How unclean were tax-collectors?

Abstract

The ideas that tax-collectors were unusually unclean and were regarded as incapable of repentance derive from misreadings of passages in the Mishnah and Talmud. These ideas sometimes form part of a general mistaken thesis that first-century Jewish society was riven by purity-based divisions. In fact, Jewish purity laws did not lead to social demarcation, since impurity was permitted except when entering the Temple, and purification when required was available to all, including tax-collectors. Disapproval of tax-collectors was on moral, not ritual-purity grounds, since they acted corruptly and oppressively. The case of the repentant tax-collector Zachaeus and his offer of reparation can be fully understood through rabbinic parallels.

**********

The Gospels say that Jesus was criticized by the Pharisees and others for associating with tax collectors and sinners and in particular for sharing meals with them. Commentators have often said that this criticism arose from considerations of ritual purity, which was especially important in the sharing of meals. This explanation arises from misunderstanding of the place of ritual purity in Judaism. It also involves importing ritual purity considerations into texts which do not mention them.

A prominent example is the misinterpretation often given of a passage in the Mishnah:

   If taxgatherers entered a house all that is within it becomes unclean; even
   if a gentile was with them, they may be believed if they say `We did not
   enter,' but (if a gentile was with them) they may not be believed if they
   say `We entered but we touched naught.' If thieves entered a house only
   that part is unclean that was trodden by the feet of the thieves [M.
   Tohoroth 7:6].

This has been interpreted to mean that tax collectors suffered from an extraordinary degree of ritual impurity, since they affected everything in the house with impurity merely by entering it. That this cannot be the meaning of the passage is indicated by another Mishnah passage:

   If tax collectors entered a house (so too if thieves restored stolen
   vessels) they may be deemed trustworthy if they say `We have not touched'
   [M. Hagigah 3:6].

The meaning of these two passages is as follows. If (Jewish) tax collectors entered a house, all within it becomes unclean, whereas thieves do not render all the contents of the house unclean. This is not because tax collectors are uniquely unclean, but because tax collectors are assumed to touch everything in the house (in order to assess the value of its contents), while thieves touch only items they are interested in stealing. On the other hand, if the tax collector returns and declares to the house owner that he did not touch anything (i.e., he entered but only looked at the objects he was assessing), he is believed, since as a Jew he is assumed to have some regard for truth and fellowship, especially as he has taken the trouble to return to explain matters. But if the tax collector was accompanied by a Gentile supervisor at the time of his first entry, even if he later returns and declares that he did not touch anything he is not believed, since it is assumed that his fear of his supervisor (who would have regarded mere looking as negligent) would have been stronger than his regard for his fellow-Jew. His present declaration, therefore, is regarded as motivated only by a desire for self-exculpation and ingratiation, and is not believed. A thief, on the other hand, who returns what he stole and declares that he did not touch anything else, is believed without qualification. He has demonstrated his trustworthiness by his repentance, and did not have any special reason to touch other items in the house.

A number of conclusions follow from the above explanation of the two Mishnah passages. First, the idea that the mere entry of the tax collector into a house caused all within it to become unclean may be dismissed. Uncleanness can be transferred by the tax collector to an object only by his touching it: if he entered the house but did not touch anything, everything remains clean. The only question mooted is whether he can be believed when he says he did not touch anything.

In the ritual purity system of Judaism, there are only three instances of an impurity-source causing all contents of an enclosed space to become unclean even without physical contact with actual objects. Two are biblical--the corpse in the tent (Num 19:14-16), and the dead `creeping thing' that falls into the space of an earthenware vessel (Lev. 11:33), and the other probably rabbinic: the `leper' who enters a `habitation' (M. Neg. 13:7). Apart from these, impurity is imparted only by contact or pressure or (in the case of corpse-impurity) by `overshadowing' (i.e. presence directly above or below the source of impurity). Thus for a tax collector to cause impurity to the contents of a house merely by entering it would be contrary to all principles of the system, whether biblical or rabbinic.

