The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70 (Parts I, II & III)

THE RABBINIC ABOUT THE

TRADITIONS PHARISEES

BEFORE 70

PART I THE

MASTERS

THE RABBINIC TRADITIONS ABOUT THE PHARISEES BEFORE 70 PART I

THE MASTERS

BY

JACOB

NEUSNER

Professor of Religious Studies B r o w n University

LEIDEN E. J . B R I L L 1971

Copyright

1971 by E. j . Brill, Leiden,

Netherlands

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche or any other means without written permission from the publisher

PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

For Morton Smith

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS

Preface

XIII PART

ONE

THE MASTERS List of Abbreviations

xiv

Transliterations

xvi

I.

INTRODUCTION

II.

THE CHAINS OF PHARISAIC TRADITION

11

i. ii. iii. iv.

11 13 15 22

III.

IV.

To Lay on Hands Decrees Moral Apophthegms Conclusion

SIMEON THE JUST

24

i. Traditions ii. Synopses iii. Conclusion

24 44 57

ANTIGONUS OF SOKHO. YOSI B. YO'EZER AND YOSI B. YOHANAN

i. ii. iii. iv. V.

Antigonus of Sokho Traditions of Yosi b. Yo'ezer and Yosi b. Yohanan. Synopses Conclusion

60

60 61 77 81

JOSHUA B. PERAHIAH AND NITTAI THE ARBELITE. JUDAH B. TABBAI AND SIMEON B. SHETAH

i. ii. iii. iv. VI.

1

82

Joshua b. Perahiah and Nittai the Arbelite 82 Traditions of Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah 8 6 Synopses 122 Conclusion 137

SHEMA'IAH AND ABTALION

i. Traditions ii. Synopses iii. Conclusion

142

142 155 158

VIII

TABLE OF CONTENTS

VII.

YOHANAN THE H l G H PRIEST, HONI THE ClRCLER, AND OTHERS MENTIONED IN CONNECTION WITH PHARISAISM BEFORE HlLLEL

i. Yohanan the High Priest ii. Honi the Circler iii. Others VIII. MENAHEM. SHAMMAI

i. ii. iii. iv. IX.

Menahem Traditions of Shammai Synopses Conclusion

HILLEL

i. Traditions ii. Synopses iii. Conclusion X.

SHAMMAI AND HILLEL

i. Traditions ii. Synopses iii. Conclusion XI.

GAMALIEL

i. Traditions ii. Synopses iii. Conclusion XII.

SIMEON B. GAMALIEL

i. Traditions ii. Synopses iii. Conclusion XIII. OTHER PHARISEES BEFORE 70

i.

Mentioned in Connection with Shammai 1. Dositheus of Kefar Yatmah 2. Baba b. Buta 3. Yo'ezer >Ish HaBirah 4. Sadoq 5. Yohanan the Hauranite ii. Mentioned in Connection with Hillel 1. BeneBathyra 2. Gedva

160

160 176 182 184

184 185 204 208 212

212 280 294 303

303 333 338 341

342 370 373 377

377 384 386 389

389 389 389 391 392 392 392 392 392

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I X

3. Ben He He and Ben Bag Bag 392 4. Shebna 393 5. Jonathan b. 'Uzziel 393 iii. Mentioned in Connection with Gamaliel I 394 1. Admon and Hanan 394 2. Hanina b. Dosa 394 3. Yohanan the Scribe 396 iv. Others 396 1. Honi the Circler, Grandson of Honi the Circler (Abba Hilqiah) 396 2. Joshua b. Gamala 396 3. "Rabbi" Ishmael b. Phiabi and Eleazar b. Harsom 397 4. Hananiah Prefect of the Priests 400 5. Nahum the Mede and Hanan the Egyptian . . . 413 6. Zekhariah b. Qevutal and Zekhariah b. HaQassav 414 7. Measha, Nahum the Scribe, Simeon of Mispah, Judah b. Bathyra, 'Aqavyah b. Mehallel, Hananiah b. Hezeqiah b. Gorion, Abba Yosi b. Hanan, and Yohanan b. Gudgada 415

PART TWO THE HOUSES List of Abbreviations Transliterations XIV. XV.

INTRODUCTION TANNAITIC MIDRASHIM

i. ii. iii. iv. v. XVI.

Mekhilta de R. Ishmael Mekhilta de R. Simeon b. Yohai Sifra Sifre Midrash Tannaim

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA AND SOME Beraitot

i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii. viii.

Zera'im Mo'ed Nashim Neziqin Qodashim Toharot Collections of Houses-Disputes in Mishnah-Tosefta Tables

xin xv 1 6

6 9 11 30 39 41

41 120 190 234 239 253 324 344

TABLE OF CONTENTS

X

PART

THREE

CONCLUSIONS List o f Abbreviations

xiv

Transliterations

xvi

XVII.

INTRODUCTION

1

X V I I I . INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF TRADITION : TYPES AND FORMS i.

A.

Standard Legal F o r m

B. C.

Testimonies Debates

D.

Narratives 1 . Historical Information in Standard Legal F o r m 2 . Epistles

ii.

iii. iv. v.

XIX.

5

Legal Traditions

3 . Ordinances 4 . Chains and Lists 5 . Precedents 6 . Contexts 7 . First-Person Accounts 8 . Illustrations and Proofs 9 . Histories o f L a w s E. Legal Exegeses 1 . Scriptural References 2 . Exegeses 3 . Proof-texts 4 . F r o m Exegesis t o Chria Aggadic Traditions A . Stories 1 . Allusions t o Stories 2 . S h o r t Biographical References 3 . Biographical and Historical Stories B. Sayings 1 . 'T'-Sayings 2 . Sayings N o t in a Narrative Setting 3. Apophthegms 4 . "Woe"-Sayings . . . 5 . Formulaic Sayings C. A g g a d i c Exegeses 1 . Scriptural References 2 . Exegeses 3 . Proof-Texts 4 . F r o m Exegesis t o Fable Summary o f Forms and Types Some Comparisons History o f Forms

5 5 1 4 1 6 .

.

.

2 3 2 4 2 5 2 5 2 7 2 8 3 1 3 3 3 5 3 8 3 9 3 9 4 0 4 2 4 2 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 5 4 7 5 5 5 6 5 6 5 9 6 1 6 1 6 2 6 2 6 2 6

6 6 6 8

3

4 4 9 9

SMALL UNITS OF TRADITION AND OTHER MNEMONIC PATTERNS . . 1 0 1 i. ii. iii.

Introduction Pericopae without Formulae o r Patterns Pericopae w i t h Formulae o r Patterns

1 0 * 1 0 6 1 1 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

iv.

Small Units o f Tradition 1 . Fixed Opposites a. L i a b l e v s . F r e e b. Unclean v s . Clean c. P r o h i b i t v s . P e r m i t d. Unfit v s . F i t e. Midras vs. Terne-Met f. I n s i d e v s . O u t s i d e ; P a s t v s . F u t u r e ; A b o v e v s . B e l o w . 2 . Balance o f M e t e r 3 . Balance o f M e t e r and Change o f Letter v. S y n t a c t i c a l a n d M o r p h o l o g i c a l C h a n g e s E q u i v a l e n t in F u n c t i o n t o Small Units o f Tradition 1 . Tense and N u m b e r 2 . D i s t i n c t i o n v s . N o D i s t i n c t i o n {And v s . Or) 3 . Reversal of W o r d - O r d e r 4 . Statement of l a w + / — N e g a t i v e 5 . Negative Statement + Permit 6 . >P i n S e c o n d L e m m a vi. Differences i n W o r d - C h o i c e vii. Number-Sequences viii. Houses-Disputes N o t in Precise Balance ix. S u m m a r y of Small Units o f Tradition and Other M n e m o n i c Patterns

XX.

XI

1 1 9 1 1 9 120 120 122 122 123 123 124 125 126 126 126 128 129 132 1 3 4 1 3 4 136 1 3 8 140

x.

Oral Transmission: Defining the Problem

143

xi.

Oral Traditions

163

VERIFICATIONS

180

i. ii.

Introduction 180 P e r i c o p a e w i t h o u t V e r i f i c a t i o n s b e f o r e ca. 2 0 0 A . D . ( M i s h n a h Tosefta) 175

iii.

Verifications of Y a v n e h 1. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus 2. Joshua b. Hananiah 3. Eliezer + J o s h u a 4. E l i e z e r +
iv.

199 199 200 201 201 202 202 203 203 204 204 204 204 205 207 208 208 208 208 208 208 209 209

TABLE OF CONTENTS

XII

v.

vi. vii.

2.

J u d a h b. Baba

3.

J u d a h b. Bathyra

210 210

4. 5.

Eliezer b. S h a m m u ' a Eliezer b. J a c o b

211 211

6. 7.

Dosetai b. Y a n n a i Y o s i b . Halafta

211 211

8.

Y o s i b . Halafta a n d J u d a h b . Ilai

213

9. 10.

Y o s i b . Halafta a n d M e i r Y o s i b . Halafta a n d S i m e o n b . Y o h a i

213 213

1 1 . Simeon b. Y o h a i

214

12. 13.

Meir M e i r a n d J u d a h b . Ilai

215 215

14.

J u d a h b . Ilai

217

15.

Simeon b. Gamaliel

218

16. Nathan Verifications of the Circle of J u d a h the Patriarch

219 220

1. 2.

220 220

T h e Circle o f J u d a h the Patriarch in G e n e r a l Simeon b. Eleazar

3. Others T h e P r e - 7 0 P h a r i s e e s at Y a v n e h T h e P r e - 7 0 P h a r i s e e s at U s h a

222 223 231

viii. Conclusion

XXI.

XXII.

HISTORY OF THE TRADITIONS

239

i. ii.

The Missing Traditions The Rabbinic History of Pharisaism: The Early Masters

iii. iv. v. vi.

T h e Matter o f Hillel Gamaliel and Simeon. Y o h a n a n b. Zakkai The Yavnean Stratum The Ushan Stratum

255 272 281 282

vii.

The Laws

286

.

.

239 239

SUMMARY : THE RABBINIC TRADITIONS ABOUT THE PHARISEES BEFORE 70

APPENDIX: BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFLECTIONS INDICES

I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII.

234

BIBLE APOCRYPHA, PSEUDEPIGRAPHA, QUMRANIAN WRITINGS JOSEPHUS MISHNAH TOSEFTA MEKHILTA, SIFRA, SIFRE, MIDRASH TANNAIM PALESTINIAN TALMUD BABYLONIAN TALMUD

IX.

