Two Jewish Tombstones O ver the past decades, an increasing

number of Jewish tombstones from

from Zoar Zoar have appeared in scholarly publications.1
The tombstones are made of local sandstone
and are small – between 30 and 40 cm
Haggai Misgav high. They form part, apparently a small
part, of a group of close to one hundred
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Jewish tombstones2 from a large cemetery
at Zoar on the eastern shores of the Dead
Sea, which dates from the fourth and fifth
centuries CE. This cemetery also yielded
hundreds of Christian tombstones from the
same period, and was, therefore, a mixed
one, Jewish and Christian.3 The settlement
at Zoar already had a Jewish population
in the second century CE, as attested by
documents discovered at Nahal Hever.4
The first Jewish tombstones from Zoar
were published in the 1920s and 1940s,5 but
most came to scholars’ attention in the 1980s
and 1990s. They did not reach us through
controlled excavations, but rather, were
purchased on the antiquities market. Until
now, nearly thirty specimens in Aramaic,
written in Jewish script, and a few Greek
or bilingual (Aramaic and Greek) specimens
have been published or are being prepared
for publication. The epitaphs are engraved
or painted in red, and sometimes both. The
tombstones vary in terms of the style of
writing, of engraving, and of the accom-
panying decoration, and it is possible that
a chronology of the different styles can be
established on the basis of the tombstones’
dates.
The content of the epitaphs is fairly
fixed: Each includes an opening formula,
the name of the deceased, sometimes with
an additional epithet, the date of death, and
Fig. 2
After drawing a closing formula. These elements will be
appearing in Winter’s discussed in further detail below.
Fig. 1 catalogue (Winter
Tombstone XXX 1903, pl 140:4) The most obvious innovation of the
Jewish tombstones from Zoar, in com-
parison to earlier Palestinian Jewish burial

IMSA 5 • 2006: 35–46 35

 inscriptions, lies in the inclusion of the date
of death. In the epitaphs from Zoar, the
date of death is not only a new element
(no Jewish burial inscriptions before these
include a date at all), it is also the main
element. The date takes up most of the space
on the tombstone, almost as if the epitaph
were written primarily for its sake.
The year is generally recorded in two
ways: according to the year in the sabbatical
cycle, and according to the era from the
destruction of the Temple. The use of a
double system of dating is familiar to us
from the Roman world and occurs in legal
documents of various periods. For example,
the regnal year of the emperor often appears
alongside the year according to the provin-
cial era. However, the use of two Jewish
systems of reckoning – one of a halakhic
(legal) nature and the other of an historical
nature – is an entirely new phenomenon.
Sometimes the years on a given
tombstone do not correspond to one
another, and sometimes there is a con-
tradiction between the years inscribed on
some tombstones and those inscribed on
others. The use of a third era – that of
Provincia Arabia – is also found, and this
has led to calendrical debate as well.6 To
complicate matters further, it is possible that
the sabbatical cycle and the era from the
destruction of the Temple were not counted
starting in the same month. Thus, a lack of
correspondence could also occur in certain
months (particularly toward the end of the
year). We shall touch upon some of these
problems, which have been amply discussed
in various publications, below.7
The oldest known tombstone from
Zoar on which the year is recorded according
to the era from the destruction of the Temple
is Tombstone VI, year 282 after the destruc-
tion of the Temple, or 350/351 CE. This
era continues to be used on tombstones as
36
late as the ninth century CE, as attested
by a tombstone from Baalbek 8 and others
from Venosa, Italy.9 The latest document
known to us that uses a date according to
this era comes from Greece; it dates from
1819 CE.10
The two Jewish Aramaic tombstones
in the Israel Museum Collection, published
here for the first time, shed further light on
these issues.11
Tombstone XXX
The tombstone12 is 45.3 cm high, 25 cm wide,
and 14 cm thick (figs. 1–2). It is decorated
with a Torah ark, a menorah, a shofar (ram’s
horn), and a lulav (palm branch) painted
in red. The epitaph, too, is painted in red,
but is rather worn. The lines are straight,
and the script is professional, similar to the
script on several other tombstones from the
cemetery (nos. III, XI, XIV, XVII, XXIII,
and XXXI). The decoration that frames the
epitaph and the motifs below it resemble
those of the aforementioned tombstones, as
well. Another tombstone, no. XXII, which
depicts a Torah ark, a menorah, and a shofar,
is also close in terms of its decorative style,
but it is engraved. Of all these parallels,
Tombstone XIV is the closest in design.
