1As evidenced by the abundant tales that feature him, Alexander the Great inspired fascination among Greeks, Romans, Jews, and other peoples for centuries after his death, including the authors of rabbinic literature, who typically referred to him by his Greek name Alexanderos Macedon. The narratives that depict Alexander in Greek and Roman sources, as well as later texts, including rabbinic literature, have been the subject of significant scholarly attention.1 Some scholars posit that rabbinic sources depict Alexander as a hero and philosopher-king who paid homage to the Jewish high priest.2 Although Josephus reports that Alexander visited Jerusalem (Josephus, Ant. 11.321-347),3 tannaitic compositions (rabbinic writings completed by the end of the third century CE) do not mention this event or any other account of Alexander.4 The earliest rabbinic narratives about Alexander take the form of two tales in the Jerusalem Talmud (whose final redaction dates from the fourth century) and a few others in Genesis Rabbah (fifth century). In this study, I re-evaluate these two talmudic tales of Alexander and one of the teachings about him in Genesis Rabbah to suggest that they use Alexander’s figure to criticize Rome. Even though certain rabbinic sources differentiate the Roman Empire from its Hellenistic predecessors, including texts that mention Alexander (see, for example, Leviticus Rabbah 13:5),5 others present them as associated powers, with Rome as the heir of Hellenism.6 Thus, rabbinic texts which portray Alexander may convey anti-Roman sentiments.7 Admittedly, rabbinic perspectives on Alexander evolved, as evidenced in later rabbinic texts that offer more diverse presentations of him, including neutral and positive descriptions.8 Non-Jewish Greek and Latin texts on Alexander display a similar range of perspectives: while some sources contrast Alexander and Roman leaders,9 others associate Alexander with Roman emperors and generals, whether to praise or criticize them.10 Alexander was also associated with third-century emperors on coins, medallions and other visual renderings.11 The fact that Alexander was linked with Roman imperial power may explain why some rabbis incorporated his figure in their criticism of Rome. The reading of these passages from the Yerushalmi and Genesis Rabbah presented here is not intended to counter previous studies that consider these tales a reflection of rabbinic debates with Hellenism;12 rather, it offers an additional dimension, in which Alexander also represents Rome or Roman emperors. To demonstrate this claim, I analyze each story within its literary context, as positioned by its editor(s). These traditions have often been analyzed in isolation from the talmudic sugya or midrashic section where they are located; yet, when considered as components of a larger unit, each of these narratives reveals an editorial decision to insert it within a discourse on Rome, its power and its tendency to favor material assets over human welfare.13

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 3:1, 42c

2The first tale about Alexander is located in a passage from the Jerusalem Talmud that expounds on a statement from Mishnah Avodah Zarah 3:1. This mishnah discusses images that Jews found or received, and whose status was unclear. The permissibility for Jews to derive benefit from these articles – through their own use or by their sale – was dependent on whether they had ever been objects of worship and if they were considered idolatrous (following Exodus 20:4-5; 23:24; 34:12-16; Deuteronomy 7:1-5; 25-26; 12:1-3):

“All images (tzelamim) are prohibited because they are worshiped once a year”. [These are] the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: “It is only prohibited if it has a staff or a bird or a globe”. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: “Any [image] that has something in its hand”.14

3Our talmudic sugya expands on the sages’ view that the prohibition of an image is determined by the presence of certain symbols. Scholars have understood the sages’ opinion in this mishnah in various ways. The three dominant readings assert that the sages: 1) rejected the imperial cult, as signaled by their mention of "a staff or a bird or a globe";15 2) objected to engagement with symbols of Roman power;16 or, 3) identified these articles as signs of deities (not specifically related to the imperial cult or Roman power).17 The Jerusalem Talmud’s discussion of this section of the Mishnah focuses on these items as symbols of imperial power:

A) “But the sages say: It (the image) is only prohibited if it has a staff or a bird or a globe in its hand” [Mishnah, Avodah Zarah 3:1; Tosefta Avodah Zarah 6:1]. "A staff": with which he rules the world. “A bird”: “My hand has found, like a nest, the wealth of the peoples; [and as one gathers eggs that have been forsaken, so I have gathered all the earth; and there was none that moved a wing, or opened its mouth, or chirped”] (Isaiah 10:14, NRSV). “A globe”: for the world is shaped like a globe.
B) Rabbi Yonah said: When Alexander Macedon wanted to ascend, he went up further and further (lit. and went up and went up) until he saw the world as a globe and the sea as a platter (or “a bowl”). For that reason, they paint him with a globe in his hand. Let [the artist] paint him with a platter (or “a bowl”) in his hand! He does not rule the sea. But the Holy [One, blessed be He,] rules over the sea and the land. He saves at sea and He saves on land.
C) Rabbi Ze‘ira son of Rabbi Abbahu expounded before Rabbi Eleazar: “Happy is he who has the God of Jacob for his help, [whose hope is in the Lord his God]” (Psalms 146:5, JPS). What is written after it (in this verse)? “Maker of heaven and earth, [the sea and all that is in them]” (Psalms 146:5, JPS). How is that issue [related] to this [issue]? [When] a king of flesh and blood has a patron: in this province (from the Greek eparchia), he is not the ruler, [but] perhaps [he is the ruler] over another? And if you say that the ruler of the world (from the Greek kosmokratōr) is the ruler of the land, perhaps [he also rules] the sea. But the Holy [One, blessed be He,] is not like that. He is a ruler of the sea and a ruler of the land. And not only that, but [if] a sword were on a person’s neck, the Holy One, blessed be He, would save him. That is what Moses says: “And He delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh” (Exodus 18:4, JPS). [Though] nothing but “from the sword” is written here, even were a sword placed at his neck, the Holy One, blessed be He, would save him from it.
D) They added to these (the staff, the bird, and the globe) the sword and the crown and the ring: the sword with which he kills; the crown with which he is crowned; and, the ring with which he seals. A ring that has idolatrous [features] – it is prohibited to seal with it. Rabbi Yehudah says: “If a seal was engraved, it is prohibited to seal with it; [if it was] cut in relief (lit. bulged out), it is permitted to seal with it”. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says: “Those from [my] father’s house would seal [using stamps engraved with human] faces”. Rabbi Eleazar son of Rabbi Shimon says: “All [kinds of] faces were [found] in Jerusalem (on seals or as decorations), except for human [images]”.18

