than people of lower social status. Their disagreement is over how to construct the category of the formerly wealthy poor. To the Tanna Kamma, this category is to be construed in accordance with empirical social reality: Those who were once wealthy and are no longer so are the “formerly wealthy poor” who are entitled to greater compensation. R. Akiva sees the category of the formerly wealthy poor as an ideological, not an empirical social category. R. Akiva's ideological construction of the formerly wealthy poor as including even the chronically poor is likely a way of calling both wealthy and poor Jews to a realization of their shared noble past as children of the three great biblical patriarchs. Similarly, the story is told in M. Bava’ Meẓi'a’ 7:1 of R. Yoḥanan b. Matya, whose son hired workers and stipulated that he would provide them with food daily. The father urged him to narrow his food stipulation to bread and legumes, on the ground that “Even if you provide for them [a meal] like Solomon's banquet, you have not fulfilled your obligation to them, for they are the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” To R. Akiva and R. Yoḥanan b. Matya, all poor Jews are constructively the “formerly wealthy poor,” all part of the same noble, wealthy family of the past.

These references to all Jews’ shared descent from the patriarchs are interestingly echoed in another tannaitic tradition that constructs all Jews as “children of kings” (b'nei melakhim) for certain halakhic purposes. Advocates of the latter view include R. Yehoshua (M. Berakhot 1:2), R. Shimon (M. Shabbat 14:4), and, according to a tradition attributed to Abaye in the Bavli, Rabban Shimon b. Gamliel and R. Yishmael as well (B. Shabbat 128a). Even if all the attributions of these two related positions are accepted as reliable, only six Tannaim can be said to construct all Jews in some way as nobility. Clearly, tannaitic literature does not represent all Tannaim as sharing a construction of Jewishness that suggests an interclass Jewish solidarity.Footnote ²³

Sifrei Devarim 38 opens with a comparison of the water resources and fertility of Egypt and of the Land of Israel, pointing out, among other things, that in Egypt one needs to dig in order to transport water from place to place, whereas the inhabitants of the Land of Israel sleep while God sends rain down to them.Footnote ²⁴ This is immediately followed by a parable about a king who encounters one ben tovim, to whom he gives a slave. The king next encounters another ben tovim, described as pampered and engaged in royal service, with whose ancestors the king is acquainted. The king decrees that he himself would feed this latter ben tovim by hand. It is clear that the first ben tovim represents Egypt, and the second Israel. Looking for the moment only at the treatment of the two b'nei tovim, we see that each is presumably entitled to support based on his status: The particularly pampered ben tovim whose ancestors are known to the king receives greater and more personal attention than a “mere” ben tovim. Thus, the Sifrei accepts the notion that it is appropriate to provide for b'nei tovim in the manner to which they presumably are accustomed, and also to treat b'nei tovim differently according to their status. Moving on to the parable itself, we see that—like R. Akiva and R. Yoḥanan b. Matya—the Sifrei constructs the ben tovim as an ideological category. Egypt and Israel are both b'nei tovim, but Israel is compared to a particularly pampered descendant of ancestors (the biblical patriarchs) known to the king (God). The Sifrei could be suggesting that all Israel—rich and poor—be viewed as a ben tovim, similar to the views of R. Akiva and R. Yoḥanan b. Matya. It is also possible that the Sifrei wishes to present every individual ben tovim as an Israel in miniature, thus buttressing each individual ben tovim's entitlement to a greater share of charitable resources. Regardless of whether either or both suggestions have merit, one point remains clear: The ‘ani ben tovim is viewed positively, and no question is raised about an ‘ani ben tovim's entitlement in principle to a greater share of resources in recognition of his previous status or pedigree.

Taken together, then, these tannaitic sources point to a consensus that the formerly wealthy poor are entitled to a greater share of resources than other poor. R. Akiva, R. Yoḥanan b. Matya, and the Sifrei accept this consensus, while advocating an ideological construction of the category “formerly wealthy poor” that includes all Jews, who are to be seen as part of the same family. Their advocacy of this view suggests the existence of an opposing tendency in the tannaitic worldview that supported and saw nothing problematic in the recognition and persistence of status and class differences among Jews.

Some other tannaitic sources require consideration. Mishnah and Tosefta Shekalim speak of a “hall of the silent” (lishkat ḥasha'im) in the Jerusalem Temple, so called because the “fearers of sin” would place money there secretly, and ‘aniyyim b'nei tovim would take from it secretly.Footnote ²⁵ The Tosefta claims that such “halls of the silent” existed for the benefit of ‘aniyyim b'nei tovim in every city.Footnote ²⁶ Mekhilta d'Rabbi Shimon b. Yoḥai 23:3 (ed. Epstein-Melamed, 214–15) interprets Exodus 23:3 and Leviticus 19:15 as forbidding a judge to award undeserved money damages to an ‘ani “who is a” ben tovim so as to enable that person to be supported honorably (presumably as opposed to being supported through alms). Finally, Sifrei Devarim 116 interprets the verse “Rather, you must open your hand and lend him sufficient for his lack, in what he lacks” (Deuteronomy 15:8).Footnote ²⁷ Focusing on the phrase ’asher yeḥsar lo (what he lacks), the Sifrei comments that the poor should be provided with “even a horse and even a slave.” The Sifrei then famously illustrates this interpretation with two stories. In the first, Hillel gives an ‘ani ben tovim a horse to work with and a slave to serve him; in the second, the people of the Upper Galilee give a guest (oreaḥ) a litra’ of meat each day.Footnote ²⁸ Note that Hillel's provision of a slave and horse to the ‘ani ben tovim is almost exactly what the king (God) is described as doing for the ben tovim (Egypt) in Sifrei Devarim 38.

These tannaitic sources are all devoid of even a hint of ambivalence toward the formerly wealthy poor. Before moving on to Palestinian amoraic literature, we must consider possible evidence of tannaitic ambivalence—both examples of which appear in the Tosefta. One negative note sounded about a formerly wealthy family appears in T. Bava’ Kamma’ 8:14, where R. Shimon Shizuri recalls that his father's family had been (presumably wealthy) householders, who lost that wealth because they adjudicated monetary cases in the presence of only one judgeFootnote ²⁹ and raised small cattle.Footnote ³⁰ R. Shimon Shizuri's recollection of this unhappy family history may be taken as an indication of a tannaitic view that loss of wealth is attributable to sin, a view that is also found in the fifth-century Palestinian compilation Vayikra Rabbah.Footnote ³¹ Yet Vayikra Rabbah's explanation is that the loss of wealth in general is attributable to the fact that the affected people did not “extend their hands in the performance of miẓvot” and did not do the will of their “Heavenly Father.” R. Shimon Shizuri, by contrast, is quite specific in pointing to his own family's two specific transgressions that cost them their wealth. This difference suggests that a general theological explanation for the loss of wealth—one that clearly casts aspersions on all the formerly wealthy poor—did not yet exist in the tannaitic period, although its roots clearly did. R. Shimon Shizuri is willing to see his own family's misfortune in that light, but overall, tannaitic literature was apparently not willing to see the loss of wealth in general as a punishment for sin in general.

The second possibly ambivalent tannaitic note appears in T. Pe'ah 4:11. Looking first at T. Pe'ah 4:10, we see a tradition that if a poor person was accustomed to using wool garments (mishtamesh), he should be given them (notnin lo), as is the case with a coin (if the poor person was accustomed to being paid in that manner prior to his descent into poverty), dough, bread, and being fed directly into his mouth. The directive in Deuteronomy 15:8 to provide the poor with what they lack is the prooftext for this generosity; the verse is taken to mean that each poor person must be provided with what he specifically and individually lacks. The prooftext is, in turn, followed by the stories of Hillel and the people of the Upper Galilee and their formerly wealthy poor clients. In 4:11, the Tosefta rules that if a poor person made use of (mishtamesh) gold utensils, he should sell them (mokhran) for silver ones, silver for copper, and copper for glass.Footnote ³² This anonymous ruling is followed by an account of the sages’ generosity to the Nabtalah family, which had fallen on hard times.

