I Let Go - משמט אני
- Rabbi Who Has No Knife
- 4 minutes ago
- 8 min read
The Economic Miracle of Hasmonean Judea
Part I: Athens and Jerusalem
A: The Economy of Nehemiah’s Jerusalem
When we review the narrative of Ezra and Nehemiah a composite view of the Judean economy of the Persian period emerges.
Yehud Medintha, that is, the Persian province or client state of Judah, and especially its capital Jerusalem which only recently acquired the license to fortify its walls, is populated by two social groups:
1. The Sarim, Seganim (and other titles): That is, the rich, who not only own large tracts of land but are also effectively run the town and have political, familial and economic connections with the elite of the wider Abar Naharah, that is, the satrapy of the Western side of the Euphrates (i.e. Greater Syria) which included Judea.
2. Yether Ha’Am “The rest of the people” and sometimes just “The People”. These are the smallholders, who eked out subsistence from their meager plots.
In chapter 5 Nehemiah describes the pressures that the latter have been under:
וַתְּהִ֨י צַעֲקַ֥ת הָעָ֛ם וּנְשֵׁיהֶ֖ם גְּדוֹלָ֑ה אֶל־אֲחֵיהֶ֖ם הַיְּהוּדִֽים׃
There was a great outcry by the common folk and their wives against their brother Jews.
וְיֵשׁ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֹמְרִ֔ים בָּנֵ֥ינוּ וּבְנֹתֵ֖ינוּ אֲנַ֣חְנוּ רַבִּ֑ים וְנִקְחָ֥ה דָגָ֖ן וְנֹאכְלָ֥ה וְנִחְיֶֽה׃
Some said, “So besiudesOur sons and daughters are numerous; we must get grain to eat in order that we may live!”
וְיֵשׁ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֹמְרִ֔ים שְׂדֹתֵ֛ינוּ וּכְרָמֵ֥ינוּ וּבָתֵּ֖ינוּ אֲנַ֣חְנוּ עֹרְבִ֑ים וְנִקְחָ֥ה דָגָ֖ן בָּרָעָֽב׃
Others said, “We must pawn our fields, our vineyards, and our homes to get grain to stave off hunger.”
וְיֵשׁ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֹמְרִ֔ים לָוִ֥ינוּ כֶ֖סֶף לְמִדַּ֣ת הַמֶּ֑לֶךְ שְׂדֹתֵ֖ינוּ וּכְרָמֵֽינוּ׃
Yet others said, “We have borrowed money against our fields and vineyards to pay the king’s tax.
וְעַתָּ֗ה כִּבְשַׂ֤ר אַחֵ֙ינוּ֙ בְּשָׂרֵ֔נוּ כִּבְנֵיהֶ֖ם בָּנֵ֑ינוּ וְהִנֵּ֣ה אֲנַ֣חְנוּ כֹ֠בְשִׁ֠ים אֶת־בָּנֵ֨ינוּ וְאֶת־בְּנֹתֵ֜ינוּ לַעֲבָדִ֗ים וְיֵ֨שׁ מִבְּנֹתֵ֤ינוּ נִכְבָּשׁוֹת֙ וְאֵ֣ין לְאֵ֣ל יָדֵ֔נוּ וּשְׂדֹתֵ֥ינוּ וּכְרָמֵ֖ינוּ לַאֲחֵרִֽים׃
Now we are as good as-a our brothers, and our children as good as theirs; yet here we are subjecting our sons and daughters to slavery—some of our daughters are already subjected—and we are powerless, while our fields and vineyards belong to others.”
Not only are the poor forced to take out loans in order to survive bad years (“Our sons and daughters are numerous; we must get grain to eat in order that we may live”) they are also pressured to do so by the need to pay the imperial taxes - Midath HaMelech, or in Imperial Aramaic, Mindah - with hard specie – specifically silver (bullion or coins)- Keseph - a scarce resource which they have to borrow against either their fields or their bodies (yet here we are subjecting our sons and daughters to slavery—some of our daughters are already subjected—and we are powerless, while our fields and vineyards belong to others). Nehamiah must enact sweeping legislation which institutes (or restores) debt cancellation cycles, abolition of debt-slavery and the restoration of real estate to its original (presumably impoverished and indebted) owners from their current (wealthy) holders.
Further, Jerusalem is already an important trading depot to the degree that despite the fact the walls are not finished, Nehemiah finds himself in a position where he must limit rather than encourage merchants coming to Jerusalem, since they are habitually violating the Sabbath.
