Yerushalmi Gittin 5:7 ירושלמי גיטין ה׳:ז׳

MISHNAH: There was no law of siqarii¹⁷²סִיקָרִיקִין or סִקָרִיקוֹן (in the Halakhah and everywhere in the Babli) is usually interpreted to refer both to sicarii (members of organized crime bands armed with a sica, “curved dagger”, and the rules promulgated to deal with these.
A. Gulak [Siqariqon, Tarbiz 5 (1934) pp. 23–27] objects to the derivation of siqariqon from sicarii since it is inconceivable that Rebbi’s court, in the early years of the third Century C.E. had to deal with the aftermath of the first revolt against the Romans, in the first half of the first Century. He proposes to see in the word a compression of σὺν κήρυκι to *συγκηρυκι “by herold” referring to the public sale of properties confiscated by the government which always was done by publicly announced auction. {While the Babli clearly connects the law of siqariqon with the first revolt against the Romans, the Yerushalmi squarely refers it to the revolt of Bar Kokhba. We know of no general confiscation of Jewish land after the first revolt; after the second there was at least the seizure of all Jewish property in and around Jerusalem. Since both Talmudim emphasize the cordial relations of Rebbi with the administration of the Severan dynasty and Rebbi clearly addressed a current problem, it seems rather that the law refers to a problem arising from a breakdown of internal security. Talmudic law certainly authorizes buying of property confiscated for nonpayment of taxes. Gulak’s interpretation is difficult to square with Mishnah Bikkurim 1:2.}
A forced sale is intrinsically invalid since the seller can hope that in the future, when law and order are re-established, he may have a chance to appeal to a court and regain his property. But if a band of known sicarii give a property owner the choice of selling his land for a pittance or be killed together with his family, one may assume that he willingly gives the land to stay alive. In that situation, the land becomes the siqarii’s not only in possession but also in ownership, and may be sold by the current owner to any buyer. It is a matter of judgment of the court as to which situation does apply. in Judea for those killed in the war¹⁷³“The war” refers to the revolt of Bar Kokhba and its aftermath, as shown by the parallel in Ketubot to the first sentences in the Halakhah. S. Lieberman (Tosefta kiFshutah Giṭṭin p. 844) has noted that the reading “R. Joshua” in Mishnah 7 is clearly a scribal error since Rav, a student of Rebbi, states both in the Yerushalmi (Note 205) and the Babli (58b/59a) that he himself was a member of the court relaxing the siqariqon rules. Also, the Halakhah never refers to R. Joshua or any of his contemporaries. Therefore, one has to read in the Mishnah, with all sources other than the Mishnah in the Yerushalmi, “Rebbi assembled a court” in the first quarter of the third Century, to deal with the problem of organized crime in his own day. Together with the rules about kidnappings, this shows that the forces of the Roman Empire (at least starting with the Severan dynasty) were barely able to guarantee the external, but not the internal, security of the Empire.
The Mishnah states that land taken from Jews during the war can be bought by anybody who has the means, without regard to any prior owner. (In this case, sicarii is a code name for Roman soldiers.) The Babli connects the Mishnah to a long string of tales about the first war against the Romans; this should not be taken as indication that the Mishnah refers to that war.. After those killed in the war there was a law of siqarii. How is this? If one bought from a siqarius and afterwards from the original owner, his acquisition is void¹⁷⁴It was decided that the original owner retains claim to title even though he probably sold the land to save his life. Therefore, a potential buyer must first buy the right to title before buying the land.; from the original owner and afterwards from the siqarius, his acquisition is valid. If one bought from a husband and afterwards from the wife, his acquisition is void¹⁷⁵The husband is not the owner of his wife’s (paraphernalia) properties, but their administrator. While the details of the sale must be contracted by the husband, prior consent of the wife is needed; otherwise, the husband is not authorized to deal and anything he agrees to is illegal.; from the wife and afterwards from the husband, his acquisition is valid. This is the earlier Mishnah; a later court said that he who buys from a siqarius¹⁷⁶Without needing prior consent. This is a regulation “for the public good”, to retain as much of the Land as possible in Jewish hands. gives a quarter to the original owner.
When is this? If they have no means to buy, but if they have the means to buy, they precede everybody else¹⁷⁷If the original owner has the cash available, he can pay the full price to the buyer and take back his title to the land.. Rebbi (Joshua) assembled a court who voted that if it was in the siqarius’s hand for twelve months, any who wants to buy shall buy¹⁷⁸After 12 months, the original owner lost his right to regain the land. and give a quarter to the original owner.

