The Sages Group in Lod at its Peak during the Yavneh Period (70-132 CE)

Prof. Ben-Zion Rosenfeld, Faculty of Jewish Studies - Bar-Ilan University
ISSN 2788-5151
Open Access Journal

Abstract

English
עברית
العربية

The present study examines the importance of Lod as a central cultural city during the “Yavneh Period”, between 70-132 C.E. During this time Lod reached its peak as important rabbinical center in the Land of Israel, especially during the latter part of the period. Lod’s sages left a significant impression on the Jewish culture, although, Lydda was not a big city territory and its population. The paper will discuss the relationship between  he sages and their disciples and the rest of the population, using, alongside other tools, current archaeological evidence. The paper aims to highlight the sage’s impact on the inhabitants of the city, and the creation of a cultural and spiritual atmosphere – a product of the close interactions the two groups shared during this time.

המחקר מתמקד בתיאור חשיבות לוד כעיר תרבות מרכזית בתקופת יבנה, בין השנים 70-123 לספירה. בעידן זה הגיעה העיר לוד לשיא מעמדה בכל תולדותיה בהיותה מרכז תורה דומיננטי בארץ ישראל. בחלקה האחרון של התקופה אף שימשה כמרכז החשוב ביותר, וחכמיה הותירו רושם ניכר בתרבות היהודית לדורותיה. זאת, למרות שלוד לא הייתה עיר גדולה בשטחה ומספר תושביה היה כמניין תושבי עיירה בינונית-גדולה. המחקר יעסוק בזיקה בין החכמים ותלמידיהם לתושבי העיר האחרים, גם בסיוע
היבטים ארכיאולוגיים עדכניים. המקורות ההיסטוריים מעידים שהשפעת החכמים על תושבי העיר נבעה מהמגע ההדוק והיומיומי עמם, אשר יצר אקלים תרבותי רוחני בקרב רבים מבני העיר בעידן זה.

70 م. في هذا العصر وصلت المدينه إلى – تركز هذه المادة للأستاذ روزنفيلد عن أهمية اللد كمدينة ثقافية أيام يبنا، بين 132 ذروة كمركز للتوراة في البلاد. في الجزء الأخير من الفتره شغلت منصب هام وترك حكماءها انطباعا كبيرا على أجيال من الثقافة اليهودية . وذلك، على الرغم من ان اللد لم تكن مدينة كبيرة. إن الدراسة تتناول العلاقة بين الحكماء مع طلابهم ومع سكان المدينة، بمساعدة المستجدات الأثرية. أهمية النقاش لشرح تأثير الحكماء على سكان المدينة وعلى الاتصال الوثيق معهم والذي خلق مناخ روحاني بالمدينه في تلك الايام.

The article

Introduction and aims

The present study describes the importance of the town of Lod as a significant cultural center during the Yavneh period (70-132 CE). At this time, the town of Lod was in its prime, serving as a dominant center for Torah study in the Land of Israel, and in the latter part of the period, even the most important one. The sages (Rabbis) of this period left a lasting impression on Jewish culture for generations. This study examines the relationships between the Sages and their students, as well as between the rabbinic circles and the broader population of Lod, utilizing up-to-date archaeological evidence. Additionally, the study offers insights into how the sages’ influence on the town’s inhabitants was rooted in close, daily interactions, which fostered a spiritual and cultural environment. Notably, this occurred despite Lod not being a large city in terms of territory or population.

Lod as a provincial capital during the Second Temple period, and after its destruction

Lod is mentioned in the sources from the days of the Persian period. Its administrative affiliation is unclear; perhaps it was connected to the Jaffa district (Schwartz 1989). It is also mentioned in later sources and findings, primarily from the Hasmoneans period (c. 150 BCE) until the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. At that time, Lod was the provincial seat, the toparchy of the plain named the Plain of Lod (שפלת לוד) after the town (Avi-Yonah 1977: 156-159, index, s.v. Lod, Lydda; Schwartz 1991: 58-66; Stern 1981, s.v. “Lydda”; Schwartz 2018, 79-81; Raviv 2019). Lod’s central geographical location was the factor that accelerated its development as an essential locality in this region. Lod was located near the famous Via Maris, starting in the north at Caesarea to Antipatris and from there to Lod. Near Lod, this road met with the main road that came up from Jaffa to Jerusalem; thus, the town stood on a major crossroads (Fisher, Isaac, and Roll 1996: 4-29, 62-71, 199-208; Di Segni, Tsafrir, and Green 2015: 218-219 [peutinger map], and index, s.v. Diospolis, Lydda).
The Great Revolt of 66-70 C.E. affected Lod as well. At the beginning of the revolt, on the Sukkot
(Tabernacles) festival of 66 C.E., the governor of Syria, Cestius Gallus, arrived at Lod at the head of the Twelfth Legion on his way to Jerusalem. He found the town empty because the residents had gone to Jerusalem for the holiday except for fifty people, who apparently could not make the pilgrimage. He then burned the town (Josephus, Jewish War 2: 515-516; Mason 2008, 196 n. 1511, 362). It is not mentioned what happened next to the residents of Lod who went up to Jerusalem. It seems that they returned to their homes in Lod, as Gallus was defeated by the rebels near Jerusalem, and the Roman response to the revolt was delayed until the summer of 67 C.E. At that time, Vespasian, appointed by the Roman Emperor Nero to command the Roman army in the Land of Israel and suppress the rebellion, arrived. He brought several new legions and additional auxiliary forces, first conquering the entire Galilee by late autumn of 67, and then stationed his army in Caesarea for the winter. A few months later, in the late winter and early in 68, the Roman army, advancing through the region of Judea, conquered Yavneh (-Jamnia) and Lod and settled the surrendered population there. Apparently, the Roman army brought this population with them from other places in the same area where the Jews had surrendered (Josephus, Jewish War 4: 444). By the early months of 68 CE, the war had essentially ended for Lod, and most of its residents survived in place, with additional people added to the population from those who had surrendered. From that point on, the war moved away from Lod, as the Roman army continued its conquest of Judea and began the siege of Jerusalem around June-July 68 CE. The siege of Jerusalem lasted until its destruction on the Ninth of Av in the year 70 CE. As early as July 68, the residents of Lod and the rural parts of Judea were forced to return to a semblance of normal life in order to survive. Although the war continued in Jerusalem, a new era began in Judea, including Lod. The Romans’ treatment of the Jewish population was far from favorable, as typical during wars. The residents themselves had to find sources of subsistence in the shadow of the war. There is no detailed information on the initial recovery process of Lod. However, it is known that it soon resumed its role as the provincial capital of the Lod Plain shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem, as is reported by the Roman author Pliny (d. 79; Historia Naturalis 5: 70; Stern 1981: 46) and by Josephus (Jewish War 3: 54-57) who wrote his book between the years 79-81 CE, less than a decade after the war. Hence, despite the residents of Lod’s difficulties on the way to rehabilitation, they could find sources of subsistence, and within a few years, the settlement enjoyed renewed growth (Rosenfeld 1997: 7-17; Schwartz 1991: 67-78; Sartre 2005, esp. 274-343; Rosenfeld 2018).