T. Pe'ah 4:10 and 4:11 sit uneasily together. If, as in 4:10, we are to “give” the poor person exactly what he lacks, why, then, does 4:11 require him to sell off more expensive personal items and make use of ones of lesser value? If both 4:10 and 4:11 apply to the formerly wealthy poor, it is difficult to understand why they are to be provided with their accustomed luxuries, only to have to trade their own expensive personal items down (or vice versa). Yet it cannot be argued that T. Pe'ah 4:11 applies to a different group of poor, such as the chronically poor, for how would the chronically poor have access to gold or silver personal items? The Yerushalmi's later reconciliation that 4:10 and 4:11 refer to different kinds of personal items—those that come into contact with the body and those that do not, respectively—is eminently sensible, although not necessarily compelled by the toseftan language. Another possibility is that 4:10, with its refrain of notnin lo, is addressed to the community and its responsibility, while 4:11, with its own refrain of mokhran u'mishtamesh, is addressed to the poor themselves. On this reading, the Tosefta does not—perhaps unintentionally—link the poor's responsibility (4:11) in any way to the community's responsibility (4:10); the community is thus responsible to the poor, including the formerly wealthy poor, regardless of the poor's fulfillment of their own obligations, as in 4:11. Thus, although 4:10 and 4:11 may sit together uneasily, the Tosefta does not necessarily provide for any diminution in the munificence to be extended to the formerly wealthy poor.

III. From Empathy to Ambivalence in Palestinian Amoraic Literature

Empathy for the formerly wealthy poor and the ‘ani/yyim ben/b'nei tovim continues to be found in Palestinian amoraic sources, subject to caveats that will be discussed later. R. Yirmiyah and R. Yosef disagree about the interpretation of Proverbs 22:28 (al taseg g'vul ‘olam [Do not remove the ancient boundary stone]).Footnote ³³ Both scholars read ‘olam (ancient) as ‘olim (those who ascended), and each gives a different interpretation of ‘olim.Footnote ³⁴ One sageFootnote ³⁵ interprets Proverbs 22:28 as a reference to the Israelites who ascended from Egyptian slavery (‘olei Miẓrayim), while the other interprets ‘olim as a euphemistic reference to those who yardu m'nikhseihen—those who have lost their wealth. This euphemistic interpretation of ‘olim is defended on the ground that the blind are often euphemistically referred to as sagya’ nehoraya’ (those of abundant light).Footnote ³⁶ According to the latter interpretation of ‘olim, the point of the verse is that one must not transgress appropriate boundaries in dealing with those who have lost their wealth; in other words, one must continue to treat them with appropriate respect. R. Yonah illustrates how one must have regard for the wellborn poor person who has lost his wealth; he would pretend to give that person a loan, and then, when the loan was accepted, he would convert it to a gift.Footnote ³⁷

The equation of those who have lost their wealth with the blind is interestingly illustrated in the Yerushalmi's story of R. Yose ha-G'lili's wife's second marriage. Her new husband is said to have lost his wealth (‘itnaḥat min nikhsoi) and to have become like the blind (described euphemistically as sagya’ nehora’) who wander from place to place.Footnote ³⁸ The blind's and the poor's—here the formerly wealthy poor's—shared unstable, peripatetic existence likely forms the basis of the literary link between them. This link is further illustrated in a tradition of Shmuel about the social impact of the loss of wealth. In one version of a widespread tradition, he teaches that four are thought of as dead: the blind, the leper, the childless, and the one who has lost his wealth (sh'yarad m'nikhasav).Footnote ³⁹ The last-named's inclusion in this list is derived from God's revelation to Moses that he could return safely to Egypt from Midian because all those who wanted him dead were themselves dead (Exodus 4:19). An implicit rabbinic midrash identifies those who initially wanted Moses dead to be the perennial Israelite rebels Dathan and Abiram.Footnote ⁴⁰ As these characters could not have been dead—because they reappear in the Pentateuchal book of Numbers—the scriptural reference to their “death” could “only” mean that they had lost their wealth and thus suffered a sort of social death.

Although we are getting a bit ahead of ourselves, it is revealing to consider how the Bavli further interprets this Palestinian source. The Bavli attributes the “four [who] are like the dead” tradition to Resh Lakish (rather than Shmuel, as in Bereshit Rabbah) and follows it up with a baraita’ that includes the unspecified ‘ani (the poor) among the four who are considered dead while alive. The Bavli conspicuously does not identify the ‘ani in its version of Shmuel's tradition as the one who has “lost his wealth.”Footnote ⁴¹ The Bavli thus seems not to be overly concerned with distinguishing in this case between the chronically poor and the poor who have lost their wealth. The poor are the poor, and however they came to be that way, they are among the four thought of as dead. The Bavli's blurring of the categories of the chronically and formerly wealthy poor in this case is an interesting hint of its overall ambivalence—or lack of particular concern—about the latter category, a subject to which we shall return in the next section of this essay.

Another interesting aspect of the Palestinian amoraic treatment of the formerly wealthy poor is the evidence of the shame experienced by such people when they can no longer give ẓedakah as they once were able. Thus, their loss of wealth is also a loss of the social status they would have had through their recognition as major givers of ẓedakah. R. Eli'ezer, R. Yehoshua, and R. Akiva once went to collect for the sages in Antioch on the Orontes.Footnote ⁴² A certain Abba Yehudah, who used to give generously, had lost his wealth and so retired to his home, embarrassed, so as not to encounter the sages. His wise wife told him to sell half of his remaining field and give the proceeds to the sages, who thereupon prayed on his behalf that God make up his loss. Later, while he was plowing his remaining half-field with his cow, the cow fell and broke her leg. Abba Yehudah then discovered a large jewel. When the rabbis returned, Abba Yehudah had become fantastically wealthy, and the rabbis disclosed to him that although others had previously given more than he, they had written him at the head of their timos—“tome,” or list of donors—presumably in anticipation of the large amounts they knew he would eventually be able to give. They seated Abba Yehudah with them, reciting Proverbs 18:16 (“A man's gift eases his way”) about him.

Abba Yehudah's loss of wealth embarrassed him because he felt he could not contribute to the sages as he was wont to do. Although the story clearly presents Abba Yehudah as righteously motivated, the honor he is shown at the end of the story suggests that at least part of his initial shame may have been attributable to his awareness that his loss of wealth translated into a loss of prestige and social standing. As the example of Abba Yehudah shows, Palestinian Amoraim may have been motivated to show empathy for the formerly wealthy poor by the hope that the latter might later display generosity to the rabbis if and when their fortunes improved. Indeed, the Abba Yehudah story may have been intended to convey this message. Thus, Palestinian rabbinic warmth toward the formerly wealthy poor may not reflect mere benevolence, but rather may have been part of a calculated strategy to maintain good relationships with past and possibly future sources of material support.Footnote ⁴³

Before moving on to consider the emergence of ambivalence toward the formerly wealthy poor in the Yerushalmi, let us briefly consider the Palestinian rabbinic empathy toward the formerly wealthy poor in light of the episcopal empathy toward such poor in the later Roman Empire. Brown reports that the maternal aunt of Pope Gregory the Great (sixth century CE) and the widows of two nobles received amounts of alms that could enable them to support a large household, and that 3,000 nuns received pensions equivalent to what the common people in Rome used to receive annually in food from the annona.Footnote ⁴⁴ John the Deacon, a biographer of Gregory, referred to the latter as a provider for the “shame-faced poor”—those wealthy and highborn people who had fallen into poverty.Footnote ⁴⁵ The particular pain that the plight of the fallen wealthy could cause their fortunate brethren was articulated by Pelagius I, Gregory the Great's papal predecessor: “I cannot without grief and heaviness of heart look at our men, whom we knew once as well-born and well-to-do.”Footnote ⁴⁶ At least partly inspired by Pelagius, Brown sees the late antique Christian concern with the wellborn poor as the result of an interest in preserving what remained of the old plebs romana, the Roman people. Thus, concern for the wellborn poor is part and parcel of a concern not to let the remains of the old Roman world slip entirely away.