Next, it is also contrary to all such principles for a person to be unclean simply because of his profession or status in society. A tax collector is not automatically unclean just because he is a tax-collector. Tax-collectors were in general regarded as `sinners,' because they extorted excessive sums on behalf of the Roman occupying authority, often using methods of torture; their procedure is described fully by Philo. But sinners were not made unclean by their sin. The remedy for sin was repentance, not purification. The sources of impurity are clearly stated in Leviticus (corpse, leprosy, menstruation, gonorrhoea, etc.) and they are the same for every member of Jewish society from the High Priest down to the humblest laborer. If a tax collector wishes to be ritually clean (having contracted one of the above kinds of impurity), he can undergo the prescribed purification and become cleansed of his impurity, whatever it may be, just like anyone else. He remains a sinner, but is now a sinner in a state of ritual purity.

It is the perennial question, "Why was Jesus crucified?" that motivates the misrepresentations of the Jewish laws of ritual purity. It has always been tempting to scholars to give the answer: "He was crucified because he flouted the ritual purity laws." In recent years, this line (deriving from 19th-century scholars Schurer and Ferdinand Weber, and reinforced more recently by Joachim Jeremias and the Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner) has received an impetus from anthropological studies, which have shown various primitive societies (in addition to the more familiar and more sophisticated society of Hinduism) as dominated by concern for ritual purity. One anthropologist, however, Mary Douglas, has resisted this trend, by pointing out that the Jewish ritual purity laws, as found in Leviticus and the rabbinic writings, show a fundamental difference from the purity-dominated societies which she studied in Africa: the Jewish laws never use purity to demarcate societal divisions: "They maintain absolutely no social demarcation ... no one is excluded from the benefits of purification" (Douglas: 119).

The only feature that remotely supports the idea of purity as a form of demarcation is the fact that the priests had to pay more attention to purity than non-priests. This was because the priests, in the course of their duties, had to enter the Temple far more often than non-priests, and also because priests ate the holy food or terumah, for which ritual purity was required. (Most of the priests were poor, and this food, an agricultural tax, constituted their main source of livelihood.) Moreover, priests were forbidden, unlike other Jews, to incur corpse-impurity (except for a close relative) so avoidance of, or purification from, impurity loomed more prominently in their lives. On the other hand, this did not make the priests into an isolated class, since any impurity incurred from contact with ordinary Jews could easily be purified away, and therefore there was no need to practice sedulous avoidance of ordinary folk, who were habitually in a state of impurity except at festival-times (when they visited the Temple). In practice, the main difference was that the priests visited the ritual-purity pool more frequently. Ordinary non-priestly Jews were not forbidden to incur corpse-impurity or any other form of impurity; this fact alone refutes the mass of so-called scholarly material that takes for granted that impurity was regarded as sinful and conferred a stigma. On the other hand, it was open to non-priests to adopt a quasi-priestly life voluntarily, like the biblical Nazirites.

Ignoring the warning of Mary Douglas, some scholars, notably Marcus Borg, have jumped to the conclusion that first-century Jewish purity laws did demarcate divisions in Jewish society, putting certain classes beyond the pale. On this view, it was because Jesus sought to break down these purity-derived divisions that he fell foul of the Jewish authorities and thus met his death. The misunderstanding of the law as it affected tax-collectors, analyzed above, is just one of the many misunderstandings which have distorted the rabbinic evidence to produce a fantasy of a society wracked by purity-based divisions.