M l D R A S H I M AND O T H E R COMPILATIONS

X.

GENERAL INDEX

301

320

PREFACE

My thanks go to the American Council of Learned Societies for a research fellowship in 1970-1 and to Brown University for a summer study grant and sabbatical leave in the same academic year. I am further indebted to Brown University for bearing the substantial costs of typing the manuscript several times, preparing indices, and numerous other research expenses. My students, David Goodblatt, Robert Goldenberg, Gary Porton, Shamai Kanter, William Scott Green, my friends, Brevard S. Childs, Wayne Sibley Towner, Robin J . Scroggs, and Wayne A. Meeks, and my colleagues, Horst R. Moehring and Ernest S. Frerichs, all read the manuscript and made important suggestions. The effort to systematize and generalize results, in volume III, was suggested by Professors Childs, Towner, and Meeks. My teacher Morton Smith deserves much of the credit for whatever success this project may have attained. Mrs. Marion Craven typed the manuscript with requisite care and patience. The contribution of my publisher, E. J . Brill, is self-evident. To all I express sincere appreciation. I alone bear responsibility for errors of fact or judgment. Providence, Rhode Island

23 December 1970 25 Kislev 5731 The tenth anniversary of my father's death.

JACOB NEUSNER

LIST OF

ABBREVIATIONS

Ah. = Ahilot 'Arakh. = 'Arakhin ARN = A v o t deRabbi Natan A.Z. =
c

c

LIST OF

ABBREVIATIONS

Tos.

=

Tosefta

Yad.

=

Yadaim

T.Y.

=

Tevul Y o m

Yev.

=

Yevamot

*Uqs. = 'Uqsin y. = Y e r u s h a l m i , Palestinian Talmud

Zab. Zech. Zer.

= = =

Zabim Zechariah Zera'im

Y.T.

Zev.

=

Zevahim

=

Yom Tov

XV

TRANSLITERATIONS >

=

M

=

B

=

N

=

G

=

=

D

s

<

=

H

= p

=

W

=

=

Z

=

Q

=

H

=

R

§

= T

=

s

=

Y

=

S

=

K

=

T

=

L

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

While several generations of scholars have produced histories of Palestinian Jewry and Judaism in the period of the Second Temple, none has systematically analyzed from formal, redactional, synoptic or comparative, and literary-critical perspectives the Pharisaic-rabbinic traditions copiously cited in the composition of those histories. Conse­ quently, rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees are cited as though we knew how they were shaped and handed on, to what degree they may be relied upon for accurate historical information, where and when they were given the form in which we now have them. But we do not have that information. Here I propose not to provide a new account of Pharisaism, but merely to bring to bear upon rabbinic traditions about the Pharisaic masters of the Second-Temple period some of the critical techniques commonplace in the study of other sources per­ taining to the history of the same time and place. The usefulness of this undertaking is readily apparent. Few his­ tories of the period attempt more than a primitive and precritical analysis of the pertinent Pharisaic-rabbinic materials, and this despite the considerable achievements of scholarship in other aspects of the study of ancient Jewish and Christian literature. New Testament scholars customarily give careful attention to critical considerations when using New Testament materials for historical purposes. But they quote Talmudic stories as contemporary, first-hand, accurate his­ torical accounts. They would not think, when discussing a story about Jesus, of neglecting its internal signs of development or of ignoring several versions of the same story in their attempt to discover what, if anything, can be said about actual events. Yet they cite rabbinic stories of what rabbis said and did as if critical considerations impor­ tant in New Testament studies simply do not apply. In this they are abetted by Jewish historians who in a pseudorthodox spirit maintain the pretense that wherever or whenever a story was finally written down, whether in third-century Babylonia or tenth-century Italy, said story accurately and reliably relates the exact details of what really happened in the time of which it speaks. From the moment a Pharisaic master or rabbinic sage said or did something, it is supposed, a process Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70, 1

1

2

INTRODUCTION

automatically was set into motion orally to record, then orally to trans­ mit, an exact detailed historical account of the saying or the event. The relationship between the event and the story that purports to preserve it is never investigated; it is simply supposed to be perfect corres­ pondence. The historical question thus has predominated to the exclusion of critical study of traditions; but critical study is a priority for formulat­ ing, then finding and evaluating the answers to, historical questions. We cannot speculate, for instance, on who was Simeon the Just or Hillel, if we have not first of all considered whether and how we know anything at all about Simeon the Just or Hillel. We certainly cannot innocently amalgamate Pharisaic-rabbinic stories with those deriving from other sources, e.g. Josephus, Ben Sira, and the Synoptic Gospels, and come up either with a harmonious "life" of a man whose name occurs in several ways in several sets of materials, or with an account of an event, institution, or practice alluded to in them. Here historical questions will not be raised at all. In no instance do I propose to speculate on what saying or event may have originally given rise to the "original" rabbinic tradition, the remnants or later developments of which are now in our hands. Such questions include these: When and why did the Pharisees emerge? What was their historical context? the course of their evolution and development? the nature and provenance of their doctrines and distinctive institu­ tions? (See Ellis Rivkin, "Prolegomenon,"///^/^ and Christianity\ ed. W. O. E. Oesterly, H. Loewe and E. I. J . Rosenthal [Repr. N.Y., 1969], p. xii). We shall make no effort to define what one generally means by "Pharisees" or "Pharisaism." Anonymous sayings, and those attributed to masters after 70 about conditions before 70 are not con­ sidered, unless either the named masters or the Houses of Shammai and Hillel are directly referred to. The difficult question of the meaning of perushim in M. Hag. 2 : 7, b. Sot. 22b, b. B.B. 60b, Tos. Ber. 3 : 25, M. Yad. 4 : 6-7, Tos. Yad. 2 : 20, 4 : 8, b. Yoma 19b, y. Yoma 1 : 5, Tos. Hag. 3 : 35, b. Nid. 33b, Tos. Yoma 1 : 8, M. Mak. 1 : 6, Sifre Deut. 190, and in the vari­ ous other texts examined by Ellis Rivkin in "Defining the Pharisees" {Hebrew Union College Annual40-41,1969-70, pp. 205-249) is not raised. Rivkin's careful analysis of the ways in which perushim is used seems to me impeccable in all but two respects. First, he does not distinguish among the texts before him according to the authorities to whom sayings are attributed and the compilations

INTRODUCTION

3

in which they occur, nor does he analyze the literary and formal qualities of those texts. He takes for granted that all texts accurately describe what really was said and done. Second, his discussion therefore tends to slide across the line between philological analysis, on the one side, and historical judgment, on the other, producing the impression of a less critical, and more fundamen­ talist, approach than is explicitly claimed at the outset. From a general­ ly persuasive analysis of the use of PR§ in various texts, Rivkin proceeds to make groundless "historical" statements, e.g., "The Phari­ sees did not make the laws of ritual purity rigorous for themselves but for the priests." However, having at the outset excluded evidence pertinent to such statements deriving from other traditions and collec­ tions, he seems to me without justification in coming to any historical conclusions at all. On one page, for instance, he refers to constructing "the tannaitic definition of the Pharisees from the texts that have met the criteria of authenticity" (p. 246). Without telling us what is meant by "authen­ ticity," he proceeds, on the very next page, to offer not an account of the Tannaitic definition, but the following manifestly historical judgment: The Pharisees were a scholar class dedicated to the supremacy of the twofold Law, the Written and the Unwritten. They actively opposed the Sadducees who recognized only the Written Law as authoritative, and they sought dramatic means for proclaiming their overriding au­ thority. Their unwritten laws ... were operative in all realms: cultus, property, judicial procedures, festivals, etc The Pharisees were active leaders who carried out their laws with vigor and determination. They set the date for the cutting of the <-omer. They set up procedures for the burning of the red heifer and compelled priesdy conformance. They insisted that the High Priest carry through his most sacred act of the year in accordance with their regulations. They determined judicial pro­ cedure, the rightful heirs to property, the responsibility of slaves for damages, the purity status of Holy Scriptures. Nowhere in this paragraph, or in the adjoining ones, do I find a clear caveat that the foregoing is supposed to be a summary of a composite of sources referring to perushim, sources from authorities spread over a century or more and deriving from various late documents. Rivkin clearly intends the foregoing as a historical, descriptive statement about the historical Pharisees, and not as a summary of the viewpoint of a few later rabbis about them. The further statement confirms this view:

4

INTRODUCTION

The Pharisees once liberated from the limited, circumscribed, and rare usage of prusim and identified as the hakhamim sofrim can reclaim their identity as that scholar class that created the concept of the two-fold Law, carried it to triumphant victory over the Sadducees, and made it operative in society (p. 248). Rivkin then rapidly cites Josephus, Antiquities 13 : 297, 408, Philippians 3:5,6, Galatians 1:14, Matthew 23:2, and Mark 7: 5,9, and con­ cludes : The hitherto discordant sources are now seen to be in agreement. Josephus, Paul, the Gospels, and the tannaitic literature are in accord that the Pharisees were the scholar class of the twofold Law, nothing more, nothing less. We have moved a long way from the allegation that our problem is merely to study the use of perushim in some tannaitic materials. It must therefore be stressed that our purpose is to examine tradi­ tions about pre-70 masters and the Houses of Shammai and Hillel, not to compose a history of the people and movements referred to in those traditions. At the end, to be sure, I offer some judgments as to what those traditions may tell us about the historical movement to which they refer, but there the main effort is to suggest a perspec­ tive on the nature of the traditions themselves. To do more than that one must pay attention not only to the disparate materials in which the Pharisees appear, but also to those in which they are absent. The problem then is to construct a picture of the whole of Palestinian Judaism. Such a construction may cast doubt on Rivkin's opening proposition (p. 205): The Pharisees played a decisive role in the history of the Jews and in the development of Judaism. All contemporary sources—Josephus, the New Testament, and the tannaitic literature—attest to this fact. Since important contemporary sources produced by Jews, such as the QumranJan writings, Philo, Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphical collections, and contemporary writings of non-Jews who knew some­ thing about Palestine, e.g. Tacitus, Pliny, know nothing about the Pharisees, let alone their "decisive role" in the history of Judaism, one must wonder how well that fact is attested. Further, the two extrarabbinic testimonies referred to by Rivkin come from authorities who themselves claimed to have been Pharisees, Josephus and Paul, or from circles evidently affected by the presence of Pharisees and engag­ ed in debates with them, the Synoptic story-tellers. So we may readily agree that for the Pharisees' rabbinic heirs, on the one side, and for