Lod in the Yavneh period, 70-132 CE

Lod was primarily an agricultural town, located in the middle of the fertile lowlands named after it. The Roman government did not hinder the settlement’s growth, although high taxes were imposed on all the inhabitants of Judea, including those in Lod.1For a history of Jewish society of the Land of Israel during this period see: Schwartz 2006; Sartre 2005, 174ff. This enabled the development of Lod and its countryside, with the surrounding settlements also throvong thanks to the fertility of the plain. Most residents in the area were engaged in agriculture, and a minority involved in trade. In the years following, rehabilitation continued, and Lod’s economic state throughout the period was relatively stable. Lod was larger than most of the medium-sized towns that then existed in the Land of Israel (Yeivin 1987; Rosenfeld 1997: 7, n. 23). It had the regular facilities of an agricultural center, such as a market, bustling trade activity, and small industry, both local and regional (Schwartz 1987; Schwartz 1991: 139-185; Schwartz 1993).
Along with economic recovery, there was also a significant cultural development that dramatically transformed and established the historical memory of Lod in the ancient rabbinic (-Tannaitic) sources.2This research follows the approach that rabbinic sources, though compiled primarily for religious purposes, contain significant historical information. However, this does not imply that they should be accepted at face value. Through critical analysis, it is possible to extract the historical core from rabbinic texts. Another approach contends that it is categorically impossible to derive historical information from rabbinic sources. A third, middle-ground approach suggests that while rabbinic sources may be biased concerning the status and influence of rabbis, they nonetheless offer valuable insights on factual matters, particularly regarding social and economic history. This research adopts the first approach while considering the criticisms of the other positions. Therefore, before drawing historical conclusions from rabbinic sources, the texts are rigorously examined, compared with other literary and epigraphic sources, and only then are historical facts derived. For a survey of literature on this issue and further discussion, see Hezser 1997: 1-44; Rosenfeld and Perlmutter 2020, 7-11; Wainstub 2021.
As a foundation for a critical approach, this study relies exclusively on Tannaitic sources, which were edited between 200-250 CE and describe events that occurred only 100-120 years earlier. It is unlikely that memories would have been completely distorted over such a relatively short period. Therefore, later Talmudic sources, compiled several hundred years after the events in question, were not used in this inquiry.
There is no record of any sage (חכם) active in Lod before the destruction of the Temple. In contrast, shortly after the destruction in 70 C.E., numerous accounts begin to tell of the activity of sages in Lod, up until the outbreak of the Bar Kokhba revolt in 132 CE. No Jewish center compares to the amount of Torah activity that there was in Lod, not even the corresponding important center in Yavneh. Moreover, the information about Lod includes the entire period under discussion, whereas there is little information about Yavneh from the time of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, and most of it from the time of Rabban Gamaliel (85-115), who started his activity in Lod (Rosenfeld, 1990: 151-157, 162-163; Rosenfeld 2018). Other sages taught in several towns and villages, mainly in the Lod lowlands, but information about them in the rabbinic literature is sparse (Rosenfeld 2005; Rosenfeld 2010).
The activities of these sages indicate an attempt to establish an alternative to the great and main center of Jerusalem and the destroyed Temple. While it was impossible to fill the void left by the religious significance of Jerusalem and the Temple, as they were considered irreplaceable sacred places (Rosenfeld 2012; Rosenfeld 2013; Rosenfeld 2015; and, in general, Cohen 1984), the activities of the various sages provided a sense of new growth and offered a new direction for the future, which was still vague at that time.
It seems that a combination of causes made Lod the focus of rabbinic culture in this post destruction period. Lod was a Jewish city prior to the destruction in the status of the regional capital of the fertile Lod lowland (plain), while Yavneh was a pagan city. Lod recovered quickly from the revolt, already in 68 CE and the Romans assisted the recovery by settling Jewish refugees in the city. The town was situated on a junction of roads that led to and from Jerusalem and refugees from the capital could reach this area relatively easily and safely. There were prominent rabbinic figures that were raised in Lod, and its surroundings as will be demonstrated below, and it was convenient for them to be active in their Jewish hometown. The rabbis of Lod understood the urgency caused by the destruction and worked on establishing Lod as a cultural center for Judaism instead of Jerusalem. Indeed, in rabbinic literature Yavneh is seen as the prominent center because of the unique status of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai who was a leading rabbinic figure before and after the destruction. Also, Rabban Gamliel who was the leader of the sages and Jewish population succeeded Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai in Yavneh. However, it seems that though Yavneh was the center of Jewish leadership, Lod was the location of the academia where Torah was studied and instructed to students. Most of the known sages from the Jamnia period (70-132 CE), lived in Lod, while only the two famous ones mentioned above dwelled in Yavneh. After Rabban Gamaliel there is no account of a prominent rabbi who operated in Yavneh which is seldom mentioned. On the other hand, Lod, continued to be a large center of rabbinic activity until and after the Bar Kokhva revolt. (Rosenfeld 2010, 41-114). Lod was the main center of Torah education during that period. Many of the recorded interactions between rabbis and students took place in Lod, as noted in Tannaitic sources. The large number of students in Lod also had a great impact on the connection between the world of the sages and the broader local community, leading to the creation of a Torah academy and its impact on the local population. Lod formed a kind of prototype, for generations to come, representing a town with a Torah center that fostered a distinctive cultural experience around the sages (חכמים) and their disciples (ותלמידיהם).
The first sage known to have been active in Lod was Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, and it is possible that he resided in the town even before the destruction of the Second Temple. Several legends describe his father as a wealthy landowner in Lod prior to the Temple’s fall. Rabbi Eliezer went to Jerusalem to study Torah and soon became a prominent disciple of Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai. However, his activity as a sage is only documented after the destruction, when he settled in Lod (Strack and Stemberger 1991, 77, and index, s.v. Eliezer [b. Hyrcanus]; Gilat 1984, esp. 474-491; Nadich 1994, 25-67; Rosenfeld 2010, 41-42; Schwartz 2018).
Rabbi Eliezer began his work in Lod following the Temple’s destruction and remained active there until around 115 CE. His significance is highlighted in a source that compares him to his teacher: “Justice, justice; shalt thou follow; Seek out a court whose judgments are proper, (like) the court of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai or the court of Rabbi Eliezer” (Sifre, Deutoronomy, §144, ed. Hammer, 184). The exclusive mention of these two sages underscores their importance in the eyes of the subsequent tannaim, serving as a “prototype” for future generations of great halakhic teachers.
R. Eliezer had a beit midrash (Study Hall) where most of the prominent disciples of that generation studied (Levine 2008: 400 – 403, and index, s.v. bet midrash; Mandel 2017: 182 – 214). A Tannaitic source refers to this beit midrash using a rare phrase: matibta rabbah (מתיבתא רבה), or motba rabbah (מותבא רבא), which means “the great Study Hall.”3Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Beshalach, Amalek 1 (ed. Horowitz, 177); Mekhilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, Beshalach 17:8 (ed. Epstein-Melammed, 119-120; or in Nelson ed., 185, twice: ‘Great School’). This special status of this sage’s beit midrash serves as the background for the saying delivered by his disciple on his behalf, reported in Sifrei on Numbers, § 68: “And the daughters of Zelophehad stood before Moses and Eleazar the priest (Numbers 27: 2). If Moses did not know, would Eleazar have known? Abba Ḥanin says in the name of R. Eliezer, they (-Moses and Eleazar) would sit in a beit midrash, and (-the women) came and stood before them”. The phrase beit midrash was applied to the days of Moses to teach that the great sage of the generation sits in his beit midrash and people come to him to debate important issues, and the real background
is a hint to Lydda, which served as an important center thanks to R. Eliezer, the preeminent sage in his generation who was like Moses. This idea was brought up twice more in the same source, Sifrei on Numbers, §113 (p. 123), §133 (p. 177), and this repetition, too, emphasizes the connection of the idea to R. Eliezer.
This great study hall left an imprint on future generations.
According to a later source, “R. Eliezer’s beit midrash was made like a kind of ris4The word ris can mean eyelash (as in Mishnah Bekhorot 6: 2) see: Sokoloff 2017: 600; or a measure of length 2/15 of a mile (c. 130 m.), or that it was shaped like an arena (stadium), See: Jastrow 1950: 1475. , and a stone was there, and it was particular to him for sitting” (Song of Songs Rabbah, 1: 3a). From the description “like a kind of ris,” it seems that the structure was elliptical in form. It is difficult to learn about its size, but the emphasis on the Greco-Roman scale shows that it was not small. The building and upkeep of a structure indicate that R. Eliezer was well-off, as we learn also from other sources, Tannaitic and Talmudc (Rosenfeld 2007: 42-43). The fact of R. Eliezer being the first prominent sage of Lod is of special significance since the activity of a major sage at this early stage of the formation of the world of sages after the destruction of the Temple established Lod as an important Torah center in the perception of sages and society alike.
According to the sources, R. Eliezer had a very special connection with his disciples. For example, in the Mishnah, Eruvin 2: 6 (Cohen et al. eds., vol 1:447), it is stated: “Said R. Ila’i: I have heard from R. Eliezer … And likewise, I heard from him … And likewise, I heard from him … And I went around all of his disciples and sought a fellow for myself but could not find one.” R. Ilai came from Usha, which was in the western lower Galilee, to study with R. Eliezer, and recounts laws that he heard from him. In another matter, he states that he heard from him a particular law, but realized that he was the only one who had heard it. He then sought confirmation from other disciples but found no companion. R. Ilai says: “I went around all of his disciples” which shows that there were many disciples of Rabbi Eliezer. It is said of this sage (-R. Ilai) and his son: “Lo, since Judah is the disciple of Ila’i, and Ila’i is the disciple of Eliezer, therefore he repeats the teachings of R. Eliezer” (Tosefta, Zebaḥim 2: 17, Neusner ed., 5:12).
R. Judah was the son of R. Ilai who studied with Rabbi Eliezer and so the tradition of the great sage passed on to the son of his disciple – R. Judah son of R. Ilai, the preeminent sage in the generation after the Bar Kokhva revolt. On another occasion, R. Eliezer sat with disciples, among them R. Judah ben Beteira, who asked his teacher to explain the meaning of a law, and he made sure to agree to do so only if his purpose was to support the law and not to object to it (Mishnah, Nega’im 9:3).
Something unusual and unfortunate happened to R. Eliezer, and he shared his thoughts with his disciples (Tosefta, Ḥulin 2: 24, after Neusner ed., 5:74/5): “R. Eliezer …Should an elder of your… His disciples came to comfort him, but he did not accept their words of comfort. R. Akiva came and said to him: Rabbi, May I say something to you so that you will not be distressed. He said to him: Go ahead. He said … He said to him, By Heaven! You remind me…”. Disciples who come to comfort him are mentioned, and R. Akiva, who is also a disciple, comes in and asks permission to say something conciliatory. R. Eliezer gives him permission, and R. Akiva says a discourse, and the Rabbi confirms it and adds a kind of oath that he is right. In another case, R. Eliezer rebuked his great disciple: “Said R. Akiva: I reasoned before R. Eliezer… He said to me: What is this, Akiva? This is not a case where one reasons using lesser and greater. And when I came and presented the matter before R. Yehoshua, he said to me: You spoke well, but this is how they have said the halakhah(-low)” (Mishnah, Nazir 7: 4, Cohen et al. ed. 2: 214).
Before R. Eliezer’s death, four elders visited him, among them Rabbi Akiva. Each of them told him an idea, and when R. Akiva spoke: “R. Eliezer then said to his disciples, ‘Help me up’. R. Eliezer then sat up and said to him, Speak, Akiva – then said to him…” (Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Yitro, Ba-ḥodesh, 10; Lauterbach ed. 2: 280). Hence, despite his meticulousness, R. Eliezer appreciated his great disciple. It is worth noting that the disciples of R. Eliezer in the same period before his death were also with him and they cared for him, as is customary with the disciples of the sages (Rosenfeld 1995: 96-97, n. 30).
Rabbi Eliezer prayed with his disciples, and the prayer was led by one of the disciples: “It happened once that a disciple, in the presence of R. Eliezer, went up to read the service, and made his prayers short. The other disciples remarked to R. Eliezer: “You notice how so-and-so made his prayer short? And they used to say about him: ‘This one is a scholar who makes short prayers’. But R. Eliezer said to them: He did not make it shorter than Moses did, as it is said ‘Heal her now, O God, I beseech Thee!” (Numbers 12: 13). Again, it happened once that a disciple in the presence of R. Eliezer went up to read the service and made his prayers long. The other disciples remarked to R. Eliezer: You notice that so-and-so made his prayers long?’ – And they used to say about him: ‘This one is a scholar who makes long prayers’ – But R. Eliezer said to them: He did not make them longer than Moses did, as it is said ‘So I fell down before the Lord the forty days’ etc. (Deut. 9: 25). For R. Eliezer used to say: There is a time to be brief in prayer and a time be lengthy” (Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Va-yassa ‘, 1, Lauterbach ed., 2:91-92).
In a meeting with another disciple, his special location was noted: “Said R. Yossi ben Durmaskit
(-Damascene): I was with the former elders [going thereafter] from Yavneh to Lod, and I came and found R. Eliezer. For he was sitting in the stall of bakers [shop] (חנות של נחתומין, ḥanut shel naḥtomin) in Lod. He said to me: “What new thing was there in the bet ha-midrash?” I said to him: “Rabbi, We are your disciples and drink from your water …
” (Tosefta, Yadayim 2: 16, after Neusner ed., 6:334).5In the parallel in Mishnah, Yadayim 4:3, the bakers’ shop is not mentioned. The meeting took place in Lod, in the town where R. Eliezer resided. The student, R. Yossi ben Durmaskit (of Damascus, Perlmutter 2022) mentions that along with him came the “former elders” from Yavneh, probably from a gathering of sages under Rabban Gamaliel, and perhaps the elders were also disciples of R. Eliezer. R. Yossi met with R. Eliezer in a ḥanut shel naḥtomin, which is a large shop selling bread to the public (Menirav 2009: 39-43, 120-121). This detail suggests that the sage was also engaged in his material needs and may even have owned the shop. Such a gathering place was one where other residents would also come, facilitating interactions between them and the sage and his students.
R. Eliezer touches on many aspects of daily life in the hundreds of laws attributed to him in the Tannaitic literature (Gilat 1984). For example, he discusses with other sages the import of vegetables from abroad and is stringent regarding the impurity of foreign soil clinging to these imports (Mishnah, Ahilot 17: 5).
His prominence in rabbinic literature is also evident because more sayings of his have been preserved than from any other sage of the Yavneh period, except for his student, R. Akiva, who was active in the following generation in Lod (Rosenfeld 1997, 42, n. 148).
Rabbi Eliezer was well-acquainted with the physical reality of Lod, as evidenced by his explanation of a ruling relevant to all settlements: “R. Eliezer says [regarding miqvaot, i.e., ritual bathhouses]: Those near the town and the road are impure because of the washing [of clothes], but those far away are pure” (Mishnah, Miqva’ot 8: 1, Cohen et al. ed. 3:812 with changes). Ritual baths which are essentially pits or cisterns near the town, and close to the roads leading out of the town, were deemed impure. Due to their proximity to the town encouraged residents to use them for their own personal needs, such as laundry, that involved adding drawn water before the pit contained forty se’ahs of rainwater – according to the law (-halakhah), this disqualified them from being pure miqvaot in which one could immerse ritually. Such details could only be known through intimate familiarity with these objects and their usage, thus enabling the formulation of this law. It is also worth noting that the definition of proximity to the town and the road is very typical of Lod, which was a town whose gates opened to major roads such as the Via Maris, or the road ascending to Jerusalem. Rabbi Ilai and his son Rabbi Yehudah mentioned above were from the town Usha in the lower Galilee.
In addition, disciples from the Upper Galilee also came to study with R. Eliezer. “Said one of the disciples of the Upper Galilee: Before R. Eliezer, I have heard … He [R. Eliezer] said to him: Perhaps you heard …” (Tosefta, Qelim, Bava Metzia 2: 1, after Neusner ed., 6:32). The same wording appears in the immediately following halakhah, and it is difficult to know whether this is the same student or another. In any case, there was a group of students from the Upper Galilee, also known collectively, who came to study in Lod with R. Eliezer.
Another prominent sage that was active in Lod most of his life was R. Joshua ben Hananiah. He was a friend of R. Eliezer but debated with him in many topics and was very influential in the world of the sages for most of the Yavneh period. In his old age, he apparently moved to the village of Peqi’in, for unknown reason. Most of R. Eliezer’s pupils were also R. Joshua’s disciples, as implied by the sources, such as R. Akiva and R. Tarphon who were active in Lod in the next generation (Rosenfeld 1990: 157, n. 25; Rosenfeld 1997: 43-44; Bacher 1903, 155-187; Strack and Stemberger 1991, 79-80; Nadich 1994, 69-106). Disciples are mentioned in relation to R. Joshua as well: “Said R. Joshua to his disciples …” (Tosefta, Hagigah 2: 6). There is also an extraordinary tradition about him that presents an orderly list of the chain of sages and their disciples for the entire period of Yavneh, himself included: “R. Jose ben Judah says: R. Joshua laid matters out before Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai; R. Akiva laid matters out before R. Joshua; Hananiah ben Chinai laid matters before R. Akiva ..” (Tosefta, Hagigah 2: 2, after Neusner ed., 2:312). “Laid matters out before” means that he was a primary disciple of the listening sage. The presentation of such a lineage is rare in the Tannaitic literature and encompasses a definite time period: the Yavneh period. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, R. Joshua, R. Akiva, Hananiah ben Chinai, who was active on the eve of the Bar Kokhva revolt and did not survive it. This list shows the great importance of R. Yehoshua as the successor of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, the “head of the dynasty” of sages after the destruction of the Temple.
R. Joshua is portrayed as a teacher who promoted and encouraged his students to express their opinion even when it does not match their teachers’ opinions (Mishnah, Yadayim 4: 4). In one source, his disciple R. Akiva is described as innovating in the laws of impurity in contradiction to the position of his renowned teacher, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai: “R. Joshua said: Who will take away the dust from your eyes, O Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai? for you have said: A future generation would declare the third-degree loaf insusceptible to impurity, for there is no verse in the Torah designating it impure; and has not your disciple Akiva brought a verse from the Torah designating it impure?” (Mishnah, Sotah 5: 2, Cohen et al. eds., 2:237).
R. Joshua praises the halakhic innovation of R. Akiva, his disciple, even though it opposes the opinion of his great teacher Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai. In the continuation of the same source there is a similar encouragement to another student: “R. Joshua said: Who will take away the dust from your eyes, O Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai? – for all your life you expounded that Job served the blessed Holy One only out of fear, … and has not Joshua, your disciple`s disciple, now taught that he acted out of love?” (Mishnah, Sotah 5: 5, ibid, Cohen et al. eds. 2:238/9). In this case the discussion is ideological, and R. Joshua encouraged and praised his disciple R. Joshua ben Hyrcanus who innovated something against the opinion of his own teacher, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, like his statement about R. Akiva.
R. Joshua’s disciples, like those of R. Eliezer, visited him in his house: “R. Yohanan ben Berokah and Rabbi Eleazar Hisma came from Yavneh to Lod, and they greeted R. Joshua in Peqi’in. Said to them R. Joshua, ‘what was new in the schoolhouse [-beit midrash] today? They said to him: ‘We are your disciples, and we drink your water’”.6Tosefta, Sotah 7: 9, Neusner ed. 3:178. This sage is also credited with appealing to students that they should invest and concentrate on Torah study. Tosefta, Ohalot 16: 8 (after Neusner ed., 6:125/6: “R. Joshua says: He who repeats a tradition but does not work [on it] is like a man who sows seed but does not harvest, and he who learns Torah and forgets it, is like a woman who bears and buries [the baby]. R. Akiva says: A song is in me, a song always”. Rabbi Akiva adds that the study of the Torah is like a perpetual song. The disciples came to his house, probably in his old age, when he had already moved to Peqi’in, which was on the way from Yavneh to Lod (Rosenfeld 2010, 63). Their intention was to reach Lod, and most likely – to reach R. Eliezer, like the story of R. Yossi ben Durmaskit mentioned above. Thus, it appears that the Yavneh-Lod route for sages’ visits was usual, due to Lod being a center for sages. Of the two sages mentioned here, at least the first was Galilean, and thus it is clear that he was a disciple of R. Joshua who came from the Galilee to study in Lod, like the Galilean disciples who came to study with R. Eliezer his friend.
Rabban Gamaliel, who was the leader of the sages and the Jewish community in the Land of Israel during that generation, initially operated in Lod and only later moved to Yavneh around 85 CE, after being recognized by the Romans as the leader of the Jews. A sage from that generation recounts: “Said R. Eleazar ben R. Zadoq: One time we were in session before Rabban Gamaliel in the study House (beit midrash) in Lod. And Zunin, who was in charge, came along and said, ‘The time has come to burn the leaven (ametz). So, father [R. Zadoq] and I went along to the house of Rabban Gamaliel, and we burned the leaven” (Tosefta, Pesachim 3: 11, after Neusner ed., 2:126). This is evidence that Rabban Gamaliel lived in Lod for a significant period because one does not invest in a building for a short term stay. Rabban Gamaliel’s motives for moving to Yavneh are not entirely clear. It is possible that it occurred when he became an officially recognized leader by the Roman authorities, so that he would be closee to the local imperial governor, whose private city was Yavneh (Rosenfeld 1990). It is unclear what happened to the aforementioned beit midrash in Lod, but it is not impossibe that Rabban Gamaliel maintained control of his property in Lod, including the beit midrash, and may even have visited it occasionally as part of his visits to Lod, with which he maintained contact. R. Elazar ben Zadoq, was a close associate of Rabban Gamaliel, as was his father, and they lived nearby in Lod (Schwartz 1991, 81, 92-93). When Rabban Gamaliel moved to Yavneh, they probably did so, too (Rosenfeld 1997, 40, 44). Rabban Gamaliel, too, is mentioned several times with groups of students arguing with him, also regarding personal issues (Mishnah, Berakhot 2: 5, 6, 7).
The joint activities of R. Eliezer, R. Joshua, and Rabban Gamaliel in Lod are clearly mentioned in one source, which also links them to the local community in Lod and to its central need – rain. Tosefta, Ta’anit 2: 5 (after Neusner ed., 2:269): “They decreed a fast on Hanukkah [vs. M. Ta. 2:10] in Lod. They told R. Eliezer about it, and he got a haircut. They told R. Joshua about it, and he took a bath. R. Joshua said to them, now go and fast because you have called a fast [on such a day]. So long as Rabban Gamaliel was alive, the law was followed his opinion.”
The Ta’anit Geshem (Rain Fast) in the Land of Israel was the most important of its kind and was often observed due to periods of droughts (Sperber 1978: 11-99). The people of Lod, who were farmers dependent on rain, decreed a fast during the days of Hanukkah, despite the prohibition against declaring fasts during that period. The story implies that Rabban Gamaliel supported the decree, likely due to a severe water shortage. However, R. Eliezer and R. Joshua objected and acted as if there was no fasting, even arguing that that a fast should not be observed because it was decreed during Hanukkah. In any case, it is likely that Rabban Gamaliel’s involvement in this matter occurred while he was living in Lod, as the two sages opposed the decree, leading to a confrontation over this issue. Hence, we can infer that in the first generation after the destruction of the Temple, the central sages of the rabbinic world were active in Lod. It is possible that other sages, such as R. Dosa ben Hyrcanus, also operated in Lod during that generation, but the existing information makes it difficult to definitively prove their connection to the town.

