“One who greets his teacher . . . causes the Shekhinah to depart" (bBer 27b) 

In a personal account of his sojourn in the Arabian Desert, H.R.P Dickenson tells us about the1 span of cultural differences he encountered:

"In Kuwait and in other towns of Arabia a proper man will not rise to greet a superior. . . Englishmen coming from India to Arabia invariably misunderstand this custom, for the opposite custom rules in India, and the poor and lowly there must always rise and greet the big man first" (pg. 235)

For a Western reader the notion that a superior should not greet an inferior and even more so that an inferior should not greet a superior would be quite surprising. It is not difficult to imagine that in a society where one form of politeness is prevalent, the other form of politeness could very well have been perceived as extreme disrespect.

The very same differences in greeting etiquette which Dickenson observes in the Dessert appears to have existed between the two Jewish Communities; the Land of Israel and Babylonia respectively. Just as the Englishmen arriving in Arabia experienced cultural misunderstandings it would be natural to find that the very same misunderstandings commonly occurred during the exchanges and migrations between the Land of Israel and Babylonia. 

Our interest in what follows lies in the diverging forms of verbal etiquette between students and teachers as practiced in the two respective Jewish Centers. In the Land of Israel, students were expected to greet their teachers, while in Jewish Babylonia, a student was not permitted to greet his teacher or even to return a greeting which his teacher initiated. Although the actual historical reality was most likely much more nuanced and complex, we will attempt to show that at least in one period this divergence could be sustained at historically accurate.

For the sake of convenience, we term the Babylonian practice as “Avoidance Etiquette” and the practice of the Land of Israel as “Engagement Etiquette” based on the type of act performed during social interaction. These two general forms of inter-personal interaction, in fact, whether verbal or gestural are paralleled in the strategies of Politeness “One, known as 'negative politeness' and employed primarily to social superiors, consists of efforts to avoid hindering the addressee in any way or annoying him/her by undue familiarity; the other, 'positive politeness', is a strategy in which the speaker tries to gratify the addressee in some way” (Brown and Levinson 1987: 101, 129).  

An analysis of the greeting etiquette in Israel and Babylonia as attested in the Palestinian sources may allow us to make some inferences about their respective social structures. In Babylonia where the Avoidance Etiquette predominated, there existed a wide social gap between classes in which inferiors and superiors were to avoid mutual social situations. By contrast, in the Land of Israel where the Engagement Etiquette was common, the fact that interaction was expected may suggest that the social gap between classes was much narrower. The historical conditions and influences responsible for this variation in the two communities are discussed below.

The Talmuds as is well-known are not works of historiography composed with the intention of recording or establishing historical facts. This limits us significantly in gauging how prevalent the praxes captured in incidents or teachings of a given Talmud actually were even with regards to their own provenance. How much more so with regards to statements occurring in one Talmud about its sister Community where geographic divides naturally limited the knowledge of the Rabbis. The assumption that a certain practice was prevalent in the majority of the country and throughout the span of many generations on the basis of an isolated Talmudic statement must be made with extreme caution. Nevertheless, for the sake of fueling and enabling discussion, we assume optimistically that we can follow the general direction that the greeting etiquette of the respective Jewish Communities took over the generations.

Our starting point in our discussion of the verbal etiquette of greeting in the two Jewish Centers is situated in a misunderstanding (like in the Desert) during an encounter between Sages of the two Lands. In the Talmud of the Land of Israel we read:

Rabbi Yochanan was leaning on Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi and Rabbi Eliezer saw him and hid from him. [Rabbi Yochanan] said: These two things the Babylonian does to me. First, is that he does not extend me greeting (לא שאל בשלומי). . . [Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi] said to him: so it is this their custom. The smaller does not extend greeting to the greater2 for they fulfill: "Youths saw me and hid" (Job 29:8) (yBer. 2:1 13b) 3

This encounter between the Palestinian Rabbi Yochanan and Babylonian Rabbi Eliezer brings to light the diametrical differences between the greeting practices of social un-equals in the respective locales of the two Rabbis. In Rabbi Yochanan’s locale in the Land of Israel proper etiquette of greeting dictated that the inferior should greet the superior ("Engagement Etiquette”) while in Rabbi Eliezer’s locale in Babylonia, this would have been a serious breach of etiquette. The inferior was expected to abstain from crossing paths with the superior4 ("Avoidance Etiquette”) and apparently remain silent or possibly engage in a gestural greeting upon the inevitable encounter with one.