INTRODUCTION

5

people who claimed to have been part of their group, or for circles confronted by Pharisaic or rabbinic criticism, on the other side, Phari­ saism indeed played a decisive role. All produced records showing the importance of Pharisaism for their own situation. The fact which is well attested therefore is not the one introduced at the outset. That fact may also be true. It remains to be investigated. But, I repeat, the sole interest here is to study the shape and structure of some rabbinic traditions. My purpose is to undertake to provide a small part of the information historians require for further consideration of the history of pre-70 Pharisaic Judaism in its historical setting. Since our concern is not to reconstruct the history of pre-70 Phari­ saism, we shall not be concerned with the endless theories of historians about actual historical relationships between the Pharisees and others mentioned by Josephus on the one side, and the Pharisees and others before 70 referred to in Talmudic literature, on the other; likewise between the Pharisees of rabbinic tradition and those in the literature commonly alleged to be Pharisaic, composed before 70 and now pre­ served in languages other than Hebrew and Aramaic. Thus, for instance, we may bypass efforts to identify Baba b. Buta with the sons of Baba (Josephus, Antiquities XV, 260-6), by G. Allon, {Mehqarim beToledot Yisrcfell [Tel Aviv, 1957], p. 39), and the still more convolut­ ed efforts to identify Pollion the Pharisee with Abtalion or Hillel {Antiquities 15:3-4, 370), and Samaias {Antiquities 14:172-4, 175-6), the disciple of Pollion the Pharisee (15:3-4, 370) with Shema'iah, Shammai, Simeon b. Shetah, and pretty much anyone else who can be found in rabbinic traditions pertaining to the first century B.C. These efforts seem to me primitive and pointless, but it is not our problem to correct them. Anyone who consults the vast secondary literature concerning pre-70 Pharisaism will find many wonderful surprises. He will find out that after Hillel, Simeon and Jonathan b. Uzziel were heads of the Pharisaic court; that Ben He He was the convert whom Hillel won over while standing on one foot; and numerous other marvels. In general I have found few points of formal or substantive congruence, let alone contact, between the rabbinic tra­ ditions about pre-70 Pharisees and other literature pertaining to them. One may well hypothesize that if such non-rabbinic works as are generally assigned to Pharisaism are in fact Pharisaic, then the rabbinic traditions in general are not. But that hypothesis requires investigation by those competent to do so; here I hope merely to examine part of the rabbinic documentation. c

6

INTRODUCTION

This work continues the inquiry begun in Development of a Legend: Studies on the Traditions Concerning Yohanan ben Zakkai (Leiden, 1970). Having examined the traditions on the first Pharisaic-rabbinic hero after 70,1 determined to study the materials on the antecedent Phari­ saic masters before proceeding to subsequent problems. The early masters differ greatly from the ones that follow Yohanan. But even more important, the conditions for the redaction, preservation and transmission of sayings of masters before 70 radically differ from the conditions prevailing afterward. We have in Hebrew or Aramaic no Pharisaic documents finally redacted before 70, and in those coming afterward it is difficult to locate and verify pericopae likely to have been given final form before the destruction. The traditions about the pre-70 masters contain not the slightest hint that the exact words of sayings now before us were orally formulated and handed on from master to disciple. The picture changes with Gamaliel I. While he and his son Simeon never refer to Hillel, Gamaliel II does refer to Simeon, and we have some credible recollections, coming after 70, of Gamaliel I as well. Now none of the masters prior to Gamaliel I was personally known to post-70 authorities. Hence no one after 70 could claim to have heard precisely what they had said. Consequently, the fact that we have so few credible lemmas and still fewer tales about them indicates two things: first, that the overwhelming majority of the sayings and tales we do have come from post-70 teachers; second, that these teachers did not freely invent material about early teachers, but for the most part reported what they had heard. It will therefore seem that the war of 66-73 and destruction of Jerusalem led to a radical break in whatever processes of transmission of traditions had flourished beforehand. Some Pharisaic authorities died in the war. The political conditions of Pharisaic life vastly changed afterward. Nearly all pericopae before us derive in their present form from the years after 70, a great many from those after 140 or even later. On the face of it, therefore, the historical value of the rabbinic traditions of pre-70 Pharisaism is not apt to be considerable. As we shall see, the later rabbis frequently developed what they had, and sometimes in­ vented what they needed, in conformity with their imagination of affairs before 70, and these facts make it still more difficult to recover much, if any, usable historical information. All this does not diminish the historical interest of the traditions, but the period to which they accurately testify often is likely to be later than the period of which they claim to speak. Nonetheless, it seems to me important to supply

INTRODUCTION

7

a thorough account of materials pertaining to men and institutions in the period before the destruction, before proceeding to layers of traditions which are apt to produce far more credible data. Perhaps these results will seem primarily, though not wholly, negative, but a useful contribution may consist of delineating the range of our igno­ rance and raising various sorts of as yet unanswered questions. I shall attempt critically to analyze the traditions. Later, scholars may distinguish those pericopae reflecting the inner life of Pharisaism from stories about heroes retrospectively created or anachronistically adopted by the Pharisees as their own. Here, as I said, we shall seek no definition of what one means by "Pharisee" and "Pharisaic" at all. From the materials various tentative definitions may emerge, to be further tested against the whole body of evidence. For now, we merely begin to seek a way to characterize and comprehend complicated traditions preserved in rabbinic literature about men and heroes in Pharisaism before 70. My comments on the pericopae of the named masters (Part I) are divided into three parts: 1. Classification: legal, moral, theological, narrative, biographical; 2. Setting: the document in which a story is now preserved, the school responsible for its compilation, the later masters who tell the story or refer to it, thus supplying a terminus ante quern; 3. Analysis of contents: is the story or saying unitary or composite? If the latter, what are the units of the composition? Do we detect a peculiar tendency reflecting later issues or concerns? At the end of each unit a synopsis will allow comparison of the several versions of the same story or saying, and the changes occuring after the first appearance of the pericope will be investigated. In stories appearing in earlier collections and then cited later on, my sole interest pertains to the context of the later citation. Only in the synopses do I discuss variations in readings and in details in the several successive versions of the same story. The chief issue in the synoptic studies of part I is this: Did the several versions of the same pericope arise separately, or did one de­ pend upon the other? The question is important, for if the versions arose separately, then we cannot say details in one but not in the other were necessarily added later and are therefore fictitious even in terms of the original account. If on the other hand one account clearly depended upon another, then details added in the dependent one certainly did not occur in the earlier version. Where it seems possible to account for variants in pericopae appearing in successive compilations, I try to do so.

8

INTRODUCTION

Existing translations which seem to me satisfactory have been co­ pied, though with much alteration. My own translations are as literal as I could make them, at the expense of stylistic felicity, sometimes even of perfect clarity. Where I depart from the literal Hebrew to supply an idiomatic translation, I include either a consonantal trans­ cription or a literal translation, so that the Hebrew text may be readily constructed. I have given the Hebrew consonants for out-of-the-ordinary words, particularly where these vary from one version to the next. My translations should not, therefore, be considered apart from the practical purpose which they are meant to serve. Babylonian Talmudic translations not my own are attributed to the translator by name; these are all drawn from the Soncino Press translation; I use the reprint of the London, 1938, edition. But I have made changes throughout. I have compared Albeck's Mishnah text to MS Kaufmann, and generally record the differences where these seem important. Synoptic studies invariably are based not on translations but on the Hebrew texts. In general, however, I try to preserve consistent trans­ lations of the same words in different versions, to facilitate synoptic comparisons. Words supplied in the translation not appearing in the original are bracketed. Transliterations of Hebrew words are in paren­ theses. Collections are categorized in the following way: 1

I.

Tannaitic Midrashim i. School of R. Ishmael ii. School of R. Aqiba The Circle of Judah the Patriarch i. Mishnah ii. Tosefta Materials attributed to Tannaim in the Gemarot of Palestine and Babylonia i. Palestinian Talmudic traditions attributed to Tannaim ii. Babylonian Talmudic traditions attributed to Tannaim (Beraitot) Amoraic Traditions i. Amoraic sayings in the Palestinian Talmud ii. Amoraic sayings in the Babylonian Talmud Avot deRabbi Natan c

II.

III.

IV.

V. 1

H . A l b e c k , SiSab Sidre Mishnah ( J e r u s a l e m , 1 9 5 4 et. s e q . , v o l s I - V I ) .

INTRODUCTION

VI.

9

Later Collections i. Genesis Rabbah ii. Lamentations Rabbati iii. Leviticus Rabbah iv. Pesiqta deRav Kahana v. Pesiqta Rabbati vi. Tanhuma vii. Qohelet Rabbah viii. Numbers Rabbah ix. Deuteronomy Rabbah X. Song of Songs Rabbah xi. Midrash on Psalms xii. Other Collections

Thus, in the case of Simeon the Just, Sifre Num. 22 is marked I. i. 1, = A source in a Tannaitic midrash (I), produced in the school of R. Ishmael (i), first in the sequence of sources in that collection pertaining to the master at hand (1). The synoptic tables follow these conventions: „ thus

„

„ = identical to the primary version on the left; = omitted in a later version; = words in italics are supplied in a later version, or changed in a later version from the word choice in the primary version.

The first two parts of the work provide analyses of the traditions. In the third are offered some generalizations and conclusions. There also will be found a few systematic remarks, drawing together the scattered suggestions and hypotheses developed in the context of the analyses of discrete pericopae. It seemed to me best to analyze the sources before offering an introduction to them, and I hope the reader will follow the same order. To discuss "method" apart from the sources seemed to me poor method, for one must evolve method—the set of questions, procedures, inquiries brought to bear on any peri­ cope—source by source and problem by problem. It is a mistake to systematize the tentative, frequently intuitive results of the analysis of discrete matter into a general statement of what must always be so; such systematization inevitably distorts those results. It imposes upon them a permanent and definitive character by no means intended at

10

INTRODUCTION

the beginning of the inquiry. It further subjects them to tests for which they are unready. In this regard the British critics of German form-criticism have tended to claim more for form-critical results than the authors originally intended, then to challenge those arti­ ficially systematized, inflated results. Here I offer no rules and claim nothing more than to present some puzzling facts, to ask a few modest questions, perhaps to widen the range of doubt. A systematic state­ ment of "method" would here ill serve the primitive level of the present work. Not until a critical historical account of the formation of main elements of the entire Talmudic tradition down to 600 A.D. is available can we hope to investigate some of the persistent phenome­ na revealed by the whole and to formulate some descriptive "laws," by which further work may be guided, and previous work may be refined and corrected.