The generation of the eve of the Bar Kokhva revolt, 115-132 CE

The disciples of the previous generation were the most prominent sages of this one, although even during this period, there is no information about all the sages who were active in the town of Lod. The sages whose activities are clearly linked to Lod in the sources were the two most prominent sages of the generation, R. Akiva, and R. Tarphon, who were disciples of the previous generation and were active around 100-130/135 CE. Both were locals already from their youth and studied in the beit midrash of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua (Epstein 1957: 57-70), and actually even with Rabban Gamaliel, probably while he was in Lod and before he left for Yavneh, and continued to study with him for some time also in Yavneh (for example, Mishnah: Ma’aser Sheni 2: 7; Sukkah 3: 9; Keritot 3: 7; Nega’im 7: 7; Tosefta, Berakhot 4: 15; Sifrei, Deuteronomy §1, ed. Finkelstein, 4). R. Akiva was a special disciple of Nahum of Gimzo (Tosefta, Shavuot 1: 7), who was active in the generation following the destruction of the Temple, in Gimzo, which was about 5 km east of Lod, and considered a suburb of Lod. Rabbi Akiva was the more prominent of the two.7Impressions of his intense activity as a unique Torah teacher are found in the following Tannaitic source: Sifre Deuteronomy 48. Hammer ed., 104 and n. 14: “But for those who arose and established the Torah, would it not have been forgotten from among Israel? Had not Shaphan in his time, Ezra in his time, and R. Akiva in his time stood up, would it not have been forgotten? Hence Scripture says, A word in good season, how good is it! (Prov. 15:23) – the word of each one (of them) was as valuable as that of all others”.  It seems that he spent much time with Rabbi Tarphon. Rabbi Tarphon said to Rabbi Akiva appreciatively: Tosefta, Zevahim 1:8, Neusner ed. 5:5: ‘Will you permit me to state before you what you have taught me?’ He said to him, ‘State it.” And Rabbi Tarphon concluded the discussion by saying: “Lo, whoever leaves you is as if he leaves life”. This expression is repeated in a different discussion between the two sages in Tosefta, Miqvaot 19: 1 and in another context in Sifrei, Numbers, §1, Horowitz ed, 70. This expression means that the two sages operated together in the same location, just like Rabbi Tarphon was in Lod, so was Rabbi Akiva. The Mishna Rosh Hashana 1: 6 also shows that he lived in Lod and had authority already in the days of Rabban Gamaliel who died c. 115 CE. However, in a different Tannaitic source it seems that he dwells in the village of Bene Beraq which was a suburb west of Lod. 8Tosefta Shabbat 3:3, Neusner ed. 2:11: “…the bath of Bene Beraq…and R. Akiva and R. Eleazar ben Azariah went in (-the festival).” This indicates that both sages resided in Bnei Beraq for the festival. It is possible that Rabbi Akiva was a resident. But, according to that Rabbi Elazar son of Azaria also lived in Bnei Beraq. This is contradicted by the following source: Tosefta, Kelim Baba Batra 2:2, Neusner ed., 6:64: “Four elders were sitting in the store of R. Eleazar ben Azaria in Sepphoris.” This shows that Rabbi Eleazar son of Azaria, lived in Sepphoris. Therefore, there is a question mark also whether Rabbi Akiva lived in Bene Beraq. There are much later sources from the BT,Sanhedrin 32b that states that Rabbi Akiva lived in Bene Beraq, and in the Midrash, Bereshit Rabbah, 95, Albeck ed., 1232. It says that a famous disciple studied from Rabbi Akiva in Bene Beraq. From a compilation of all the sayings of Rabbi Eleazar son of Azaria, he seems to be part of the rabbinic leadership in Judea, first in Yavneh in the days of Rabban Gamaliel, and then alongside Rabbi Akiva (T. Sabbath 3: 4). See also Rosenfeld, 1997, index, s.v. Rabbi Eleazar Ben Azariah (Bacher 1903: 212-232; Nadich 1994: 107-114). Perhaps he moved for some reason, possibly close to the Bar Kokhva revolt. Nevertheless, he continued to be active in Lod and his study hall was the largest and most important of the sages in this generation. His name is mentioned in all rabbinic conferences that took place in Lod during that period (Rosenfeld 1997: 45-47, 51-57, 67-68; Rosenfeld 2005; Rosenfeld 2010).
Relatively many traditions in the Tannaitic literature (more than for any other sage) attest that R.
Eliezer had many disciples.9Rosenfeld 2005. There is also mention of a disciple who studied under him in Kapadoqia (Turkey). See Tosefta, Yevamot 14: 5, Neusner ed, 3:55, R. Akiva said that he saw shipwrecked: “…and I was saddened for the fate of a disciple of sages who was on board. And when I came to Caesarea-Mazaca in Cappadocia, I saw him in session and asking questions of law before me.” Moreover, in the later Talmudic literature, he is the sage for whom there are remarkable accounts about his students, with particularly large numbers, such as: twenty-four thousand and three hundred students. Therefore, it must be assumed that he had significantly more students than the norm. Some were part of his inner circle of disciples, and others were less close. The sources dealing with his students reflect a close relationship between teacher and student and special attention to their development. 10See for example Mandel 2017: 171 – 181. Unique statements should also be noted in relation to students. This the progress of student development during his studies is described in Sifrei, Deuteronomy, §48, after Hammer ed., 102: “R. Akiva says: Scripture says, ‘Drink waters out of your cistern (Proverbs 5:15), – at the outset a cistern cannot bring forth a drop of water of its own, except only that which is already in it; so also a disciple at the outset contains nothing, but that which he has learned – and running waters out of your well – he is like a well; just as a well distills living water from all sides, so do disciples come and learn from their teacher, as it is said, Let your springs be dispersed out etc. (Proverbs 5:16)’.” It appears that quite a few of the principles of the roles and the relationship between sages and their students were shaped around this central sage, due to his own experience as a disciple of the leading sages of the previous generation. Moreover, his impressive character , as depicted in Tannaitic sources, made a significant impact, and first and foremost, in the eyes of the most prominent sages of his own generation, among them R. Tarphon, his renowned contemporary in Lod, and the prominent sages of the Galilee such as R. Halafta and R. Yohanan ben Nuri (Rosenfeld 2015: 332-336) and others.11In the Tosefta, Ma‘aser Sheni 1: 13 (Neusner ed., 1:296), the two most prominent sages of the Galilee of R. Akiva’s generation, R. Halafta and R. Yohanan ben Nuri, agreed on a halakhic ruling, but R. Halafta said: “I also rule thus, but Akiva has ruled …” and in other places.
An important source regarding the approach to students is attributed to R. Akiva: “When R. Akiva was arranging laws for disciples, he said, ‘Whoever has heard a reason from his fellow, should come and state It.’ In his presence did R. Shimon state in the name of R. Eleazar bar R. Judah of Bartuta …He [R. Akiva] said to him, ‘Not just anyone who jumps forward is to be praised, but only one who gives the reason [for his ruling]’. 6. R. Simeon said before him, ‘Thus did the … R. Akiva reverted to teach in accord with the words of R. Simeon” (Tosefta, Zavim 1: 5-6, after Neusner ed. 6:314). The sage arranged laws for discussion with his students, who were a group rather than individuals, and invited them to offer reasons for the laws, as R. Shimon did. At first R. Akiva did not accept his reasoning, and even admonished him not to hurry to speak if his reason is not sound enough, but the student repeated and explained again, and then the great sage accepted the opinion of his student. This shows that the sage valued his students and encouraged them to express their views, while also knowing how to critique their arguments. However, when they were right, he accepted their opinions. Moreover, the rare attribution in Tannaitic literature of R. Akiva organizing of laws in front of his students indicates that the sage was engaged in formulating traditions of the Oral Law according to some methodical order for his students – showing his intention to make it easier for them to study and learn by heart the traditions that were then transmitted entirely orally from the master to his disciples. The sources emphasis on his thoughtfulness and methodological activity for the sake of his disciples is also a special testimony to R. Akiva’s attitude towards his disciples and the appreciation of their central role in the world of the sages (Haeitan 2022: 100 – 120). It also reflects an educational approach, where the teacher, looking towards the future, prepares his disciples to become the teachers of the next generation. Indeed, the teachers of the next generation, who operated after the great crisis of the Bar Kokhva revolt (132-135/6 CE) and moved to the Galilee were R. Akiva’s students.
It is commonly assumed that the arrangement of the laws had a broader significance, and the source refers to a general arrangement of Oral Law traditions that preceded R. Akiva’s generation. He began organizing them according to a specific order, perhaps thematically by topic, thus becoming the first to establish a systematic framework for content (Gafni 1987, 19-20; Haeitan 2022: 230 – 261). Nevertheless, the emphasis in the source on organizing the laws for his students indicates that even if the intention was broader, he involved his students in this process because he valued and trusted them. It should be noted that the same subject to which Rabbi Shimon referred is addressed again in the subsequent halakhah. Mishnah, Niddah 8: 3 (Cohen et al., eds. 3:856): “It once happened that a woman came to R. Akiva. She said to him … he said to her … she said to him… and R. Akiva declared her pure. He saw his students glancing at each other and said to them: Why is this matter difficult in your eyes? Because the Sages did not rule in this matter to impose a stringency, but rather to institute a leniency.” The disciples were, therefore, often present near their teacher when people came to ask him halakhic questions. After his answer, a discussion might develop because they were not satisfied with it and thought that the answer contradicted what they had learned. The sage would then provide them with a fundamental answer. This This form of brief dialogue is not commonly found in the Tannaitic literature of the Mishnaic period. Moreover, the source offers a prominent sociological aspect of the connection between the sages and the community, as reflected in the woman who comes to ask the sage a halakhic question, a phenomenon mentioned frequently in rabbinic literature.
Indeed, the phenomenon is also found with R. Akiva himself, and it is linked also to a statement
characteristic of his unique social approach: “Said R. Akiva: Even the poorest of Israel- one views them as if they are free people who have lost their property, for they are the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It happened that a man uncovered a woman’s head in the marketplace. She came before R. Akiva, and he found him liable to give her four hundred zuz (-denars). He said to him: Rabbi, give me time, and he gave him time …” (Mishnah, Bava Kama 8: 6, Cohen et al. eds., 2:369). R. Akiva instilled an extraordinary socio-legal and ideological norm, that the poor are considered free men who have lost their possessions due to their being part of the Jewish community whose common roots stem from the patriarchs. This legal definition was significant, because the poor were a large stratum of the Jews of the Land of Israel. They were also numerous in the general society of the Roman world, but the Romans did not treat them so kindly (Rosenfeld and Perlmutter 2011; Rosenfeld and Perlmutter 2020, 25-66). Rabbi Akiva’s statement about the poor is part of a socially egalitarian perspective that demands active mutual support within society.
Rabbi Akiva served as the “Hand of the Poor,” their active representative in the leadership of sages even from the days of Rabban Gamaliel (Mishnah, Ma’aser Sheni 5: 9). Also well-known are his sayings: “’And love your neighbor as yourself’ (Leviticus 19: 18) – R. Akiva says, this is a major rule in the Torah” (Sifra, Qedoshim 4, ed. Weiss, 89b); “[R. Akiva] would say: Beloved is Adam (-man) having been created in the image (-of God) … beloved is Israel, having been called children of the Omnipresent… beloved is Israel, having been given a desirable tool …through which the world was created” (Mishnah, Avot 3: 14, after Cohen et. Al. eds., 2:730-731).
Another source expands the topic: “Four elders were sitting in the gatehouse (בית שער) of R. Joshua: Elazar ben Matiah, Hananiah ben Chinai, Shimon ben Azzai, and Shimon Ha-Timni (from Timna), and they were discussing what R. Akiva had taught them” (Tosefta, Berakhot 4: 18, Neusner ed., 1:24-25 with changes). The disciples studied in a gatehouse (beit sha’ar), a kind of entrance to the courtyard of the house of the sage R. Joshua. They reviewed a subject they had learned from R. Akiva. Hence, it seems that R. Joshua lived in the same vicinity as R. Akiva, since the students came from R. Akiva’s class to R. Joshua’s courtyard, and it is most likely that it was in Lod, as implied by other sources according to which R. Joshua was active in Lod.
Another essential source deals with nurturing the group of students at a wedding celebration. “R. Akiva made a banquet for his son. Over every single jug of wine which he opened, he said, ‘For the life of the masters and for the life of their disciples;’ (Tosefta, Shabt 7: 9, after Neusner ed., 2:22).12Tosefta, Sanhedrin 7: 8, Neusner ed., 4:221: “Younger sages and disciples of sages, when the public requires their services, even step over the heads of the people.” A sage’s son is a public figure, as is a disciple of the sages. The source is anonymous, and it is difficult to know its precise timing within the Tannaitic period. But it joins the fact that the group of the sages, their sons, and their students, are involved in the community, whose heads are called “the heads of the people.” In the halakhah following this one, these groups of sons and disciples of the sages and their affinity to the “people” are mentioned again. The sage opened wine barrels at a wedding feast, as was customary at such an important celebration. As each barrel was opened, he proclaimed a toast to the sages and their students. This testifies to his unique policy of cultivating and empowering his disciples, in addition to his peer group, the sages.
Another source indicates that R. Akiva had students, including an Egyptian convert named Benjamin, who even participated in the discussion. The sage says to the convert student: “Said R. Judah: Benjamin, an Egyptian proselyte, had a companion from among the disciples of R. Akiva … Said to him R. Akiva: Benjamin, you have erred in the law” (Tosefta, Kiddushin, 5: 4, after Neusner ed., 3:259).13“A student” is also mentioned in Sifra, Tazri‘a §1, 1: 2, Weiss ed. 58,2.