It is reasonable to assume that tomb-
stones exhibiting a similar decorative style
and script were produced by the same artisan,
or at least in contemporary workshops. The
early tombstones from this cemetery (nos.
VI, XIII, XVIII, XIX, and XXVI), for
example, exhibit a similar script, lack the
decorative frame and accompanying motifs,
and do not employ a double system of dating.
It seems likely, therefore, that Tombstone
XXX and the ones similar to it (nos. III,
XI, XIV, XVII, XXIII, and XXXI), which
reflect the same design concept, also belong
to one school. The tombstone discussed here
is thus the earliest of this type; the others
H. Misgav: Jewish Tombstones from Zoar
are later than it by twenty to more than
seventy years.
The language of the epitaph, like
the other Jewish epitaphs from Zoar,
is Palestinian Aramaic, typical of the
Byzantine period. Plene spelling is employed:
� t’ bh (‰·‡Ë), as opposed to � tbh (‰·Ë), š’ bw‘ h
(‰Ú·‡˘) as opposed to šbw‘ h (‰Ú·˘) – and
Fig. 2
Hebrew words, such as šlwm (ÌÂÏ˘) occur in Drawing of
the closing formulae. Tombstone XXX

Translation Transcription Aramaic

This is the tombstone of Hannah hdh nfšh d� hnh ‰Á„ ‰˘Ù ‰„‰
daughter of Ha[nie?]l the priest, brth d[� hny’]l khnh ‰‰Î Ï˛ø‡ÈÁ¸„ ‰˙¯·
who died on the Sabbath, dmytt ywm šwbth ‰˙·Â˘ ÌÂÈ ˙˙ÈÓ„
the first festival day ywm’ � t’bh qdmyh ‰ÈÓ„˜ ‰·‡Ë ‡ÓÂÈ
of Passover, on the fifteenth dps� hh hmšt ‘sr ¯ÒÚ ˙˘ÓÁ ‰ÁÒÙ„
day of the month of Nisan, ywmyn byr� h nysn ÔÒÈ Á¯È· ÔÈÓÂÈ
in the fifth year bšth hmyšyth ‰˙È˘ÈÓÁ ‰˙˘·
of the sabbatical cycle, which is the year dš’bw‘ h dhy šnt ˙˘ ȉ„ ‰Ú·‡˘„
three hundred and sixty- tlt m’h wštyn ÔÈ˙˘Â ‰‡Ó ˙Ï˙
nine years after the destruction wtš‘ šnyn l� hrbn Ô·¯ÁÏ ÔÈ˘ Ú˘˙Â
of the Temple. Peace. byt mqdšh šlwm ÌÂÏ˘ ‰˘„˜Ó ˙È·
May her soul rest. Peace. ny� h’ nfšh šlwm ÌÂÏ˘ ‰˘Ù ‡ÁÈ

Opening formula. The opening formula
hdh nfšh (‰˘Ù ‰„‰) is translated “This is the
tombstone. . . .” In rabbinic literature, the
Aramaic term nfšh (‰˘Ù) and the Hebrew
term nfš (˘Ù) refer to a structure above a
tomb, to be distinguished from � sywn (ÔÂȈ),
a marker erected to warn passersby of the
presence of impurity.13 The � sywn (ÔÂȈ) thus
has a halakhic (religious legal) function; the
origin of the word can be traced to Ezekiel
39:15, who prophesies that a marker (� sywn
[ÔÂȈ]) shall be erected near every unburied
human bone found lying about after the
battle of Gog. In contrast, the nfš (˘Ù) is
a structure erected for a commemorative
purpose.14 This is the term used in the
inscription on the monumental structure
at the tomb of Beni Hezir in the Kidron
Valley, Jerusalem.15 At Zoar, it is the regular
term for “tombstone.” Its use is thus figura-
tive, for it refers only to a stone bearing an
epitaph, not to an entire structure.