4In order to better understand the teaching on Alexander (Section B) and how the Talmud uses it, let us first consider the entire sugya. Sections A+D are in Hebrew and at least part of these portions represents tannaitic material.19 These sections could be read sequentially without Sections B+C, amoraic materials written in Aramaic and Hebrew, which are attributed to fourth-century sages.

5Section A elaborates on Mishnah Avodah Zarah 3:1 by clarifying that it focuses on symbols of Roman power, since the Talmud relates the objects being held by these statues to dominion over the world. First, though a staff could evoke a scepter, as a generic symbol of authority, it is also associated with Hermes – and his Roman counterpart, Mercury – who carried the caduceus (a staff with two snakes intertwined around it and topped by a pair of wings). This reference may also signal the Staff of Asclepius, which is entwined by one serpent and lacks wings. Nonetheless, the Talmud explicitly states: "'A staff': with which he rules the world". Second, although birds were associated with various gods and goddesses, the Talmud clearly links this symbol to power over the world by quoting a biblical verse that speaks of the king of Assyria, who will draw God’s wrath:

For he says: “By the strength of my hand I have done it, and by my wisdom, for I have understanding; I have removed the boundaries of peoples, and have plundered their treasures; like a bull I have brought down those who sat on thrones. My hand has found, like a nest, the wealth of the peoples; and as one gathers eggs that have been forsaken, so I have gathered all the earth; and there was none that moved a wing, or opened its mouth, or chirped” (Isaiah 10:13-14, NRSV).

6By citing this biblical setting to explain the bird mentioned in the Mishnah, the Talmud suggests that the bird being held by a king – the Roman emperor in the context of the Jerusalem Talmud – represents his might as well as his arrogance. Through its use of this biblical verse, the Talmud may also be suggesting that the Roman emperor will inevitably be subject to divine punishment, like the Assyrian king before him. Although it is difficult to identify a statue of an emperor with a bird in his hand, some coins depict emperors holding an eagle-tipped scepter.20 This image appears on other artifacts as well: as on a silver cup (skyphos) from Boscoreale which depicts a triumph of Tiberius, where he grips a scepter topped by an eagle.21 Following this winged motif, albeit without birds, coins and reliefs preserve images of emperors holding the winged Victoria. The eagle, which had long been linked to Zeus and his supreme power, was also associated with Jupiter and, therefore, represented Roman power; thus, if the bird envisioned by rabbinic sages were an eagle, its symbolism would be unambiguous. Third, when referring to the globe, the Talmud explicitly states that "the world is shaped like a globe", thus symbolizing domination over the orbis terrarum or oikoumenē.

7The teaching about Alexander attributed to Rabbi Yonah, who was active in the fourth century CE, was therefore placed in a discussion of Roman power.22 This tradition is seemingly inserted here to explain why a globe or a ball symbolizes the world. Rabbi Yonah describes Alexander ascending to great heights so he could view the world as a sphere and the sea as a platter or a bowl.23 This section does not mention how Alexander reached that altitude. Medieval Jewish and non-Jewish traditions developed stories about Alexander and his flying machine.24 I consider the mention of Alexander the Great in this talmudic sugya as a means for criticizing Roman emperors’ ambitions to conquer the entire world and the claim that Rome indeed dominates it.25 Namely, while this story of Alexander may not originally have been composed in association with Rome, the editor of this sugya placed it in that context; consequently, this tale acquired that additional meaning. As Diana Spencer writes, Alexander became "an archetype for power and imperialism in the Roman world".26 Thus, this tradition, which is ascribed to Rabbi Yonah, uses this tale to demonstrate the power of God, the ruler of land and sea, who can save those who are endangered in either realm. This divine capacity is compared to Alexander’s power, which was limited to the land. As per the reference to the king of Assyria in the previous section (A), Alexander’s ascent may indicate arrogance and a desire to reach beyond human bounds, yet he is limited, by comparison to God, for the sea is beyond his grasp.27 This demonstration of God as the sole sovereign of the universe in relation to Roman emperors, whose powers are constricted, is well-known in amoraic sources, as the next section also illustrates.28

8Section C presents another teaching that is attributed to a fourth-century sage. Here too, God’s power is emphasized vis-à-vis a human king, even by comparison with the human ruler of the world. According to this tradition, the authority of a flesh-and-blood ruler is limited, for he relies on a patron and, in certain provinces, he is without power. Even the kosmokratōr, as ruler of the world, controls="true" land but not the sea.29 By contrast, God’s reign is without limit, extending to rescuing a man with a sword against his neck. Indeed, Roman emperors were often acclaimed as rulers of land and sea.30 While, as Clifford Ando writes, "In the fourth century the title ‘lord of the entire world’ (expressed as dominus totius orbis or dominus orbis terrarum) became a regular part of imperial titulatures",31 fourth-century rabbis underscored the restricted power of human rulers relative to God’s authority.