The very same Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Eliezer are found again in the midst of a similar discussion -- the number of times per day one must stand for the same Sage when crossing paths -- which potentially disturbs the picture painted above. The Talmud closes this discussion with the following remark: “Just as they are divided here (כשם שהן חלוקין כאן) (regarding gestural greeting) so too they are divided regarding verbal greetings (שאילת שלום)”. (Bikkurim 3:3 11b). A global reading of the passage, one read on the background of the encounter between the two Rabbis, resonates well with their respective views on the proper verbal greetings between social un-equals. Just as Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Eliezer differ on the number of times one must rise for a Sage so too they differ as to whether a Sage may be greeted verbally. However, as tempting as this reading may be, it must almost certainly be excluded from consideration because of terminological issues. The formula “just as they are divided” in the Talmud of the Land of Israel consistently expresses a close and precise parallel between the two operative passages or sugyoth. This, of course can hardly be said of the passages in question; the parallel between the number of times one must rise for a Sage and the permissibility of greeting a Sage verbally are at best imprecise.  

The local reading of the above passage, one read in isolation of the encounter of the two Rabbis, assumes that just as Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Eliezer are divided on the number of times a student must rise for his teacher so too they are divided on the number of times a student must greet his teacher verbally. This reading, although consistent with the Talmud’s terminological usage, would invariably put the two passages at odds with each other. In the encounter between Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Eliezer, the latter’s actions reflect the “Avoidance Etiquette”, while in the above passage his actions show that he espouses the “Engagement Etiquette”.   

The discrepancies brought on by the local reading of the passage could well be attributed to source differences; the passages may simply originate from different schools or traditions. Such contradictory Sugyoth which reach different conclusions, whether implicitly or explicitly are well-known to co-exist in the Talmudim of both Lands. A chronological account of the differences should not be entirely ignored and may be indicative of Rabbi Eliezer's enculturation with the social currents of the Land of Israel. The encounter between Rabbi Eliezer and his teacher Rabbi Yohanan portrays the former as a student, perhaps when Rabbi Eliezer was in his youth and still fresh from Babylonia. The legal teaching, could reflect a much later period, when Rabbi Eliezer had already reached eminence and had become quote-worthy, perhaps when he had risen to head Rabbi Yochanan’s Academy.

Returning now to the encounter between Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yochanan’s wording “does to me” in response to Rabbi Eliezer not greeting him gives us the sense that Rabbi Yochanan received his actions as rude on a personal level5 and not so much a violation of proper conduct. Rabbi Yochanan’s sensitivity may be tied to his general displeasure with Babylonian scholars of which he is commonly cited in the Talmud Land of Israel in a critical tone.

Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi6 is able to placate Rabbi Rabbi Yochanan by pointing out to him that Rabbi Eliezer meant him no disrespect by hiding but, that on the contrary avoidance in Babylonian social etiquette was an act of extreme awe and reverence.7 Rabbi Yochanan’s words at the end of his exchange with Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi “you are good at placating” are directed not at the substance of his argument but at the latter’s personal charisma. This gives us the impression that while Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi was able to placate Rabbi Yochanan of his personal feelings of insult towards Rabbi Eliezer by intimating that Rabbi Eliezer’s actions are not due to his Babylonian [poor] nature, but to his enculturation with the propitious practices of Babylonia, he does not appear to have been able to move Rabbi Yochanan in regards to his position on the acceptability of the Avoidance Etiquette.