Brown's keen insight into the late antique Christian concern with the fallen wealthy as a way to preserve remnants of former Roman glory does not find much rabbinic echo in tannaitic literature, which has little to say that would invite the inference that concern for the wellborn poor was a way of preserving former Jewish national glory. In part, this may be attributable to the differing historical circumstances of Pelagius and the rabbis: Pelagius was witness to the crumbling of Rome, while Jewish national glory was a very distant memory for the rabbis, a casualty of the terrible defeat and destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE. Pelagius's wellborn poor were themselves participants in erstwhile Roman glory, while many of the Jewish formerly wealthy poor of tannaitic times may not have been alive while the Second Commonwealth stood. Yet, following Brown, one may discern in R. Akiva, R. Yoḥanan b. Matya, the “children of kings” tradition, and perhaps also Sifrei Devarim 38 an effort to deploy contemporaneous empathy for the formerly wealthy poor in order to construct the Jewish people as a whole as a presently downtrodden people who nevertheless have a glorious and noble past. In that sense, perhaps we can see these tannaitic traditions as an effort to remind Jews in the present of some of the lost glory of a bygone plebs judaea.

We will now examine a lengthy sequence of sugyot at Y. Pe'ah 8:8–9, 21a–b. This sequence of sugyot is significant because it demonstrates literarily the move from a posture of extreme generosity toward the formerly wealthy poor to one of halakhic regulation, and then to a concern about the possibility of frauds. To be clear, this essay does not claim that the literary structure of the sugya was meant to illustrate a chronological progression from empathy to ambivalence. Rather, the point is that the sugya shows, through its progression of stories and law, two practical difficulties posed by a posture of extreme generosity toward the formerly wealthy poor: a strain on communal resources and the possibility that people who appear to be (and who may present themselves as) the formerly wealthy poor may in fact be frauds.

Toward the beginning of Y. Pe'ah 8:8, 21a,Footnote ⁴⁷ the Antbila family, reputed to be descendants of Aravnah the Jebusite (who was reputed to have sold the Temple Mount to King David),Footnote ⁴⁸ were said to have lived in Jerusalem. The story is told that the sages once stipulated for them (meaning “raised for them”) the large amount of 600 gold kikarim so that they would not be compelled to leave Jerusalem. The sages were said to have done this because of their midrash on Deuteronomy 15:7, which says that the heart should not be hardened, nor the fist clenched, against the indigent (’evyon) in “any of your settlements” (b’sh‘arekha). The rabbis interpreted “your settlements” to include Jerusalem.Footnote ⁴⁹ Although this story focuses on Jerusalem, it also bears noting that Aravnah the Jebusite was not an Israelite; it is unclear whether his descendants were.Footnote ⁵⁰ Regardless, the narrative emphasis on enabling this ancient, Jerusalem-connected, and Temple-connected family to remain in Jerusalem is perhaps another rabbinic echo of Brown's observation that late Roman solicitude for the wellborn poor was, at least in part, an effort to maintain what remained of the old, proud plebs romana.Footnote ⁵¹

This story is followed immediately in the Yerushalmi by the well-known story of Hillel and the ‘ani ben tovim and the elder (zaken) who was supported lavishly by the people of the Galilee.Footnote ⁵² In all Palestinian versions of the Hillel story, he was said to have provided a horse to work with and a slave for personal service to an ‘ani ben tovim. In the second story, the people of the Galilee (Sepphoris, according to Tosefta; “Upper” Galilee, according to Sifrei) provided an elder (zaken, according to Tosefta and Yerushalmi) or guest (oreaḥ, according to Sifrei) a litra’ of meat (identified as poultry, or b'sar ẓipparim, according to Yerushalmi) each day.Footnote ⁵³ While neither the Tosefta nor Sifrei raises a question about this generosity, the Yerushalmi stam does: “And is [such generosity] possible?” The point of the question is clear: Why should one person be given such luxurious food? The ambiguous answer is that “he would not eat with others,” which could either mean that he would not eat his poultry with any other food (and thus needed more poultry to satisfy his hunger) or that he would not eat with other people, and was accustomed to being treated with extreme deference, which included the provision of a sumptuous meal for himself alone.Footnote ⁵⁴

The Yerushalmi's question and answer about the elder's story shows the extent to which accommodation must be made for a person who might be categorized as an ‘ani ben tovim. Although the Yerushalmi initially questions the lavish provision of food to the elder, it finds a justification for it. As we have already noted, accommodation for the formerly wealthy poor is found in the Yerushalmi as late as R. Yonah (fifth amoraic generation), who, when confronted with an ‘ani ben tovim, would offer a loan and then, when the money was accepted, declare it to be a gift. He used this ruse in order to provide ẓedakah to ‘aniyyim b'nei tovim who were presumably otherwise too ashamed to take it qua ẓedakah.Footnote ⁵⁵

Yet we must not lose sight of the skeptical note sounded by the Yerushalmi stam's question: “And is [such generosity] possible?” If one were to argue that we should not impute any skepticism to the Yerushalmi's question, it being merely an example of dialectic, an appropriate response would be to point to the redactional context of the Hillel and elder stories. Redactional context can function as a sort of commentary on the stories. These two stories appear within a context of story and tannaitic quotation ranging from Y. Pe'ah 8:7, 21a through 8:9, 21b. Toward the end of Y. Pe'ah 8:7, the Yerushalmi discusses whether and to what extent a poor person who seeks food or clothing must be investigated (presumably to determine whether he is a fraud). The issue of fraud is taken up explicitly in Y. Pe'ah 8:9. The Yerushalmi thus “sandwiches” the stories of Hillel and the ‘ani ben tovim, and the elder and the people of the Galilee, between blocks of material that deal—either implicitly or explicitly—with the possibility of people fraudulently taking ẓedakah from a community. The redactional placement of these stories suggests that the Yerushalmi sees the issue of the formerly wealthy poor as somehow connected to the possibility of fraud. The logical connection between these issues is, quite simply, the difficulty or even impossibility of distinguishing a bona fide formerly wealthy recipient of communal largesse from a fraud. To reiterate, this linkage between the formerly wealthy poor and frauds is not found in tannaitic sources; it appears for the first time in the Yerushalmi.

But there is more. Even without reaching for the presence of frauds in the surrounding context, we can see the Yerushalmi's ambivalence about the formerly wealthy poor in the sugya immediately following the stories of Hillel and the elder in the Galilee:

1. 1. It was taught [T. Pe'ah 4:11]: “If he used gold utensils, we give him silver utensils; silver utensils, we give him copper utensils; copper utensils, we give him glass utensils.”

2. 2. R. Mana said: “Silver and glass utensils for [direct use] with their bodies.”Footnote ⁵⁶

3. 3. But wasn't it taught [T. Pe'ah 4:10]: “If he would [wear] wool clothing, we give him wool clothing”? [The objection continues:] [T. Pe'ah 4:10] applies to [the poor's] body [items that touch the body directly must be of high quality], [T. Pe'ah 4:11] applies to [use in ways that are] not [directly touching the poor's] body!