IMSA 5 • 2006: 35–46 37

 Name. As customary at Zoar, the name of
the woman commemorated in the epitaph
appears along with the name of her father,
as opposed to the name of her husband,
which had been the Jewish practice in earlier
periods.
For instance, in ossuary inscriptions
from Jerusalem dating to the late Second
Temple period (first century BCE – first
century CE), which have come to light
in Jewish family tombs, most women are
referred to as “wife of so-and-so,” while only
a minority are mentioned along with the
names of their fathers. This corresponds to
the view that regards the woman as part of
her husband’s family, and since the ossuary
inscriptions were meant, above all, to
identify the deceased inside the family tomb,
special importance was attached to mention-
ing membership in a particular family. A
woman was only mentioned along with her
father’s name when she had no children and
was buried in the tomb of her ancestors,16 or
in exceptional cases, when her lineage was
significant. This is apparently the case in
the inscription of “Shelomzion daughter of
Gamla, wife of Yehoezer son of Kalon,” who
is mentioned along with both her father’s
and her husband’s names.17 It is possible that
Shelomzion’s father is mentioned because
the family was a prestigious one, perhaps
even related to the High Priest.18 This is
not unlikely, for Yehoezer son of Kalon,
Shelomzion’s husband, was a priest from
the Yeshevav clan, and it was common for
priests to marry those of priestly descent or
others of distinguished lineage.
Since the father of the woman com-
memorated in the epitaph on Tombstone
XXX was a priest, it might be claimed that
he was mentioned because of his special
status. In Jewish society, priests have always
occupied an honored, elevated status; this was
true in all periods, not only in the Second
38
Temple period, when the priests played a
role in the political leadership. Talmudic law
accords priests certain rights regardless of
their social role, and this situation is without
a doubt reflected here. The individual com-
memorated in Tombstone XXIII19 was also
a priest; the closing formula of his epitaph
yw� hz bmzb� h (Á·ÊÓ· ÊÁÂÈ), meaning “may he
hold the altar,” is a special one, presumably
related to his priestly status, as a future
servant in the Temple to be rebuilt one day.
However, the fact that the father of the
woman commemorated in Tombstone XXX
was a priest does not seem to be the reason
his name was mentioned here, since fathers’
names occur in the other epitaphs as well,
even when the lineage is not a prestigious
one. The custom of mentioning a woman
along with her father’s name, as opposed to
her husband’s name, is already found in the
third-century CE tombs at Bet She‘arim,
but at Zoar it is particularly prominent.
At Zoar, only one woman out of all those
known to us is mentioned along with her
husband’s name. All the rest, even women
who reached old age, are mentioned with
their fathers’ names, and presumably, not
all of them died childless. It is therefore
possible to point with certainty to a change
in the conception of the family during this
period.
The name “Hannah” is a very common
name in biblical, talmudic, and Christian
sources. The name “Ha[nie]l,” if this is
indeed the correct reading, is a biblical name
(Numbers 32:23, I Chronicles 7:31). It also
appears in an Edomite ostracon of the Late
Persian – Early Hellenistic period.20
Date. The day of death was a special one,
and it was therefore recorded in three ways:
according to the day of the week (“the
Sabbath”), according to the day of the
festival (“the first festival day of Passover”),
H. Misgav: Jewish Tombstones from Zoar
and according to the day of the month (“the
fifteenth day of the month of Nisan”). The
year of death was recorded, as customary at
Zoar, according to the sabbatical cycle and
according to the era from the destruction of
the Temple: “the fifth year of the sabbatical
cycle, which is the year three hundred and
sixty-nine years after the destruction of the
Temple.”