The Talmud of the Land of Israel as we saw above distinctly associates the Engagement Etiquette with the Land of Israel and the Avoidance Etiquette with Babylonia. A second Palestinian source, "Differences between the Easterners and Westerners"8 many centuries later preserves the very same associations.

 [As regards] The people of the west (Babylonians) a student does not extend greeting (שואל בשלום רבו) to his teacher. [As regards] The People of the Land of Israel a student says to his teacher "Peace be upon you my master" (שלום עליך רבי) (hilluk 33, pg. 151).

This medieval composition from the Land of Israel provides first-hand testimony of living Palestinian and Babylonian practices in the post-Talmudic era. Despite the gap of many centuries between the two Palestinian sources, their congruency would appear to affirm some continuity of the respective praxes in the respective communities throughout the generations. An analysis of other pericopes in the two Talmudim may point to a more intricate and complicated history during which these greeting practices were in competition and alternated in prominence.

Engagement Etiquette in the Land of Israel

The currency of the Engagement Etiquette in the Land of Israel is well documented in Tannaitic and Amoraic sources and even in one post-Talmudic source from the Land of Israel.

In the period of the Tannaim: The Engagement etiquette is taken for granted, for example in the Mishnah in Berakhoth discussing the permissibility of initiating a greeting or responding to the greeting of a teacher or someone deserving respect.

If one was reading the Torah and the time for Shema arrived. If he had the Shema’ in mind he is exempt from reading it. Between the Paragraphs one may greet another out of respect and respond; and in the middle one may greet another for fear and respond. This is the view of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah etc. (Mishnah Berakhoth 2:1)9

Similarly, the Tosefta recounts an encounter between Ben Zoma and his teacher Rabbi Joshua:

“There was an incident in which Rabbi Yehoshua was walking in the street when he encountered Ben Zoma. [Ben Zoma] came near him but did not extend him greeting (ולא נתן לו שלום)” (Tosefta Hagigah 2:6 pg. 381)

This narrative of the Tosefta implies that the behavior of Ben Zoma of the 2nd century in not greeting his teacher Rabbi Joshua ben Haninah was completely out-of-place. Similarly, (see below) the 2nd century Rabbi Yossi (ben Halafta) is recorded to have returned the greeting of the Messiah.

In the Amoraic period: The encounter between Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Eliezer which we discussed above takes place among the first and second generation of Amoraim which spans from 250 to 290 CE. Rabbi Joshua son of Levi seeking an interpretation of a verse:

Rabbi Joshua the son of Levi said: I went around all the ba’ale haggadah in the South that should interpret this verse but no one could interpret it until I stood with Yehudah the son of Pediah  . . . who said: if a teacher and student are walking on the way one first asks the well-being of the student and then the well-being of the teacher” (Midrash Rabba Genesis, parasha 94, pg. 1175 ed. Theodore10).

This source seems to express the normalcy of the Engagement Etiquette in the Southern part of Israel.

In the post-Talmudic period: The book of "Differences between the Easterners and Westerners" presented above.

This collective evidence allows us to firmly frame the practice of Engagement Etiquette in the Land of Israel within the first three centuries of the Common Era and possibly into the early post-Talmudic era.

“Avoidance Etiquette” in the Land of Israel

Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud regarding the Avoidance Etiquette potentially tempers the above framing at least in regards to an earlier period in the Land of Israel. In a surprising statement attributed to Rabbi Eliezer [ben Hyrkanos] the Talmud states:

"One who greets (נותן שלום) his teacher or returns his greeting . . . causes the Shekhinah to depart from the People of Israel" (bBerachoth 27b)

Rabbi Eliezer’s disapproval of an inferior greeting a superior is astonishing in that it gives this social infraction national and theological import so great as to cause the departure of the Shekhinah, God's Presence from upon the People of Israel. The severity of these consequences is better understood when interpreted in the broader context of the other infractions which Rabbi Eliezer lists: One who prays behind his teacher, one who disputes his teacher's position as head of Yeshiva and one who says something in the name of his teacher that he did not say.11  

The attribution of this teaching to Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanus, a Palestinian Tanna, albeit in the Babylonian Talmud raises the possibility that the behaviors enumerated were not historically relevant to Babylonia, but to the Land of Israel where they were an emerging reality (See below). We are thus lead to the unexpected conclusion that the Avoidance Etiquette, attributed to the Babylonian Community by Palestinian sources may also have been the social praxis in the Land of Israel itself in an early, possibly Second Temple period. The behaviors outlined in Rabbi Eliezer’s admonition are symptomatic of a collapsing Rabbinic institution (as we will see below) and may reflect an actual historical development in the Land of Israel which Rabbi Eliezer sought to deter.