R. Akiva’s students meet in various locations. “Said R. Shimon: When I passed the Sabbath in Kefar Beth Page, a certain one of the disciple of R. Akiva came upon me and said to me … but when I came and laid the matters out before my colleagues in Galilee, they said to me … So when I came and laid the matters out before R. Akiva himself, then he said to me…”(Tosefta, Me‘ilah 1:5, Neusner ed., 5:232). The story is from before the Bar Kokhva revolt because Rabbi Shimon brought the problem before R. Akiva, who was killed c. 135 CE. R. Shimon relates that he sat in the village of Bethphage, around Mount Scopus, and met a student of Rabbi Akiva there, and it turns out that he lived there. It seems that R. Akiva had students also from this area, which is mentioned very little in rabbinic literature. It is also emphasized “one of the disciples of R. Akiva,” that is, there was a group of students, and he was one of them. From the continuation, it is implied that R. Shimon came to the Galilee, probably his birthplace, and discussed the student’s words with his friends in the Galilee, before finally returning to his Rabbi and lecturing in his rabbi’s presence, concluding “and I came and spoke before R. Akiva.” “Said R. Shimon. A person brought a stump of olivewood which was planned like a cupboard before R. Akiva, and he said to him, ‘On this I was sitting’. And he declared it unclean for him. He saw his students astonished. He said to them: why are you astonished?” (Tosefta, Kelim, Bava Batra 2: 2, after Neusner ed., 6:64). Another tradition of the student R. Shimon, who recounted what he saw when he studied with R. Akiva, students were present when someone came to ask the sage what the law was. The sage ruled in the case, and his disciples wondered about his ruling, and he tried to explain it to them, as described later in the halakhah. The sage took his students seriously and felt obliged to explain his legal decision to them.
Students came from the Galilee to Lod, and not from Lod to the Galilee, though there were important sages in the Galilee at that time. These students were the prominent sages of the Galilee in the next generation, after the Bar Kokhva revolt. For example, R. Shimon bar Yochai who probably came from the town of Tsaydan (Beit Sayida) on the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee, or R. Judah ben Ilai, who was also a prominent disciple of R. Tarphon, came from Usha, in western Galilee. Shimon ha-Shikmoni, from Shikmona near Haifa, also studied with him (Rosenfeld 2015: 325-333).
Even the bitter end of R. Akiva is linked to his teachings and his disciples: “At the time when R. Shimon and R. Ishmael were led out to be killed … When R. Shimon and R. Ishmael were killed, R. Akiva said to his disciples: Be prepared for trouble. For if something good had been destined to come upon our generation, R. Shimon and R. Ishmael – and none else – would have been the first ones to receive it. Now then, it must, therefore, be that these two men have been taken from our midst only because it is revealed before Him by whose word the world came into being that great suffering is destined to come upon our generation.” (Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Mishpatim, Tractate Neziqin, §18, Lauterbach ed., 3:141-142).
This important source is discussed in research due to its status as a conditional source that indirectly relates to the Bar Kokhba revolt, which is the “trouble” to which Rabbi Akiva refers. It is not clear who R. Shimon and R. Ishmael are, but it is noted that they were executed. Rabbi Akiva interpreted this as a sign of a great calamity approaching “upon our generation.” He shares his concern with his disciples and adds: “Be prepared for trouble,” indicating that he and his students would suffer. The novelty in his words is that not only will well-known sages will be killed like his two predecessors, but also the fate of his disciples may be harsh, which indeed occurred during the Bar Kokhba revolt (Rosenfeld 2005).
R. Tarphon, the second renowned sage in Lod in that generation, also had students, some of whom were prominent, such as R. Judah ben Ilai, the outstanding sage in the generation after the Bar Kokhva revolt.
However, additional students are mentioned in situations of learning: “R. Tarphon was sitting in the shade of a dovecote on a Sabbath afternoon. They [attendants] brought before him a pail of cool water, He said to his students, ‘One who drinks water to quench his thrist-, what benediction does he recite? They said to him: ‘Teach us, our master. He said to them, ‘[Praised be Thou, O Lord,] Creator of creatures and their needs… [Halacha 17:] … He [Tarfon] said to them … Why did Judah merit [that] the kingship? …. They said to him, Teach us, our master, He said to them, ‘Because he sanctified the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, at the sea’. When the tribes came and stood at the sea … The tribe of Judah took the initiative [lit. jumped] and descend first [into the sea]and [thereby] sanctified the name of God at the sea” (Tosefta, Berakhot 4: 16-18, Neusner ed., 1: 24-26). This rare report of an ideological dialogue utilizing an accepted exegesis shows that the sages used to study with their pupils in various places, inside or outside buildings.
In this case Rabbi Tarphon sat with his disciples outside, in a shady place, and they talked and studied. The sage opened with an ideological question as to why Judah was given the kingship. The students offered various options that the sage rejected. They finally asked the sage to offer an answer, and so he did, thus ending the discussion on that subject (Rosenfeld 1993:156, n 30).
Problems like the absence of rain were not uncommon, as noted above. In this generation as well as its predecessor, the local sage in Lod displayed a unique approach: “They decreed a fast in Lod and it rained before midday. R. Tarphon said to them: Go out and eat and drink and celebrate a holiday. They went out and ate and drank and celebrated a holiday and came together at dusk and recited the Great Hallel” (Mishnah, Ta’anit 3: 9, Cohen et al. eds., 1:714). The trouble became a joyous occasion for the people of Lod when the rain fell. The sage expressed this joy, ordered a celebration, and even recited the great Hallel prayer of praise after the meal.
In another source, R. Tarphon is attributed with an extraordinary personal act of economic and religious responsibility: “R. Tarphon betrothed three hundred women to permit them to eat heave-offering, for the years were years of famine” (Tosefta, Ketubot 5: 1, Neusner ed., 3:73-74).
Modern research on climatic cycles of the last generations indicates that the Land of Israel experienced fluctuations in rainfall, including years of drought that sometimes occurred consecutively, leading to famine. It is, therefore, unsurprising that historical sources mention severe drought years. These droughts likely affected the entire region, though the specific references in the sources pertain to Lod.
Several drought years in Lod brought local families to the brink of starvation. R. Tarphon, the sage of Lod, who was a kohen, and very wealthy, took an original approach and consecrated three hundred women, apparently poor ones. According to halakhah, he could feed them with the tithes he received as a priest.
It is possible that the tithes were gathered from his own fields and fields of others creating a significant amount that could sustain these hungry women. Hence, we learn that the problem of drought because of lack of rain sometimes endangered the agricultural inhabitants of Lod, and the sages made use of various means, mainly religious, to assist their community. The two events associated with R. Tarphon also show the special connection between him and the people of Lod, the sage’s great influence and sense of social responsibility.
Another important sage who was active in the days of R. Akiva is R. Jose the Galilean who at the
beginning of his career was also a disciple of R. Tarphon in Lod. He came from the Galilee to Lod and, over time, he became one of the leading sages of that generation. He was active in Lod, although it is possible that he continued to live and work in the Galilee (Rosenfeld 2015). Another exceptional student who frequented Lod is Aquilas the Convert, who translated the Torah into Greek. Apparently, he began his studies with R. Eliezer but studied primarily with R. Akiva, who may have assisted him with his translation (Rosenfeld 2010, 43-44; Rosenfeld 2017: 47-48).
Sages were also active in other regions of Judea. Most prominent among them was R. Ishmael, who lived in Kefar’ Aziz, southeast of Hebron. He was a principal debater with R. Akiva, differing from him in the methodology of exegetical inference from the Torah passages to Halakha. R. Ishmael established a school, and his disciples continued to study according to his methodology. There were also meetings between them, during which they either agreed or disagreed (Bacher 1903: 232-263; Epstein 1957: 521-536; Melammed 1973: 169-180; Kahana 2006: 17-39).
It is also worth noting that students moved between these schools, as the Mishnah says: “In the name of R. Ishmael, a disciple said in front of R. Akiva …” (Mishnah, Eruvin 1:2, Cohen et al. eds. 1:441). Or a similar wording: “Said disciple of the disciples of R. Ishmael before R. Akiva in the name of R. Ishmael …” (Tosefta, Zevaḥim 1: 8, Neusner ed., 6:315). This student was a disciple of R. Ishmael and then came to study with R. Akiva and he brings a different tradition of his previous Rabbi in the same matter. Similarly, a student of R. Tarphon who appeared before R. Akiva is also mentioned: “R. Judah ben Isaiah, the perfumer, testified before R. Akiva, in the name of R. Tarphon” (Tosefta, Shevi’it 5: 12, Neusner ed., 1:228).
The connection between sages, students, and the community in Lod is expressed in various ways. A unique phenomenon to Lod at that time, that is unparalleled in all rabbinic literature, is the concentration of stories about gatherings of sages, elders and students in the attics of private homes in Lod. There, they studied Torah, and even important legal decisions were made and voted on. Gatherings of elders are mentioned, including several elders who gathered in Lod. Thus, “these are the thirty-two elders who voted in Lod and declared it clean” (Tosefta, Mikva’ot 7: 11, Neusner ed., 6:261). The citation is the continuation of a debate in which four sages participated, among them R. Akiva, and R. Tarphon of Lod, as well as R. Jose the Galilean and R. Shimon ben Nanas; the latter usually mentioned in connection with R. Akiva.
Another gathering is mentioned in the context of a halachic issue in a synagogue, where physicians were also involved. It is reasonable to assume that some of the senior students in Lod at that time also participated in this gathering. The previous halakhah (Tosefta, Mikva’ot 7: 10) also mentions a gathering of five elders, possibly in Lod. Another gathering is mentioned without indicating the number of participants: “On this question [-an aspect of circumcision] our teachers in Lod took a vote and decided …” (Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Bo, Pisḥa, §15, Lauterbach ed. 1:120). These gatherings were not random or one-off events; they were part of an accepted decision-making process that the sages conducted through discussions on topics
important to them (Rosenfeld 2005:328-332). Although two large gatherings are mentioned during the time of Rabban Gamliel in Yavneh, with eighty-five and seventy-two elders, there is also mention of a special gathering in Lod during Rabban Gamliel’s time, when he came to conduct the Passover Seder in Lod with “elders” (Tosefta, Pesachim 10: 12, after Neusner ed., 2:166): “Rabban Gamaliel and elders [sages] were reclining in the house of Baythos ben Zunin in Lod.” Rabban Gamaliel was hosted with the elders in the house of a local wealthy man of Lod (Schwartz 1991, 81; Rosenfeld 1997, 40-41). It seems that most of the gatherings mentioned took place after Rabban Gamliel’s time, primarily in the upper rooms of houses (עליית בית); thus, we find mentions of the upper rooms of the house of Aris, the house of Galuda, the house of Neteza, and a legal ruling given at the house of Menachem. There was also a type of pilgrimage of disciples to their teachers that developed as a kind of replacement for the pilgrimage to the Temple, and which became enshrined in halakhah in subsequent generations (Rosenfeld 1997, 49-56).
Disciples of the sages active in Lod often ended up settling in the town, to be close to their masters. The students needed a source for subsistence, and as a result they could not move far away from Lod. If they worked in a distant place, they could not spend much time with their teachers. This phenomenon was part of the cultural landscape in the town, here Torah students would move around and be integrated among the city’s residents. Lod was somewhat like a modern academic city, with several institutions and many students whose lives revolved around their study hall and reside in the city due to their studies. While the sources do not provide details on the professions of the sages, and even less is known about the professions of the students, it is clear that they all worked for a living, though they made efforts to devote most of their time to their studies and to stay among their group. It is possible that some of the wealthier sages, such as R. Eliezer and R. Tarphon, supported at least some of their students by employing them in their properties. As noted, Judah ben Isaiah, “the perfumer” is also mentioned, indicating that his profession was not agricultural but related to the field, as producing perfumes required the handling of suitable plants and their processing into fragrances. These professionals were often wealthy and of high social status (Menirav 2009: 52, 215). Prior to the Bar Kokhva revolt, the possibility of studying without working had not yet been discussed. It was only after the revolt, in 135/6 CE, that the possibility of studying without working came up as a discussion (Beer 1964; Urbach 1979: 601-610; Safrai 1983: 180).
We can also trace some interesting aspects of the diverse study methods of the sages. Sometimes it took place in buildings, even in attics, and sometimes it was “walking on the road,” in the open air and even under a shady tree (Büchler, 1905; Safrai 1983: 182, 185); thus did the student R. Akiva who followed his teachers, Rabban Gamaliel and R. Joshua, when they went to buy an animal for a feast, the son of Rabban Gamaliel, and on the way learned and debated (Mishnah, Nega’im 9: 3). In addition, Rabbi Tarphon, a resident of Lod, “was sitting in the shade of a dovecote on the Sabbath afternoon … he said to his students …” (Tosefta, Berakhot 4: 16, Neusner ed., 1:24); Or the students who argued among themselves in the gatehouse of Rabbi Joshua, when they were reviewing the class taught by Rabbi Akiva.
The sages in Lod were often seen walking the streets and markets, alone or with their students, and sometimes they traveled on the roads between settlements, even to relatively large distances. These aspects became a prominent feature in Lod immediately after the destruction of the Temple, when R. Eliezer began to be active there, and were a prototype for the world of the sages during the Mishnah and Talmudic eras.
This phenomenon was prevalent already in the last generations of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, in the beit midrash of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai. However, Jerusalem was the only study center known from before the destruction (Ben Shalom 1994, 231-251). It seems that Yavneh and Lod, even more so, to some extent, replaced Jerusalem. Lod was continuously a town of Torah throughout the Yavneh period, and Yavneh itself was the city of leadership.