9In Section D, by introducing three additional items, the Talmud returns to the subject of symbols that render an image prohibited: First, a sword, which represented Roman power in this context. Second, a crown – whether durable or of laurels – that symbolized victory in war and was associated with the imperial cult.32 Coins and several other artifacts depict emperors and gods alike wearing laurel crowns as emblems of honor and victory.33 Third, a ring.34 After listing these additional symbols, the Talmud affirms that the ring referred to is used as a seal, then elaborates on the regulations that pertain to seal rings.35

10This talmudic sugya discusses six widely recognized symbols that were associated with Roman power. While presenting amoraic interpretations of tannaitic material, the Talmud critiques the allegedly boundless power of the Roman emperor by contrasting his agency with the true ruler of the world – God. This is the setting in which we first find a rabbinic tale about Alexander. This context suggests that the editor of the Talmud used the character of Alexander, who was renowned in the Greco-Roman world, to emphasize the shortcomings of Roman power and to criticize emperors who do not acknowledge their human limitations.

Jerusalem Talmud Baba Metzi‘a 2:4, 8c

11The second narrative about Alexander in the Jerusalem Talmud appears in a sugya that expounds on Mishnah Baba Metzi‘a 2:4, a passage which regulates obligations regarding lost property among Jews. The Talmud, however, dedicates this sugya to tales of Jews who restore lost property to non-Jews. These Aramaic narratives depict pious sages carrying out such actions even when they exceed the requirements of rabbinic law.36 By contrast, Alexander Macedon is presented as a leader who operates within a legal system that views greed and bloodshed as normative. The final narrative in this sugya describes Alexander’s visit to King Qatzyya, namely the "king of the edge (of the world)". This passage has received considerable scholarly attention, including analyses that observe its resemblance to Plutarch’s presentation of a dialogue between Alexander and the gymnosophists of India.37 In this paper, I suggest the possibility that this talmudic critique of Alexander is directed against Rome:

A) Shimon ben Shataḥ was working with flax. His students told him: “Rabbi, don’t bother with that. We will buy you a donkey and you will not have to work so much”. They went and bought him a donkey from an Arab, and a pearl was hanging on it. They came before him, saying: “From now on, you won’t have to work”. He said to them: “Why?” They told him: “We bought you a donkey from an Arab and a pearl was hanging on it”. He said to them: “Did its owner know about it?” They told him: “No”. He said to them: “Go and return [the pearl]”.
B) But did not Rav Ḥunah [and] Bibi bar Gozlan say in the name of Rav: They raised a challenge in the presence of [lit. questioned before] Rabbi: “Even for one who argues that an object that was stolen from a gentile is prohibited (for an Israelite to use or sell), everyone agrees (lit. the entire people admits) that his lost object is permitted”. Do you think that Shimon ben Shataḥ was a barbarian (bar-baron)? [Certainly not. However,] Shimon ben Shataḥ wanted to hear [that gentile say]: “Blessed be the God of the Jews” over all the profit in this world.
C) The following [tale] implies the same (supports this interpretation): Rabbi Ḥanina told this story: “The rabbis who transmit oral tradition (or “the elder rabbis”) bought a pile of wheat from these military officers (or “soldiers”; meaning unclear), and they found a bag of dinars within it. They returned it to them. The [officers] said: ‘Blessed be the God of the Jews’”.
D) Abba Hoshaya, a man of Turya, was a fuller (or “washer”). The queen entered to bathe in the waters of a pond (word unclear) and she lost her bath cloth (or “necklace”), and he found it. When she exited, he handed it to her. She said: “This is for you; it has no meaning for me. I have a better one; (in fact,) I have many like this”. He told her: “The Torah has decreed that we return [such items]”. She said: “Blessed be the God of the Jews”.
E) Rabbi Shmuel bar Sosrata (or “Sosratyi”) went to Rome. The queen lost her [treasured possession] and he found it. A public announcer went out through the city [proclaiming]: “Whoever returns [that item] to her within thirty days will receive such and such [as a reward]. After thirty days, his head will be removed”. He (Rabbi Shmuel bar Sosrata) did not return it within thirty days. After thirty days, he returned it. She said to him: “Have you not been in the city?” He told her: “Yes [I have been in the city]”. She said to him: “Have you not heard the voice of the public announcer?” He told her: “Yes [I heard]”. She said to him: “And what did he say?” He told her: “Whoever returns [that item] to her within thirty days will receive such and such [as a reward]. After thirty days, his head will be removed”. She said to him: “Then why didn’t you return it within thirty days?” He told her: “So you would not say [that] on account of your might did I [return it], but on account of God’s might” (alternatively: “not for fear of you did I [return it], but for fear of God”). She said to him: “Blessed be the God of the Jews”.
F) Alexander Macedon went to King Qatzyya (the king of the edge [of the world]). He (the king) showed him much gold and much silver. [Alexander] told him: “I do not need your gold or silver. I only came to see your practices: how you engage [in legal proceedings] and how you judge”. While he was occupied with him, an individual came to bring a legal suit against his fellow, who had bought a dilapidated building, dug into it, and found a treasure of dinars. The buyer said: “I bought a dilapidated building, but I did not buy treasure”. The seller said: “A dilapidated building and all that is in it, [is what] I sold”. While they were occupied with each other, the king said to one of them: “Do you have a son?” He answered: “Yes”. He (the king) said to his fellow: “Do you have a daughter?” He answered: “Yes”. He told them: “Wed this one (the son) with that one (the daughter), and the treasure will be for both of them”. [Alexander] started to laugh. [The king] asked: “Why are you laughing? Did I not judge well?” [The king then] asked: “If this case were negotiated in your [court], how would you rule?” [Alexander] told him: “[We would] kill this one and that one, and the treasure would be brought to the king”. [The king] asked: “Do you love gold that much?” [The king] made a banquet for [Alexander]. He brought before him meat [made] of gold, chicken [made] of gold. [Alexander] told him: “Do I eat gold?” [The king] told him: “May that man’s soul expire! [If] you do not eat gold, why do you love gold so much?” [The king] asked: “Does the sun shine upon you?” [Alexander] said: “Yes”. [The king asked:] “Does the rain descend upon you?” [Alexander] said: “Yes”. [The king] asked: “Perhaps you have small livestock [in your land]?” [Alexander] said: “Yes”. [The king said]: “May that man’s soul expire! You live only for the sake of (or “by the merit of”) that small livestock, as it is written [in Scripture]: “[Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your judgments are like the great deep;] you save humans and animals alike, O Lord” (Psalms 36:7; verse 6 in NRSV).38