[Thus, R. Mana, who claims that the poor must even make do with lesser quality items that touch his body, must be wrong].Footnote ⁵⁷

T. Pe'ah 4:11, the passage that opens this sugya, is in tension with the Yerushalmi's earlier stories of the Antbila family, Hillel, and the people of the Upper Galilee (as it is with T. Pe'ah 4:10). As applied to those formerly wealthy poor, the point of T. Pe'ah 4:11 would be, shouldn't those people all have had to make do with less? R. Mana's view—that a charity recipient must use utensils of lesser value even if these are utensils that he uses directly, such as for eating—heightens this tension. The Yerushalmi stam challenges R. Mana and alleviates the tension somewhat by quoting T. Pe'ah 4:10—if a (now-impoverished) person was accustomed to soft wool clothing, then that is what he should have; nevertheless, the formerly wealthy poor must make do with lower-quality versions of other items, such as tools for work or decorative items. Three points deserve emphasis. The first is that the Yerushalmi's version of T. Pe'ah 4:11 provides that if a formerly wealthy person used gold utensils, we give him silver ones, or if he used silver, we give him copper, and so on. T. Pe'ah 4:11, as we saw earlier, says that the poor person must himself sell these items down and use ones of lesser value. Although certainty is impossible, it is reasonable to conclude that the Yerushalmi's version of T. Pe'ah 4:11 likely reads notnin because of the presence of notnin in T. Pe'ah 4:10. However the Yerushalmi's version of the baraita’ came to be that way, it shows—more clearly than the Tosefta—ambivalence toward the formerly wealthy poor: Whatever the formerly wealthy poor are accustomed to, we give them one grade less. The second point is that R. Mana, a fifth-generation Palestinian Amora, privileges T. Pe'ah 4:11 over the more generous T. Pe'ah 4:10, a view that is certainly inconsistent with the dominant thrust of the tannaitic attitude toward the formerly wealthy poor. Although his father R. Yonah is still represented as empathetic toward the formerly wealthy poor, the appearance of a view such as that of R. Mana at this late point is suggestive of the emergence of a shift in Palestinian attitudes. Indeed, R. Mana's shift in attitude may help to date the skeptical question of the Yerushalmi stam, who asked “and is such [generosity] possible?” in connection with the tannaitic story of the elder in the Galilee. The third point is that the Yerushalmi stam, although challenging R. Mana, nevertheless accepts that as to certain sorts of items, T. Pe'ah 4:11 serves as a limit on T. Pe'ah 4:10. The generosity to the formerly wealthy poor that the Tosefta ambiguously left in place is now clearly bounded; in reconciling the tension in the Tosefta, the Yerushalmi has given legal definition to one sort of limit on the formerly wealthy poor.

Immediately following this sugya, the Yerushalmi presents a story about an impoverished member of the patriarchal house:Footnote ⁵⁸

This story implicitly challenges the Yerushalmi stam's immediately preceding point that a formerly wealthy person should be given the high-quality items to which he was accustomed if they are for personal, physical use. In this case, the physician noted through a rhetorical question that the food had likely been cooked in an earthenware pot prior to being placed in the bowl; he advised that the member of the patriarchal household should imagine he was eating straight from the cooking pot, and not pay attention to his own clay bowl. There is no indication in the story that anyone did wrong by providing the formerly wealthy man with food in an earthenware vessel, nor any indication that the physician offered bad advice. In effect, R. Mana has been rehabilitated: Notwithstanding the Yerushalmi stam's distinction between direct and indirect use of items by the formerly wealthy poor, the impoverished patriarchal relative was treated in a manner consistent with R. Mana's view that the formerly wealthy poor must accept lesser quality items, however personal or intimate their intended use is. Note once again that this story, which is consistent with the Yerushalmi's version of T. Pe'ah 4:11, is inconsistent with T. Pe'ah 4:10. The Yerushalmi, in the end, privileges T. Pe'ah 4:11 over 4:10 when considering the formerly wealthy poor.

To recap, then, while tannaitic sources display virtually no ambivalence about the formerly wealthy poor, the Yerushalmi does. The stam's question about whether it really is possible to give one needy elder a litra’ of poultry per day, the contextualization of the Hillel and Galilean elder stories between materials dealing with (possible) frauds, the sources indicating that needy persons may have to learn to make do with less, and the lack of indication that any wrong was done in giving food in an earthenware dish to an impoverished member of the patriarchal household—all this indicates that, at the very least, the Yerushalmi's attitude toward the formerly wealthy poor is less overwhelmingly positive than what we see in tannaitic literature.

IV. Explaining the Shift from Empathy to Ambivalence in Palestinian Literature: External and Internal Factors

The tannaitic empathy for the formerly wealthy poor can be explained in light of two principal factors, and the absence of a third, which appear in the amoraic period. The first is an external economic situation that began to decline at the end of the second century, although the situation did not apparently become dire until roughly the middle of the third century CE.Footnote ⁶¹ Tannaitic literature took shape over the course of the second and third centuries (and possibly even later), with the emergence of the Mishnah around 200–220 and of at least some of the redactions of tannaitic midrashim in the latter half of the third century.Footnote ⁶² Thus, tannaitic literature was in formation during a period when economic decline was in progress but had not yet resulted in the widespread misery and impoverishment visible in the second half of the third century and part of the fourth. That being so, extreme generosity toward the formerly wealthy poor was not as economically unviable as it would become during the amoraic period in Palestine—during which the first hints of ambivalence appear in the Yerushalmi.

Writing in general terms about the economic crisis of the mid-third century, Daniel Sperber has noted that “They [monetary changes and crises] ran like destructive shudders through the social structure of the community at all its classes and levels . . . brought down the wealthy, and impoverished the poor.”Footnote ⁶³ We may turn to Palestinian sources themselves for further confirmation. In what we may presume is a description of the Land of Israel, R. Ze‘ora’ said “poverty is common.”Footnote ⁶⁴ The Yerushalmi there is considering circumstances that can be considered a nolad: something new that, had a person been aware of it before he took a vow, would have caused him not to take the vow. In answer to the question of whether the poverty of a person who was prohibited by vow from benefiting from the vow taker would be considered such a nolad (thereby providing the basis for releasing the vow), R. Ze'ora’ made his point, implying that because poverty is common, a person's descent into poverty cannot really be thought of as a nolad.Footnote ⁶⁵ Palestinian sources point to the exactions of Roman taxation and civic liturgies as being among the causes of poverty,Footnote ⁶⁶ even comparing the difficulty of acquiring adequate sustenance to the pains of childbirth, and the miracle of acquiring it as akin to the redemption of Israel.Footnote ⁶⁷ E. E. Urbach provides a collection of quotations from Palestinian rabbinic literature that he suggests point to a conclusion that the Land of Israel was poor, although it bears noting that some of his citations are to the Bavli or late midrashic compilations, whose evidence concerning the Land of Israel may not be fully reliable for this earlier period.Footnote ⁶⁸ The evidence of third-century (and beyond) economic crisis is ably summarized by Burton Visotzky, who points to the deleterious impact of “inflation, providing the grain dole, soil erosion, and enforced government service.”Footnote ⁶⁹ Economic hardship during the amoraic period took its toll on attitudes toward the formerly wealthy poor. While empathy for these poor did not entirely evaporate, the Yerushalmi redactors were unmistakably ambivalent toward them. The Yerushalmi stam's question about largesse toward a formerly wealthy man—“And is such [generosity] possible?”—suggests an economically based concern.