This date corresponds to most of the
known tombstones from Zoar. According
to the Jewish calendar used today, the first
festival day of Passover fell on the Sabbath
in two consecutive years during the period
in question: 438 and 439 CE. Naturally,
only one of these could have been the fifth
year of the sabbatical cycle. Since the Second
Temple was destroyed in the summer of 70
CE, this year is counted as Year 1 after
the destruction of the Temple; it would
have begun in the fall of 69 CE. The year
71 CE would have been Year 2 after the
Destruction, and thus 438 CE would be Year
369 after the destruction of the Temple. For
this also to be the fifth year of the sabbatical
cycle, the Hebrew year 69/70 CE would have
to have been the first year of the sabbatical
cycle, while 68/69 CE would have been the
sabbatical year itself. This calculation corre-
sponds to the sabbatical cycle as it is counted
today. However, a document from Wadi
Muraba‘at, 21 dated to the second regnal year
of the Emperor Nero, in other words, 55/56
CE, bears the phrase s’mytt’ d’ (‡„ ‡˙ËÈÓ˘),
“this sabbatical year.” Accordingly, 69/70
CE would have been a sabbatical year as
well. On the other hand, since the name of
the month has not survived on the Wadi
Muraba‘at document, we cannot determine
the Hebrew year to which the document
refers. Thus the Wadi Muraba‘at evidence
does not contradict the evidence from the
tombstone, and we may assume that the year
of death was 438 CE.22
IMSA 5 • 2006: 35–46
Closing formula. The Aramaic expression
ny� h’ nfšh (‰˘Ù ‡ÁÈ), “May her soul rest,”
which usually appears in Hebrew nw� h
nfš (˘Ù ÁÂ), is found starting in the third
century CE, particularly on tombstones
from Jaffa, 23 but also in medieval Hebrew
inscriptions and later Jewish tombstones
found near the Temple Mount. At Zoar,
the expression and its derivatives frequently
appear at the beginning of the epitaph, as in
ttnyh nfšh (‰˘Ù ÁÈ˙˙, see Tombstone XXXI,
below). The expression clearly relates to the
biblical term nfš (˘Ù), referring to the soul,
but when appearing in the context of the
opening formula, it also alludes to the later,
rabbinic meaning of tomb monument or
tombstone.
On this tombstone, the expression
appears along with the closing formula,
where the composers of the epitaphs
generally allowed themselves a certain
degree of liberty – more so, at least, than
in the rest of the epitaph. Biblical verses
were quoted, blessings regarding the coming
of the Messiah and the resurrection of the
dead were added, the Hebrew word šlwm
(ÌÂÏ˘), “peace,” was repeated, and so forth.
Tombstone XXXI
The tombstone24 is 36 cm high, 21 cm wide,
and 5.8 cm thick (figs. 3–4). Its epitaph and
decorative elements are painted in red. The
area below the decorative frame probably
originally featured two ornaments: On the
left, a menorah can be seen. On the right,
the top of a vegetal element is visible just
above the fracture line – it may belong
to a lulav (palm branch), which appears
in some other tombstones (see Appendix).
The script of the epitaph is professional.
Nevertheless, there are two corrections to
the date. The circumstances of these cor-
rections are unknown.
39
Figs. 3–4 Translation Transcription Aramaic
Tombstone XXXI
Rested be the soul ttnyh nfšh ‰˘Ù ÁÈ˙˙
of Hassidah the priest dhsydh khnh ‰‰Î ‰„ÈÒÁ„
son of Domitian, who died br dmtyn dmyt ˙ÈÓ„ ÔÈËÓ„ ¯·
on the fifth day of Av / b� hmšh b’b / Ø ·‡· ‰˘ÓÁ·
in the fifth day of it bywm hmšy bh ‰· È˘ÓÁ ÌÂÈ·
in the fourth year bšth rby‘yth ‰˙ÈÚÈ·¯ ‰˙˘·
of the sabbatical cycle, which is the year dšb[w‘ h dhy]’ šnt ˙˘ ‡˛È‰„ ‰Ú¸·˘„
four hundred and forty- ’rb‘ [m’ w’]rb‘y[n] ˛Ô¸ÈÚ·¯˛‡Â ‡Ó¸ Ú·¯‡
nine/five years after the destruction wt/mš‘ [šnyn] l� hrbn Ô·¯ÁÏ ˛ÔÈ˘¸ Ú˘ÓØ˙Â
of the Temple. Peace [by]t mqdšh šlwm ÌÂÏ˘ ‰˘„˜Ó ˙˛È·¸
on Israel. l [‘]l ysr’l l Ï Ï‡¯˘È Ï˛Ú¸

Opening formula. The opening formula
reads ttnyh nf šh (‰˘Ù ÁÈ˙˙), which is
translated, “Rested be the soul.” The word
ttnyh (ÁÈ˙˙) is a verb based on the root
nw� h / nyh (ÁÈ ¨ÁÂ) in itpe‘al. Nf šh (‰˘Ù)
in this context literally means “soul,” in
contrast, for example, to its occurrence in
the opening formula of Tombstone XXX,
where it refers to the tombstone. However,
appearing as it does in the opening formula
of this epitaph, the phrase ttnyh nf šh (ÁÈ˙˙
‰˘Ù) also alludes to the tombstone and
grave alongside which the visitor stands, as a
kind of double entendre, which plays on the
double meaning of the word nf šh (‰˘Ù).