12The narratives in Sections A and F present mirror images: Shimon ben Shataḥ, the self-reliant Jewish sage who supports himself through manual labor and refuses to benefit from anything that is not rightfully his, versus Alexander, who presents himself as a scholar that explores distant lands to investigate their customs and judicial systems, but ultimately reveals his readiness to seize the property of others due to his greed and desire for gold. These contrasting portrayals frame a series of tales about the restoration of lost property by Jews to non-Jews, based on the idea that such actions would prompt gentiles to praise the God of Israel. This goal motivated pious Jews to return lost property to non-Jews, despite the absence of a legal imperative.

13As mentioned above, Section A introduces Shimon ben Shataḥ, a tanna who lived during the Second Temple period and who, according to the Yerushalmi, was active during the reign of the Hasmonean King Alexander Jannaeus (Yannai).39 Here, the students of Shimon ben Shataḥ (who is depicted dining at this king’s table elsewhere in the Jerusalem Talmud) purchase a donkey for him, to ease his need to support himself through manual labor. Upon finding a pearl hung on this donkey, these students inform their master that he will no longer have to work so hard. However, Shimon ben Shataḥ instructs his students to restore the pearl to the donkey’s previous owner, who is an Arab, even though this was not legally required, since halakhah permits the retention of a gentile’s lost property. In this context, Shimon ben Shataḥ’s dependence on physical labor for his livelihood is not only the catalyst that leads his students to buy the donkey, but it also highlights the weight of his decision to restore the pearl to its owner, for such a treasure would have released him from daily toil. This sage, therefore, represents a stark opposition to greed and attachment to material assets.40

14Section B opens with a challenge to Shimon ben Shataḥ’s decision in the name of Rav, known as the first Babylonian amora, who was active in the first third of the third century. The identities of the sages who transmit this saying are less clear, however. In the passage attributed to Rav, Shimon ben Shataḥ’s decision is questioned, since all know that it is permissible to retain an object that has been lost by a non-Jew. The Talmud then rejects this critique by asking: "Do you think that Shimon ben Shataḥ was a barbarian (bar-baron)?" This use of the Greek word "barbarian" is noteworthy, and seems to reflect irony, for it refers to one who is unschooled in rabbinic (or Jewish) law. This term also appears in several amoraic texts that depict Roman discourse, as a label for the peoples they subjugated.41 Our text, however, includes this term in a rhetorical question about Shimon ben Shataḥ for, by definition, such a prominent sage could not be a barbarian who lacked knowledge of Torah. The Talmud then suggests that Shimon ben Shataḥ prioritized giving a gentile reason to praise God over his legitimate opportunity for substantial material gain. The phrase "Blessed be the God of the Jews" echoes Daniel 3:28, where Nebuchadnezzar proclaims: "Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego" (NRSV). To support this understanding of Shimon ben Shataḥ’s motivation, the Talmud then provides three additional stories (Sections C, D and E).42

15Section C presents a tale of certain rabbis43 who, after purchasing wheat from Roman military officers (or soldiers), discovered a purse of coins in the grain. They returned it and, in response, these troops indeed proclaimed: "Blessed be the God of the Jews". The choice of Roman soldiers, who probably represent Roman power, as the gentiles in this story makes this example even more striking. This vignette demonstrates that returning lost property to gentiles may lead them to praise God, and thereby supports the Talmud’s suggested motivation for Shimon ben Shataḥ’s choice.