Why, then, didn't Palestinian rabbinic empathy for the formerly wealthy poor entirely disappear during the difficult economic times of the amoraic period? Those difficult economic times themselves, which Sperber notes had run “through the social structure of the community at all its classes and levels,”Footnote ⁷⁰ likely underlay the rabbinic awareness that poverty is a condition that will affect everyone at one time or another. The “poor” were not, therefore, a unique and hermetically sealed social class; there was a very real possibility that even the comfortable would experience poverty at some point. R. Naḥman interpreted Deuteronomy 15:10's “for in return” (ki b'glalha-davar ha-zeh) to mean that poverty is a wheel (galgal) that passes over everyone. Therefore, per R. Aibu, “Give to him readily” (Deuteronomy 15:10).Footnote ⁷¹ In another version of R. Naḥman's tradition,Footnote ⁷² he describes poverty with the metaphor of a waterwheel. The wheel that emerges full from the cistern empties (into the garden); the empty wheel then returns to the cistern to refill. Thus, the rich can—or will—be impoverished, while the poor will eventually be enriched.Footnote ⁷³ This notion that poverty could strike anyone likely explains the persistence of empathy for the formerly wealthy poor into the amoraic period.

The second factor that likely contributed to the tannaitic empathy for the formerly wealthy poor was the privileged economic status of many Tannaim. Second-century rabbis (among whom were most of the Tannaim) included landowners,Footnote ⁷⁴ and most of these rabbis were probably well-off, sharing the viewpoints and concerns of the wealthy.Footnote ⁷⁵ The economic standing of most Tannaim helps us to understand how they would be empathetic to those who had lost their wealth. But economics is not the only factor—birth and pedigree were also important. As Shaye J. D. Cohen points out, tannaitic literature includes approximately ten lists of classes in Jewish society; in these lists, for “the most part the classifications are determined by birth and are immutable.”Footnote ⁷⁶ As an example, the well-known mishnah at the end of Tractate Horayot (M. Horayot 3:8) dictates that priests come before Levites, who come before Israelites, who precede mamzerim,Footnote ⁷⁷ who precede netinim,Footnote ⁷⁸ who precede gerim,Footnote ⁷⁹ who come before the freed slave. Commenting on these lists, Cohen notes that they show that the Tannaim continued to hold to the view that “birth determined social status,” a belief that persisted alongside their “hierarchy . . . based on intellectual and spiritual attainments.”Footnote ⁸⁰

The emergence of the rabbis as a factor in Palestinian Jewish society after the destruction of 70 CE was bound up in struggles for influence among themselves, the patriarchs, and the wealthy and well-connected scions of old families that had held local influence since prior to the revolt.Footnote ⁸¹ Priestly descendants were also a social factor to be reckoned with, and their wealth was undoubtedly a factor in their high social standing.Footnote ⁸² Wealth and social status thus continued to matter into the tannaitic period. Moreover, tannaitic literature points to overlap between Tannaim and priestly stock: In addition to R. Yose Ha-Kohen and possibly R. Ishmael, Saul Lieberman pointed out that the rich Tannaim were all priests—R. Ele'azar b. Ḥarsom, R. Tarfon, and R. Ele'azar b. Azaryah.Footnote ⁸³ Amoraic literature perpetuates the image of leading Tannaim as wealthy: R. Tarfon is depicted as a wealthy owner of fields,Footnote ⁸⁴ and a baraita’ quoted in the Yerushalmi stated that wealth ceased from the sages when R. Ele'azar b. Azaryah died.Footnote ⁸⁵

Tannaitic overlap with the wealthy and high-status priesthood, taken together with the other evidence of the persistence of birth as an important factor in the tannaitic conception of Jewish society, all likely contributed to the empathy seen in tannaitic sources for the formerly wealthy poor.Footnote ⁸⁶

The persistence of this empathy into the amoraic period in Palestine was likely rooted not merely in the persistence of older patterns of thought, but, as noted earlier, in the notion that emerged during the difficult economic times of the latter half of the third century that poverty was a condition that could affect everyone. Nevertheless, the appearance of ambivalence toward these poor in the amoraic period warrants attention. It was suggested previously that this ambivalence was rooted in the economic turmoil of the latter part of the third century, as resources became scarce. But there is more. It is in the amoraic period in Palestine that we begin to see literary evidence of rabbis engaging in organized charitable activity—whether on behalf of other rabbis or of the poor generally. To the extent that this literary evidence points to an underlying social reality, we may say that as the economic situation in Palestine deteriorated in the latter part of the third century and into the fourth, the rabbis became more active in social welfare issues. And, as the rabbis became more active in social welfare, they may have become more ambivalent about providing lavishly for the formerly wealthy poor.

The literary evidence of such work is entirely amoraic. Although the Yerushalmi and midrash compilations do tell some stories of Tannaim (principally R. Yehoshua, R. Eli‘ezer, and R. Akiva) being involved in charitable work, this portrayal of those sages is nowhere confirmed by tannaitic literature itself.Footnote ⁸⁷ R. Eli‘ezer and R. Akiva are described as parnasim; the precise definition of this term has eluded scholars, although the office appears to have included some responsibility for social welfare.Footnote ⁸⁸ The Amoraim R. Ya‘akov b. ’Idi and R. Yiẓḥak b. Naḥman are also described as parnasim engaged in social welfare.Footnote ⁸⁹ R. Yirmiyah is alleged to have equated engaging in communal work with Torah study.Footnote ⁹⁰ The various stories of Tannaim and Amoraim raising funds for rabbis are likely themselves explicable against the background of demonstrable amoraic concern with their own support.Footnote ⁹¹

The literary evidence of increased rabbinic involvement in social welfare in the latter part of the third century and beyond is noticed by E. E. Urbach, who attributes it to both the deteriorating economic situation and the rise of Christian philanthropy, and by Lee Levine, who notes the greater communal influence such involvement would give the rabbis as well.Footnote ⁹² I would add that to the extent the rabbis were more active in social welfare issues, particularly in an uncertain economic environment, the realization may have grown that they simply could no longer afford to provide lavishly for the category of poor we have termed the “formerly wealthy poor.”

The final factor that may account for the appearance of ambivalence toward the formerly wealthy poor during the amoraic period in Palestine is a change in attitude about rabbis and wealth and social status. Although no Tanna is ever noted to be poor, in the amoraic period we do see a willingness to portray rabbis as poor. R. Akiva is portrayed as a poor man who became wealthy, and Shimon b. Vava’ is described as so poor that he lacked even a pressed fig cake.Footnote ⁹³ R. Yoḥanan is described as walking with R. Ḥiyya b. Abba, pointing out the properties he had sold off in order to fund his scholarship, a series of sacrifices that caused the latter to burst into tears.Footnote ⁹⁴ This portrayal of R. Yoḥanan as poor is carried over into the Bavli.Footnote ⁹⁵ Note that according to Vayikra Rabbah 30:1, R. Yoḥanan was a formerly wealthy poor man, albeit voluntarily so. The willingness of Palestinian rabbis in the amoraic period to portray themselves and their predecessors as poor is an interesting shift from the ideology of the tannaitic period, and one that undoubtedly had implications for amoraic attitudes toward the formerly wealthy poor. Not hiding poverty, and even willing to valorize a fall from wealth into poverty, as in the story of R. Yoḥanan, Palestinian Amoraim were thus likely less susceptible to empathize as much with the formerly wealthy poor as their tannaitic predecessors, or to see the formerly wealthy poor as automatically deserving of a maintenance of their erstwhile lifestyles.