Name. “Hassidah” is not a very common
name. It is probably a version of the name
Hassadiah > Hassidia > Hasida (‡Ø‰„ÈÒÁ), like
Hannaniah > *Hanninia > Hannina (‡Ø‰ÈÁ),

40 H. Misgav: Jewish Tombstones from Zoar

or ‘Aqavia > *‘Aqivia > ‘Aqiva (‡Ø‰·È˜Ú). In
the Babylonian Talmud, it always appears
as an adjective (pious) – as in Shimon the
Pious (‡„ÈÒÁ ÔÂÚÓ˘), Sala the Pious (‡ÏÒ
‡„ÈÒÁ), and Amram the Pious (‡„ÈÒÁ ̯ÓÚ),
all of whom were Babylonian sages, while
in the Palestinian Talmud it is a name in
its own right.25 The Babylonian version of
this name is in all likelihood “Hisda” (‡„ÒÁ)
a well-known third generation amora, or
“Hisdai”(ȇ„ÒÁ).
The deceased was a priest (Ô‰Î). This
title also appears on Tombstones XXIII,
XXIX, and XXX, indicating, as mentioned
above, that priests remained a distinguished
group even in this later period. Hassidah’s
father had a Roman name – Domitian
(dmtyn, ÔÈËÓ„). Another version of this name,
Domitiana (dm� tynh, ‰ÈËÓ„), appears on
Tombstone VI, the earliest Jewish tombstone
from Zoar known to us.
Date. The date of death includes the day
of the month, possibly the day of the week,
the year according to the sabbatical cycle,
and the year according to the era from the
destruction of the Temple.
The formula “in the fifth day of it”
is problematic. Generally, such a formula
refers to the day of the month, since the
word bh (= in it) suggests a unit of time
larger than one day. But in this case, the
day in the month of Ab has already been
mentioned explicitly before. The phrase
could refer to the fifth day of the week:
Thursday. However, the word “week” does
not appear. The words were written above
the line, suggesting that they were added
after the main text was inscribed. The day
of the week appears in less than half of
the known tombstones beginning with year
323 after the destruction of the Temple. In
contrast, the day of the month is a regular
addition beginning with the year 305 after
IMSA 5 • 2006: 35–46
the destruction (assuming we leave out the
bilingual epitaph from the year 290 after
the destruction, which may have been influ-
enced by Hellenistic epigraphic custom).
At the beginning of line 8, one word is
superimposed on another word (it is unclear
which was written on top of which): “nine”
and probably “five.” This yields two possible
readings: “the year four hundred and forty-
five” or “the year four hundred and forty-
nine.” The year 449 after the destruction
of the Temple (= 518 CE) was the first
year of the sabbatical cycle, while the year
445 (= 514 CE) was indeed the fourth year
of the sabbatical cycle. However, based on
the time of the new moon, we know that in
this year, the fifth day of Ab fell a Sunday,
not a Thursday. In the following year, 515,
the fifth of Ab fell on a Friday. The small
gap between Thursday and Friday is not
difficult to explain – it could have been due
to the weather, the result of different system
of calculating the new moon, or some other
explanation. This explanation creates a gap
of one year in the system of counting the
years. Such a gap occurs in some of the
epitaphs, but until now we have been unable
to account for this phenomenon. One pos-
sibility is that the era from the destruction
of the Temple was counted from the first
of Ab, but this explanation has never been
suggested before.
