The Sasanian Province of Ḥuzistan in the Talmud: Stories of Conflict, Commerce, Marriage, and Mourning
See my previous piece on the story of Bei Lapat in Khuzistan. The sources here are discussed in Paz’s monumental recent Hebrew article, cited in that previous piece of mine.
Khuzistan (Sasanian province) - Wikipedia:
Khuzistan or Huzistan (Middle Persian: 𐭧𐭥𐭰𐭮𐭲𐭭 Hūzistān) was a Sasanian province in Late Antiquity, which almost corresponded to the present-day province of Khuzestan. Its capital was Gundeshapur.1
Compare also Beth Huzaye (East Syriac ecclesiastical province) - Wikipedia:
Beth Huzaye: ܒܝܬ ܗܘܙܝܐ)] or ʿIlam2 was an East Syriac metropolitan province of the Church of the East, between the fifth and fourteenth centuries. The metropolitan bishops of Beth Huzaye sat at Beth Lapat (Jundishapur). The metropolitan province of Beth Huzaye had a number of suffragan dioceses at different periods in its history, including Karka d'Ledan, Hormizd Ardashir, Shushter, Susa, Ispahan, Mihraganqadaq and Ram Hormizd [...]
The names Beth Huzaye and ʿIlam refer to Khuzestan and Elam, respectively.
It is notable that four out of the following seven stories appear in Tractate Ketubot.
Outline
Ulla's Disturbing Experience: A Violent Conflict between two Ḥuzistanis, leading to murder (Nedarim 22a)
R’ Ḥanina's Rebuke: A Warning Against Leaving Eretz Yisrael for Levirate Marriage (Ketubot 111a)
Levi's Lesson: The Importance of Proper Feed Over Breed in Donkey Performance (Shabbat 51b)
Mourning Practices for Distant Relatives: Guidance from Rav Ḥisda and Rava (Moed Katan 20a)
The Case of the Husband's Unreimbursed Travel Expenses and the Dinar Dispute (Ketubot 80a)
Avimi's Debt Repayment Through Ḥama (Ketubot 85a)
Burden of Proof: The Case of Mari bar Isak (Ketubot 27b)
Ulla's Disturbing Experience: A Violent Conflict between two Ḥuzistanis, leading to murder (Nedarim 22a)
The Talmud recounts that Ulla, while traveling to Eretz Yisrael, was accompanied by two residents of Ḥozai. A conflict arose between them, leading one to kill the other.
The murderer then asked Ulla if his actions were proper. Ulla responded affirmatively, instructing him to make the wound larger so the victim would die more quickly.3
עולא, במיסקיה לארעא דישראל, איתלוו ליה תרין בני חוזאי בהדיה.
קם חד שחטיה לחבריה.
אמר ליה לעולא: יאות עבדי?
אמר ליה: אין, ופרע ליה בית השחיטה.
The Gemara relates: Ulla, on his ascent to Eretz Yisrael, had two residents of Ḥozai join him.
Because of a brawl between them, one arose and slaughtered the other.
The assailant said to Ulla: Did I act properly?
He said to him: Yes, and open the place of the slaughter, i.e., cut it more so that he will die faster.
R’ Ḥanina's Rebuke: A Warning Against Leaving Eretz Yisrael for Levirate Marriage (Ketubot 111a)
The Talmud tells of a man from Eretz Yisrael whose childless brother had died, leaving a yevama (a widow on whom one could perform levirate marriage) living far away in Ḥuzistan. The man sought guidance from R' Ḥanina about whether he should go to Babylonia to perform levirate marriage.
R' Ḥanina responded harshly, condemning the deceased brother for marrying a non-Jewish woman,4 and blessing God for the brother's death. He told the man not to leave Eretz Yisrael to perform levirate marriage.
ההוא גברא דנפלה ליה יבמה בי חוזאה,
אתא לקמיה דרבי חנינא,
אמר ליה: מהו למיחת וליבמה?
אמר ליה: אחיו נשא כותית ומת — ברוך המקום שהרגו. והוא ירד אחריו?!