V. Empathy and Ambivalence Toward the Formerly Wealthy Poor in the Bavli

The Yerushalmi is the only Palestinian amoraic compilation to express ambivalence about the formerly wealthy poor. That being so, it is interesting that the Bavli also demonstrates such ambivalence, although it is impossible to determine what this shared interest means: Is this an example of the Bavli (un)knowingly appropriating a Yerushalmi concern or inheriting a concern from Palestinian sources that fed into the Yerushalmi, or is it an independent reaction to internal Babylonian developments? Resolution of this question is complicated by the somewhat similar yet largely different literary contexts in which the two Talmuds’ ambivalence is expressed: Y. Pe'ah 8:8–9, 21a–b and B. Ketubot 67b–68a. While the precise nature of the literary relationship between these sugyot must remain undefined, what is clear is that the Bavli shares the Yerushalmi's ambivalence about the formerly wealthy poor.Footnote ⁹⁶

We will begin near the start of B. Ketubot 67b. The Bavli's version of the story of Hillel and the ‘ani ben tovim is more dramatic than what we find in the Tosefta, Sifrei, and Yerushalmi. In the Bavli, the horse Hillel provides is for riding, not for working, while the slave is meant to serve as a herald for the ‘ani ben tovim, not to provide personal service. Moreover, the Bavli adds the detail that once, when Hillel was unable to find a slave to serve in that capacity, he did so himself—running before the ‘ani ben tovim for a distance of three milin. The related story of the recipient of the Galilean largesse is called an ‘ani ben tovim for the first time in the Bavli. The Bavli also raises more questions about the latter story than does the Yerushalmi. Ultimately, Rav Ashi (sixth generation) is represented as proposing that what was unique about the provision of a litra’ of meat to this ‘ani ben tovim was that the village was small, and they would slaughter an animal to provide this poor man with his daily litra’, even though they presumably did not have a large enough population to consume all the meat. Providing for this ‘ani ben tovim, according to Rav Ashi, thus seems to have been a singularly wasteful proposition, although he does not explicitly characterize it as such.

One clear characteristic of the Bavli versions of these two stories that sets them apart from all the Palestinian versions is, to utilize Mark Cohen's and Peter Brown's terms, their more “hyperbolic” or “surreal” nature.Footnote ⁹⁷ Cohen and Brown put their fingers on a discernible characteristic of many Bavli versions of Palestinian stories, which we might describe as a tendency to rework the stories in more extreme or dramatic ways.Footnote ⁹⁸ In some cases (e.g., B. Ta'anit 21a), the heightened drama may be attributable at least in part to changes made to the story in the course of fitting it into its new literary context, but context does not account for all cases of heightened drama—notably not the Hillel and Upper Galilee stories we see on B. Ketubot 67b. It is most likely the case that these stories were retold in this more dramatic fashion in Babylonia before they were fixed in place in what we now know as B. Ketubot 67b.Footnote ⁹⁹ However they came to be this way, the Bavli's “hyperbolic” versions of these stories cannot now be viewed in isolation from the overall redactional context in which they are placed. Moreover, other indications of the Bavli's attitude toward the formerly wealthy poor must also be taken into account in assessing these stories. Taken together, this evidence will show that the Bavli, even more so than the Yerushalmi, displays deep ambivalence about the ‘ani ben tovim.

What immediately follows the story of the people of the Upper Galilee is the Bavli's version of a story about R. Nehemiah, which has a Yerushalmi parallel.Footnote ¹⁰⁰ In the Yerushalmi, a poor person (called “a certain Jerusalemite”) asks Nehemiah Ish Shiḥin for a chicken, which marks the Jerusalemite as a person of refined tastes. Instead, Nehemiah gives him enough money to buy a quantity of red meat—a meal inferior to what the Jerusalemite is accustomed to eat. The Jerusalemite dies after eating this unsuitable (for him) meal, and Nehemiah says—exactly to whom is unclear—“Come, eulogize the one Nehemiah has killed.” Nehemiah Ish Shiḥin made a mistake in trying to accustom a refined palate to rougher culinary fare. His failure, read through the lens of the Yerushalmi sugya as a whole, was that he failed to realize that one must not simply help the poor, but help them wisely and insightfully.Footnote ¹⁰¹ In the Yerushalmi, the dead poor person is not criticized, and the unwise giver publicly announces his error. In the Bavli's version, the poor person—identified only as “that one who came”—came before R. Nehemiah, presumably for ẓedakah, and R. Nehemiah asked him about his dining habits. In neither Talmud is this person called an ‘ani ben tovim, although his rich tastes and current economic distress make it reasonable to see him as such. The person said that he dines on rich meat and old wine, whereupon R. Nehemiah asked whether he would eat lentils with him instead. The person did so and died. The similarity with the Yerushalmi is clear: In both Talmuds, the person says that he is accustomed to richer fare, but allows (R.) Nehemiah (Ish Shiḥin) to convince him to eat coarser fare, which kills him. In the Bavli, R. Nehemiah said, “Woe to this one, whom Nehemiah killed.” The stam comments that R. Nehemiah should have said, “Woe to Nehemiah, who killed this one,” but explains that R. Nehemiah attributed “woe” to the dead poor person because the latter should not have pampered himself so much that eating a simple meal killed him. As in the Yerushalmi, the Bavli also concedes that R. Nehemiah made a mistake. Yet it is precisely at this point that the Bavli steps back from criticizing R. Nehemiah and criticizes the dead poor person instead. The stam turns R. Nehemiah's lament, which on its face is a straightforward lament for the dead poor man, into a postmortem scolding for a man who had pampered himself too much—unlike R. Nehemiah himself. Yes, the poor person likely would have lived had he gotten the proper rich food to which he was accustomed, says the Bavli, yet he should not have needed such rich food in the first place.

This story is followed in turn by Rava's encounter with a man who regularly dined on fat chicken and old wine.Footnote ¹⁰² As with R. Nehemiah, the man is said to have “come before” Rava, presumably in order to receive ẓedakah. Rava asked him about his dining habits, and the man responded that he dined on fat chicken and old wine. At this point, Rava asks a question that is undoubtedly on the mind of anyone who has been following this sequence of stories beginning with Hillel: Aren't you concerned about the pressure on the community? That is, shouldn't we be concerned that providing so lavishly for the formerly wealthy poor is a drain on the community? The man responds with a midrash on Psalms 145:15: He is not eating of the community's resources, but of God's, who provides to each living being its proper food in that being's own good time—not in “their,” the community's, good time. In other words, God provides what is necessary for the individual, regardless of whether that is convenient for the community. Rava does not respond to the scriptural interpretation, but at that very moment his long-lost sister appears, bearing a fat chicken and old wine. Rava then acknowledges the strange occurrence, and he invites the poor man to eat.

Unlike the deceased formerly wealthy poor person who encountered R. Nehemiah and earned explicit criticism from the anonymous Bavli editors, Rava's poor man appears to have bested the Amora. Yet Rava is portrayed as clearly and unambiguously questioning the economic pressure the formerly wealthy poor put on their communities. Taken together, the two stories make the point that notwithstanding the reasonable doubts that can be raised about a policy of providing lavishly for the ‘ani ben tovim, that is in fact the correct policy. Yet the Bavli's willingness to air its criticisms of the ‘ani ben tovim—(1) he should be able to make do with less, as others do, and (2) he should be concerned about the pressure his needs place on the community—shows that the Bavli does not at all see the ‘ani ben tovim as an unproblematic character. These two criticisms suggest that a principal worry about the ‘ani ben tovim is his impact on communal resources. It is thus telling that Rava does not respond to the poor man's exegesis, which supports a policy of providing lavishly for the ‘ani ben tovim from communal resources, but he is willing to concede and invite the poor man to eat richly from the private resources provided by his serendipitously appearing sister.Footnote ¹⁰³ Thus, this story may not be as much of an endorsement of the Hillel and Upper Galilean policy toward the ‘ani ben tovim as it first appears. The Bavli's tight juxtaposition of these stories with the stories of Hillel and the people of the Upper Galilee suggests that it has taken up the Yerushalmi's implicit concern with the economic impact of the ‘ani ben tovim and is making this concern clearer and more explicit. The Bavli also presents three stories involving Mar Ukba and the poor on Ketubot 67b, the second of which is of some interest in this context. Mar Ukba was said to have sent 400 zuz to a particular poor person in his neighborhood each Yom Kippur eve. One year he sent his son with the money, and the latter returned and told his father that the poor person did not need the money because the son had seen him spraying—that is, wasting—old wine. The son was clearly implying that the poor person was a fraud. Mar Ukba drew the very different conclusion that the man was particularly delicate and pampered, presumably more so than he had thought. Mar Ukba then doubled his annual gift.