In view of the above, it seems more
likely that the additional words – “in the
fifth day of it” – refer to the day of the
month and not of the week. The question
of why the writer felt compelled to repeat
the day of the month seems to be less of
a problem than the questions raised by the
possibility that the formula refers to the
day of the week. Whether the year of death
is 514 or 518 CE, this is the latest Jewish
tombstone from Zoar known to us today.
41
 Conclusion
The significance of the date of death in Jewish
tombstones has not yet been fully addressed
in scholarly literature. Based on compari-
sons with inscriptions from the previous
periods, and considering the fact that in the
rabbinic tradition, there are no guidelines
for the writing of epitaphs, it seems that new
commemorative practices may have emerged
in the Byzantine period, 26 mainly having to
do with an annual visit to the grave around
the anniversary of death, as is still custom-
ary today. For this reason, the date of death
had to be recorded. The custom of visiting
the tomb is only feasible in burial fields, as
opposed to family burial caves – primar-
ily for technical reasons: a visit to a burial
cave is unpleasant, and, in fact, owing to the
practice of secondary burial, the remains of
the deceased do not necessarily remain in
a fixed place in the cave. Allusions to the
introduction of the practice of visiting the
grave around the anniversary of death begin
to appear in Geonic times.27
In general, a well-established tradition
of epitaph writing can be discerned at Zoar.
The formulae of the epitaphs and the deco-
rations recur on most of the tombstones,
attesting to a fixed, and possibly obligatory,
custom. This situation is quite different
from the first-century CE funerary inscrip-
tions from Jerusalem (mainly on ossuaries),
which only include private names, and from
the funerary inscriptions from Bet She‘arim,
some two hundred years later than them,
which do not exhibit a fixed formula.
The fixed formula of the Jewish
epitaphs at Zoar consists of:
1. Opening formula – the term referring to
the tombstone or soul of the deceased: hdh
nfšh (‰˘Ù ‰„‰) or ttny� h nfšh (‰˘Ù ÁÈ˙˙).
2. The name of the deceased, the name of
his or her father, and, occasionally, an epithet
relating to status, such as priest or elder.
42
3. The term for death: myt (˙ÈÓ), “died,” ’tkns
(˘Î˙‡), “gathered,” and gz (Ê‚), “vanished.”
4. The date of death: according to the day
of the week (occasionally), the day of the
month, the month, the year in the sabbatical
cycle, and the year according to the era from
the destruction of the Temple.
5. Closing formula + šlwm (ÌÂÏ˘), “peace,”
or a variation of it.
The closing formula is the section in
which, more so than in any other section,
the unique qualities of each epitaph find
expression. Above we mentioned the special
closing formula found in the epitaph of a
priest (XXIII). Special closing formulae also
occur in the epitaphs of a wise man (XXII)
and of a Jew from Himyar (XXIV). In
the epitaph appearing on Tombstone XXX,
while there is no addition similar to those
found on the aforementioned tombstones,
the expression nyh’ nfš� h (‰˘Ù ‡ÁÈ) at the
end is unusual.
It may be asserted, therefore, that in
the Byzantine period, Jewish Palestinian
epitaphs underwent a process of crystal-
lization. A few explanations for this can
be posited. It is possible that the process is
related to the development of commemora-
tive customs in general, as mentioned above,
mainly the visit to the grave around the
anniversary of death. It is also possible that
the change was linked to the change in the
form of burial: from the moment burial no
longer took place in closed family tombs, but
rather in public cemeteries, and visits to the
cemetery became frequent, greater care had
to be taken with the epitaphs, and uniform
formulae would be of significant assistance.