The Sages connections with the community

In addition to the visibility and presence of the sages and their students throughout Lod, the sages and their disciples went to the agricultural areas outside the town for their livelihoods, such as to R. Eliezer’s field in Kfar Tabi, about 7-8 km. east-south of Lod.

 “R. Eliezer owned a vineyard on the border of Kefar Tabi, to the east of Lod, and did not want to redeem [the yield of the vines` fourth year of growth but wanted to keep the produce itself until the time of removal when he would have to destroy it]. His disciples said to him, ‘Rabbi, since [the court] decreed that this [fruit] is redeemed even if grown close to the city wall [of Jerusalem], you must redeem it. R. Eliezer immediately harvested [the grapes] and redeemed them” (Tosefta, Ma’aser Sheni 5: 16, Neusner ed., 1:325-326). Kefar Tabi is east of Lod. It is identified with Khirbet Sheikh Suleiman or Kefar Tov in the southern part of Modi’im, about 2 km south of Nahal’ Anava (Rosenfeld 1997: 207; Zelinger 2018: 38,40). The students intervened also in halakhic issues that dealt with the fields outside Lod, as they were well acquainted with the town and its surroundings.

Another case from the same generation tells of a group of merchants referred to as “the traders of Lod”: “Said R. Eleazar bar Zadoq to the traders of Lod, come and buy the spices for a religious duty for yourselves” (Tosefta, Pesaḥim 10: 10, Neusner ed., 2:166). The sage coordinated with the traders of Lod the sale of a particular product for Passover, indicating that he had close contact with them. The trader was a merchant of professional status and was well versed in his profession and market prices in the town. Traders were also involved in national and international trade (Rosenfeld and Menirav 2005: 124-136). In Tannaitic literature, a traders’ association in the Land of Israel is mentioned only in Lod, and only in this period. Such associations, referred to as collegia, are well-known throughout the Roman Empire.  They were organized groups in various fields of commerce, society, and religious. They also had rights under their organization and were recognized by the Roman authorities (Rosenfeld 1997: 37; Hornblower et al. 2012: 347). In the Roman World there were various kinds of trade organizations. Some had many functions including political influence, others were very limited in their activity (Jinyu 2013; Burford 2007). In this case it is impossible to ascertain what kind of organization it was, especially because rabbinic literature does not mention the collegia per se, only mentioning a specific rule created by a certain interest group (such as T. BM 11: 23). The mention that the sage negotiated with them shows that they had some measure of influence or even power in the market of Lod.

A generation later we find similar struggle between the rabbis and traders of Lod: “Wrongful overcharge is four silver ma’ot, out of twenty-four silver ma’ot to the sela, one-sixth of the sale price. Until when is he permitted to return [the purchased item]? As long as necessary to show it to a merchant or to his relative. R. Tarphon ruled in Lod; overcharge is eight silver coins to the sela, a third of the sale price. And the merchants of Lod rejoiced. He said to them: It is permissible to return it all day. They said to him: Let R. Tarphon leave us as we were before, and they returned to the words of the sages (-that the differential in price is one-sixth of the sale)” (Mishnah, Bava Metzi’a 4: 3, Cohen et. al. ed., 2:402 with changes).

R. Tarphon served as the halakhic authority in town, and they were willing to accept his rulings until he extended the time of regretting a sale. They did not accept this, so his authority was not absolute (Menirav 2009: 60-61, 66). Rabbi Tarphon’s official authority and the ‘traders’ official authority are unknown. However, they must have had a degree of power because Rabbi Tarphon advised, and they were able to reject his suggestion. It can also be seen here that Rabbi Tarphon acts in order to strengthen the honesty of commerce in the city. The rabbis admit that the traders did not listen to the rabbi which shows that this is a true story told by the rabbis even though it does not serve their wish to present themselves as influential and honored.

R. Tarphon is also mentioned in the context of a halakhic ruling, together with the response of R. Akiva encouraging him, concerning the cow of Beit Menachem (Mishnah, Bekhorot 4: 4), probably a wealthy local family in Lod. Contact between R. Akiva and physicians in Lod is also mentioned, apparently referring to professional physicians and experts who advised the sages: “They brought buckets of bones from Kefar Tabi, and they left them in the open air at the synagogue in Lod. Teodoros the physician came in, with all the physicians with him. They said, ‘There is not present a backbone from a single corpse, nor a skull from a single corpse’. They said … let us arise for a vote.” (Tosefta, Ahilot 4: 2, Neusner ed., 6:87-88). There were physicians at that time in Lod, and probably also a senior physician. The source states that “all the doctors” entered together with Teodoros. This indicates that the latter was an expert doctor, and the other doctors were learning from him. A local medical school. Teodoros may also have been the municipal doctor,”iatros demosios, archiatros, (public physician)”, as was customary in cities of the Roman Empire at that time (Israelowich, 2015: 129-134; Nutton 1977; Schwartz 1989: 209-210; Pleket 1995; Aparaschivei, 2012; Nutton 2013: 156-157 and index, s.v. public doctors). The interesting thing is that physicians are invited by sages to examine physiological aspects and following their evaluation, the sages discussed the Halakhah and even voted on it.14Rabban Gamaliel from the previous generation, consulted physicians regarding physical issues. See: (Tosefta, Niddah 4: 3-4).

Another source deals with a wealthy man of Lod, Baythos ben Zunin, who had fields and was engaged in trade in agricultural produce, including exporting of figs (Mishnah, ‘Avodah Zarah 5: 3; Rosenfeld 1997: 26; Schwartz 1991: 81, 92-93). In Lod, there were several synagogues in which the public gathered, in addition to the mentioned synagogue. At the same time, each sage had his beit midrash, which served as the religious gathering places (Rosenfeld 1997: 61-68). R. Akiva had regular contact with the public in this context, too. Here again, the tradition is transmitted by a definite disciple of his: “Said R. Judah, When R. Akiva would pray with the congregation [in public], he would shorten [his prayer] more than all of them. And when he would pray by himself, one could leave him in one corner [of the room] and find him [later] in another corner, on account of his [repeated] bowing and prostration [during his lengthy prayer].” (Tosefta, Berakhot 3: 5, Neusner ed., 1:13). Rabbi Akiva would sometimes pray regularly with the community and, at other times, alone. When he was with the congregation, he shortened his prayer. This shows that the rabbi was involved in public religious worship and adapted in order to serve the congregation.