CHAPTER TWO THE

CHAINS OF PHARISAIC

TRADITION

We have three chains of Pharisaic tradition, listing the authorities of the party and assigning to them either moral apophthegms, purity decrees, or rulings on a minor aspect of the conduct of the sacrificial cult. These chains follow in probable order. i. T o LAY ON HANDS }

A. Yosi b. Yo'ezer says ( WMR) [on a Festival-day] not to lay (LSMK) [hands on the offering before it is slaughtered]. Yosi b. Yohanan says to lay [hands]. Joshua b. Perahiah says not to lay [hands]. Nittai the Arbelite says to lay [hands]. Judah b. Tabbai says not to lay [hands]. Simeon b. Shetah says to lay [hands]. Shema'iah says to lay [hands]. Abtalion says not to lay [hands]. Hillel and Menahem did not differ, but Menahem went forth, and Shammai entered in. Shammai says not to lay [hands]. Hillel says to lay [hands]. B. The former were nasis, and the latter fathers of the court (>BWT BYT DYN). (M. Hag. 2:2) The opinions are in indirect discourse, "says to lay," "says not to lay." Normally "says" is followed by direct discourse. Someone has supplied the subscription (B) that the first-named were nasis, the second-named, heads of the court, considerations which do not figure in the body of the pericope and are irrelevant to its con­ tents. But the pattern is not exact; the first-named always should say, not to lay on hands. Yet while Yosi b. Yo'ezer, Joshua b. Perahiah, and Judah b. Tabbai, say not to do so, Shema'iah has the wrong opinion for his position in the list. The little group at the end, HillelMenahem, then Shammai-Hillel, is also difficult. Hillel-Menahem break the pattern; the lemma is a later insertion. In fact, Hillel should say not to lay on hands, since he was supposed to have been nasi. We shall

12

THE CHAINS OF PHARISAIC

TRADITION

see a story on this very point, in which Hillel is represented as follow­ ing Shammai's practice. Clearly, in the pericope before us Hillel is presumed to be nasi, despite the wrong opinion. But if we drop the interpolation of Hillel-Menahem, we find what the form calls for, merely: Shammai/ Hillel: not to lay/lay, and that is surely the authentic reading according to the foregoing pattern. (Finkelstein, Mavo, p. 15, comes to the same conclusion for quite different reasons.) Therefore the original list had Shammai as nasi, Hillel as head of the court. The switch with Menahem (otherwise unknown) permits placing Hillel first, therefore makes him nasi, according to the subscription, so it becomes Hillel-MenahemShammai-Hillel. I cannot guess why Shema'iah's opinion has been reversed. In Tos. Hag., R. Meir provides a far better solution to the problem of making Hillel nasi in traditions which originally have him as father of the court. Tos. Hag. 2:8 (ed. Lieberman, p. 382-3, lines 40-44) is as follows: They differed only on the laying of hands. "They are five pairs. The three of the first pairs who said not to lay on hands, and the two of the last pairs who said to lay on hands were nasis. The second ones [mentioned] were heads of the court," so R. Meir. R. Judah said, "Simeon b. Shetah [was] nasi. Judah b. Tabbai [was] head of the court." Meir thus has five pairs: 1. Nasi (not to lay) + head of court (to lay) 2. Nasi (not to lay) + head of court (to lay) 3. Nasi (not to lay) -j- head of court (to lay) 4. Nasi (to lay) + head of court (not to lay) 5. Nasi (to lay) + head of court (not to lay) Meir's list is the same as M. Hag. 2:2 as far as Shema'iah and Abtalion. He presumably had no mention of Hillel-Menahem, for that would have made Hillel-Shammai a sixth pair. But for the last pair he had a "to lay"-Nasi in first place. Was it Shammai or Hillel? Proba­ bly Hillel, since the "not to lay"/"to lay" antithesis is primary to the tradition, and there seems no strong reason for changing the attribu­ tions. So we have two forms of the list, one which can be reconstructed from M. Hag. 2:2, the other from Meir's report. They agree for the first four pairs; for the first, the form behind M. Hag. 2:2 had Shammai not, Hillel to; while Meir had Hillel to, Shammai not. Meir's tradition can be explained as a secondary development from the other, motivat-

THE CHAINS OF PHARISAIC

TRADITION

13

ed by the desire of the Hillelites to represent Hillel as head of the government, nasi. What was done to the M. Hag. tradition by insert­ ing the Hillel-Menahem pair before Shammai and Hillel was done in Meir's tradition by simply reversing the customary order and putting Hillel before Shammai. This is neat and may be correct, but it leaves us with a second, unanswered problem: who was Menahem and how did he get in? The possibility that the last of Meir's pairs may have been, Hillel said to lay, Menahem said not to lay, and there may have been no reference at all to Shammai—which would be understandable if we had an old list from the House of Hillel—cannot be wholly excluded. In that event Meir's list would be older and M. Hag. would represent a post-70 revision, when the Shammaites and the Hillelites, for survival's sake, combined their forces, the terms of the compro­ mise (here) being that Shammai's name would have precedence, but the law would in general follow Hillel. Judah [b. Ilai] differs only with reference to Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah. The latter, he says, was nasi. The list of M. Hag., excluding Menahem and the subscription, could not have been shaped later than the time of Meir and Judah, since both refer to it. Judah the Patriarch follows Meir, therefore has as nasis Yosi b. Yo'ezer, Joshua, Judah, Shema'iah, and Hillel. Since he thought he descended from Hillel and referred to the Bene Bathyrans' giving up their position to Hillel and making him nasi, it was natural to explain matters as he did in the subscription. But the subscription in M. Hag. 2:2 cannot come before Meir-Judah, who do not cite it verbatim. It looks like Judah the Patriarch's summary of Meir's comment; note Epstein, Mishnah, pp. 133-4.

II. DECREES

DTNY>: (1) Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem decreed (GZR) [the capacity to receive] uncleanness (TWM'H) upon the land of the peoples and on glassware. (2) Simeon b. Shetah ordained (TQN) a marriage-contract for the wife and decreed (GZR) [the capacity to receive] uncleanness upon metal utensils. (3) Shammai and Hillel decreed (GZR) uncleanness on hands. (b. Shab. 14b) Did not R. Ze'ira b. Abuna in the name of R. Jeremiah say, "Yosef

14

THE CHAINS OF PHARISAIC

TRADITION

c

b. Yo ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem decreed uncleanness upon the land of the peoples and upon glass utensils." R. Yonah [Var.: Yuda] said, "Rabbi Judah b. Tabbi." R. Yosi said, "Rabbi Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah decreed uncleanness on metal utensils. "Hillel and Shammai decreed concerning the cleanness of the hands." y. Shab. 1:4 ( = y. Pes. 1:6, y. Ket. 8:11) The Babylonian herait a is a list of decrees. I assume Simeon b. Shetah's saying has been contaminated by the reference to the ordi­ nance (TQN) about the marriage-contract, missing in y., which is out of place here, for all are decrees and concern uncleanness. Judah b. Tabbai is absent—thus following Judah b. Ilai—and the Palestinian version supplies his name, making the list Yosi + Yosi, Judah + Simeon, and Hillel -f- Shammai, in all three instances with the nasi first, hence following Meir in Tos. Hag., and (of course) placing Hillel in the nasVs position. The absence of Joshua b. Perahiah-Nittai the Arbelite is curious. The addition of the places of origin of the Yosi's suggests that this might come after M. Hag., so I should also have expected the inclusion of the absent masters. Perhaps no one had traditions on uncleanness-decrees to attribute to the men. That guess depends upon the presumption that without considerable moti­ vation people did not make up what they did not have. But often they did, as we shall observe time and again (for one example, sayings attri­ buted to Simeon b. Gamaliel I/Gamaliel II, in fact are made up by Meir-Judah, below, Chapter Twelve). The representation of Shammai as nasi, Hillel second to him, is congruent to the stories of the (temporary) predominance of the House of Shammai and of the (later) rise of the House of Hillel to power. It also explains why the Houses-form nearly always puts the Shammaite House ahead of the Hillelite one, in conformity with the order of M. Hag. The later masters, coming long after the Hillelite hegemony had been well established by the patriarchate, appropriately doctored the earlier materials in the ways that have become evident. This explanation however takes for granted two allegations of the later Tannaim, first, that Yohanan b. Zakkai took over from Shammai and Hillel and was HillePs heir; second, that the Yavnean patriarch Gamaliel was descended from Hillel. But the allegation that Yohanan b. Zakkai was HillePs continuator first occurs in M. Avot, which, as we shall see, comes later than the M. Hag.-chain. No Tannaitic

THE CHAINS OF PHARISAIC

TRADITION

15

or early Amoraic authority refers to Yohanan b. Zakkai as Hillel's disciple, and it is primarily in the highly developed traditions of ARN that Yohanan's discipleship to Hillel plays a considerable role. The beraitot of b. Suk. = b. B.B. {Development, pp. 216-221), which make something of that fact, are apt to be later than, and based upon, Avot, therefore do not change matters. More strikingly still, in all the Gamaliel-traditions—pertaining ei­ ther to the first or the second one—we find not the slightest allusion to the familial relationship between Gamaliel and Hillel. To the contra­ ry, Gamaliel II-materials persistently allege that Simeon b. Gamaliel I followed Shammaite rules, certainly an extraordinary state of affairs for the "grandson" (or great-grandson) of Hillel himself. It is more­ over remarkable that Simeon b. Gamaliel and Gamaliel I never occur in the Houses-materials. The heirs of Hillel (Yohanan b. Zakkai, Gama­ liel) and the House of Hillel on the face of it have nothing whatever to do with one another. It may therefore be anachronistic to suppose that the Hillelites predominated because Yohanan b. Zakkai and Gama­ liel II were the greatest student and the great-grandson of Hillel, respectively. It looks as if things were the other way around. They were given a relationship to Hillel because they came to power at a point at which the Hillelite House predominated, and the allegation that both were Hillelites was the condition of their leadership at Yavneh. Strikingly, while that allegation later was important, no one took the trouble to invent stories in which either authority ever cited "my master" or "my father" Hillel. As I said, no named authority from Hillel to Yavneh ever quotes Hillel. But the predominance of Hillelites at Yavneh is very well attested and may be regarded as an axiom. Nothing in the Tannaitic stratum of Yohanan b. Zakkaimaterials places him into relationship with either the House of Sham­ mai or the House of Hillel. Yohanan cites "my teachers" back to Moses, but never mentions Hillel, as early as Eliezer b. Hyrcanus (M. Yad. 4:3). This seems to me probative that the circles of Yohanan's immediate disciples had no traditions relating Yohanan to Hillel. Similarly, Gamaliel II repeatedly is given references to "the house of father," meaning Simeon b. Gamaliel I, but none to Hillel, directly or inferentially.

i n . MORAL APOPHTHEGMS

1.