The Gemara relates with regard to a certain man from Eretz Yisrael that a yevama, i.e., a woman whose childless husband died and left a surviving brother, happened before him, the surviving brother, for levirate marriage. This yevama was living in the district of Bei Ḥoza’a, far away in southeast Babylonia.
The man came before R' Ḥanina and said to him: What is the halakha as to whether I may descend to Babylonia to enter into levirate marriage with this woman?
R' Ḥanina said to him: His brother married a Samaritan woman [kutit] and died. R' Ḥanina described the man’s late brother in these terms because he had left Eretz Yisrael to marry, and for the same reason he called his wife a Samaritan. Blessed be the Omnipresent who killed him. And yet the brother wishes to follow in his footsteps and descend after him? Better that he stay in Eretz Yisrael.
Levi's Lesson: The Importance of Proper Feed Over Breed in Donkey Performance (Shabbat 51b)
The Talmud tells a story where Levi sent money to Ḥuzistan to buy a high-quality Libyan donkey.5 Instead of sending the donkey, they returned his money and sent barley, implying that the quality of a donkey's performance depends on the quality of its feed. In other words, feeding a donkey well can make it as good as a Libyan donkey.
לוי שדר זוזי לבי חוזאי, למיזבן ליה חמרא לובא.
צרו שדרו ליה שערי,
למימר: דניגרי דחמרא שערי.
Having mentioned a Libyan donkey, the Gemara relates that Levi once sent money to Bei Ḥozai to procure for himself a Libyan donkey, which is reputed to be of superior quality.
They bound his money, returned it, and sent him barley,
to say that the strides of a donkey depend on the barley that it eats. If one provides his donkey with better feed, its performance will be as good as that of a Libyan donkey.
Mourning Practices for Distant Relatives: Guidance from Rav Ḥisda and Rava (Moed Katan 20a)
Rav Ḥanina and Rav Natan bar Ami both received news of the deaths of their father and mother, respectively, from Ḥuzistan. They each sought guidance from a rabbi—Rav Ḥanina from Rav Ḥisda and Rav Natan from Rava. Both Rav Ḥisda and Rava informed them that mourning for distant tidings is observed for only one day.
רב חנינא אתיא ליה שמועה דאבוה מבי חוזאי,
אתא לקמיה דרב חסדא,
אמר ליה: שמועה רחוקה אינה נוהגת אלא יום אחד.
רב נתן בר אמי אתא ליה שמועה דאימיה מבי חוזאי,
אתא לקמיה דרבא,
אמר ליה: הרי אמרו, שמועה רחוקה אינה נוהגת אלא יום אחד בלבד.
It was related that Rav Ḥanina received distant tidings of his father’s death from Bei Ḥozai.
He came before Rav Ḥisda to ask what he should do.
Rav Ḥisda said to him: In the case of distant tidings, mourning applies for only one day.
It was similarly related that Rav Natan bar Ami received a report about his mother’s death from Bei Ḥozai.
He came before Rava,
and Rava said to him: They said that in the case of distant tidings, mourning applies for only one day.
The Case of the Husband's Unreimbursed Travel Expenses and the Dinar Dispute (Ketubot 80a)
The Talmud tells of a woman who inherited 400 dinarii (זוזי) in Ḥuzistan. Her husband traveled to collect the money, spending 600 dinars of his own funds on travel expenses. Upon returning, he needed one dinar and took it from the collected money.
ההיא איתתא דנפלו לה ארבע מאה זוזי בי חוזאי,
אזל גברא
אפיק שית מאה, אייתי ארבע מאה.
בהדי דקאתי, איצטריך ליה חד זוזא, ושקל מנייהו.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who had four hundred dinars bequeathed to her in Bei Ḥozai, a remote location in Babylonia.
The man, her husband, went
and took with him six hundred of his own dinars for travel expenses and brought back with him four hundred.
While he was coming back he required one dinar, which he took from the money he had collected.
Avimi's Debt Repayment Through Ḥama (Ketubot 85a)
The Talmud recounts an incident where Avimi, the son of Rabbi Abbahu (אבימי בריה דרבי אבהו), owed money to people from Ḥuzistan. He entrusted the repayment to Ḥama, the son of Rabba bar Abbahu, who then fulfilled the obligation by delivering the money on Avimi's behalf.