16Section D provides another example: Abba Hoshaya of Turya is mentioned in several traditions in the Jerusalem Talmud.44 As in the story of Shimon ben Shataḥ, Abba Hoshaya also earns his livelihood through manual labor. He finds and returns an expensive object that the queen has lost.45 For the queen, the matter is trivial; thus, she readily offers that he keep it. Yet, he refuses, claiming that the Torah requires the return of lost property.46 The queen was impressed by this element of Jewish law and the sage’s piety; therefore, she proclaims: "Blessed be the God of the Jews". Here again, we see the depiction of a Jewish sage who not only practices a modest lifestyle, but who demonstrates detachment from material assets.

17While the previous sections discuss a sage’s interaction with Roman soldiers (C) and with a queen who is visiting the land of Israel (D), Section E describes a sage who traveled to the city of Rome. This narrative depicts Rabbi Shmuel bar Sosrata, a third-generation amora who was active in the late third- and early fourth centuries. While he was in Rome, the queen lost a valuable object, possibly a bracelet47 or precious jewels.48 A town crier was dispatched throughout the city to announce that whoever restored her lost article within thirty days would be rewarded, but anyone who turned it in after that time would be beheaded. Although Rabbi Shmuel found the item within the thirty days, he returned it after that timeframe. The dialogue that ensues between this Jewish sage and the Roman queen emphasizes that he is not intimidated by human power and he does not want his actions to be misconstrued for interest in the reward promised by the queen. Only God’s power and his fear of violating divine commands leads him to return her property. To demonstrate this point, he deliberately restores it after the allotted thirty-day period, thereby forgoing the promised reward and risking his own life. Here too the queen is impressed by Jewish law and the sage’s piety, and she proclaims: "Blessed be the God of the Jews". In this story, which is situated in the city that is the center of Roman power, a sage demonstrates to the queen that he only fears God and, thus, leads her to appreciate the God of Israel.

18The sugya concludes with a narrative about Alexander Macedon and King Qatzyya (F). While Sections C to E provide examples from the contemporary Roman setting, this story and the one about Shimon ben Shataḥ belong to the Hellenistic period. Furthermore, whereas Sections C to E emphasize the sages’ piety that leads non-Jews to praise the God of Israel, without directly opposing Roman soldiers or queens, Section F explicitly criticizes Alexander by presenting him as rapacious, even at the expense of human life. This passage condemns Alexander for operating a legal system that aims to enrich his royal coffers. Alexander represents the antithesis of Shimon ben Shataḥ and the later sages, who exhibit detachment from material assets and, in one case, embody readiness to risk their lives for the sake of God.

19The story in Section F begins with Alexander’s arrival at the kingdom of King Qatzyya, which literally means "the king of the endf", probably a reference to the edge of the world. In ancient ethnography, the people who resided at the world’s outer reaches were idealized and their society was imagined in utopian terms.49 Alexander’s aspiration to journey as far as possible is also featured in Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 3:1, 42c (discussed above).50 Tales of Alexander as an explorer of distant cultures, based on descriptions by scholars who accompanied his armies, were recounted in the courts of later Hellenistic kings and during the Roman period.51

20When Alexander arrives, the king offers a display of gold and silver. Alexander explains that he has no need for riches but, rather, he seeks to study the customs of this realm, especially its legal system. Alexander presents himself as a philosopher-king and explorer who is interested in far-flung lands and in observing their culture and laws, without being lured by their treasures. However, this story exposes his true nature.52 While Alexander converses with the king, two individuals seek a royal judgment to resolve a dispute: one had purchased a ruined building from the other and discovered a treasure in it. The buyer claimed that this find did not belong to him (similar to Shimon ben Shataḥ), and the seller similarly declined any claim on the treasure; thus, they both distance themselves from possessions that they neither purchased nor toiled to earn. This portrayal may be dismissed as absurd, for who would refuse such a prospect? So, for example, Admiel Kosman explains that Alexander was surprised by the arguments of these litigants, regarding them as eccentric or mad subjects who were mocking the royal court.53 By contrast, I would suggest that this narrative is intentionally crafted to convey a message about human approaches to material wealth. In my view, the distant society that Alexander encounters is shaped according to one of the human types listed in Mishnah Avot 5:10, which divides humanity into four categories, based on one’s relationship to property.

Four ways (or “types”; midot) [characterize] humans:
The one who says:
A) “[What’s] mine is mine and [what’s] yours is yours”. This is the average way (or “common type”). But some say: “This is the way of Sodom”.
B) “[What’s] mine is yours and [what’s] yours is mine”. [This is the way of the] ‘am ha’aretz (one who is ignorant of Torah).
C) “[What’s] mine is yours and [what’s] yours is yours”. [This is the way of the] ḥasid (a pious man whose actions go beyond the requirements of halakhah).
D) “[What’s] yours in mine and [what’s] mine is mine”. [This is the way of the] wicked.