Despite the fixed quality of the epitaphs,
the authors did not relinquish all personal
expression. In ossuary inscriptions of the
Second Temple period, personal expression
took the form of the very act of burial in a
family burial cave. In the intimacy of such a
H. Misgav: Jewish Tombstones from Zoar
setting, it was unnecessary to include details
beyond the deceased’s name. By contrast, in
a public cemetery, the addition of informa-
tion about the deceased in the epitaph is to
be expected. The origins of this practice are
already notable at Bet She‘arim, but at Zoar,
the custom is particularly pronounced. And
thus, the typical epitaph formula at Zoar
emerged, in which the beginning of the
inscription is devoted to technical details
(name, lineage, and date), while the end
exhibits relatively greater freedom.
The Jewish tombstones of Zoar reflect
new customs and a new worldview. The
epitaph, more than simply identifying the
grave, invites the living relatives of the
deceased to visit the grave on a fixed date
each year. Thus the grave becomes the place
where life and death are connected. In this
way, death becomes an integral part of life.
* Photos © The Israel Museum, Jerusalem, by
V. Naikhin. Drawings © The Israel Museum,
Jerusalem, by P. Arad.
1
Naveh 1995; Stern 1999; Naveh 1999; Naveh
2000; Naveh 2001; Cotton and Price 2001;
Stern and Misgav 2006. In these publications,
the tombstones were numbered according to the
order in which they were published. The Roman
numerals used in the present article correspond to
this system. In the appendix to this article, a table
comparing the tombstones, in which the tomb-
stones are organized chronologically, has been
provided, for the reader’s convenience.
2
The estimated number of Jewish tombstones is
based on a lecture by Y. Meimaris at the Hebrew
University, in the context of the conference
Epigraphy and Beyond, July 2, 2003.
3 naught. See Naveh 2001, 5–9; Cotton and Price
Meimaris and Kritikakou-Nikolaropoulou 2005.
4
Yadin, Lewis, and Greenfield 2002.
5
Cowley 1925; Ben-Zvi 1944; Sukenik 1944.
6 Ohio, to American Friends of the Israel Museum.
Cotton and Price 2001.
7 25
A comprehensive discussion of the topic of the
dates has recently appeared in Stern 2001. See also
below, n. 22
8 Babylonian Talmud, Shevuot 20b, Nedarim 12a.
Naccach 1989; Naveh 1995.
IMSA 5 • 2006: 35–46
9
Cassuto 1945.
10
Friedman 1980.
11
I wish to thank David Mevorah, Curator of
Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Archaeology,
for permission to publish these tombstones. I am
also grateful to Dan Barag, for allowing me to
include Tombstone XXXI in this publication.
12
IMJ 90.30.68, gift of Max Ratner, Cleveland,
Ohio, to American Friends of the Israel Museum.
13
Mishnah Sheqalim 1:15; Babylonian Talmud,
Bava Kama 69a, Shabbat 34b, and so forth.
14
For example, the structure built by Simon for his
brother (I Maccabees 13:25–30); see also Semahot
Rabbati 4:12; Avigad 1954; Patrich 1994.
15
Avigad 1954.
16
Semahot 14.
17
CII, no. 1353.
18
Joshua son of Gamla served as High Priest
in the first century CE and is mentioned by
Josephus (War IV. iii. 9) and in rabbinic literature
(Babylonian Talmud, Baba Batra 21a, Babylonian
Talmud, Yebamot 61a, Mishnah Yoma 3:9)
19
Naveh 2001, 623.
20
Ahituv 1999.
21
DJD II, no. 18.
22
The calculation of the years is one of the problems
faced by many of the scholars of who have dealt
with the tombstones from Zoar. In addition to
the lack of correspondence between some of the
epitaphs, a bilingual epitaph has recently been
published by H. Cotton and J. Price (Cotton
and Price 2001) in which the year is recorded
according to three systems: the sabbatical cycle,
the era from the destruction of the Temple, and
the era of Provincia Arabia. The epitaph is from 27
Kislev, Year 253 of Provincia Arabia, Year 290 of
the Destruction of the Temple, the third year of
the sabbatical cycle. According to today’s calendar,
this would be December 358 CE. The calcula-
tion corresponds to other known tombstones from
Zoar, and it appears that the authors struggled for
2001, 281–82.