HALAKHAH: “There was no law of siqariqon in Judea” etc. ¹⁷⁹This sentence and part of the next is also in Ketubot 1:5 (Notes 196–199). Variants are given by כ. In earlier times they decided on a persecution in Judea because they had a tradition from their forefathers that Jehudah had killed Esaw, as it is written: “Your hand is on your enemies’ neck.” They went and enslaved them, took their fields and sold them to third parties. The original owners could come and repossess¹⁸⁰After the Jewish court system was reestablished under R. Jehudah.; therefore the land was left absolutely in the hand of the siqariqon since they refrained from buying¹⁸¹As long as the court held that a forced sale was invalid.. “They decreed that the law of siqariqon should not apply in Jehudah¹⁸²Nobody had the right to reclaim from third parties land he had given away to save his life.. When was this said? About war killings before the war¹⁸³In the anarchy between the begin of the revolt and the occupation of the Land by Roman forces.. But about anybody killed in and after the war, the notion of siqariqon does not apply¹⁸⁴In Tosephta 3:10: “But about anybody killed in and after the war, the notion of siqariqon applies.” The Yerushalmi text should not be corrected based on Tosephta or Babli. Since one refers to the war of Bar Kokhba and the Hadrianic decrees in its aftermath, it is clear that the situation during and after the war was worse than before the war. One does not speak of a forced sale but of the rights of the heirs of a person who was killed and his land taken by Roman soldiers or civilians. It is clear that there was no sale. Since the greater part of the Jewish population of Judea was either killed in the war or deported as slaves, it made no sense for the organizers of the survivors to take notice of prior ownership. One has to assume that “Judea” means the Judean hills, to exclude the settlements in the plain centered around Lydda..” But are those killed before the war not like those killed after the war? Explain it that a siqariqon came and robbed and suppressed; there was no time left to write the sales contract before murder engulfed the entire world, that practice should not be partial¹⁸⁵Robberies during the anarchy before the Roman invasion cannot be separated from what happened during the war; in both cases no documentation can be recovered..

“The law of siqariqon always applies in Galilee.¹⁸⁶Tosephta 3:10. In Galilee, the Hadrianic decrees were never applied to dispossess Jewish farmers.” The law of siqariqon does not apply to movables¹⁸⁷If one buys movables from an organized crime enterprise, one does not have to give anything to the former owners since these had given up hope to recover (cf. Note 169).. It was stated¹⁸⁸Tosephta 3:10.: “The law of siqariqon does not apply to foreclosures for a debt¹⁸⁹If a Gentile forecloses for a loan, the Jewish buyer does not owe anything to a former Jewish owner. and for tenant fees¹⁹⁰A. Gulak has shown that ἀναφορά (“offering, installment, means of repairing a deficiency”) was the equivalent of Roman vectigal, the fee due by hereditary farmers of government land (cf. Ketubot 10:5, Note 91; Tosefta kiFshutah Giṭṭin p. 846). The Babli, 58a, treats ἀναφορά as robbery. It is not clear whether the term was also used for fees payable by hereditary tenants to landlords other than the government.. [A foreclosure for nonpayment of] tenant fees waits twelve months for the owners¹⁹¹If a hereditary tenant is evicted for non-payment of the vectigal, a Jewish farmer cannot apply to fill his place before 12 months after his eviction, to give the original tenant time to settle with the government. {The text is confirmed by Sefer haʻIṭṭur II, 68b; the explanation follows S. Lieberman in his commentary to Tosephta 3:11.}.” Rebbi Judah ben Pazi said, after twelve months one announces on four consecutive Sabbaths¹⁹²After twelve months, there will be public anouncements that the twelve months’ grace period for the property (either one taken by organized crime or foreclosed for non-payment of the tax) has expired without action by the former owner.. He explained it in two ways. If he¹⁹³The sicarius did not sell the property but installed a tenant farmer to produce a continuous stream of income. took it from a tenant and gave it to a tenant and the first wants to foreclose, he says to him, are you not a tenant? Leave it for me and what you cut, you cut¹⁹⁴Since the sicarii are not interested in selling, the original tenant cannot bid for the property. But during the 12 months accorded to him, he can offer the new tenant (who moved in in violation of the 12 months’ rule) not to sue him in rabbinic court, to enter the property under the terms accorded by the siqariqon, and let the new tenant keep any yield he already had reaped.. If he¹⁹⁵A similar situation in which the sicarii are not interested in selling, exists where the new tenant can arrange with the original owner to stay in place if and when he manages either to buy from the organized crime group or to recoup his title with government help. took it from the owner and gave it to a tenant, the [owner] wants to foreclose, he tells him, what use do you have if you take it from me and he will take it from you, but what I can afford I shall give to you.