A. Moses received the Torah from Sinai and handed it on to

16

THE CHAINS OF PHARISAIC

TRADITION

Joshua, Joshua to the Elders, the Elders to the Prophets; and the Prophets handed it on to the men of the Great Assembly (KN$T). B. They said three things, "Be deliberate in judgment, raise up many disciples, and make a fence around the Torah." 2. Simeon the Just was of the remnants of the Great Assembly. He used to say, "On three things the world stands: on the Torah, on the [Temple-] service, and on deeds of loving kindness." 3. Antigonus of Sokho received from Simeon the Just. He used to say, "Be not like slaves that minister to the master for the sake of receiving a reward, but be like slaves that minister to the master not for the sake of receiving a reward; and let the fear of heaven be upon you." 4. Yosi b. Yo'ezer of 0Y§) Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem received from them [sic], Yosi b. Yo'ezer says, "Let your house be a meeting-house for the Sages, and sit amid the dust of their feet, and thirstily drink in their words." 5. A. Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem says, "Let your house be opened wide; and let the needy be members of your house; and do not talk much with a woman." B. They said this of a man's own wife: how much more of his fellow's wife! Hence the Sages have said, "He that talks much with women brings evil upon himself, and neglects the study of the Law, and at the end he inherits Gehenna." 6. Joshua b. Perahiah and Nittai the Arbelite received from them. Joshua b. Perahiah says, "Make for yourself a master (RB), and get a fellow (HBR) [-disciple]; and judge any man with the balance in his favor." 7. Nittai the Arbelite says, "Keep far from an evil neighbor, and do not consort with a wicked neighbor, and do not despair of retribu­ tion." 8. Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah received from them. Judah b. Tabbai says, "Make not yourself like them that would influence the judges; and when the suitors stand before you, let them be in your eyes as wicked men; and when they have departed from before you, let them be in your eyes as innocent, so soon as they have accepted the judgment." 9. Simeon b. Shetah says, "Abundantly examine the witnesses; and be cautious in your words, lest from them they learn to swear falsely."

THE CHAINS OF PHARISAIC

TRADITION

17

10. Shema'iah and Abtalion received from them. Shema'iah says, "Love work; and hate mastery (RBNWT), and seek not acquaintance with the ruling power (R$WT)." 11. Abtalion says, "Sages, give heed to your words, lest you incur the penalty of exile, and be exiled to a place of evil waters, and the disciples that come after you drink and die, and the name of Heaven be profaned." 12. Hillel and Shammai received from them. Hillel says, "Be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace, and pursuing peace, loving mankind, and bringing them near to the Torah." 13. He used to say, "A name made great is a name destroyed, and he that increases not decreases, and he that learns not is worthy of death, and he that makes worldly use of the crown perishes" 14. He used to say, "If I am not for myself who is for me? And being for mine own self, what am I? And if not now, when?" 15. Shammai says, "Make your [study of] Torah [a] fixed [habit]. Say little and do much. And receive all men with a cheerful counte­ nance." 16. Rabban Gamaliel says, "Make for yourself a master (RB) [ = Joshua b. Perahiah's saying, above]; and keep distant from doubt; and do not tithe by guesswork." 17. Simeon his son says, "All my days I have grown up among the sages, and I have found nothing better for the person (GWP) than silence; and the expounding is not the principle, but the doing; and he that multiplies words occasions sin." 18. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, "On three things the world stands: on truth, on judgment, and on peace, as it is written, Execute the judgment of truth and peace (Zech. 8:16)." M. Avot 1:1-18 (Compare trans. Danby, pp. 446-7; no. 13 ital. = Aramaic)

The form from no. 4 to no. 12 is fixed: the names of the two who received the Torah from the foregoing, then apophthegms assigned to each, in order. The apophthegms are always triplicates; each says (>WMR) three things. The list is heavily glossed. In no. 5, for example, we are given a qal vehomer, which then produces a saying of the sages. In no. 8, as soon as they have accepted makes specific what has already been presuppos­ ed by when they have departed. Its purpose is to rule out the possible

18

THE CHAINS OF PHARISAIC

TRADITION

objection, "What if they have not accepted the judgment?"—a typical sort of Talmudic quibble. Abtalion's saying is not a triplicate, but the three evil consequences make up for the absence of three separate sayings. No. 3 is expanded by the affirmative revision and the gloss, thus three. Nos. 13 and 14 are added to Hillel's saying, not a gloss but a considerable interpolation of materials, some in Aramaic, occurr­ ing elsewhere. Now it is used to say (HYH WMR) as in nos. 2-3. Strikingly, with Hillel and Shammai the pairs cease. Also Gamaliel, standing alone, is not said to "receive" from Hillel/Shammai, nor Simeon from Gamaliel. Gamaliel's saying follows the earlier form. Simeon's does not, for it is glossed by all my days... I have found, making an apophthegm, "There is naught better" into an autobiographical comment. But the rest of the saying conforms to the earlier pattern. Then in no. 18, Simeon his son becomes Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel and is given a statement incongruent to the foregoing form. That saying is a counterpart of Simeon the Just's, though the specification of the "three things" changes, and is glossed with a Scriptural proof-text. What is striking is the persistence of the "three things" form in the sayings that come in-between. No. 18 has been tacked on to the fore­ going list to close with a parallel to no. 2. Simeon the Just's saying is parallel to Simeon b. Gamaliel's, which clearly represents a post-135 revision of no. 2: the Torah now is truth, a philosophizing tendency; the Temple service is now replaced by justice; and deeds of lovingkindness are replaced by peace. Morton Smith observes that the basis of "the world" is no longer the coherent "brotherhood of Israel," but the pax Romana. That this conclusion balances no. 2, and not the saying in no. 1, strongly suggests that no. 2 was originally the first saying in the list, and that the saying in no. 1 is a later addition, putting at the head of the whole list the fundamental principles of the rabbinic academy as a social form. But the fact that no. 18 was added to balance no. 2 raises the prob­ lem about no. 2 itself: Was it an integral part of the list? We saw that the fixed form characteristic of the list ("A + B received from them; A said [three sayings]; B said [three sayings]") begins only with no. 4. Thus on formal grounds there are strong reasons for thinking that nos. 2 and 3 were secondary accretions, and since the rabbinic tradi­ tions had no substantial legal materials from Simeon the Just and Antigonus—indeed, ignored Antigonus and treated Simeon primarily through legends—the case is clear. The original list began just as the rabbinic legal tradition began: with the two Yosi's. The appeal to }

19

THE CHAINS OF PHARISAIC TRADITION

Simeon the Just, perhaps known from Ben Sira, was motivated by the desire to attach this legal tradition to the last great member of the legitimate Jerusalem priesthood before its fall. Simeon's function is therefore the same as that of Moses etc.,—he is part of the biblical (and Ben Sira) stemma of the tradition of the law. Antigonus was put in to bridge the temporal gap between Simeon and the Yosi's—a whole century! Whence did they get him? We have no idea. Another mystery is the beginning of no. 4: the two Yosi's received from them, when the solitary Antigonus has preceded them. This pro­ bably is confirmation of our conjecture that Simeon and Antigonus have been added. The original referent of them will have been "the men of the great synagogue"—a single mythologumenon which bridg­ ed the gap from the prophets to the Pharisees. The original list was thus 1A, 4, 5A, 6, 7, 8, 9,10,11,12, and 15. That this elegant structure was broken to insert Simeon and thus claim connection with the last of the legitimate priesthood, and also to make the representation that the priesthood put the law ahead of the Temple service, indicates that the insertion was made when rivalry with the illegitimate priest­ hood was important, i.e. before 70, and this indication is confirmed by the fact that the Temple service is still conceived as one of the foundations of the world. So no. 2 was added before 70, and no. 3 may have come at the same time. Its development after 70 was double, as can be seen from M. Avot 2. After no. 18, M. Avot 2 begins with the yet later additions from the patriarch's circle, Rabbi, and Rabban Gamaliel III (M. Avot 2:1, 2:2ff), and then a collection of sayings of Hillel, purported ancestor of the patriarchal house, and then in Avot 2:8 comes an earlier addi­ tion to the list: Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai received [the Torah] from Hillel and Shammai. This, which does have the form of the earlier entries, clearly is what has been displaced by the intervening (inserted) patriarchal material. The pre-70 list was therefore expanded by his pupils before it was taken over by the patriarchate. From the material following M. Avot 2:8 (Yohanan's pupils and their sayings) we can see how it was developed in his school, by contrast to the patriarchal development. The Mishnah combines the two traditions. The names on the lists compare as follows M. Hag.

2:2

b. Shab. 1:4

14b = y. Shab.