23
Klein 1939.
24
IMJ 90.26.12, gift of Max Ratner, Cleveland,
Mishnah Sotah 9:11, Mishnah Nedarim 5:5.
26
References to “the day his father died” in the
Talmud are found in the context of vows:
Further on in the passage in Nedarim, it seems
43
 as if the reference is to the day of the week, as Naccach, A. F.
opposed to the day of the month. In any case, the 1989 A Ninth Century A.D. Judeo-Aramaic
statement does not refer to the annual visiting of Epitaph from B‘albak. Orientalia 58: 243–45.
the grave.
Naveh, J.
27
Misgav 2002. 1995 Aramaic Tombstones from Zoar. Tarbiz 64:
477–97 (Hebrew).
1999 More on the Tombstones from Zoar. Tarbiz
Bibliography 68: 581–86 (Hebrew).
2000 Seven New Epitaphs from Zoar. Tarbiz 69:
Abbreviations
619–35 (Hebrew).
CII J. B. Frey. Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaicarum 2.
2001 Two Tombstones from Zoar in the Hecht
Rome, 1952.
Museum Collection – The Aramaic
DJD II P. Benoit, J. T. Milik, and R. de Vaux. Inscription. Michmanim 15: 5–9 (Hebrew).
Discoveries in the Judaean Desert II, Les grottes
Patrich, J.
de Murabba‘at. Oxford, 1961.
1995 Graves and Burial Practices in Talmudic
Sources. In Graves and Burial Practices in
Israel in the Ancient Period, ed. I. Singer,
Ahituv, S.
190–211. Jerusalem (Hebrew).
1999 An Edomite Ostracon. In Michael:
Historical, Epigraphical, and Biblical Studies Stern, S.
in Honor of Prof. Michael Heltzer, ed. Y. 1999 New Tombstones from Zoar (Moussaieff
Avishur and R. Deutsch, 33–37. Tel Aviv. Collection). Tarbiz 68: 175–85 (Hebrew).
Avigad, N. 2001 Calendar and Community: A History of the
1954 Ancient Monuments in the Kidron Valley. Jewish Calendar, Second Century BCE – Tenth
Jerusalem (Hebrew). Century CE. Oxford.
Ben-Zvi, Y. Stern, S., and Misgav, H.
1944 Two Judaeo-Aramaic Epitaphs from the 2006 Four Additional Tombstones from Zoar.
Vicinity of Zoar. Bulletin of the Israel Tarbiz 74: 137–51 (Hebrew).
Exploration Society 10: 35–38 (Hebrew).
Sukenik, E. L.
Cassuto, M. D. 1944 Jewish Tombstones from Zoar. Qedem 2:
1945 The Hebrew Inscriptions of the Ninth 83–88 (Hebrew).
Century from Venosa. Qedem 2: 99–120
Yadin, Y., Lewis, N., and Greenfield, J.
(Hebrew).
2002 The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in
Cotton, H., and Price, J. the Cave of Letters. Jerusalem.
2001 A Bilingual Funerary Monument from Zoar
in the Hecht Museum Collection – The
Greek Inscription. Michmanim 15: 10–12.
Cowley A. E.
1925 A Jewish Tombstone. Palestine Exploration
Fund Quarterly Statement: 207–10.
Friedman, M. A.
1980 Jewish Marriage in Palestine: A Cairo Geniza
Study. Tel Aviv.
Klein, S.
1939 Sefer Hayishuv. Jerusalem (Hebrew).
Meimaris, Y., and Kritikakou-Nikolaropoulou, K.
2005 Inscriptions from Palaestina Tertia Ia, The
Greek Inscriptions from Ghor es-Safi. Athens.
Misgav, H.
2002 Development of Jewish Memorial Customs
in the Roman-Byzantine Period Based on
Burial Inscriptions. In Judea and Samaria
Research Studies 11: 123–36 (Hebrew).

44 H. Misgav: Jewish Tombstones from Zoar