21As Menachem Ben-Shalom argues, the sugya in the Yerushalmi implicitly applies these categories.54 Whereas the behaviors of Shimon ben Shataḥ, the pious sages in Sections C to E, and the king and subjects of Qatzyya, each correspond to the approach of the ḥasid (3) in the Mishnah,55 Alexander’s attitude toward riches reveals his wickedness (4). Indeed, this sugya displays an awareness that most human societies operate according to the average approach (1). Yet for the Talmud, Qatzyya is neither populated nor ruled by fools; to the contrary, their society epitomizes the highest possible standards. Alexander represents a culture whose norms invert these praxes; he finds their resolution laughable because, in his realm, both petitioners would have been slain and their treasure would have enriched the king’s holdings.

22In relation to this tale, Saul Lieberman cites Philostratus, Lives of the Sophists, 2.547-548, which describes how Atticus discovered a treasure in a house that he had purchased, then applied to Emperor Nerva for instructions regarding that find. Lieberman views this text as an indication that encountering unassigned valuables could be perilous.56 Catherine Hezser writes that, according to Greek and Roman law, the king or the emperor had the right to any find.57 Yet, it seems that Roman legislation regarding found assets became more complex over time: for example, a distinction was made between a treasure trove that was discovered on private versus state property. Considering items of value found on private property, as in this talmudic case, Hadrian ruled that an object discovered on one’s own property could be retained without question; however, if it were encountered on another person’s land, at least half of its value had to be remitted to the landowner (Historia Augusta, Vita Hadriani 18.6, restated in Justinian’s Institutes, see Inst. 2.1.39). By that era, the government could only claim items that were found on its land. Anyone who chanced upon valuables on state land was mandated to report them to the authorities; the treasure would then be evenly divided between that individual and the fiscus. However, if such a find went undeclared, upon discovery, it had to be turned over to the fiscus in its entirety (Paul, Dig. 41, 1, 31; Callistrate, Dig. 49, 14, 3, 10-11; Justinian, Inst. 2, 1, 39; Basil. 56, 2, 3).58 Thus, Roman law was more complicated than the legal decision ascribed to Alexander in this sugya. That lack of precision does not diminish the likelihood that this tale criticizes Roman judicial norms. Analogous opposition to these Roman legal norms appears in Genesis Rabbah (discussed below). Thus, it is possible that, rather than aiming to convey an exact description of Roman laws on treasure troves, this text may present a general critique of the value placed on material assets and disregard for human life. I return to this idea and present further evidence for this claim below.

23In the final section of this story, the king discloses his critique of Alexander’s worldview. After asking Alexander: "Do you love gold that much?f", the king invites his visitor to a banquet whose cuisine is made entirely of gold. At this point, it is unclear whether the king realizes that Alexander cannot eat gold and, thus, orchestrates this meal to expose Alexander’s character, or whether he naively assumes that his love of gold extends to its consumption. When Alexander expresses surprise at this fare, the king exclaims: "May that man’s soul expire! [If] you do not eat gold, why do you love gold so much?". This story echoes the Greek myth of King Midas (Ovid, Metamorphoses 11.100-126).59 King Qatzyya continues by asking Alexander whether the sun shines and the rains fall in his land. When Alexander confirms that sunshine and rain reach his country, the king inquires whether they have young livestock there. In response to Alexander's positive answer, the king states that only for their sake does his land receive sun and rain, concluding with a quotation from Psalms: "[Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your judgments are like the great deep;] you save humans and animals alike, O Lord" (36:7; verse 6 in NRSV). For this monarch, Alexander’s legal norms are indefensible because they prioritize riches over human life; according to divine justice, neither sun nor rain should be bestowed on such a society.

24Whereas the Jewish sage in Section A distances himself from property that does not rightly belong to him (although, according to the halakhah, he may legally retain it), Alexander presents an approach that is based on avarice. The question is, of course, which legal norms, values, and attitudes toward wealth does the Talmud intend to censure?60 I suggest that this tale should also be read in a Roman framework, namely Alexander may represent later Roman emperors here, as in Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 3:1, 42c.61 This also seems to have been the understanding of the editor of the fifth-century midrash Genesis Rabbah, who located this narrative in a context that conveys disapproval of Roman norms.

Genesis Rabbah 33:1

25In this midrash, the tale about Alexander’s visit to the kingdom at the end of the world is placed within a unit that addresses the issue of divine justice, namely, how God permits evil social and legal systems that favor property over human life to flourish:

A) Your justice (or “charity”; tzedakah) is like the mountains of God; your judgments are like the great deep; you save humans and animals alike, O Lord” (Psalms 36:7; verse 6 in most Christian versions of the Bible; this translation is based in part on NRSV). Rabbi Ishmael [and Rabbi Akiva offer teachings on this verse. Rabbi Ishmael] says: “(Upon) the righteous who accepted the Torah that was given from ‘the mountains of God’, You bestow charity (tzedakah) as far as (lit. up to) ‘the mountains of God’. But (toward) the wicked who did not accept the Torah that was given from ‘the mountains of God’, You are strict with them as far as ‘the great deep’”.
B) Rabbi Akiva says: “One [rule is applied to] these and [the same] one to those: He deals strictly with them as far as ‘the great deep’. He deals strictly with the righteous and collects [payment] from them for the few bad deeds that they performed in this world, in order to bestow peace on them and to give them a generous (lit. good) reward in the world to come. He bestows peace upon the wicked and gives them a reward for the trivial mitzvot (“religious commands” or “good deeds”) that they performed in this world, in order to punish them in the world to come. […]
C) Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi traveled to Rome. There he saw columns covered by carpets [to protect them] in cold weather lest they contract (and crack), and in hot weather (lit. in the sun) lest they split (due to expansion). And when he walked on the road (or “in the market”), he saw a poor man wrapped in a mat. But some say: “[He was wrapped in] half of an ass’s saddle”. Regarding these columns, he proclaimed: “‘Your charity is like the mountains of God’ (Psalms 36:7). Wherever you have given, you give in abundance”. Regarding this poor person, he proclaimed: “‘Your judgments are like the great deep’ (Psalms 36:7). Wherever you have smitten, you were exacting punishment”.
D) Alexander Macedon went to the kingdom of Qatzyya (the edge [of the world]), behind the Dark Mountains of darkness. They (its inhabitants) went out (to greet him) with golden fruits (alternatively, “golden loaves of bread” or “golden dishes”) laden on a golden tray. [Alexander] said to them: “Do I need your riches (lit. mammon)?” They said to him: “Did you not have anything to eat in your country, so you have come to us?” [Alexander] said to them: “No. Rather, I [have come] only to know how you judge”. While he sat with them, an individual came to bring a legal suit against his fellow. He said: “This man sold me a dilapidated building and I found a treasure within it”. The buyer [then] said: “I bought a dilapidated building, but I did not buy a treasure”. The seller said: “A dilapidated building and all that is in it [is what] I sold”. He (the king) said to one of them: “Do you have a son?” He answered: “Yes”. He (the king) said to the other: “Do you have a daughter?” He answered: “Yes”. He (the king) said to them: “Go and wed this one (the son) with that one (the daughter) and the riches (lit. mammon) will be for both of them”. He (the king) saw him (Alexander) sitting there and asked: “What? Didn't I judge well?” [Alexander] said: “No, you did not” (lit: “Yes”). He [the king] said to him: “If [such a case were presented] in your [court], how would you rule?” [Alexander] said: “[We would] kill this one and that one, and the kingdom [would] take riches (lit. mammon) from both of them”. [The king] asked: “Does the rain fall in your [land]?” [Alexander] said: “Yes”. [The king asked:] “Does the sun shine upon your [land]?” [Alexander] said: “Yes”. [The king] asked: “Do you have small livestock in your [land]?” [Alexander] said: “Yes”. [The king said]: “May that man’s soul expire! Not by your merit does rain fall upon you, nor by your merit does the sun shine upon you, rather, for the sake of (or “by the merit of”) the small livestock, as it is written [in Scripture]: “[Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your judgments are like the great deep;] you save humans and animals alike, O Lord” (Psalms 36:7; verse 6 in NRSV). For the sake of cattle (or “a beast”) you do save a human, O Lord!62

26In the midrash, these passages are located in the context of expositions on the story of Noah and focus on theodicy. Sections A and B present two famous sages’ explanations of Psalms 36:7, which each contrast God’s capacity to bestow charity with his ability to exact retribution. Both are third-generation tannaim who were active in the second century CE.63 Rabbi Ishmael claims that divine charity is reserved for those who accept the Torah because Psalm 36:7 mentions "the mountains of God", which refers to Sinai, whereas the wicked, who did not accept the Torah, are strictly judged and punished. Rabbi Akiva, on the other hand, posits that God deals strictly with the pious and the wicked alike. The righteous pay severely in this world for their few minor transgressions, so they may be generously rewarded in the world to come. By contrast, the wicked are rewarded for their few insignificant mitzvot (religious commands or good deeds), to assure that they will be firmly punished in the world to come. Rabbi Akiva’s teaching articulates a position that more effectively addresses a reality wherein the wicked flourish while the righteous suffer, while affirming that God operates a just system of reward and retribution. This midrash includes additional teachings on this topic but they are peripheral to this study; thus, rather than present them here, we will continue with the two relevant traditions that follow.

27Section C presents a narrative about a prominent sage who visits Rome.64 While there, he notices the special treatment given to columns – which were covered with carpets to protect them from extreme weather – whereas a poor man is wrapped in a mat. This contrast illustrates how Romans devalued humans while cherishing architectural structures. Locating this story in the city of Rome highlights this message: at the nexus of the empire, columns are considered more precious than the poor. It is in this context that Genesis Rabbah situates the story of Alexander Macedon’s visit to the realm of Qatzyya, the kingdom at the edge of the world (D). This placement supports my suggestion that, like the previous tradition (C), this one also criticizes Rome, shifting our attention from social norms to legal systems. In both traditions, material assets are valued above human life. This reading may be further substantiated by passages elsewhere in Genesis Rabbah which depict Rome and its legal system as robbing and killing the innocent. For example, in 65:1, we read: "This evil kingdom robs and extorts yet (lit. and) she looks as if she were holding court (bimah)" (lit. she arranges a platform that was erected for the judge’s tribunal).65 In this text, Rome professes to operate a just legal system while boldly stealing from her subjects. Thus, this passage displays Rome’s hypocrisy, namely the gap between the empire’s self-proclaimed virtues and its actual practices. This dichotomy echoes the midrashic presentation of Alexander: He introduces himself as an intellectual and ruler who is interested in the legal systems of remote societies, without concern for their wealth, yet his kingdom’s laws (or, at least, his exercise of legal power) are founded on material pursuits. Elsewhere in Genesis Rabbah (e.g., 44:15 and 63:8),66 Rome is also described as a thief who wields power for material gain. Given these perspectives on Roman rule and, especially, its legal system, it is hardly surprising that this midrashic collection focuses on Rome in its treatment of theodicy.