M. Avot Moses Joshua

1:1-18

20

THE CHAINS OF PHARISAIC TRADITION

Elders Prophets M e n of the Great Syna­ gogue Simeon the Just Antigonus of Sokho Y o s i b. Yo'ezer Y o s i b. Y o h a n a n Joshua b. Perahiah Nittai the A r b e l i t e J u d a h b. Tabbai Simeon b. Shetah Shema'iah Abtalion Hillel-Menahem Shammai-Hillel

Y o s i b . Y o ' e z e r of Seredah Y o s i b . Y o h a n a n of Jerusalem

[y.: J u d a h b . T a b b a i and] Simeon b. Shetah

Shammai Hillel [y.: Hillel a n d S h a m m a i ]

Y o s i b . Y o ' e z e r of Seredah Y o s i b . Y o h a n a n of Jerusalem J o s h u a b. Perahiah Nittai the Arbelite J u d a h b. Tabbai S i m e o n b. Shetah Shema'iah Abtalion Hillel Shammai

Gamaliel [omits: received] S i m e o n b. Gamaliel [omits: received] [2:8: Y o h a n a n b. Zakkai received f r o m Hillel a n d Shammai]

The second names in the first two pairs, Yosi b. Yohanan and Nittai the Arbelite, elsewhere are given no independent sayings whatever. They occur only in the context of the first-mentioned names, Yosi b. Yo ezer and Joshua b. Perahiah. Further, Shema'iah and Abtalion are rarely separated at all, but, except in Avot, normally appear as a pair, with remarkably few independent lemmas attributed to either the one or the other. They are given common ancestry. The first two Yosi's are not supplied with places of origin in M. Hag. M. Avot corresponds to M. Hag. where the two coincide, except in the additions of the places of origin of the Yosi's, and in the reversal of the order to Hillel-Shammai, making Hillel nasi; the subscription of M. Hag. serves the same purpose. The Babylonian version of the cleanness-decree lists does not conform. The names tacked on to the Avot-list obviously serve to complete the story back to Moses, on the one side, and to 170 A.D., on the other. Gamaliel is made the heir of Hillel's Torah. The Simeon mentioned in the beraita in b. Shab. 15a is ignored; perhaps the compiler of the Avot-list did not know that beraita. c

THE CHAINS OF PHARISAIC

TRADITION

21

It is striking that, except for Hillel's (no. 13), none of the apoph­ thegms in the M. Avot-list ever is discussed or even referred to by Tannaim or in Tannaitic collections. By contrast, the materials in M. Hag. are reworked by Judah b. Ilai and Meir. On this basis, one can hardly propose for the Avot-apophthegms a date before Judah the Patriarch (if then). This is congruent to the fact that Hillel both as ancestor of the patriarchate and as master of Yohanan b. Zakkai first turns up in the Avot-list and becomes important thereafter. Since, as I said, no extant materials have either Simeon b. Gamaliel or Gamaliel I referring to Hillel, we may suppose that the claim of Hillel as an ancestor by the patriarchate came some time after the destruction of the Temple. My guess is that it was first alleged quite a long time later on. Judah the Patriarch's circle probably is responsi­ ble for the additions of Gamaliel and Simeon b. Gamaliel to the Avot list. Since that same circle also produced the genealogy linking Hillel to David—presumably because the Babylonian exilarch did the same— the link between Gamaliel I and Hillel may have come some time before Judah the Patriarch, who is the first patriarch to refer to Hillel as his ancestor. The link is to be traced to the point at which the patriarchate made peace with the growing predominance of the Hille­ lite House, some time soon after the destruction of the Temple. Before then the Shammaites apparently predominated within Pharisaism, and Simeon b. Gamaliel probably was one of them, which accounts for the suppression of virtually all of his legal traditions. The first point at which a Hillelite claim would have served the patriarchate therefore was the time of Gamaliel II. But, since Gamaliel II is represented as following Shammaite law (e.g. b. Yev. 15b), makes no reference to Hillel, plays no role in the Hillel-pericopae or in Hillel's House's materials, as I said, and tells how his father Simeon followed Shammai­ te rules, the Hillelite ancestry for the patriarchate founded by Gama­ liel II may not have been established until ca. 150, by which time it seems to be settled. That is the point at which Meir had to revise the form of the earlier list to make Hillel nasi. Yosi b. Halafta, Meir's contemporary, knew nothing about b. Shab. 14b, and said the decree about the uncleanness of glassware and the land of the peoples in fact was in force (with no authority given) eighty years before the destruction of the Temple. The masters cer­ tainly recognized that the two Yosi's long antedated Hillel and Sham­ mai. Therefore Yosi b. Halafta's tradition was separate from, and con­ tradicted, b. Shab. He presumably knew no other. It therefore may be

22

THE CHAINS OF PHARISAIC TRADITION

that that beraita comes well after ca. 150, as the names of Palestinian Talmud's authorities suggest. i v . CONCLUSION

The earliest chain of Pharisaic tradition probably consisted of the following names: 1. Yosi b. Yo'ezer 2. Yosi b. Yohanan 3. Joshua b. Perahiah 4. Nittai the Arbelite 5. Judah b. Tabbai 6. Simeon b. Shetah 7. Shema'iah

+ 8. Abtalion 9. Shammai 10. Hillel 11. Yohanan b. Zakkai 12. Yohanan's disciples Replaced by 13. Gamaliel 14. Simeon b. Gamaliel Of the foregoing, nos. 2 and 4 exist in the traditions only in associa­ tion with nos. 1 and 3; nos. 7 and 8 are always connected. As we shall see, furthermore, the relationships between nos. 5 and 6 are extremely complex, and it looks as if separate traditions of the two masters may have been put together for a post facto explanation of the union of two originally unrelated circles of disciples. We shall now consider in sequence the traditions of each of the masters on the list. The judgment of E. J . Bickerman is everywhere verified: "Un oubli general couvrit les stecles qui s'etaient ecoules entre Alexandre et Auguste, parce que personne n'avait plus interet a s'en souvenir." For the later rabbinic continuators of the 1

1

E l i e B i c k e r m a n , " L a c h a i n e d e la t r a d i t i o n p h a r i s i e n n e , " Revue biblique 5 9 , 1952, pp. 44-54; pp. 45-6.

THE CHAINS OF PHARISAIC

TRADITION

23

Pharisees what happened had to be revised into what ought to have happened. They had a keen interest in the intervening period, but the likely facts of the matter—the recent origins of the Pharisaic party, probably in the second century B.C., and the Shammaite pre­ dominance in the party in the first century A.D. until the destruction of the Temple—were not palatable, so new facts had to be invented both to improve the picture, and to fill out its blank spaces.

CHAPTER THREE SIMEON THE

JUST

i. TRADITIONS

I.i.l. [When either a man or a woman makes a special vow, the vow of a Na^irite] to separate himself to the Lord (Num. 6:2)... Rabbi Simeon the Just said, "I ate the guilt-offering of Naziriteship (NZRWT) but one, when one came from the South, of beautiful eyes, lovely appearance, with his locks in curls. I spoke to him (N'M), 'Quickly must one (MHR >YT) [should be: MH R>YT = What did you see to, why did you] destroy beautiful hair?' "And he said (N'M) to me, 'I was a shepherd in my town. I went to fetch water from the spring. I looked at my shadow. My heart grew haughty (PHZ). It sought to remove me from the world. I said to it, 'Wicked (R$<)! LO, you take pride in what is not yours. It belongs to the dust, the worm, and the maggot. Lo, I shave you off for [the sake of] Heaven.' "Forthwith I bowed my head and kissed his head and said to him, 'May [people] like you, who do the will of the Omnipresent, increase in Israel. Upon you ( LYK) is fulfilled the Scripture, When either a man or a woman makes a special vow, the vow of a Na^irite, to separate himself to the Lord: " (Sifre Num. 22, ed. Friedman, pp. 7a-b) C

Comment: Later on (IV.ii.3) cited to show Simeon did not approve of Nazirites, this pericope may be categorized as a narrative in autobio­ graphical form (Simeon said, / . . . ) . From the narrative no legal principle is here derived or illustrated. The moral rule that one must not take pride in beautiful appearances is illustrated by the young man's merito­ rious shaving of his head as a Nazirite. The setting in Sifre bears no relationship with what precedes or fol­ lows. It is a unitary, literary account. Apart from some difficulties in word choice and diction, ironed out in later versions, the pericope is smooth and flows easily. The standard blessing at the end to be sure is vague, for what specific action the young man took to do God's will is not specified, merely inferred; this would later on be supplied. The story is the work of a single hand. The inclusion of the title rabbi is an obvious anachronism, prima facie evidence that the story comes after 70 A.D. But that detail may have

SIMEON THE J U S T —Il.i.l

25

been inserted later on and cannot be used to date the original composi­ tion of the pericope. Hence we have no clear idea as to when and where the story was first told, or how it was transmitted. As we shall see, Simeon the Just is a shadowy, legendaryfigure.Ad­ ding his name to what may be a Judaized version of the Narcissus story is perfectly natural, just as it is Simeon the Just who represents the Jews before Alexander of Macedonia. But we certainly cannot speculate on who would originally have made Narcissus into a Nazirite or what would have provoked retelling the story in a Jewish framework. See David Weiss Halivni, Meqorot, pp. 272-275. Il.i.l.A. Who prepared them [the earlier red-heifer offerings]? "Moses prepared the first, Ezra prepared the second, and five [were prepared] after Ezra," the words of R. Meir. But the sages say, "Seven since Ezra." B. And who prepared them? Simeon the Just and Yohanan the High Priest prepared two each, and Elieho'enai b. Haqqof and Hanamel the Egyptian and Ishmael b. Phiabi prepared one each. (M. Par. 3:5, trans. Danby, p. 700.) Comment: This "historical" pericope contains a reference to a deed done by Simeon (among others). What he actually did is not specified, since it is assumed that the general laws describing the red-heifer sacri­ fice were carried out by him as well. Elsewhere (Vl.iv.l), it is specified that he made a new ramp for each offering; that detail is omitted in the subsequent Mishnah (3:6), where it would have belonged. The Mishnaic passage before us thus contains no material of legal interest. The terminus ante quem is made clear by the reference to Meir, hence the middle of the second century. The difference between Meir and the sages is whether Simeon the Just and Yohanan the High Priest had made one or two such offerings. Judah the Patriarch follows the sages, with two attributed to each one, one to the three others. Actually, the Tannaim could have had no very firm traditions on the subject (see my Life of Yohanan ben Zakkai, [Leiden, 1970 ], pp. 77-80). The pericope is a composite, interrupted by "according to..." Were it a unitary account, it would have read, "Who had prepared them? Moses the first, Ezra the second, andfive/sevenafter Ezra, plus names." The second (B) and who had prepared them supplies continuity broken by the report of the disagreement. The first who had prepared them follows a reference to the possibility that the high priest could not find remnants of the sacrifices of his pre­ decessors, "If he did not find [remnants of the ashes of] the seven, they might make use of six, five, four, three, two, one." Then comes, "And who made them?" It is unlikely that a pericope circulated apart from the question "Who made them," e.g. in the following language, "Moses made the first, Ezra, the second..." Such a pericope, lacking an explan­ atory phrase to make clear that under discussion is the history of the 2