One distinguished student of Rabbi Akiva recounts walking with his teacher and another sage on a public mission: “Said R. Judah: ‘Once I was walking behind R. Akiva and R. Eleazar ben Azariah … they were preoccupied with communal needs” (Tosefta, Berakhot 1: 2, Neusner ed., 1:2). R. Eleazar ben Azariah was one of the most prominent sages of the generation and one of the leaders of the sages, but his place of residence is unclear, whether in Judea or the Galilee. He is frequently mentioned in connection with R. Akiva, his partner here in public business, operating inside and outside the Land of Israel (See above n. 8).

The interaction between the sages and society in Lod, offering a glimpse into the rural surroundings, is mentioned in a source from the second part of the period. “Alexa died in Lod, and the townsfolk gathered to make a lament for him [on the ‘day of slaughter’]. Said to them R. Tarphon: ‘Go away. People do not make a lamentation on a festival day” (Tosefta, Ḥagigah 2: 13, ed., 2:317). According to the context, the same Alexa was a wealthy local man from Lod who passed away on the day following the festival of Shavuot (-the ‘isru ḥag’, additional day).

People from the surrounding villages came to his funeral, but R. Tarfon instructed them to return home, as that day was still considered a holiday, and eulogizing was prohibited (Lieberman 1962: 5, 1305). The funeral took place in Lod because Alexa was a resident of the town. He was a landowner in the villages surrounding Lod as was common for wealthy individuals across the empire, and his tenants came to eulogize him.

In another context we linked this Alexa, to a tombstone discovered near Lod, of a local rich man named Alexa, dated dated between the late first century and the mid-second century. It is possible they are the same person, a wealthy man associated with the house of Herod (Rosenfeld 1988; Rosenfeld 1997: 27). In any case, this source further illustrates the renowned and unique status of R. Tarphon in Lod and the surrounding villages.

Finally, it is important to add something from the ideological dimension of the teachings of the sages of Lod, who cultivated the need to promote positive mutual relationships within society. “Rabbi Eliezer says: Let your fellow’s honor be as precious to you as your own, and do not be easily angered. And repent one day before you die. And warm yourself in the fire of the sages but be aware of being burned by their coals.! For they bite like foxes, sting like scorpions, hiss like serpents, and all their words are like fiery cinders!” (Mishnah, Avot 2: 10, Cohen et al. eds. 2:723). R. Eliezer demands respect for every person in society, calling them “your fellow,” advocating for restraint from anger, the need to draw close to sages, and recognizing that their words are important and require reverence.

Following the words of Rabbi Eliezer, R. Joshua says (Mishnah, Avot 2: 11, ibid): “R. Joshua says: The evil eye, the evil desire, and hatred of people drive a person from the world”.  His message is similar to that of his colleague and is expressed even more harshly, emphasizing that one must not hate or treat another person negatively. An evil eye, a wicked inclination, and particularly hatred of others cause harm to the one who harbors them and remove them from the world.  This is a poignant social statement, requiring every person, including sages, to create an empathic connection with the individuals in the community.

The statements of these two sages who were active in Lod and were the most prominent among the sages during most of the Yavneh period, indicate an outreach to the community rather than a separation of the sages from society. In this way, the ideological aspect complements all the practical aspects presented so far regarding the close connection between the sages and their students in Lod during the Yavneh period, and between them and the residents of the town.

The geography of Lod

Archaeological information on Lod’s size in terms of area and population produces additional insight into understanding its unique situation. Lod, during the time of the Mishnah, was geographically a medium sized town. Josephus Flavius, who refers in his books to Judea around the year 70 C.E., writes that Lod is “a village that is not smaller than a town” (Jewish Antiquities, 20: 130). Early archaeological excavations estimated that the area of Lod at its Peak, between 300-700 CE, was about 100 dunams (Broshi 1980: 5). This figure should be reduced about a quarter due to public facilities where no one lived. That would bring the number of residents to 3,000. Other opinions increase the estimate to fifty or sixty persons per dunam (Broshi 1980: 5). These estimates were made more than a generation ago. Following new archaeological findings from surveys and excavations, it needs to be updated. Excavations and surveys in various places in the new city of Lod and the industrial area north of Lod, and south of Tel Lod, uncovered remains of the ancient town. These findings invite a reassessment and enlargement of the area once considered to belong to the ancient town of Lod from the Mishnaic and Talmudic periods corresponding to the Roman and early Byzantine periods.   

While the current data makes it difficult to determine how far the settlement extended during the Roman period, especially in the first and second centuries. However, the exposure of Roman layers in some of the excavations makes it possible to estimate, in general terms only, the town’s size during the time of the Mishnah. This estimate is maximalist and fits the size of the city after it became a polis. Prior to that, between 70-132 CE, it was probably smaller. Below, the current data is marked on the map according to current street names. The Roman findings are concentrated around the antique Ottoman town – the old city of Lod. The town’s boundary can be reconstructed from its northeastern corner, near the mosaic area at the edge of Haḥalutz Street, close to Maintenance Corps Square (-Kikar cheil Ha-Tachzuka). It was south of the mosaic house and square and adjacent to a Roman cemetery. It marks the end of the settlement (Yannai 2019). From there, the line continues eastwards but towards the south, along Freeman Street to the corner of General Le’clerc Street. It then turns sharply westward approximately until the intersection of Golomb and Herzog Streets, at the corner of Herzog. The western line continues along Herzog Street, passing Heḥalutz Street from the west, and continues to Global Park. From there, it turns very sharply and continues along the north through Hagai Street15For excavations and surveys in the northern industrial area, which refer to the Early Roman period, see e.g., Yannai and Marder 2000; for Roman tombs: Haddad 2008, Haddad and Amitai-Preiss 2004, esp. 23-25, ancient Roman material, 1st century BCE – 1st century CE; Gofar 1997, Roman-Byzantine finds, and in detail in Zelinger 2009: 105-115. For a summary of findings until 2010 see Edwin, et al. 2015, esp. 142 (map). and on the edge of Neve Yarak to the west, Yasmin Street, until it reconnects to the northeastern end of Haḥalutz Street,16For Heḥalutz Street, see Avissar 1998; Avissar 1999. The estimated area of the city was discussed with the researchers of the Israel Institute of Archeology and in consultation with other archaeologists, and I thank them. See also Edwin, et al. 2015, and esp. 142 (map). close to Maintenance Corps Square (Kikar Cheil Ha-Tachzuka). The area described is approximately 280 dunams. The maximum length from the Global Park area (north-west) to the Freeman-General Le’clerc junction (south-east) is about 800 meters. The maximum width from Maintenance Corps Square (north-east) to the Golomb-Herzog junction (south-south-west) is 700 meters. The overall area is almost square, and therefore, the lengths of the sides are (clockwise): the eastern side from Maintenance Corps Square to the corner of Freeman-General Le’clerc, 350 meters; the southern side, from there to the corner of Golomb and Herzog, 500 meters; along Herzog to the corner of Heḥalutz, and later to Global Park, about 800 meters; and the northern side, from there to Maintenance Corps Square, close to 700 meters.

A more restrictive possibility, though less preferred, is to reduce the northern and northwestern regions. Thus, near Maintenance Corps Square (the end of Heḥalutz Street approximately) is the northeastern corner; the eastern would extend along Freeman to General Le’clerc and sharply turn south through the church to the corner of al-Shawili Street. It would then sharply turn west, more or less to Haḥalutz Street, and perhaps a little beyond it, and then sharply turn north until its eastern edge in the area of the mosaics in Maintenance Corps Square. This would form a rough square with sides about 400 meters each, giving the town an area of   about 160 dunams.

The estimate commonly accepted by archaeologists is 25 people per dunam, although older estimates were based on 40 people per dunam, with some even higher estimates. Additionally, one must deduct areas in town used for facilities and spaces where no residents lived. Most researchers estimate these areas to be about 20% of the total area. Therefore, there are two proposals for calculating the population: the first estimate of 280 dunams, with a reduction of one-fifth leaves about 220 dunams. At 25 people per dunam, there were about 5,500 people residing in Lod during the Roman period. The second, more restrictive estimate, speaks of 160 dunams, and with a reduction of one-fifth, leaves close to 130 dunams, and at 25 people per dunams, there were then 3,250 people in Lod.

There are archaeological signs for the development of the town of Lod between the destruction of the temple, in 70 CE, and the grant of the status of Polis to the city in 199 CE. One finding is the mosaic house, and other findings were found in the vicinity of Neve Yarak. )Haddad 2008; Talgam 2015; Gorzalczany 2015; Gorzalczany and Rosen 2019). The city expanded, with one or perhaps more neighborhoods being added, and non-Jews lived there. Additionally, one or more pagan temples were established, as also implied by the city’s coins minted in Lod in 207/8, 208/9, 217/8 CE.  (Oppenheimer 1988, 118; Rosenfeld 1997: 71, 72, 76-80, 83-84; Farhi 2008; Farhi  2017).  However, even after that, Lod was a medium size town and not one of the major cities in the Land of Israel during the Roman and Byzantine periods.17This is implied by comparing it to other cities in its vicinity or cities with a significant Jewish population: the area of Tiberias was 400 dunams, Sepphori – 600 dunams, Yavneh – 500 dunams, Jaffa – 40 dunams, Caesarea – 950 dunams, Antipatris – 120 dunams, Beit Guvrin – 300 dunams, Ashdod by Sea – 400 dunams, Ashkelon – 520 dunams (Broshi 1980: 5). In any case, the Yavneh period (70-132) preceded the days of the Polis by two generations and therefore, had fewer inhabitants. Nevertheless, Josephus’ above-mentioned statement that Lod was the size of a town in his time makes it possible to assume that already at that time and in subsequent generations, it was in the process of growth, and perhaps its population was not much smaller than the archaeological picture that depicts the city at its largest stage.

Estimate of the area of the city in the Roman period against a modern map (From: Govmap)

These lines represent the maximum area the city could have occupied during the Roman period. I propose that after receiving the status of a Polis, the town’s population grew by 25%, which would mean that during the Roman period, there were approximately 4,100 residents in Lod. Zeliger (2019) made a similar suggestion regarding the city’s population during the Roman period based on maps of J. Uri, the overseer of antiquities during the British mandate. His map expands the city to the south, including areas beyond the Maintenance Corps Square, Shapira St, and Mishmar Nof, before returning north to Hanasi and then to Herzel Street, which is parallel to the Hasmonean Street, according to my suggestion. This estimate aligns with the expansive calculation of ancient Lod’s territory, estimated at 280 dunams or slightly more.
Ashkenazi and others (Ashkenazi, Gadot, Shavit, Shmueli 2016), suggested a different approach to update the size of the city based on recent discoveries. They suggest that Roman Lod covered an even larger area than previously thought. Their assessment includes extensive regions to the north and east of the “old city” that were not discussed before. They identified open areas near the banks of the Ayalon River with remnants from the Roman period. These open areas could be excavated for ancient evidence of settlements, whereas the old city is currently built up and cannot be excavated. They, too, suggest that the Roman city started in the vicinity of the Mosaic House in the beginning of Hehalutz st., but extending north and east up to just beyond Neve Yarak, covering approximately 200 dunams. However, they also argue that remnants of Roman construction likely lie beneath the buildings of the old (Ottoman) city, and they estimate this area to be an additional 200 dunams. If this section is included, the total area of the city would be about 400 dunam, which is the most expansive of the various estimates. In order to estimate the city’s population, it is standard to deduct 20% of the built area for public buildings, commerce and industry, and to assume 25 people per dunam. This would suggest that the city housed approximately 8,000 residents during the first three centuries CE. Regarding the period between 70 – 132 discussed here, before the city’s expansion as a polis, another quarter should be deducted from this total. This results in an estimate of 6,000 residents during the period under discussion. Thus, the approximate estimate of the population of Lod during the time discussed here is between 4,100, as I propose, and about 6,000 people.

Social aspects of the size of Lod

The population estimates provide insight into the social context in which the sages of Lod were active during the Yavneh period. Their activities took place within a community numbering several thousand people. There is no doubt that the sages and their disciples were well known to the inhabitants of Lod, even if each sage had only 5 to 10 students. It is also reasonable to assume that the greatest sages such as Rabbi Eliezer during this time and later Rabbi Akiva, had 20 or more students, some of whom came from various places, as suggested by the aforementioned sources.