This same teaching of Rabbi Eliezer prohibiting the greeting of superiors is also recorded in the treatise known as Masekheth Kalah but with a few notable differences:

"Rabbi Eliezer said: anyone who gives greeting (נותן שלום) to his teacher is due death. Ben Azzai says: Anyone who gives greeting to his teacher or returns his teacher's greeting and disputes his position as the Head of Yeshiva is due death. One who says something in the name of a Sage that he did not hear from him causes the Shekhinah to depart from Israel" (pg. 56)

The voice of the early 2nd century Ben Azzai, another Palestinian Tanna joins the quorum in prohibiting the greeting of superiors. The consequences of this are expressed in this treatise with the more legalistic and more individual-centered expression "is due death” which stresses the severity of the infraction even more than the parallel passage in the Babylonian Talmud.

Unfortunately, the lack of consensus on the dating and origin of the treatise Masekheth Kallah makes it difficult to orient its testimony historically.12 Nevertheless, the combined attribution by the Babylonian Talmud and Masekheth Kallah of the Avoidance Etiquette to Rabbis of the late 1st and early 2nd century reinforces the possibility of the existence of this etiquette in the Land of Israel in an early period.

Although the Palestinian sources do not cite any explicit teachings regarding the “Avoidance Etiquette”, it appears that they were aware of this contesting etiquette even if it was not popularly practiced. The Talmud of the Land of Israel discusses the requirement of greeting one’s teacher or someone who is more erudite in religious subjects.

It was stated: If someone wants to greet his teacher or anybody who his greater than himself in Torah, he is permitted to do so. That implies that a person (צריך) has to (or may) greet one who is greater than himself in Torah. And also from the following: . . . How much is instantaneous? The time for speech. How much is time of speech? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: the time one needs to greet his friend. Abba bar bar Hana in the name of Rebbi Yohanan: the time for greeting between teacher and student, when he says "Peace be with you, my teacher.

The exact interpretation of this passage hinges upon our understanding of the word צריך . Ordinarily this word means “need” or “must” but in Palestinian sources this word at times also bears the sense of “may” 13. Each of these interpretations yields radically different renditions of the passage.

The Talmud’s primary interest in this discourse is not for its own sake – to establish the permissibility of the Engagement Etiquette – but for the purpose of clarifying the ambiguity in the Mishnah as per the meaning of “answer.” Should it be understood as “must answer” or as “may answer”? To this question the Tannaitic teaching gives the latter answer.

Following the latter understanding of the word, the concluding remark reads: “That implies that a person (צריך) may greet one who is greater than himself in Torah.” This reading fits in well with the isolated reading of the Tannaitic teaching which establishes that one is permitted, but not obligated to verbally greet a Torah superior. The second part of the passage (“and also from”) which observes that the act of greetings between teacher and student is indeed mentioned in Tannaitic materials is in line with this conclusion. It follows that the Tannaitic teaching perceives the Avoidance Etiquette as the norm while it is the “Engagement Etiquette” that is placed under scrutiny.

Following the former understanding of צריך in its conventional sense we must assume that the Tannatic teaching was meant to be read on the background of the Mishnah’s discussion of the Shema. The general meaning of the passage would be that if one is permitted to greet a teacher while reciting the Shema, perforce one is obligated to greet a teacher under normal circumstances. The first part of the passage rejects the Avoidance Etiquette by establishing that the Engagement Etiquette is obligatory. The intent of the second part of the passage though is not completely clear and difficult to fit into the context.