26

S I M E O N THE J U S T — Il.ii.l

red heifer sacrifice, would have been meaningless. The form before us, therefore, is in the language supplied by the generation responsible for the text as we have it, namely, that of Meir, or by the immediately fol­ lowing one. We do not know how Meir or his opposition knew how many heifers were prepared and who had made them. But we have no trace of whatever original tradition was referred to by Meir. We have merely a reference to the content of such a pericope (if any actually ex­ isted). I cannot think of any reason that Meir's generation would have taken special interest in the red-heifer ceremony, or why Judah the Patriarch would have gone out of his way to list the names of the high priests responsible for the earlier sacrifices. Whatever contemporary consider­ ations, if any, provoked the dispute between Meir and the anonymous opposition are not apparent, and I imagine there were none. Many his­ torical issues elicited Meir's concern. This was simply a dispute about what had been done long, long ago—in a time concerning which Phar­ isaic traditions supplied no reliable information whatever. See Epstein, Mevo'ot, pp. 44-5. Il.ii.l. Simeon the Just said, "In my life (MYMYY) I have not eaten the guilt-offering of a Nazir except once only (BLBD). The story is told concerning (M SH B) one [man] who came to me from the south. I saw him [of] beautiful eyes, good appearance, and his locks were curled. I said (NM) to him, 'My son, Why [Lit.: What did you see to] did you destroy this lovely hair?' "He said (NM) to me, 'I was a shepherd in my town, and I came to fill water from the river. I looked at my shadow, and my impulse (YSR) grew proud within me and besought to remove me ( BR) from the world. " 'I said to it [my impulse], 'Evil one! You have [a right] to be jealous only of a thing which is not yours, of a thing which is destined to make ( SH) dust, worm, and maggot. Lo, it is incumbent on me [a vow] to shave you off for [the sake of ] Heaven.' "I bent my head and kissed him on his head. I said to him, 'My son, may [people] like you, who do the will of the Omnipresent, multiply in Israel. Upon you ( LYK) is fulfilled this [Scripture], When a man or woman separates himself to vow..: (Num. 6:2)." (Tos. Nez. 4:7, ed. Lieberman, p. 138-9, lines 32-40; Zuckermandel, p. 289, lines 9-16) C

C

C

C

Comment: See I.i.l and synoptic studies below. The form ma^aseh b- is intruded, a peculiar addition. The form does not belong and interrupts Simeon's story. It must represent a contamination by a copyist or editor who thought any sort of story will require ma^aseh be.. .vejshe as an intro­ ductory formula. The formula does not recur in Simeon-materials.

S I M E O N T H E J U S T — II.ii.2

27

II.ii.2. A. Simeon the Just heard, "The decree is annulled (BTYLT 'YBYDT') which the enemy (SN'H—lit.: one who hates) intended to bring (LHYTYH) on the Temple, and Qesgeleges (QSGLGS) has been killed, and his decrees have been annulled,' [Italics = in Aramaic] and he heard these things in the Aramaic language. B. All the time that Simeon the Just was alive (QYYM), the western light was continual. When he died, they went and found it had gone out. Afterward, sometimes it went out, and sometimes it burned strongly. C. The fire of the wood-offering was continual. Once they had arrang­ ed it in the morning, it would burn strongly all day long, so that they would offer on it perpetual offerings and supplementary offerings and their drink-offerings. And they would not add on it more than two pieces of wood for the twilight offering, as it is said, And the priest will burn on it... (Lev. 6:5). When Simeon the Just died, the woodoffering's power diminished, and they did not refrain from adding wood to it all day long. D. There was a blessing in the two bread-loaves and in the showbread. The two bread-loaves would be divided on the [festival of] Gathering ( SRT) and the show-bread was divided on the festival (RGL) among all the [priestly] watches. Some ate and were satisfied, and others ate and [even] left over, yet no more than an olive's mea­ sure came to each one. After Simeon the Just died, the blessing de­ parted... (Tos. Sot. 13:7, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 319, lines 9-20) C

Comment: Part A comes at the end of a long list of heavenly messages delivered through an echo (BT QWL). In Simeon's instance it is merely stated that "he heard," since earlier in the chapter is specified a number of instances in which sages heard heavenly echoes; in a reference to the conclusion of prophecy with Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, it is said, "But even so, they would cause them to hear through the echo." Then, an echo heard in Yavneh announced that Hillel was worthy of receiving the holy spirit. Again, an echo announced at Yavneh that Samuel the Small was worthy of receiving the holy spirit. This is followed by Samuel the Small's dying words, and it is carefully specified that these were in Aramaic. Then, Yohanan the High Priest heard from the house of the holy of holies that the young men had conquered Antioch (in Aramaic, but not so specified as earlier). Finally, "Simeon heard..." Af­ ter Simeon is mentioned, the further story in part B is told about what happened after he died. It is therefore clear from the context that the composite pericope was shaped, at the earliest, in the second century.

28

S I M E O N T H E J U S T — III.i.1

Some of the materials may be later, for the explicit reference to the use of the Aramaic language (in italics) makes no sense at all here. No one here debates whether the angels speak Aramaic or not. That issue is raised elsewhere, as we shall see (III.ii.4, below) by R. Yohanan (d. 279) and Rav Judah (d. 297). It may be that a saying about what Simeon and Yohanan the High Priest had heard from heaven long circulated in Aramaic (Josephus gives it, of course, in Greek), and this was then cited to prove that the angels speak Aramaic. But the saying also circu­ lated in Hebrew here and in IV.i.4! It seems more likely that the saying was rendered into Aramaic for the purposes of the argument in which it was cited, than that it was only afterward rendered from Aramaic into Hebrew for a reason no one can now imagine. But the second and third clauses remain in Hebrew, contrary to the subscription. We may classify both parts as biographical references to Simeon's life. But Simeon plays a wholly passive role in Part A, and in Parts B-C-D, none at all. Like the destruction of the Temple, his death marks a major turning in the supernatural life of Israel. We cannot fruitfully speculate on the school responsible for the story in its current form. To be sure, the story could not have been shaped much before the middle of the second century, for reasons given earlier. Part A is a unitary com­ position. Parts B-C-D are not, for in fact the lists of various miracles that ceased to happen with Simeon's death elsewhere are augmented considerably; here we have only part of a composite of miracles attrib­ uted to the period before Simeon's death. The tendency is to attribute to Simeon and his times the glory and supernatural grace afterward denied to Israel. Judah the Patriarch, strikingly, did not refer to Simeon the Just in his list of ancient worthies to which this passage is a supplement, M. Sotah 9:9-15. This is a remarkable omission, since others on the M. Avot- and M. Hagigah-lists are present: Yohanan the High Priest, Yosi b. Yo ezer, and Yosi b. Yohanan: "When [they] died, the grapeclusters ceased." It would have been natural to include Simeon in this very con­ text. Moreover, Tos. does preserve the Mishnaic passage (in italics): "When the first prophets died, Urim and Tummim ceased" Then comes the long passage (9:15) about the end of various blessings when not a high priest but Tannaitic sages died: Meir, Ben Zoma, Joshua, Simeon b. Gamaliel, Eleazar b. Azariah, Aqiba, Hanina b. Dosa, Yohanan ben Zakkai, and others, down to Judah the Patriarch himself. Why not Simeon the Priest as well? I cannot say, but the omission must be re­ garded as noteworthy. Megillat Ta'anit, ed. Lichtenstein, p. 344, develops the pericope into a story about Qsglgs. c

c

c

c

III.i.1. Rabbi Ulla objected before Rabbi Mana, "Lo it is taught (TNY), Simeon the Just prepared two cows..." (y. Sheq. 4:2, repr. Gilead, p. 16b) Comment: The context is a discussion of the high priesthood's pride

29

S I M E O N T H E J U S T — III.i.2-3

and wastefulness. R. Hanina accuses the high priests of scandalous lavishness because they constructed new ramps for each red heifer sacri­ fice, rather than using existing, adequate equipment. Ulla objects that Simeon the Just had done this very thing, citing M. Par. 3:5, with the presumption that Simeon had done as was described in M. Par. 3:6 (above Il.i.l). Then, "Can you say Simeon the Just was extravagant?" The answer is that he had done so because of the im­ portance of the heifer ceremony. In Pesiqta deR. Kahana (below, Vl.iv.l) the question is given anonymously, the answer comes from R. Abun in the name of R. Ele azar. The basis for referring to Simeon the Just, therefore, is his inclusion in the list in M. Par. c

c

111.1.2. There we learned (TMN TNYN): Simeon the Just was of the remnants of the Great Assembly. He would say, "On three things the world stands: Torah, cult, and deeds of loving-kindness." And the three of them [sic] are in one Scripture (Is. 51:16): I have placed my words in your mouth—this is Torah. And in the shadow of my hands I have covered you—this is [doing] deeds of lovingkindness. To teach you that whoever occupies [himself] in Torah and in deeds of lovingkindness merits sitting in the shadow of the Holy One, blessed be he. (y. Ta. 4:2, repr. Gilead, p. 21a = y. Meg. 3:6, repr. Gilead, p. 26a) Comment: The context is a discussion of the saying of R. Jacob b. Aha in the name of R. Yasa, "The world stands only on account of the sacrifices." Then the saying of Simeon the Just is cited as contrary evi­ dence. The saying derives directly from Avot 1:3, with no change. What is new is the exegesis of Is. 51:16, purporting to supply a prooftext for Simeon's opinion, but mentioning only two elements. The proof-text does not appear in any earlier version of the saying. It is an anonymous augmentation, a gloss appearing only here and in the paral­ lel, y. Meg. 3:6, which in all respects is identical. The omission of the cult is puzzling. Clearly, the Avot saying now was available and therefore was cited. But it appears in no other Tannaitic compilation and is not referred to by a Tannaitic authority—a rule applying to all logia in the Avot-chain, as I said (p. 21). 111.1.3. DTNY: R. Simeon the Just said ('MR), "In my days I have eaten the guilt-offering of a Nazirite only once. One time a man came up to me from the South, and I saw him ruddy, with lovely eyes and a good appearence, and his curls were heaped up (MSWDRWT) in heaps and heaps (TYLY TYLYM). And I said to him, 'My son,