 The activities described in these sources took place within an area of 400×400 meters, according to the lower estimate, and within 700×800 meters, according to the higher estimate. Based on the updated assessment of Ashkenazi et al (2016), the area could have been as large as 1000×1150 meters. This suggests that the sages had a significant impact on the population of the town, whether through teaching, walking along the roads with their students, engaging in commerce, or working in and around town.  

The visibility and presence of the sages and their students helped strengthen the mutual connections and integrate them into the general population. It enabled the sages of Lod to cultivate a cultural and value-based atmosphere appropriate to them.18These conclusions reinforce the possibility implied by several sources that there was a small Christian group in Lod between 70-132 CE. Since Lod was not a big town, it is likely that the rabbis were aware about their activities, and friction arose between the rabbis and the Christian leaders (Rosenfeld 1997: 174 – 178; Schwartz 1990: esp. 17-18; Schwartz and Tomson: 2012). Lod was a Jewish town with a unique cultural atmosphere, could be likened to an academic city, where the sages shaped the cultural identity of the world of the sages of the Mishnah and Talmud who followed them.

Lod after the Bar Kokhva revolt until the end of Mishnaic period 135/6-c. 250 CE

To understand Lod’s status in subsequent periods, we will briefly review the connection between Lod and the Bar Kokhva revolt and its impact on Judea. There is ambiguity regarding the participation of Lod’s Jewish residents in the Bar Kokhva revolt. It is generally accepted that Bar Kokhva reached the outskirts of the lowlands during the early stages of the revolt but did not control the coastal plain. Whether he reached Lod itself remains unclear. While it can be presumed that some of the residents may have cooperated with the rebels, it is uncertain whether the fighting reached Lod itself (Rosenfeld 1997: 23-25).  

Material evidence from the Bar Kokhva revolt has been found in Ben Shemen (Eshel and Zelinger 2013), in Shoham and its environs. Hiding caves have been discovered as far north as these locations (Kloner and Zissu 2003; Kloner and Zissu 2006; Kloner 2003; Zissu 2006; Zelinger 2009: 116-120). In other words, the revolt came very close to Lod, with hiding caves only a few kilometers away, but no findings from Lod itself have been uncovered. Until further evidence is found, it is presumed that the revolt neared Lod, but the town itself was not directly involved.

Ultimately, the Romans crushed the revolt and reconquered all the territories controlled by the rebels. Most of Judea was destroyed and depopulated of Jews. However, the peripheral areas of Judea, including the Lod region, were spared from destruction. Lod resumed its role as a provincial capital, but non-Jews began to settle in its territory, and the town never regained its pre-revolt significance. The spiritual center of the sages moved to the Galilee, and while Lod remained the only center in Judea, it was secondary to the Galilee (Rosenfeld 1997: 22-25, 71-76; Rosenfeld 2010: 44-45).

Footnotes

  • 1
    For a history of Jewish society of the Land of Israel during this period see: Schwartz 2006; Sartre 2005, 174ff.
  • 2
    This research follows the approach that rabbinic sources, though compiled primarily for religious purposes, contain significant historical information. However, this does not imply that they should be accepted at face value. Through critical analysis, it is possible to extract the historical core from rabbinic texts. Another approach contends that it is categorically impossible to derive historical information from rabbinic sources. A third, middle-ground approach suggests that while rabbinic sources may be biased concerning the status and influence of rabbis, they nonetheless offer valuable insights on factual matters, particularly regarding social and economic history. This research adopts the first approach while considering the criticisms of the other positions. Therefore, before drawing historical conclusions from rabbinic sources, the texts are rigorously examined, compared with other literary and epigraphic sources, and only then are historical facts derived. For a survey of literature on this issue and further discussion, see Hezser 1997: 1-44; Rosenfeld and Perlmutter 2020, 7-11; Wainstub 2021.
    As a foundation for a critical approach, this study relies exclusively on Tannaitic sources, which were edited between 200-250 CE and describe events that occurred only 100-120 years earlier. It is unlikely that memories would have been completely distorted over such a relatively short period. Therefore, later Talmudic sources, compiled several hundred years after the events in question, were not used in this inquiry.
  • 3
    Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Beshalach, Amalek 1 (ed. Horowitz, 177); Mekhilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, Beshalach 17:8 (ed. Epstein-Melammed, 119-120; or in Nelson ed., 185, twice: ‘Great School’). This special status of this sage’s beit midrash serves as the background for the saying delivered by his disciple on his behalf, reported in Sifrei on Numbers, § 68: “And the daughters of Zelophehad stood before Moses and Eleazar the priest (Numbers 27: 2). If Moses did not know, would Eleazar have known? Abba Ḥanin says in the name of R. Eliezer, they (-Moses and Eleazar) would sit in a beit midrash, and (-the women) came and stood before them”. The phrase beit midrash was applied to the days of Moses to teach that the great sage of the generation sits in his beit midrash and people come to him to debate important issues, and the real background
    is a hint to Lydda, which served as an important center thanks to R. Eliezer, the preeminent sage in his generation who was like Moses. This idea was brought up twice more in the same source, Sifrei on Numbers, §113 (p. 123), §133 (p. 177), and this repetition, too, emphasizes the connection of the idea to R. Eliezer.
  • 4
    The word ris can mean eyelash (as in Mishnah Bekhorot 6: 2) see: Sokoloff 2017: 600; or a measure of length 2/15 of a mile (c. 130 m.), or that it was shaped like an arena (stadium), See: Jastrow 1950: 1475.
  • 5
    In the parallel in Mishnah, Yadayim 4:3, the bakers’ shop is not mentioned.
  • 6
    Tosefta, Sotah 7: 9, Neusner ed. 3:178. This sage is also credited with appealing to students that they should invest and concentrate on Torah study. Tosefta, Ohalot 16: 8 (after Neusner ed., 6:125/6: “R. Joshua says: He who repeats a tradition but does not work [on it] is like a man who sows seed but does not harvest, and he who learns Torah and forgets it, is like a woman who bears and buries [the baby]. R. Akiva says: A song is in me, a song always”. Rabbi Akiva adds that the study of the Torah is like a perpetual song.
  • 7
    Impressions of his intense activity as a unique Torah teacher are found in the following Tannaitic source: Sifre Deuteronomy 48. Hammer ed., 104 and n. 14: “But for those who arose and established the Torah, would it not have been forgotten from among Israel? Had not Shaphan in his time, Ezra in his time, and R. Akiva in his time stood up, would it not have been forgotten? Hence Scripture says, A word in good season, how good is it! (Prov. 15:23) – the word of each one (of them) was as valuable as that of all others”.  
  • 8
    Tosefta Shabbat 3:3, Neusner ed. 2:11: “…the bath of Bene Beraq…and R. Akiva and R. Eleazar ben Azariah went in (-the festival).” This indicates that both sages resided in Bnei Beraq for the festival. It is possible that Rabbi Akiva was a resident. But, according to that Rabbi Elazar son of Azaria also lived in Bnei Beraq. This is contradicted by the following source: Tosefta, Kelim Baba Batra 2:2, Neusner ed., 6:64: “Four elders were sitting in the store of R. Eleazar ben Azaria in Sepphoris.” This shows that Rabbi Eleazar son of Azaria, lived in Sepphoris. Therefore, there is a question mark also whether Rabbi Akiva lived in Bene Beraq. There are much later sources from the BT,Sanhedrin 32b that states that Rabbi Akiva lived in Bene Beraq, and in the Midrash, Bereshit Rabbah, 95, Albeck ed., 1232. It says that a famous disciple studied from Rabbi Akiva in Bene Beraq. From a compilation of all the sayings of Rabbi Eleazar son of Azaria, he seems to be part of the rabbinic leadership in Judea, first in Yavneh in the days of Rabban Gamaliel, and then alongside Rabbi Akiva (T. Sabbath 3: 4). See also Rosenfeld, 1997, index, s.v. Rabbi Eleazar Ben Azariah (Bacher 1903: 212-232; Nadich 1994: 107-114).
  • 9
    Rosenfeld 2005. There is also mention of a disciple who studied under him in Kapadoqia (Turkey). See Tosefta, Yevamot 14: 5, Neusner ed, 3:55, R. Akiva said that he saw shipwrecked: “…and I was saddened for the fate of a disciple of sages who was on board. And when I came to Caesarea-Mazaca in Cappadocia, I saw him in session and asking questions of law before me.”
  • 10
  • 11
    In the Tosefta, Ma‘aser Sheni 1: 13 (Neusner ed., 1:296), the two most prominent sages of the Galilee of R. Akiva’s generation, R. Halafta and R. Yohanan ben Nuri, agreed on a halakhic ruling, but R. Halafta said: “I also rule thus, but Akiva has ruled …” and in other places.
  • 12
    Tosefta, Sanhedrin 7: 8, Neusner ed., 4:221: “Younger sages and disciples of sages, when the public requires their services, even step over the heads of the people.” A sage’s son is a public figure, as is a disciple of the sages. The source is anonymous, and it is difficult to know its precise timing within the Tannaitic period. But it joins the fact that the group of the sages, their sons, and their students, are involved in the community, whose heads are called “the heads of the people.” In the halakhah following this one, these groups of sons and disciples of the sages and their affinity to the “people” are mentioned again.
  • 13
    “A student” is also mentioned in Sifra, Tazri‘a §1, 1: 2, Weiss ed. 58,2.
  • 14
    Rabban Gamaliel from the previous generation, consulted physicians regarding physical issues. See: (Tosefta, Niddah 4: 3-4).
  • 15
    For excavations and surveys in the northern industrial area, which refer to the Early Roman period, see e.g., Yannai and Marder 2000; for Roman tombs: Haddad 2008, Haddad and Amitai-Preiss 2004, esp. 23-25, ancient Roman material, 1st century BCE – 1st century CE; Gofar 1997, Roman-Byzantine finds, and in detail in Zelinger 2009: 105-115. For a summary of findings until 2010 see Edwin, et al. 2015, esp. 142 (map).
  • 16
    For Heḥalutz Street, see Avissar 1998; Avissar 1999. The estimated area of the city was discussed with the researchers of the Israel Institute of Archeology and in consultation with other archaeologists, and I thank them. See also Edwin, et al. 2015, and esp. 142 (map).
  • 17
    This is implied by comparing it to other cities in its vicinity or cities with a significant Jewish population: the area of Tiberias was 400 dunams, Sepphori – 600 dunams, Yavneh – 500 dunams, Jaffa – 40 dunams, Caesarea – 950 dunams, Antipatris – 120 dunams, Beit Guvrin – 300 dunams, Ashdod by Sea – 400 dunams, Ashkelon – 520 dunams (Broshi 1980: 5).
  • 18
    These conclusions reinforce the possibility implied by several sources that there was a small Christian group in Lod between 70-132 CE. Since Lod was not a big town, it is likely that the rabbis were aware about their activities, and friction arose between the rabbis and the Christian leaders (Rosenfeld 1997: 174 – 178; Schwartz 1990: esp. 17-18; Schwartz and Tomson: 2012).

Bibliography

Aparaschivei, D. 2012. Healthcare in the Roman Province of Moesia Inferior. Mankind Quarterly 53 (1): 110-129.

Ashkenazi, H., Gadot, Y., Shavit, A., and Shmueli, O. 2016. GIS Reconstruction of Ancient Lod Settlement Patterns. Lod “Diospolis-City of God”. Vol 2:11-45 [in Hebrew].

Avi-Yonah, M. 1977. The Holy Land, from the Persian to the Arab Conquests (536 B.C. to A.D. 640): A Historical Geography. Jerusalem.

Avissar, M. 1998. Lydd(a). Hadashot Arkheologiyot 108: 89-90. [in Hebrew]

Avissar, M. 1999. Lod—the Mosaic Pavement. Qadmoniot 32, 1 (117): 41-43. [in Hebrew]

Bacher, W. 1903. Die Agada der Tannaiten. Vol. 2. Budapest.

Banon, C. 2017. Fresh Water in Roman Law: Rights and Policy. Journal of Roman Studies 107: 60–89.

Beer, M. 1964. Torah Study and Etiquette. Bar Ilan 2: 134-162. [in Hebrew]

Ben-Shalom, I. 1994. Beth Shammai and the Zealots’ Struggle Against Rome. Jerusalem. [in Hebrew]

Benton, J.T. 2020. Voluntary Associations and Collectivity: A View from the East and the West. In: The Bread Makers: The Social and Professional Lives of Bakers in the Western Roman Empire. Pp. 141-174. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46604-6_5

Broshi, M. 1980. The Population of Western Palestine in the Roman-Byzantine Period. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 236: 1-10.

Büchler, A. 1905. Learning and Teaching in the Open Air in Palestine. Jewish Quarterly Review 4: 485-491.