Marcus Borg has sought to confirm the picture of the isolation of whole classes of society by quoting certain rabbinic passages which show disapproval of certain trades or professions. For example, the following seven trades are described as "despised," and their practitioners as "outcasts," with the proviso that "the status of `sinner' or `outcast' was not inherited, and thus did not have the rigidity found in some caste systems" (Borg: 98; see also Jeremias: 310-12): "Gamblers with dice, usurers, organisers of games of chance, dealers in produce of the sabbatical year, shepherds, tax-collectors and revenue farmers." (b. Sanh. 25b). These people, however, did not form any "identifiable social group," as Borg suggests. They were individuals whose activities disqualified them from performing certain functions. The first four categories are people excluded from being witnesses or judges (M. Sanh. 3:3), because they were regarded as having withdrawn from the "settlement of the world" (i.e. the duty of contributing to the building of a just society). Nothing is said about such people being outcasts or being affected by ritual impurity. Shepherds, on the other hand, were regarded as robbers, since they allowed their animals to graze on crops. Again, no ritual impurity was involved. This denigration of shepherds was strictly confined to social conditions of the time, when bitter conflict existed between farmers and shepherds. If a blanket condemnation of shepherds were intended, this would have to include the Patriarchs and Moses.

Tax-collectors and revenue-farmers were also regarded as robbers, because they collected more than was due, using violence. Again, no ritual impurity was involved.

Borg quotes (p. 99, n. 42) M. Toh. 7:6, with the usual misunderstanding that tax-collectors were unusually defiling. This error is discussed above.

Borg also quotes a passage citing members of trades suspected of immorality: workers in the transport trades, herdsmen, shopkeepers, physicians, butchers, goldsmiths, fiaxcombers, handmill cleaners, peddlers, weavers, barbers, launderers, bloodletters, bath attendants, and tanners. See b. Kidd. 82a, M. Kidd. 4:14 (cf. j. Kidd 4:11, 66b; and Jeremias: 303-09). In context, Borg appears to be saying that all these categories were relegated to a state of ritual impurity.

The passage quoted is a comment on the unsatisfactoriness of all methods of making a living, compared with the blessedness of freedom from toil and contemplation of the Torah: this is an exaggerated expression of idealism comparable with Jesus' protest against making a living when he said, "Behold the lilies of the field, they toil not neither do they spin." If someone were to conclude from this that Jesus regarded all toilers and spinners as sinners, he would be making the same error as Borg and Jeremias in relation to this passage in the Mishnah. Other passages in the rabbinic writings could be quoted to prove the exact opposite: that self-absolution from toil is sinful, and that all trades and professions, however loathsome, are preferable to idleness or dependence on others. "Better a man should skin animals in the street for a living, rather than say, `I am a great man, this work does not befit me'" (b. BB 110a, b. Pes. 113a).

In any case, the passage quoted is a pericope of aggadic material appended to the end of a tractate and certainly not intended to have any serious halakhic application. It consists of aphorisms uttered by some rather eccentric and extra-normative rabbis. To take only one example, the condemnation of physicians is contradicted by the whole noble Jewish tradition of medicine; some of the greatest Jewish religious figures, including Maimonides and Nachmanides, were physicians. The citation of this passage is a prime instance of taking material out of context to prove a large social thesis. To take the eccentric aphorism of the otherwise unknown Abba Guria, for example, as proof of a social reality, i.e., the alleged ostracism and deprivation of rights of whole classes of essential and respected professionals, tradesmen and artisans, is an example of flawed method.

Borg has some special remarks on tax-collectors. He says that they were unusually defiling and incapable of repentance, but the chief objection to them was their association with Gentiles. Here too he says that Gentiles were defiling, but also mentions that quisling behavior was involved; this last point is the only valid one. He does not mention the violent gangster methods associated with tax-farming, as described by Philo.

It is true that by a rabbinic decree of about 66 CE, a degree of ritual impurity was assigned to Gentiles, previously regarded as free of ritual impurity, a condition that, by the Torah, applied to Jews only (for full discussion, see Maccoby 1999: 3-12). But this did not mean that those who associated with Gentiles for their livelihood were excluded from the usual means of purification, which they were at liberty to use whenever purity was required (usually at festival times when the Temple was freqented). So this consideration (of unusually frequent association with Gentiles) does not make tax-collectors incorrigibly unclean.

