Acts 9:43

‘And it came about that he abode many days in Joppa with one Simon a tanner.'

The account is introduced by this indication of the whereabouts of Peter. It is significant in itself. No tanner would be allowed to ply his trade within the walls of Jerusalem or within 50 cubits of them. And that applied to all fully Jewish cities. A specific distance from the city was required for his trade premises (which would usually also be his home). There would, however, be a large number of tanneries around Jerusalem, outside the strict limits, as there was a large scale requirement for them in view of the abundance of hides that the priests obtained from all sacrifices that they offered (for the hide went to the officiating priest) and from the hides received by landlords from Passover visitors, for the hide was seen as a kind of rental for the ‘free' use of the premises. So while such tanners were looked down on, it was a useful trade that (in the usual hypocritical way that man has) all knew was required, even though it was one in which no ultra-respectable Jew would engage. Of course those who were brought up to the trade saw it differently through familiarity.

This requirement to be outside the city might not strictly apply in Joppa, for it was a multinational society, and such a provision might not have been enforceable, but it does serve to demonstrate that the trade was seen as ‘unclean', and this was mainly because it meant constant association with dead matter, and because of the methods used for tanning (dipping in urine). No respectable Jew would become involved with it, and there would be strict regulation and control applied to Jews who did, and a certain level of ostracism by the ‘more religious' who were fastidious about ‘uncleanness'. Furthermore if a damsel became betrothed to a tanner without being made aware of his trade, the betrothal could be nullified on her learning of it. She could not be forced to marry a tanner.

Thus the fact that Peter willingly lodged with a tanner probably demonstrated the more casual approach to uncleanness followed by Galileans. A Judaean would have been much more wary of doing so. Nevertheless we can be sure that Peter carefully ensured that he did maintain a full level of ‘cleanness' while he was there, and would be expected to by all. It does, however, serve to demonstrate that Peter was to some extent more open to being persuaded on such matters than, for example, an inhabitant of Jerusalem would have been.