How unclean were tax-collectors?

Biblical Theology Bulletin, Summer, 2001 by Hyam Maccoby

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).