28Although Genesis Rabbah was edited later than the Jerusalem Talmud, it has been suggested that the midrashic version of this narrative (D) is the original – thus earlier – rendering, especially since the talmudic "version is longer and more complete".67 I would posit that the Talmud does not transmit a later version. Rather, the differences between these two accounts may be explained in light of the central motif of each text: theodicy in the midrash and attitudes toward possessions in the Talmud. Therefore, in view of his thematic priorities, the editor of the midrash may have eliminated select elements that appear in the longer talmudic version. Those omissions include: the banquet of golden food that was served to Alexander, and the king's questions – "Do you love gold that much?" and "[If] you do not eat gold, why do you love gold so much?" – which emphasize the dissonant views of material wealth held by the sages and Alexander. In contrast, the parallel passage from Genesis Rabbah focuses on the role of divine justice in a world where evil can seemingly govern with impunity. More clearly than in the Talmud, it seems that, although the story’s protagonists are ostensibly Alexander and the king of Qatzyya, its underlying message imparts rabbinic criticism of Rome and its social and legal norms. This midrash therefore seeks to uphold the presence of God’s justice despite legal practices that are dedicated to enriching the king or his kingdom over care for human life.

29Since the theme of this midrash is the mechanism of divine justice, Rome’s power required explanation. Whereas divine retribution for human sins was severely imposed upon Noah’s generation, even on animals, this fifth-century midrash seeks to clarify how evil societies could be allowed to flourish and, specifically, how Rome could persist in dominating the Jews. In the teaching attributed to Rabbi Akiva (B), the wicked are rewarded in this world but will be strictly punished in the world to come; however, in part D of the narrative, the fact that a society that operates such ethically repugnant legal methods could still receive rain and sun is justified by the presence of animals, whose innocent lives also depend on these elements. While these two theological explanations are not necessarily mutually exclusive, they represent different attempts to preserve the notion that God rules the world with justice. The story of Alexander is included here to illustrate this message. Just as the midrash often uses biblical protagonists to deliver a message relevant to its own generation, here too, it seems that the figure of Alexander is used to speak about current Roman rulers.

30To conclude, several factors may support the claim that the story of Alexander’s meeting with King Qatzyya addresses Roman legal norms: First, these Aramaic narratives were composed at least six centuries after Alexander’s conquest of the land of Israel, and no less than three centuries after the Roman conquest. Therefore, I would suggest that this tale may be leveled against the current empire – Rome.68 Second, as mentioned above, certain rabbinic texts identify the Romans as the heirs of Hellenism, considering Roman rule as an extension of Hellenistic dominion.69 Indeed, in the east, Greek largely remained the language of both the elite and the imperial administration (especially for communication with local populations). In Judea, Roman rule initiated the restoration of older Hellenistic cities and maintained the cult of Hellenistic deities. This Roman association with Hellenism may support the suggestion that the Talmud and Genesis Rabbah use Alexander to reflect on Rome. Third, the role of Alexander’s image in Rome during antiquity and late antiquity is also significant: Roman writings indicate that a number of emperors and Roman high officials identified themselves with Alexander.70 Fourth, in the version found in Genesis Rabbah, this tale immediately follows a teaching that emphasizes Rome’s evil priorities – in the city of Rome, columns are more important than the poor –, suggesting that the editor of this midrash read our story as a denunciation of Rome.

Conclusion

31Tales, traditions, and visual representations of Alexander the Great were highly popular in the Greco-Roman world. Literary sources present contradictory accounts of Alexander and his character, with the aim of delivering a range of messages, including teachings on power and its limits. Rabbinic literature also presents more than one perspective on Alexander. In this article, I have analyzed some of the earliest rabbinic texts that mention Alexander to show how this figure evokes Roman rule and its voracious appetite for conquests and riches. Romans proudly credited themselves as having established a just order in their empire, but these rabbinic stories can be read as challenges to this claim, which reveal the avarice and malice of Roman rulers. The technique of drawing on figures from the past (biblical or later) to convey a lesson of contemporary relevance is widely attested in rabbinic compositions. Explicit and implicit condemnations of Rome often appear in a single midrashic chapter or talmudic sugya;71 thus, the use of Alexander for this purpose seems contextually apt, especially given his centrality in the Greco-Roman world, the culture in which the authors of rabbinic texts lived. While it has been posited that Alexander symbolizes the Hellenistic world, and sometimes the Greco-Roman world, in rabbinic literature, these early tales are rarely considered in relation to the Roman Empire. I propose this as an additional dimension of these texts. In many respects, the sages viewed Rome as a continuation of the Hellenistic world. Thus, their choice of Alexander as a means for criticizing Rome (or, at least, their incorporation of narratives about him in such a context) should not surprise us. Later compositions, like Leviticus Rabbah and the Babylonian Talmud, display a more positive tone when depicting Alexander; however, this trope is absent from the Jerusalem Talmud. This contrast in itself is quite telling, and supports the notion that, in the Jerusalem Talmud, Alexander represents more than a Hellenistic hero.