This story nicely illustrates a third reasonable doubt that one can have about an alleged ‘ani ben tovim: Is the person authentic or a fraud? Interpreting the same situation, Mar Ukba's son read “fraud” and Mar Ukba read “authentic.” The Bavli here acknowledges that in some situations, the genuine ‘ani ben tovim may be indistinguishable from a fraud—an observation that further problematizes the ‘ani ben tovim.

After concluding its set of Mar Ukba stories, the Bavli continues its investigation of frauds on B. Ketubot 67b with the story of R. Abba, who would tie up money in a scarf and throw it behind him so that the poor could pick it up. Although he did this so that he could not see who was picking up the money, he would nevertheless glance behind him to ensure that no frauds picked up the money. These frauds, of course, are not at all necessarily faux ‘aniyyim b'nei tovim, but simply anyone who would not need the money. Nevertheless, the fact that this story is sandwiched between two stories of people who might be either ‘aniyyim b'nei tovim or frauds (the Mar Ukba story before it and the R. Ḥanina story following it) suggests once again that the issue of fraud is not far away from the issue of the ‘ani ben tovim.

The Bavli moves directly into the issue of frauds right after the R. Abba story. In a story reminiscent of Mar Ukba and his son, R. Ḥanina is said to have sent four zuzim to a particular poor person each Sabbath eve. One time he sent the money with his wife, who returned and reported that the “poor” man did not need the money. Upon approaching the house, she had overheard him being asked how he dines, and his response that he dines on luxury dinner service. In this case, R. Ḥanina did not respond as Mar Ukba had, with an assumption that the poor man was an ‘ani ben tovim who required even more luxury. Instead, R. Ḥanina responded by quoting R. Ele'azar's dictum that people should be grateful to frauds, because were it not for them, any refusal of a request for ẓedakah would earn the refuser immediate divine punishment. R. Ḥanina thus accepted his wife's conclusion that his client was a fraud. The Bavli follows this story on B. Ketubot 68a with teachings that require the giving of ẓedakah, while promising divine punishment for those poor who pretend to be physically disabled when they are not. The Bavli's point seems to be that while one will not suffer immediate divine punishment for refusing to give alms, one should most definitely not refuse; God will deal with those “poor” who pretend to be what they are not.

The Bavli has thus taken over the Yerushalmi's concerns about the formerly wealthy poor—their high economic impact, the fact that they should have to make do with less, and the impossibility of distinguishing them at times from frauds. Whereas the Yerushalmi stam raised the issue of their high economic impact in a brief question, the Bavli puts that concern clearly into the mouth of Rava and invites consideration of that concern in Rav Ashi's observation about the daily wastage of meat for the benefit of an ‘ani ben tovim in the Upper Galilee. The Yerushalmi suggests through R. Mana and through the anonymous physician that the formerly wealthy poor should have to make do with less, and the Bavli editors make that concern the very point of their version of the R. Nehemiah story. Both Talmuds present stories about frauds within the broad context of the formerly wealthy poor.

In addition, as noted earlier, the Bavli also expresses its ambivalence about the formerly wealthy poor by erasing them: Whereas Shmuel sees the formerly wealthy poor as being dead although alive,Footnote ¹⁰⁴ the Bavli represents that tradition (in the name of Resh Lakish) as applying to all poor—not simply the formerly wealthy poor.Footnote ¹⁰⁵ This erasure of the formerly wealthy poor from a Bavli parallel to a Palestinian source appears in the context of B. Ketubot 67b–68a as well, where the Bavli presents its version of the Yerushalmi sugya about situations in which the formerly wealthy poor will have to make do with less—or not—than that to which they were accustomed (Y. Pe'ah 8:8, 21a). To facilitate this comparison, we will examine the sugyot side by side, beginning with the Yerushalmi sugya translated earlier:Footnote ¹⁰⁶

1. 1. It was taught [T. Pe'ah 4:11]: “If he used gold utensils, we give him silver utensils; silver utensils, we give him copper utensils; copper utensils, we give him glass utensils.”

2. 2. R. Mana said: “Silver and glass utensils for [direct use] with their bodies.”

3. 3. But wasn't it taught [T. Pe'ah 4:10]: “If he would [wear] wool clothing, we give him wool clothing”? [The objection continues:] [T. Pe'ah 4:10] applies to [the poor's] body [items that touch the body directly must be of high quality], [T. Pe'ah 4:11] applies to [use in ways that are] not [directly touching the poor's] body!

[Thus, R. Mana, who claims that the poor must even make do with lesser-quality items that touch his body, must be wrong].

1. 1. It was taught there [M. Pe'ah 8:8]: “We do not obligate him to sell his house or his utensils.”

2. 2. No? Wasn't it taught [in a baraita’]: “If he would use gold utensils, he should use silver utensils; if silver utensils, he should use copper utensils” [compare T. Pe'ah 4:11]?

3. 3. R. Zevid said, “There is no difficulty [between M. Pe'ah 8:8 and the baraita’]. This one [the baraita’] applies to [his] bed and table; this one [M. Pe'ah 8:8] applies to cups and plates.”

4. 4. What is the distinction of cups and plates that [they are] not [to be traded down]? That he could say, “[Lower-quality cups and plates are] disgusting to me.” [But as to] bed and table also he could say, “This is not acceptable to me!”

5. 5. Rava b. d'Rabbah said: “[The baraita’] refers to the silver strigil.”

6. 6. Rav Papa said: “There is no difficulty. This one [M. Pe'ah 8:8] applies before he comes to the point of collection; this one [the baraita’] applies after he comes to the point of collection.”

The Bavli opens its sugya with a quotation from M. Pe'ah 8:8: “We do not obligate him to sell his house and utensils.”Footnote ¹⁰⁸ An objection is raised from a baraita’ similar to the toseftan baraita’ (T. Pe'ah 4:11) we saw in the Yerushalmi: “If he used gold utensils, he should use silver; silver, he should use copper.” It should be noted at the outset that by juxtaposing its version of T. Pe'ah 4:11 with M. Pe'ah 8:8, which clearly deals with all poor, not simply the formerly wealthy poor, the Bavli signals that its version of the Yerushalmi sugya is not limited to the formerly wealthy poor. It is also notable and unsurprising that the Bavli omits the stories of the Antbila family and the member of the patriarchal house, as it tends to omit uniquely Palestinocentric sources.Footnote ¹⁰⁹ Instead, the Bavli moves directly to three Amoraim's suggested resolutions of the M. Pe'ah 8:8/T. Pe'ah 4:11 conflict, and these resolutions—like the Bavli's opening juxtaposition of tannaitic sources—obliterate the original “formerly wealthy poor” context of the discussion. The Bavli sugya applies to all poor; this is apparent not only from the absence of the formerly wealthy poor from the sugya itself, but also from the absence from the sugya's surrounding context of references to formerly wealthy poor people such as the Antbila family or the member of the Patriarchal household. Whereas the Yerushalmi baraita’ spoke of what should be given to the formerly wealthy poor, the Bavli baraita’ speaks of what utensils the (undefined) poor should use. Although the Bavli's version of T. Pe'ah 4:11 may well have predated the sugya and its erasure of the formerly wealthy poor, there is no doubt that the Bavli's version of T. Pe'ah 4:11 also contributes to that erasure in the context of the sugya. The Bavli sugya is not defining the law as to what the formerly wealthy poor should be given; the sugya is defining what all poor are or are not permitted to retain of their own possessions as they get closer to the need for charitable assistance.