Burford, C. A. 2007. Professional Associations. New Pauley 11: 937-940.

Cohen, S.J.D. 1984. The Significance of Yavneh: Pharisees, Rabbis, and the End of Jewish Sectarianism. HUCA 55, 27-53.

Di Segni, L., Tsafrir, Y., and Green J. (eds.). 2015. The Onomasticon of Judaea. Palaestina and Arabia in the Greek and Latin Sources, 3 vols. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.

van den Brink, E.C.M., Kolska Horwitz, L., Kool, R., Liphschitz, N., Mienis H.K. and Zbenovich, V. 2015. Excavations at Tel Lod: Remains from the Pottery Neolithic A, Chalcolithic, Early Bronze Age I, Middle Bronze Age I and Byzantine Periods. Atiqot, 82: 141 218‏.

Epstein, J.N. 1957. Introductions to Tannaitic Literature. Jerusalem-Tel Aviv. [in Hebrew]

Eshel, E., and Zelinger, J. 2013. Remains from the Period of the Bar Kokhba Revolt at Ben-Shemen Interchange. In Zissu, B. (ed.). Jerusalem and the Land of Israel 8-9: 267-289. [in Hebrew]

Farhi, Y. 2008. The Coinage of Diospolis (Lod) in the Roman Period. Israel Numismatic Journal 16: 140-165.

Farhi, Y. 2017. The Coinage of Lod (Diospolis) During the Roman Period. Lod “Diospolis-City of God” 3: 73-124. [in Hebrew]

Fisher, M., Isaac, B. and Roll, I. 1996. Roman Roads in Judaea, ii, The Jaffa – Jerusalem Roads (B.A.R. International Series). Oxford.

Gafni, I. M. 1987. The Historical Background. In Safrai, S. (ed.) The Literature of the Jewish People in the Period of the Second Temple and the Talmud, Volume 3 The Literature of the Sages: 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004275133_002

Gilat, Y. D. 1984. R. Eliezer Ben Hyrcanus: A Scholar Outcast. Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press.

Gofar, E. 1997. Lod, Neve Yarak (B). Hadashot Arkheologiyot 107: 75-76. [in Hebrew]

Gorzalczany, A. 2015. The Roman Manor at Lod. In The Lod Mosaic, a Spectacular Roman Mosaic Floor. New York. 38-49.

Gorzalczany, A., and Rosen, B. 2019. The Marine Scene in the Lod mosaics. Journal of Mosaic Research 12: 47-62.

Gvirtzman, H. 2002. Israel Water Resources: Chapters in Hydrology and Environmental Sciences. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi. [in Hebrew].

Haddad, E. and Amitai-Preiss, N. 2004. Remains of a Byzantine-Period Public Building and a Farmhouse from the Early Islamic Period north of Tel Lod. ‘Atiqot 76: 23-39. [in Hebrew]

Haddad, E. 2008. Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel vol. 120, Lod.

Haeitan, Y. S. 2022. The Disciple: his Status, his World, and his Dealings with the Sage in the Mishna Period (70-220), Dissertation (Ph.d), Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University. [in Hebrew]

Hezser, C. 1997. The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine. Tübingen.

Hornblower, S., Spawforth, A. and Eidinow, E. 2012. The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Oxford.

Israelowich, I. 2015. Patients and healers in the High Roman Empire. Baltimore.

Jinyu, L. 2013. Associations, Greek and Roman. In R. S. Bagnall et al. (eds.), The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Chichester, West Sussex. 2: 846-849. 

Kahana, M. I. 2006. The Halakhic Midrashim. In: Safrai, S., Safrai, Z., Schwartz, J., and Tomson, P.J. (eds.). The Literature of The Sages (Second Part). Assen, 3-105.

Kloner, A. 2003. Hiding Complexes in the Northern Judean Shephelah and the Northern Boundary of the Bar Kokhba Administration. In: Bottini, G. C., Di Segni, L., and Chrupcala L. D. (eds.). One Land – Many Cultures: Archaeological Studies in Honor of Stanislao Loffreda O.F.M. Jerusalem, 261-268.

Kloner, A., Zissu, B. 2003. Hiding Complexes in Judaea: an Archaeological and Geographical Update on the Area of the Bar Kokhba Revolt. In: Schäfer, P. (ed.). The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered; New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome. Tübingen, 181-216.

Kloner, A., and Zissu, B. 2006. Hiding Complexes in Judea: an Archaeological and Geographical Update. In Mor, M., Pastor, J., Ronen, Y., and Ashkenazi, Y. (eds.). For Uriel: Studies in the History of Israel in Antiquity Presented to Professor Uriel Rappoport. Jerusalem, 125-147. [in Hebrew]

Levine, L. I. 2008. The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years. Second edition. New Haven.

Lieberman, S. 1962. Tosefta Ki-Fshutah. Part 5. New York. [in Hebrew]

Lieberman, S. 1968. Sifrei Zuta. Newark. [in Hebrew]

Mandel, P. 2017. The Origins of Midrash: From Teaching to Text, Leiden.

Mason, S. 2008. Flavius Josephus. Judean War 2. Volume 1b. Translation and Commentary. Leiden.

Melammed, E.Z. 1973. Introduction to Talmudic Literature. Jerusalem. [in Hebrew]

Menirav, J. 2009. Prakmatia—The Marketing System of the Jewish Community in Palestine during the Talmud and Mishna Era. Ramat Gan. [in Hebrew]

Nadich, J. 1994. The Legends of the Rabbis. Vol. 2. Northvale, New Jersey.

Nutton, V. 1977. Archiatri and the Medical Profession in Antiquity. Papers of the British School at Rome. 45:191-226.

Nutton, V. 2013. Ancient Medicine. Second edition. London and New York.

Oppenheimer, A. 1988. Jewish Lyddain the Roman Era. HUCA 59: 115-136.

Perlmutter, H. 2022. A Jewish Sage from Damascus and a Prophecy Concerning Damascus in the Second Century C.E. ARAM Periodical 34: 361-373.

Pleket, H. W. 1995. The Social Status of physicians in the Graeco-Roman world. In Horstmanshoff, H. F. J., van der Eijk, P. J., and Schrijvers, P. H.  Ancient Medicine in Its Socio-Cultural Context, Volume 1: Papers Read at the Congress Held at Leiden University, 13-15 April 1992 (Vol. 27). Leiden: 27-34.

Raviv, D. 2019. Granting of the Toparchies of Ephraim, Ramathaim and Lod to Hasmonean Judea. Tel Aviv 46.2, 267-285.‏

Rosenfeld, B. 1988. The Boundary of Gezer Inscriptions and the History of Gezer at the End of the Second Temple Period. Israel Exploration Journal 38: 235-245.

Rosenfeld, B. 1993. The Changing Meaning of the Name “Yavneh” in Rabbinical Tradition. In Oppenheimer, A., Gafni, I., and Stern, M. (eds.). Jews and Judaism in the Period of the Second Temple, the Mishnah and the Talmud: Studies in Honor of Shmuel Safrai. Jerusalem, 149-164. [in Hebrew]

Rosenfeld, B. 1995. R. Jose the Galilean and the Leadership of the Sages on the Eve of the Bar Kokhva revolt. Sidra 11: 89-111. [in Hebrew]

Rosenfeld, B. 1997. Lod and its Sages in the Period of the Mishnah and the Talmud. Jerusalem. [in Hebrew]

Rosenfeld, B. 2005. The Sages of the Generation of Bar Kokhva and their Attitude to the Rebellion According to Tannaitic Literature. In Gera, D., and Ben-Zeev, M. (eds.). Ohev Shalom: Studies in honor of Israel Ben-Shalom on his Eightieth Birthday. Beersheba, 319-359. [in Hebrew]

Rosenfeld, B. Z. 2010. Torah Centers and Rabbinic Activity in Palestine 70 – 400 CE. Leiden.

Rosenfeld, B. 2012. The Attitude of the Sages to Jerusalem in the Generation after the Bar Kokhva Revolt. In Shachar, Y., Oppenheimer, A., and Mustigman, R. (eds.). Israel and the Diaspora in the Time of the Second Temple and the Mishnah: Aryeh Kasher Memorial Volume. Tel Aviv, 197-221. [in Hebrew]

Rosenfeld, B. 2013. R. Judah the Prince’s Attitude to Jerusalem and the Temple. New Studies of Jerusalem 18: 253-270. [in Hebrew].

Rosenfeld, B. 2015. Editor of the Tosefta on Jerusalem and the Temple: Future in the Shadow of the Past. New Studies of Jerusalem 20: 238-256. [in Hebrew]

Rosenfeld, B. 2018. The Liminal Time from the Temple’s Destruction until Yavne, 70-85/90 C.E. In Schwartz, J., and Tomson, P. J. (eds.). Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries: The Interbellum 70-132 CE. Leiden: 142-157.

Rosenfeld, B. Z. and Menirav, J. 2005. Markets and Marketing in Roman Palestine. Leiden.

Rosenfeld, B. Z. and Perlmutter, H. 2011. The Poor as a Stratum of Jewish Society in Roman Palestine 70-250 CE: an Analysis. History 60.3: 273-300.

Rosenfeld, B. Z. and Perlmutter, H. 2020. Social Stratification of the Jewish Population of Roman Palestine in the Period of the Mishnah, 70-250 CE. Leiden.

Safrai, S. 1983. The Period of the Late Second Temple Period and the Mishnah. Jerusalem. [in Hebrew]

Sartre, M. 2005. The Middle East Under Rome. Cambridge.‏

Schwartz, J. 1987. The Morphology of Roman Lydda. Jewish History 2.1: 33-66.

Schwartz, J. 1989. The History of Lod During the Persian Period. Cathedra 94: 3-12. [in Hebrew]

Schwartz, J. 1990. Ben Stada and Peter in Lydda. Journal for the Study of Judaism 21.1: 1-18.

Schwartz, J. 1991. Lod (Lydda), Israel: From its Origins Through the Byzantine period, 5600 B.C.E.-640 C.E. Oxford.

Schwartz, J. 1993. Economics and Commerce in Lod in the Generation of Yavneh. In Oppenheimer, A., Gafni, I., and Stern, M. (eds.). Jews and Judaism in the Period of the Second Temple, the Mishnah, and the Talmud: Studies in Honor of Shmuel Safrai. Jerusalem: 198-211. [in Hebrew]

Schwartz, J. 2018. Lod of the Yavne Period: How a City was Cheated out of Its Period. In Schwartz, J., and Tomson, P. J. (eds.). Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries: The Interbellum 70-132 CE. Leiden: 75-89.

Schwartz, S. 2006. Political, Social, and Economic Life in the Land of Israel, 66-c235. In Katz, S. T. (ed.). The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 4: The Late Roman -Rabbinic Period. Cambridge: 23-52.

Schwartz, J., and Tomson, P. J. 2012. When Rabbi Eliezer was Arrested for Heresy. Jewish Studies Internet Journal 10: 1-37.

Sokoloff, M. 2017. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period. Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press.

Sperber, D. 1978. Roman Palestine 200 – 400: The Land. ‏ Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press.

Stern, M. 1981. The Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, vol. 2. Jerusalem.

Strack, H. L., and Stemberger, G. 1991. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Translated by Bockmuehl M. Edinburgh.

Talgam, R. 2015. Afterward: An Early Roman Floor Discovered in 2014. In The Lod Mosaic, a Spectacular Roman Mosaic Floor. New York: 108-109.

Urbach, E.E. 1979. The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs. Jerusalem.

Yannai, E., and Marder. O. 2000. Hadashot Arkheologiyot 112: 80-82. [in Hebrew]

Yannai, E., 2019. Expression of the Jewish Laws of Impurity During the Roman Period in Lod. Lod “Diospolis-City of God” 5: 9-24. [in Hebrew]

Yeivin, Z. 1987. The Medium-Sized owns. Eretz-Yisrael 19: 59-71. [in Hebrew]

Zelinger, Y. 2009. Rural Settlements in the Shephela of Lod (Lydda) during the Second Temple Period. PhD diss, Ramat Gan. [in Hebrew].

Zelinger, Y. 2018. The Rural Settlements in the Lod Plain During the Second Temple Period. Lod “Diospolis -City of God” 4: 23-75. [in Hebrew]

Zissu, B. 2003. A City Whose Roofs are its Walls and Walled City from the Time of Joshua in the Light of Archaeological Findings from Judea. Studies in Judea and Samaria 15: 85-100. [in Hebrew]

Zissu, B. 2006. The Geographical Distribution of Coins from the Bar Kokhba War. Israel Numismatic Journal 14: 157-167.

Wainstub, D. 2021. Rabbi Ya‘aqov the Ḥazzān in the Cave of the Patriarchs (רבי יעקב החזן במערת המכפלה) Eretz Israel 34: 73-79. (Hebrew with English summary).

TESTING DIV