B: The Attic Connection
Now, besides the limitation on merchant activity, this is all suspiciously like the situation in Solon’s Athens.
Just like Nehemiah’s Jerusalem, Solon’s Athens suffered from a heavily indebted, dispossessed and enslaved lower class and an increasingly entrenched monied elite tied to the economic sphere of Western Asian large states. Solon’s solution resembles Nehemiah’s: Debts were forgiven, land restored, and debt-bondage abolished (this was the famous seisachtheia).
Solon and Nehemiah are similar in another surprising aspects: both composed (or have attributed to them) texts which describe and justify their record, and both have a religious or semi-religious nature. The Book of Nehemiah, a prose piece, survived in its entirety but we only fragments survived of Solon’s hymns. In these hymns Solon beseeches the Muses to give him “good repute amongst men” and Zeus to do justice (in general but especially with him), just as Nehemiah asks God to “remember this well for me” and to judge between him and his enemies.
The period in which they are active is very close: While the exact period in which Nehemiah was active is a subject of some debate, it seems to be in the 5th century BC (around 445 BC). Solon archonate dated around 594 BC, approximately a century and a half beforehand.
The parallelism between these two polities are understandable if we consider the emergence of complex states in Western Asia and the invention of coinage and silver-taxation between the 6th and 5th centuries BC:
In the 6th century, the Lydians, an Anatolian kingdom, rose to prominence, unseating the Phrygians as the dominant power in Asia Minor.
Their most important innovation was not military but economic[1]: The Lydians adopted the first (or at least, some of the earliest) coins in history. Now, precious metals were used as currencies before, but these were bits of metal cut and weighed. In essence, gold, silver and copper were merely the most desirable commodities in a system based on the logic of exchange. The Lydians (who either copied or were followed by various other Anatolian states), by marrying the concept of precious metal as the main means of exchange and the royal seal as the instrument of authority, have established silver “coins” as the official form in which, increasingly, all state expenses were to be paid out. The initial experiment was in electrum (a gold and silver alloy) but eventually, two parallel series were introduced: one for gold and the other for silver.
As the Lydian kings spread their influence, they have demanded tribute from a wider circle of states, reaching the Ionian coast shortly before Solon’s period. This tribute, which had to be paid in (weighed) gold and silver, which had then to be minted according to the State’s standards before it could be used by it, increased the demand for precious metals, which caused a shortage in Athens, already an important trading hub which’ due to its poor soil, had to import great deal of grain and other necessities.
Thus, the Attic smallholder, who previously could have exchanged his excess wine and oil for grain and wool and a little bit of silver to put into his farm, found out that Ionian merchants are demanding silver for their grains and are reluctant to pay in silver for his goods. Thus, he was forced to borrow and fall into debt which would have seen him (as evidenced by the horoi, or mortgage stones) become a sharecropper in his own land[2], and eventually, if he failed his quota, a slave.
In Jerusalem, the slide is evident at the same time, as Babylonian and Egyptian tribute pressures pushed the entire country into debt, bondage and overuse of the land (Jeremiah’s twin complaints about the violation of the Sabbatical year and the covenant of release of Hebrew debt-bondsmen[3]) which King Zedekiah, despite some valiant efforts, was powerless to stop. The desperate revolt against Babylon should be seen as a last-ditch effort by the king to rid Judah of this destructive tribute. The following destruction of Jerusalem as an urban center and exile of the high and middle classes (leaving behind only the rural דלת העם – “the least of the people”) prevented the situation from escalating to a political crisis equivalent to the one Solon had on his hands in 594[4].
Only when the exiles returned and Jerusalem started recovering, with the coalescing of the Jerusalemite elite with their connections to the wider Persian Empire, could these problems resurface.
Both Nehemiah and Solon understood that by placing hard limits to the recovery of loans and what (and who) can be placed as collateral can the cycle be broken. This meant that the elite, in Jerusalem, had to assume the bulk of the burden of the Mindah (Nehemiah had both set an example and alleviated the burden somewhat by foregoing certain payments due to him as the governor). In Solon’s case it meant that credit was less available, but a hard bottom was placed below the lower class, which therefore could not fall to slavery.
In (fertile if tended for carefully) Judea, the result was a reduction in the amount of cash available to the elites, and the smallholders, whose tax burdens were substantially alleviated, could stay on and develop their farms. Meanwhile, in rocky Athens, it has led to the streaming of peasants, who retained ownership of their land but could not borrow money to purchase food and seed in lean years, to the city where they hired themselves out as free laborers or engaged in trade or artisanship.