The two readings yield completely different conclusions about the legitimacy and normalcy of the two greeting practices. The latter reading takes the Avoidance Etiquette as the norm and the Engagement Etiquette as a permissible alternative whereas the former reading rejects the Avoidance Etiquette altogether and takes the Engagement Etiquette as obligatory.

If the first interpretation is correct, it may furnish evidence that the Avoidance Etiquette was practiced in the Land of Israel during the Amoraic period and was a continuation of pre-destruction etiquette.  

Avoidance Etiquette in the Babylonian Talmud.

As mentioned above, the Palestinian sources, the Talmud of the Land of Israel and the Book of Differences are consistent in attributing the Avoidance Etiquette to the Babylonian Jews. In contrast to this, the Babylonian Talmud does not contain a single teaching ascribed to a Babylonian Rabbi or an incident that took place on Babylonian soil that reflects the Avoidance Etiquette. Only traces of the Avoidance Etiquette can be found in the Babylonian Talmud. Rabbi Eliezer's admonition against the Engagement Etiquette, although Palestinian in origin and targeting a reality emerging in the Land of Israel, may reflect the view of the Babylonian source that incorporated it. It could be argued that the inclusion of a teaching reflecting an Etiquette that the original audience was not even familiar with would have seemed quite bazaar.

There is yet another pericope in the Babylonian Talmud which reflects the “Avoidance Etiquette” but whose provenance as Babylonian likewise cannot be definitively established

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said:  When Moses ascended to the Heavens he found God tying crowns to the letters.14 God said to him: Moses, is there no greeting in your city? [Moses] said before Him: Does a slave greet his master? [God] said to him: You should have helped Me (Rashi: to say that Your endeavor should be successful) immediately. [Moses] said to Him: "and the power of God shall grow as you spoke"(Num. 14:17)" (bShab 89a)15

When Moses ascends to the Heavens he finds God preparing for the giving of the Torah to the Jewish People, but Moses does not greet Him and God reproaches him for this. The relationship between God and Moses as portrayed in this theological Agaddah is significant. God treats Moses as a colleague,16 perhaps an equal, but Moses the humblest of all men reduces himself to the level of slave. God perceives His relationship with Moses as comradely and expects Moses to greet him. Moses, on the other hand, perceives his relationship with God as unequal and does not see himself fit to extend greetings to God. Moses' question: "Does a slave extend greeting first to his master?" preserves straightforwardly a cultural context in which the inferior was not permitted to greet a superior.

The provenance of this aggadic tradition is uncertain; is it a Babylonian creation or a re-working of a Palestinian tradition? A firm conclusion cannot be reached but we may be right to suspect that this tradition of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi may not necessarily preserve the actual social etiquette of his time (or locale that of an earlier period or possibly another locale) in the Land of Israel but the realia of the source which he transmitted. This is borne out by two facts. 1) In an account that records his own conduct he is said to extend greeting to a superior:  

R. Joshua b. Levi met Elijah standing by the entrance of R. Simeon b. Yohai's tomb. He asked. . . R. Joshua b. Levi said, ‘I saw two, but heard the voice of a third.’ He then asked him, ‘When will the Messiah come?’ — ‘Go and ask him himself,’  . . . So he went to him and greeted him, saying, ‘peace upon thee, Master and Teacher (שלום עליך רבי ומורי).’ ‘Peace upon thee, O son of Levi, (שלום עליך בר ליואי)’ he replied. (bSanhed 98a) 17

In this Aggadah Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, who is an actual party to the incident initiates a greeting to a character as esteemed as the Messiah. This account, by contrast with the Theological Aggadah referred to above which reflects Avoidance Etiquette, reflects the Engagement Etiquette.

2) The Engagement Etiquette is also reflected in the teaching noted above where Yehoshua ben Levi seeks out a Scriptural interpretation of the Sages of the South. These two passages bring to light the difference in provenance of the Theological Aggadah and the personal Aggadoth of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi.