As for Borg's remark that tax-collectors were regarded as incapable of repentance, the text which he quotes (b. BK 94b) actually means the opposite of what Borg thinks. It means that robbers, including tax-collectors, can and do repent, and the rabbis (under the persuasion of Rabbi Judah the Prince) made it specially easy for them to repent by advising their victims to adopt the selfless policy of voluntarily refusing attempted restitution--otherwise other robbers might be deterred from repenting.

Other passages (see particularly Tosefta, BM 8:26) say that it is difficult for tax-collectors to repent because it is so difficult for them to make restitution to their victims. (For more extended discussion see Maccoby 1988: 142-44.) They should therefore seek to restore the wrongly-acquired money by contributing to public works, such as the water-system--in this way, some of the benefit would be bound to reach their victims. Note that Jewish conceptions of repentance regard restitution as an essential element: mere emotional remorse is not enough, if one's victims have not been recompensed for the losses they have suffered. On the other hand, it was regarded as a praiseworthy act for the victim to wane the recompense when offered (see above).

The Second Testament story of Zacchaeus, the repentant tax-collector (Luke 19), is much illuminated by reference to the rabbinic treatment of the subject. Objections were made to Jesus' being a guest of Zacchaeus, "a sinner." But the answer to this came when Zacchaeus made public repentance; this would put an end to the objections from the Pharisees. No Pharisee would object to Jesus consorting with a repentant sinner. Borg thinks wrongly that as a tax collector, Zacchaeus would be permanently a sinner, and could never repent, according to rabbinic thinking. Zacchaeus's proposals for restitution are similar to those prescribed for robbers and tax collectors in the rabbinic writings, except that Zacchaeus proposes to give fourfold restitution to known victims and also to give money to charity (presumably when the victims were unknown). Fourfold restitution is not required by the rabbis, and is a supererogatory expression of repentance probably based on Exodus 22:1 and 2 Samuel 12:6. The rabbis thought that most tax-collectors would have robbed so many that they would have only hazy recollection of whom exactly they had robbed (this comprised the chief obstacle to restitution). This is why the rabbis prescribed contribution to public works (in addition to reparation to known victims). Zacchaeus's method of giving to charity seems to have been an alternative way of dealing with the problem.

After Zacchaeus repented and made lavish reparations, what was the next step for him? Would he have to give up being a tax-collector? Given the conditions of the time, when tax-collectors were corrupt as a class, the answer is probably "Yes." Another answer is possible, however: Zacchaeus could remain a tax-collector if he determined to go against the grain and be an honest one, i.e., one who exacted only the legal dues and did not seek to enrich himself by extorting extra sums. This possibility is envisaged in the rabbinic writings (b. BK 113a), and also in the Second Testament (the case of the tax-collectors who approached John the Baptist, Luke 3:13).

The answer to our original question, then, is this: tax-collectors incurred disapproval on moral grounds, and could receive forgiveness by repentance, which had to include reparation, or at least the offer of reparation. In terms of ritual purity, they were exactly the same as all other Jews and had no special impurity as a class.

Works Cited

Borg, Marcus J. 1998. CONFLICT, HOLINESS AND POLITICS IN THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS. 2nd ed. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International.

Douglas, Mary. 1993-1994, Atonement in Leviticus, JEWISH STUDIES QUARTERLY 1/2: 109-30.

Jeremias, Joachim. 1969. JERUSALEM AT THE TIME OF JESUS. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

Maccoby, Hyam. 1999. RITUAL AND MORALITY: THE RITUAL PURITY SYSTEM AND ITS PLACE IN JUDAISM. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

1988. EARLY RABBINIC WRITINGS. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Hyam Maccoby, MA (Oxon.), D. Univ. (Open University) is a Research Professor at the Centre for Jewish Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK (e-mail: [e-mail]). He is the author of RITUAL AND MORALITY: THE RITUAL PURITY SYSTEM AND ITS PLACE IN JUDAISM (Cambridge University Press, 1999), and is currently working on JESUS THE PHARISEE, to be published in 2002 by SCM Press.