Conversely, Solon’s legislation led to the creation of the Athenian urban demos, the centralization of Attic politics and the Athenian Polis as a totalizing, central identity. But in Judea, Nehemiah’s virtually identical program led to the flourishing of the countryside and the stabilization of Jerusalem as a ritual rather than an economic and political center.
[2] The term the stones use is ἑκτημόριος “Hektemoros” “1/6 man” that is, a sharecropper who must yield to his superior 1/6 of his harvest, or, according to some scholars, could keep only 1/6 of it. Naturally, the sharecropper which was hard pressed to support his family even while he could keep his entire crop could not hope to repurchase his contract or ever escape debt. The slid to slavery was all but inevitable.
[3] See Jeremiah 34:8-22:
הַדָּבָ֛ר אֲשֶׁר־הָיָ֥ה אֶֽל־יִרְמְיָ֖הוּ מֵאֵ֣ת יְהֹוָ֑ה אַחֲרֵ֡י כְּרֹת֩ הַמֶּ֨לֶךְ צִדְקִיָּ֜הוּ בְּרִ֗ית אֶת־כׇּל־הָעָם֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר בִּירוּשָׁלַ֔͏ִם לִקְרֹ֥א לָהֶ֖ם דְּרֽוֹר׃
לְ֠שַׁלַּ֠ח אִ֣ישׁ אֶת־עַבְדּ֞וֹ וְאִ֧ישׁ אֶת־שִׁפְחָת֛וֹ הָעִבְרִ֥י וְהָעִבְרִיָּ֖ה חׇפְשִׁ֑ים לְבִלְתִּ֧י עֲבׇד־בָּ֛ם בִּיהוּדִ֥י אָחִ֖יהוּ אִֽישׁ׃
וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ֩ כׇל־הַשָּׂרִ֨ים וְכׇל־הָעָ֜ם אֲשֶׁר־בָּ֣אוּ בַבְּרִ֗ית לְ֠שַׁלַּ֠ח אִ֣ישׁ אֶת־עַבְדּ֞וֹ וְאִ֤ישׁ אֶת־שִׁפְחָתוֹ֙ חׇפְשִׁ֔ים לְבִלְתִּ֥י עֲבׇד־בָּ֖ם ע֑וֹד וַֽיִּשְׁמְע֖וּ וַיְשַׁלֵּֽחוּ׃
וַיָּשׁ֙וּבוּ֙ אַחֲרֵי־כֵ֔ן וַיָּשִׁ֗בוּ אֶת־הָֽעֲבָדִים֙ וְאֶת־הַשְּׁפָח֔וֹת אֲשֶׁ֥ר שִׁלְּח֖וּ חׇפְשִׁ֑ים [וַֽיִּכְבְּשׁ֔וּם] (ויכבישום) לַעֲבָדִ֖ים וְלִשְׁפָחֽוֹת׃
See also the traditional interpretation to Jeremiah 17:4:
וְשָׁמַטְתָּ֗ה וּבְךָ֙ מִנַּחֲלָֽתְךָ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר נָתַ֣תִּי לָ֔ךְ וְהַעֲבַדְתִּ֙יךָ֙ אֶת־אֹ֣יְבֶ֔יךָ בָּאָ֖רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לֹא־יָדָ֑עְתָּ כִּֽי־אֵ֛שׁ קְדַחְתֶּ֥ם בְּאַפִּ֖י עַד־עוֹלָ֥ם תּוּקָֽד׃
ושמטתה ובך – מלת ובך קשה. ראיתי ושמעתי וחדשתי בה פירושים הרבה, ולא נתקררה דעתי באחד מהם. ויש שהגיהו במקום ובך – ידך, תשמוט ידך מנחלתך.
שד"ל: ואחרים אמרו: כי מלת ובך יתרה מכל וכל, ושמטתה מנחלתך – תנתק ותתרחק מארצך, וכטעם: כי שמטו הבקר (שמואל ב ו׳:ו׳).