Engagement Etiquette in the Babylonian Talmud

While the Babylonian Talmud, as we showed preserves a modicum of materials   reflecting the social practice of Avoidance, it also incorporates "Palestinian" materials evidencing "Engagement Etiquette”.   18

1)Mishnah: One who says behold I am a Nazir and his friend heard and said "and I [too]" and his friend said "and I [too]". They are all Nezirim" Talmud: Reish Lakish was sitting before Rabbi Judah: He asked saying: this is in the case of when they all attached to him tokh kede dibbur. How much is toch kede dibbur?  The amount of time of asking well-being. How much is the time of asking well-being? The amount of a student asking the well-being of his teacher (bNazir 20b).

The Mishnah allows people to join one who declares that he is a Nazirite by announcing “and I too”. The Talmud establishes that the they can only join them if their announcements are separated by at most the amount of time a student asks the well-being of his teacher. The Engagement Etiquette is clearly expressed here.

 19

Cultural Context: The Land of Israel

In an attempt to identify the historical context of Rabbi Eliezer’s admonitions we must look to a significant event that occurred around the time of his active career- the destruction of the Second Temple, an event that exerted a profound disruption on all aspects of Jewish life. Yitzchak Gilat argued that Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanus who flourished just a century after the destruction of the Second Temple insisted on perpetuating the old halakha despite the social and economic changes that arose in this era. Rabbi Eliezer’s admonitions if understood in light of this preoccupation gives rise to the possibility that the Avoidance Etiquette was yet another artifact from Second-Temple times which he sought to safeguard.

A passage recorded in the Mishnah originating from the very same Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanos recounts the change in status experienced by the Rabbinic class as a result of the destruction of the Temple:

Rabbi Eliezer the Great said, "from the day of the destruction of the Temple the Sages began to become schoolteachers and the schoolteachers began to become sextons and the sextons became commoners (עמא דארעא) and the commoners waxed feebler and feebler. (Mishnah Sota 9:15)

Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanus describes the decaying condition of the Rabbinic institution and the decline of the Academy that ensued after the destruction of the Second Temple. This passage exhibits Rabbi Eliezer's concern with the esteem of the Sages and their institutions in the era following the destruction of the Temple. The events that he describes occurred on the background of a largely deteriorated state of affairs in Israel’s society during this period as attested in a passage by Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair:

“When the Temple was destroyed the Fellows and freemen were put to shame and went about with lowered head, and men of great deeds were enfeebled; but men of violence and men of glibness waxed strong” (Trans, Philip Blackman)

The destruction of the Temple, much like many cataclysmic events in the history of the world may have caused a disruption in Israel's societal structure. The volatile and tumultuous state of affairs in this period inevitably precipitated a poisonous generation in which the corrupt and evil displaced the righteous and honest.

Rabbi Eliezer’s admonitions, when set in this post-destruction context may have been more than just a part of his program to preserve the old halakha, but a reaction to an actual generation of students devoid of reverence for the Academic institutions of the Land of Israel after the destruction of the Second Temple. The preponderance of the “Engagement Etiquette” in the Palestinian sources from the time of the Mishnah suggests that this practice was quickly gaining ground and was firmly rooted as early as the 2nd century.

The anthropologist First gives the basic definition of greeting as “the recognition of an encounter with another person as socially acceptable". This definition of greetings in terms of social acceptability harks back to the Babylonian Rabbi Eliezer who avoided Rabbi Yochanan because his Babylonian manners would not allow him to be found in the same social situation with his teacher. A correlation between social distance between classes and the type of greeting etiquette prevalent in a society may be speculated. 

The shift from the “Avoidance Etiquette” to the “Engagement Etiquette” could be seen as the outcome of the societal collapse that followed the destruction of the Second Temple. Common folk were placed with the former elite and students in the same (or closer in) class with Sages. This created a different mode of social interaction (“Engagement Etiquette”) between non-equals, which now allowed them to engage each other and be found in the same social situation. 