So far, if there were two contracts¹⁹⁶This refers to the part of the Mishnah in which husband and wife sell from the wife’s real estate. It is clear that the Mishnah text underlying the Yerushalmi is not the Mishnah of the ms. (which frequently represents a different tradition) but that of the editio princeps of the Mishnah (Napoli) and the Vienna ms. of the Tosephta: “If one bought from a wife and afterwards from her husband, his acquisition is void; from the husband and afterwards from his wife, his acquisition is valid.” S. Lieberman (Tosefta ki-Fshutah Giṭṭin p. 847) considers this reading as “incomprehensible” and, against his declared intention, does base his text on the Vienna ms. in this case. But it seems that the text can be well understood, since all depends on the legal status of the property, whether it is mortmain or paraphernalia (cf. Yebamot 7:1, Note 1). Mortmain is the husband’s property; at the dissolution of the marriage the wife is entitled to receive it or its value back; during the marriage all she has is a mortgage lien on her husband’s properties. Therefore, if she sells mortmain properties, she sells what she does not have; this is invalid. But if the husband sells, she has a right of regress on the property if it should turn out that the estate is insufficient to cover her ketubah claim. A buyer may want to buy insurance against such a possibility by paying the wife for her final assent to the sale. If she receives a consideration for her signature, she cannot claim later that she only signed to please her husband. The Mishnah speaks of paraphernalia property, which is the wife’s and of which the husband only has rights of administration.. If there was one contract¹⁹⁷In that case, the buyer might not pay separately for the wife’s signature.? Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Ila both say, certainly the sale is invalid; i. e., if he bought from the wife and then bought from the husband. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Bevon both said, certainly the sale is valid; i. e., if he bought from the husband and then bought from the wife. But is not all the wife’s property administered by the husband? For the yield¹⁹⁸Of the paraphernalia property..

Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: So it is: If he sold to a first person and she signed, to a second and a third and she signed, she can collect from the last¹⁹⁹She signed on the sales contract after her husband and claims that she did so to please her husband, not as a commercial transaction. The court will uphold this claim. But the earlier buyer can claim that when he bought the real estate, there were left sufficient assets to cover the wife’s ketubah mortgage and his property should be immune to the wife’s claims.. If it is insufficient, she collects from the one before the last. If this is insufficient, she collects from the one before the penultimate. On this, Rav said: For property which she brought him in her ketubah²⁰⁰Dos aestimata, the value of which is written in the ketubah document and which establishes a mortgage on all the husband’s properties.. But property which she brought to him as paraphernalia²⁰¹Dos non aestimata, property she inherited or otherwise acquired during the marriage; any sale by the husband is invalid even if the wife signs the sale document after her husband; cf. Yebamot 7:1, Note 1., she collects from any she wants.

(The deaf-mute communicates by sign language.)²⁰²This heading is misplaced; it belongs after the next Mishnah. Probably it should read “Halakhah 7” and quote Mishnah 7. They say²⁰³Here starts the discussion of Mishnah 7. Who has to bring proof if the heirs of the original owner say that they had the means to buy back the property but the actual buyer disputes their assertion?, we had the means to buy; the buyer says, no. Rebbi Yose says, the field is always in the possession of the current owner²⁰⁴In Sefer ha‘Iṭṭur II, 66d “the buyers”. The commentary (Note 176) lists all other authors who copied from there. since the burden of proof is on the claimant.

Rav said, I was of the voters²⁰⁵This refers to the court convened by Rebbi which decreed that after 12 months the original owners or their heirs lost the right of first refusal but retained the right to an indemnity. The Mishnah does not spell out whether a third of the real estate should be returned or one speaks of a payment.. There is no difference between a quarter in real estate or a quarter in money²⁰⁶The same statement is in the Babli, 58b.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, real estate for a denar a γραμμάριον²⁰⁷Greek γραμμάριον, the equivalent of Latin scrupulus, two obols, a third of a denar’s (or drachma’s) weight. As measures of land, the denar is ¹/₉₆ and the scruple ¹/₂₈₈ of a iugerum of 28’800 Roman square feet. R. Yose ben R. Abun holds that the “quarter” mentioned in the Mishnah is computed from above, a quarter of the total expense which is a third of the price paid to the criminal. The computation from above is that of Samuel in the Babli, 58b., in money a quarter is a tremis²⁰⁸A third of an aureus; a large coin mentioned in Threni rabba 1(14) as טרימיסיא..