אבימי בריה דרבי אבהו הוו מסקי ביה זוזי בי חוזאי,
שדרינהו ביד חמא בריה דרבה בר אבהו.
אזל פרעינהו.
The Gemara relates another incident: Avimi, son of Rabbi Abbahu, owed money to people from Bei Ḥozai.
He sent the money in the possession of Ḥama, son of Rabba bar Abbahu,
who went and paid the money that Avimi, son of Rabbi Abbahu, owed
Burden of Proof: The Case of the Violent Mari bar Isak (Ketubot 27b)
The Talmud recounts a case involving Mari (or Ḥana) bar Isak (מרי בר איסק), whose purported brother from Ḥuzistan claimed a share of their father's property. Mari denied knowing him, leading the brother to seek a legal ruling from Rav Ḥisda.
Rav Ḥisda supported Mari's stance, referencing the biblical story of Joseph, who was not recognized by his brothers due to changes in his appearance. Rav Ḥisda instructed the brother to bring witnesses, but the brother claimed they feared Mari's violent6 reputation.
Rav Ḥisda then reversed the burden of proof, requiring Mari to prove the man wasn't his brother, saying: “This is how I render judgment for you and for all your fellow violent men”; meaning, I place the burden of proof upon them.
[...]
מרי בר איסק, ואמרי לה חנא בר איסק, אתא ליה אחא מבי חוזאה.
אמר ליה: פלוג לי בנכסי דאבא!
אמר ליה: לא ידענא לך.
אתא לקמיה דרב חסדא.
אמר ליה: שפיר קאמר לך, דכתיב: ״ויכר יוסף את אחיו והם לא הכירהו״, מלמד שיצא בלא חתימת זקן ובא בחתימת זקן.
אמר ליה: זיל אייתי סהדי דאחוה את.
אמר ליה: אית לי סהדי, ומסתפו מיניה, דגברא אלמא הוא.
אמר ליה לדידיה: זיל אייתינהו את, דלאו אחוך הוא.
אמר ליה: דינא הכי?! המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה!
אמר ליה: הכי דאיננא לך ולכולהו אלמי חברך.
Mari bar Isak, and some say it was Ḥana bar Isak, where someone claiming to be his brother came to him from Bei Ḥoza’a, a district located far from the Jewish population centers in Babylonia.
This brother said to him: Apportion me a share in my father’s property.
Mari said to him: I do not know you.
The brother came before Rav Ḥisda seeking a legal remedy.
Rav Ḥisda said to him: Your brother is speaking well and his response is well founded, as it is written: “And Joseph recognized his brothers but they recognized him not” (Genesis 42:8). This teaches that Joseph left the land of Canaan without the trace of a beard and came to meet his brothers with the trace of a beard.
Rav Ḥisda said to him: Go bring witnesses that you are his brother.
He said to Rav Ḥisda: I have witnesses, but they are afraid of Mari, who is a violent man, and will not testify.
Rav Ḥisda said to Mari: Go bring witnesses that he is not your brother.
Mari said to him: Is that the halakha? Isn’t the guiding principle in cases of this sort: The burden of proof rests upon the claimant? Let the man claiming part of my inheritance bring proof supporting his claim.
Rav Ḥisda said to him: This is how I render judgment for you and for all your fellow violent men; I place the burden of proof upon them.
As mentioned in the previous piece, Gundeshapur is called “Bet Lapat” in Aramaic. Ḥuzistan is considered in the Talmud to be distant from the main Jewish communities in Babylonia.
Nowadays, the distance between talmudic Neharde’a, close to modern-day Fallujah, and Gundeshapur is approximately 620 kilometers (about 385 miles), and it’s about an 8 hour drive
Hebrew עילם.
The Talmud implies later in the passage that he said this to protect himself.
Not “Samaritan”, a change made due to censorship of the Talmud. See Paz, p. 520 f. 5, that the correct reading is כגויה - “like a non-Jewish woman”, meaning, that marrying a Jewish woman in Ḥuzistan is like marrying a non-Jewish woman.