In addition to the social changes that befell the Land of Israel after the destruction of the Second Temple, other concurrent factors may have contributed to the shift in etiquette. Roman social structure appears to have been somewhat loose and allowed for social mobility.20 This would suggest that in Rome the gap between social classes may have been fairly narrow. In Rome, a practice known as Salutatio required, at least until the 1st century AD that the household slaves greet (verbally) their owners at the beginning of the day (Slavery in the Roman World, Sandra R. Joshel, pg. 186). Salutatio also appears to have taken root in the Land of Israel during this period and was practiced in the House of Rabbi Judah the Prince which received daily greetings from other Rabbis (PShabbath 12:3, PTaanit 4:2) 21 The narrowing of the gap between classes in post-destruction Israel could have created a welcoming environment for the social etiquette of the Romans.

Cultural Context: Babylonia

The Jewish community in Babylonia dates back to the 6th century when Nebuchadnezzar exiled Judah. After the rebuilding of the Temple in the time of Ezra many Jews ascended to the Land of Israel while some Jews remained in Babylonia. The Babylonian Jewish community appears to have thrived because of the autonomy granted to them by the Parthians and then later by the Sassanians.

We proposed above that the Avoidance Etiquette, unlike Engagement Etiquette lends itself to a society characterized by vast distance between social classes where it may not have been deemed appropriate for social un-equals to be found in the same social situation. Although it is difficult to find direct evidence for the prevalence of the Avoidance Etiquette in Babylonia in the Sassanian period, it may suffice to show that at least its social structure may have been agreeable to this greeting etiquette. It is difficult to speak of all of Babylonia as sharing in a uniform culture as it appears that already by the middle of the sixth century B.C.E., the population of Babylonia was ethnically mixed (Cambridge History of Judaism, pg. 338). We can only assume that some parts of Babylonia, which may have contained Jewish communities shared a culture that exhibited the characteristics we are seeking.

The sources on the Sassanian daily life are scanty and do not shed much light directly on our inquiry. However, a key feature of social distance, the rigid social structure of the Sassanids is well attested in the literature on this empire.22

“The theory was that men of low birth, even if they acquired the necessary skills, were not fit to handle the responsibilities of men of noble birth, and so it was incumbent upon kings to preserve the purity of the higher classes. Thus, it was invariably understood that the people must be kept to their own stations and might not aspire to cross the lines of social class (rubenstein, pg. 86), Cambridge History of Iran (pg. 397)

The inability of “crossing lines of social class” in Sassanian society distinguishes it sharply from Roman society which allowed for upward movement.  

Sassanian society developed an elaborate, ceremonious etiquette system extending to every aspect of life. Sassanian documents attest to great formality in interrelationships between people of different ranks or social orders. Even formal behavior between father and son were defined. For example, a younger was expected to maintain reservation before an elder:

“In front of their elders, the young would stand with hands on their chests and heads lowered downwards in respect (ibid., IV, p. 76 v. 1197; Wolff, Glossar, p. 382, s.v. “dast,” no. 45; Ardā Wīrāz--nāmag 1.20) “

“On meeting each other, or bidding each other farewell, a son would kiss his father’s hands and feet while the father would embrace the son’s head, face and eyes (Šāh-nāma, ed. Khaleghi, I, p. 273 v. 1546).”

“After dismounting, those of more or less equal status would kiss the ground before the other.”

These non-verbal gestures are just a few examples of Sassanian ritualized methods of interaction between non-equals which actually appear to predate significantly the Sassanian Period: “Unspontaneous, semi-ritualized gestures were a hallmark of Persian social communication, at least according to Herodotus (1.134), who describes in some detail a series of greeting gestures used in daily life.” (King and Court in Persia, pg. 71)

The passages from first and second hand sources adduced above paint the picture of a society characterized by great social distance and ritualized modes of interaction which appear to be primarily non-verbal. It is possible that the presence of this type of culture in Babylonia or parts of it would sustain the claims of Palestinian sources of the prevalence of the Avoidance Etiquette in Babylonia.