Rav Zevid proposes that beds and tables should be traded down, per the baraita’, while cups and dishes should be retained, per M. Pe'ah 8:8. The explanation for this difference is dimly reminiscent of the story of the Patriarchal scion: A person may find lower-quality cups and dishes to be disgusting, although the retort is made that the same could be said of lower-quality beds and tables. Rava b. d'Rabbah mentions the silver strigil, which is a luxurious usable object. Such an object must be traded down, per the baraita’. Rav Papa's opaque resolution is that M. Pe'ah 8:8 applies “before he [the poor] comes to the point of collection,” while the baraita’ applies “after.” While Rav Papa's meaning is a matter of dispute, we can say that at the least (following Alfasi and like-minded scholars), he implies that when one has resort to communal resources, one must be sure to have arranged one's personal affairs so as to have as small an impact as possible on those resources.Footnote ¹¹⁰

Once again, unlike the parallel Yerushalmi sugya,Footnote ¹¹¹ the Bavli sugya does not at all indicate that it applies (only) to the formerly wealthy poor; indeed, later halakhic readers of the sugya assumed that it applied to all poor.Footnote ¹¹² The views attributed to Rav Zevid and Rava b. d'Rabbah are, however, reminiscent of a focus on the formerly wealthy poor. Thus, we may conclude that the Bavli editors reworked a sugya that likely originally focused on the formerly wealthy poor to make it apply to all poor—that is, they erased the formerly wealthy poor from this sugya. The formerly wealthy poor are not particular subjects of special concern in the Bavli.

In sum, rabbinic attitudes toward the formerly wealthy poor evolved over time. Tannaitic sources are almost uniformly generous to them, with the possible exception of two references in the Tosefta; the Yerushalmi raises doubts about them, and the Bavli elaborates on those doubts while erasing the formerly wealthy poor from some Palestinian contexts in which they earlier appeared. Caring for the formerly wealthy poor came to be seen as a possible burden on the individual—through the possibility of frauds—and on the community, through both the possibility of frauds and the expense of supporting even the authentic formerly wealthy poor in the state to which they were accustomed. A question remains as to whether this demonstrable skepticism is simply the result of the Bavli's literary appropriation of a Yerushalmi concern or of appropriation plus historical factors that led to ambivalence in both centers.

VI. The Bavli's Ambivalence Explained

Let us begin with historical factors discernible from the Bavli. One clear difference between Babylonian and Palestinian rabbis is that while the latter, as we have seen, do portray themselves as at times voluntarily choosing poverty, the former never do. Some Babylonian rabbis may be portrayed as poor, but not as voluntarily so. Examples include Rabbah (B. Mo'ed Katan 28a); Abaye, who was so poor that he suffered from jaundice at one point in his life (B. Shabbat 33a), and the hapless Rav Huna, son of Moshe b. Aẓri (B. Bava’ Batra’ 174b). The apparent nonexistence of voluntary Babylonian poverty, as well as the absence of any other valorization of rabbinic poverty (for Babylonians), suggests a possibility that poverty was not high on the Babylonian scale of values.

But there is more. One of the noticeable and interesting characteristics of the Bavli's portrayal of some Babylonian rabbis is their rise from poverty to wealth.Footnote ¹¹³ Specifically, as Moshe Beer has noted, select Babylonian rabbis who were portrayed as poor in their youth are portrayed as acquiring great wealth at the time of their ascension to rabbinic recognition.Footnote ¹¹⁴ Notable examples include Rav Huna, who is portrayed as having worked as an irrigator (B. Ketubot 105a) and as having been too poor even to afford wine for kiddush (B. Megillah 27b). Yet he is described as having decreed before meals that “let all who are hungry come and eat” (B. Ta‘anit 20b), a degree of generosity that Rava noted was impossible in his own city of Meḥoza, in which there were so many poor.Footnote ¹¹⁵ Other examples include Rav Ashi, who did not get rich until he saw the tops of turnips (B. Berakhot 57b);Footnote ¹¹⁶ Rav Ḥisda, who notes that he was granted prosperity because of the ritual washing of the hands (B. Shabbat 62b), and gave reasons why he ate vegetables neither when he was poor nor rich (B. Shabbat 140b); and Rav Papa, whose happy circumstances were noted by Abaye (B. Pesaḥim 111b).

It is unclear whether these portrayals should be taken as historical fact—as most of the scholars who have previously noted them assumed—or as ideologically motivated portrayals that, regardless of whether they are historically factual, are nevertheless reliable historical guides to the worldviews of the Babylonian Amoraim.Footnote ¹¹⁷ Beer explained these portrayals as rooted in an “Eastern” disinclination to see leaders of important social and religious institutions as poor; in his words, “it is not at all to be assumed that the Jews of Babylonia would have looked favorably at all upon a poor rosh yeshivah. Such a thing is opposed to the mentality of the Eastern peoples, with the exception of the Christians and some sects.”Footnote ¹¹⁸ Beer's excepting of Christians from the “Eastern” tendency to favor wealthy leaders requires adjustment in light of Adam Becker's recent research on the School of Nisibis. Becker notes the endowment of an entire village to the School of Nisibis for its support, and points out “[t]hat a village could be ‘bought’ and then given to the School is distinctive of the Persian feudal system, but also demonstrates the relative comfort East-Syrian institutions felt with wealth” (emphasis mine).Footnote ¹¹⁹ Becker goes on to point out that this comfort with wealth is “striking” in light of the valorization of poverty in Syriac Christianity, but he notes that stories like that of the endowment of the School of Nisibis were common in the Eastern church, where wealthy clergy and laity were portrayed as using their wealth to play important roles in the church.Footnote ¹²⁰ Becker's important findings about the role of wealth and social status in the founding and maintenance of the institutions of Syriac Christianity shed new and much-needed light on the Bavli's portrayal of leading Amoraim as having risen from poverty to wealth. Taking Beer and Becker together, it is safe to assume that a rabbi's move from poverty to wealth would be seen as a positive. But the opposite move from wealth to poverty might well be viewed negatively; and, we may add, if such a decline were viewed negatively within rabbinic circles, it is unlikely that these very rabbinic circles would muster up much empathy for others who found themselves in those circumstances.

We must recall the extreme caste stratification of Sasanian society, noted by Beer and later studied closely in relation to the Babylonian Amoraim by Richard Kalmin.Footnote ¹²¹ Such caste stratification also suggests that circumstances causing a descent from wealth to poverty would not likely result in much empathy from the wealthy erstwhile peers of the hapless formerly wealthy. An interesting, albeit strange, example of all this comes from B. Hagigah 5b. Rava's great wealth caused suspicion among other rabbis, who then “cast their eyes” upon him, whereupon royal retainers came and plundered his wealth. The only consolation, as it were, for Rava was that his despoiling confirmed that he was one of the Jewish people; however, particular and generous concern for his plight on the part of the other rabbis is conspicuously absent. In sum, the Bavli's particularly “Eastern” approach to wealth and poverty may explain in part its own demonstrated ambivalence toward the formerly wealthy poor.Footnote ¹²²