ואולי יתכן שהה״א היתרה שבסוף ושמטתה היתה מתחלתה חי״ת – ושמטת חובך, והוא מלשון: שמוט כל בעל מַשֶה ידו (דברים ט״ו:ב') וחוב נמצא ביחזקאל (שהיה בזמן ירמיה): חבולתו חוב ישיב (יחזקאל י״ח:ז'). והכוונה (כפירוש רש״י) כטעם: אז תרצה הארץ את שבתותיה, כל ימי השמה תשבות את אשר לא שבתה בשבתותיכם בשבתכם עליה (ויקרא כ״ו:ל״ד-ל״ה). והנה בעל הקרקע הוא כמו בעל חוב הנושה בו, והקרקע חייב לשלם לו תבואה בכל שנה ושנה. והתורה צותה שנשמוט ידינו מאותם שאנו נושים בהם בשנת השמטה, וגם מן האדמה נצטוינו לשמוט ידינו בשנה ההיא. והם לא עשו כן, והנביא מודיעם כי יגלו מעל אדמתם, ואז בעל כרחם ישמטו חובם מנחלתם, ואדמתם לא תוכרח עוד לתת להם כחה. ובהפך, הם עצמם בגלותם אל ארץ אחרת יוכרחו לעבוד את אויביהם אשר לא יתנו להם מנוחה ומרגוע בשום זמן.
ובאדר תר״ך פירשתי בלי תיקון: תשמוט ותשבות מעבודת האדמה, כלומר: מלעבוד בך בנחלתך, תשמוט מעבודת נחלתך, אבל תעבוד את אויביך.
The traditional commentators have noticed the use of the verb root SMT which is used in Leviticus explicitly with regard to the Sabbatical year, and which is used there explicitly to warn that the result of neglecting the fallow year would be exile.
It is important to note that fallow years were important not just ritually, but also in order to allow the soil to replenish its nutrients. The violation of the Sabbatical year that is implied in Jer. 17:4 should be therefore seen un contest of Jer. 34: a desperate attempt by both the wealthy and the poor to chase smaller and smaller crops which could be exchanged for increasingly scarce tribute-worthy silver and gold.
[4] Both the Egyptians and Babylonians insisted, at the time, on gold and silver tribute due to the half-century of warfare between these two empires following the fall of Assyria. See 2 Kings, 23:33-35:
וַיַּאַסְרֵ֩הוּ֩ פַרְעֹ֨ה נְכֹ֤ה בְרִבְלָה֙ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ חֲמָ֔ת [מִמְּלֹ֖ךְ] (במלך) בִּירוּשָׁלָ֑͏ִם וַיִּתֶּן־עֹ֙נֶשׁ֙ עַל־הָאָ֔רֶץ מֵאָ֥ה כִכַּר־כֶּ֖סֶף וְכִכַּ֥ר זָהָֽב׃
וַיַּמְלֵךְ֩ פַּרְעֹ֨ה נְכֹ֜ה אֶת־אֶלְיָקִ֣ים בֶּן־יֹאשִׁיָּ֗הוּ תַּ֚חַת יֹאשִׁיָּ֣הוּ אָבִ֔יו וַיַּסֵּ֥ב אֶת־שְׁמ֖וֹ יְהוֹיָקִ֑ים וְאֶת־יְהוֹאָחָ֣ז לָקַ֔ח וַיָּבֹ֥א מִצְרַ֖יִם וַיָּ֥מׇת שָֽׁם׃
וְהַכֶּ֣סֶף וְהַזָּהָ֗ב נָתַ֤ן יְהֽוֹיָקִים֙ לְפַרְעֹ֔ה אַ֚ךְ הֶעֱרִ֣יךְ אֶת־הָאָ֔רֶץ לָתֵ֥ת אֶת־הַכֶּ֖סֶף עַל־פִּ֣י פַרְעֹ֑ה אִ֣ישׁ כְּעֶרְכּ֗וֹ נָגַ֞שׂ אֶת־הַכֶּ֤סֶף וְאֶת־הַזָּהָב֙ אֶת־עַ֣ם הָאָ֔רֶץ לָתֵ֖ת לְפַרְעֹ֥ה נְכֹֽה׃
And Ibid., 24:13
וַיּוֹצֵ֣א מִשָּׁ֗ם אֶת־כׇּל־אֽוֹצְרוֹת֙ בֵּ֣ית יְהֹוָ֔ה וְאוֹצְר֖וֹת בֵּ֣ית הַמֶּ֑לֶךְ וַיְקַצֵּ֞ץ אֶת־כׇּל־כְּלֵ֣י הַזָּהָ֗ב אֲשֶׁ֨ר עָשָׂ֜ה שְׁלֹמֹ֤ה מֶֽלֶךְ־יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ בְּהֵיכַ֣ל יְהֹוָ֔ה כַּאֲשֶׁ֖ר דִּבֶּ֥ר יְהֹוָֽה׃