30

S I M E O N T H E J U S T — III.ii.1

Why did you [lit.: What did you see to] destroy this beautiful hair?' "He said (NM) to me, 'Rabbi, I was a shepherd in my town, and I went to fill the drawing of water (LML'WT >T HS'WB MYM). I saw my shadow (BWBYYH) in the water. My impulse (YSR) took pride over me and sought to destroy me ( BD) from the world. I said to it, 'Evil one! You take pride in something which is not yours. It is my duty to sanctify you to Heaven.' "I bent my head and said to him, 'My son, may such as you, who do the will of the Omnipresent, multiply in Israel. Concerning you, Scripture says, When a man or a woman will separate himself to vow a vow...' " (y. Ned. 1:1, repr. Gilead, p. 3a = y. Naz. 1:5, repr. Gilead, p. 5a) J

Comment: The context is an inquiry into what Tannaitic authority does not approve vows of various sorts. The authorities cited are R. Judah and R. Simeon. R. Simeon says it is a sin to refrain from using wine, and his view is buttressed by the story of Simeon the Just. In y. Naz. 1:5 the context is set by the same discussion. III.ii.1 .A. Our Rabbis taught (TNW RBNN): Throughout the forty years that Simeon the Just ministered: (1) The lot ['For the Lord'] would always come up in the right hand. From that time on, it would sometimes come up in the right hand, sometimes in the left. (2) And the crimson-colored strap would turn white. From that time on it would at times become white, at others not. (3) Also, the westernmost light was shining. From that time on, it was now shining, now failing. (4) Also, the fire of the pile of wood kept burning strong, so that the priests did not have to bring to the pile any other wood besides the two logs, in order to fulfill the command about [providing] the wood [unintermittently]. From that time on, it would sometimes keep burning strongly, sometimes not, so that the priests did not refrain throughout the day from bringing wood for the pile [on the altar]. (5) A blessing was bestowed upon the omer the two breads, and showbread, so that every priest who obtained a piece thereof as big as an olive ate it and became satisfied, some eating thereof and even leaving something over. From that time on a curse (M WRH) was sent upon the omer two breads, and showbread, so that every priest received a piece as small as a bean: the well-bred ones withdrew their hands from it, while voracious folk took and devoured it... c

y

C

c

y

S I M E O N T H E J U S T — III.ii.1

31

B. Our rabbis taught (TNW RBNN): In the year in which Simeon the Just died, he said to them [that] in this year he would die. They said, "Whence do you know that?" He replied, "On every Day of Atonement an old man, dressed in white and wrapped in white, would join me, entering [the Holy of Holies] and leaving [it] with me. But today I was joined by an old man, dressed in black and wrapped in black, who entered, but did not leave, with me." After the festival (RGL) [of Sukkot] he was sick for seven days and died. C. His brethren the priests forbore to mention the [Ineffable] Name in pronouncing the [priestly] blessing. (b. Yoma 39a-b, trans. Leo Jung, pp. 184-6) Comment: Part B may be classified as biography. The former, part A (= II.ii.2), is an account of a change in Israel's supernatural life tied to the death of Simeon the Just. Simeon serves, like Simeon b. Shetah, to supply a date for "the good old days." The antecedent Mishnah pertains to the priestly cult on the Day of Atonement, with specific reference to the casting of lots for disposal of the sacrificial goat. A brief inquiry follows: Which Tanna is responsible for the Mishnah? Attention is drawn to available beraitot. Then comes the beraita given here as part A. This is briefly interrupted by a story about a priest who grabbed more than his share of the bread, followed by part B. Presumably the beraita could have stood as a unity, without the second superscription, Our rabbis taught, just as the final clause stands without it, rather than Our rabbis taught. When Simeon ministered ...the priests would mention the Ineffable Name; when he died, they forebore. Immediately following the conclusion of the Simeon-materials is still another beraita on the supernatural his­ tory of the cult: "In the last forty years before the destruction, the lot did not come up in the right hand, the crimson-colored strap did not turn white, the western-light did not shine, and the doors of the heikhal would open by themselves, until Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai rebuked them." This beraita obviously is a continuation of the foregoing collec­ tion, and the whole was certainly shaped together, at the earliest in the second century. The setting is different in detail from II.ii.2, but not much different in structure. Just as earlier we found that Simeon-materials were placed in the general context of data on the supernatural, coming to an end with Yavnean masters (Samuel the Small), so here Yavneans (Yohanan ben Zakkai) are linked to Simeon the Just. We cannot, to be sure, date the final formation of the beraita to so early a date as second-century Yavneh. We may be certain only that it was in its final form by the early fourth-century, at which point the ma^aseh about the piggish priest was added, followed by the comments of Rabbah b. R. Shela and Rava.

32

S I M E O N T H E J U S T — III.ii.2

Formally, we have quite different sorts of stories, now preserved in the separate beraitot, A and B. They were brought together to provide an account of the miracles of the time of Simeon the Just, first with regard to the cult, then with regard to his own death. Nothing in the language or contents requires us to divide the pericope into component parts: (a) when he ministered, (b) when he died. The editorial reasons for the later division are clear. The tendency is obvious. Until Simeon the Just the high priesthood was worthy of its holy office. Afterward, some of the high priests were, and some were not. About a generation before the destruction the high priesthood became consistently unpalatable to the Pharisaic party. But we need not speculate on what "really" happened in the cult. Sayings such as these are important not for the history of the cult or the biogra­ phy of Simeon, but for the study of Tannaitic attitudes toward both. III.ii.2. A. And has it [not] been taught (WHTNY>): On the twenty-fifth of Tevet is the day of Mount Gerizim, on which one may not mourn. B. [It is the] day on which [commemorating] the Kuteans sought [permission] to destroy the House of our God from Alexander of Macedonia. He gave them [permission]. They came and informed Simeon the Just. What did he do? He put on the priestly garments and cloaked himself in the priestly garments. Some of the nobles of Israel [were] with him, [with] torches of fire in their hands, and all night they walked [from] this side and [from] that, until the morning star arose. When the morning star arose, he [Alexander] said to them [the Kuteans], "Who are these?" They said to him, "They are Jews who rebelled against you." When he came to Antipatris, the sun came out, and these [from one direction] met those [coming from the other side]. C. When he saw Simeon the Just, he descended from his chariot and prostrated himself before him. They said to him, "Will such a great king as you prostrate himself before this J e w ? " He said to them, "The image (DMWT DYWQNW) of this [man] conquers before me in the midst of (BBYT) my battles." D. He said to them, "Why have you come?" They said to him, "Is it possible that star-worshippers should mis­ lead you to destroy the house in which men pray for you and for your kingdom that it [your kingdom] may never be destroyed!" He said to them, "Who are these [to whom you refer] ?" They said to him, "These Kuteans who stand before you."

S I M E O N T H E J U S T — III.ii.2

33

He said to them, "Lo, they are given into your hands." Forthwith they perforated their heels, tied them to the tails of their horses, and dragged them over thorns and thistles until they came to Mount Gerizim. When they came to Mount Gerizim, they ploughed it and planted it with vetch—just what they had sought to do to the House of our God. F. That day they made into a festival. (b. Yoma 69a) Comment: This beraita, which serves as a scholion to Megillat Ta'anit, may be classified as a historical narrative in which Simeon plays a minor role, rather than as a biographical pericope. It is cited in the context of a discussion on whether the priestly garments may be worn outside of the Temple. It is introduced by "Come and hear: As to priestly garments, it is forbidden to go out in them into the province, but in the sanctuary, whether during the time of the service or otherwise, it is permitted to wear them." Then the beraita is cited as a contradiction: Simeon the Just wore the garments outside the Temple. The response is that the garments he wore were fit to be priestly garments, but were not actual­ ly so; or alternatively, the emergency justified disobeying the particular rule against wearing them outside of the Temple. Ps. 119:126 is cited— a routine way of solving the problem. The whole is anonymous, but it is preceded by discussion about using the priestly garments for personal benefit, in which R. Papa, R. Mesharsheya, and R. Ashi participate. In Megillat Ta'anit (Lichtenstein, p. 339) the day of the destruction of Gerizim is 21 Kislev; Josephus says John Hyrcanus destroyed it. We may be certain the framers of the beraita had no accurate information on the subject. The form of the beraita is similar to other Babylonian Tal­ mudic treatments of Megillat Ta^anit pericopae (Development of a Legend pp. 180-182). The Aramaic of the Fasting-scroll is cited, followed by a long narrative, in rabbinic Hebrew, of the story underlying the simple date. The narrative is composite. Part C is intruded, interrupting the course of the story with an extraneous detail. Then the narrative re­ sumes with D, which ignores C ("He said to them") and could as well have followed right after part B. Part C also circulated by itself. But parts B, D, and E form a single, unitary account. Part F then refers back to the superscription, so that the form usually associated with Fasting-Scroll stories is now completed. I therefore suppose that the story in parts B, D, and E stood alone; then part C was added to in­ clude another detail about Simeon's "famous" meeting of Alexander and the Jews, in addition to that part in B. Parts A and F were supplied last of all. As in the analysis of other materials attached to sentences from the Fasting-Scroll, we have no clue as to when or how the whole was put together. The materials did not necessarily lie before the Babylonian masters mentioned above, for the story is cited anonymously, merely in

34

S I M E O N T H E J U S T — III.ii.3

the context of their discussion, and they do not necessarily provide a terminus ante quern. For all we know, the beraita in its current form was shaped even later than R. Ashi. We have no firm information whatever. Simeon's role is limited to parts B and C. Part C is independent of the rest. As to B, Simeon is intruded because he is high priest, therefore in charge of affairs and expected to meet the crisis. Any other name would have served as well. But Part C makes Simeon into a supernatural figure. Stories of Alexander and an important Jew are not limited to Simeon. Another, and completely different, account of Alexander and a Jewish spokesman concerns Gebiha b. Pesisa, b. Sanh. 91a = Meg. Ta anit, ed. Lichtenstein, pp. 328-30. c

III.ii.3. TNY>: Simeon the Just said ("MR), "I never ate the guiltoffering of a contaminated (TM>) Nazir except for [Ned.: once, one time] one man, who came to me from the South, [Ned.: and I saw that he was] of beautiful eyes, lovely appearance, and with his locks arranged (SDWRWT) in heaps of curls (TLTLYM). I said (>MR) to him, 'My son,Why did you [Lit.: what did you see to] destroy this [Ned. ijour] beautiful hair?' "He said to me, 'I was a shepherd for my father in my town. I went to draw water from the well. I looked at my reflection. My impulse (YSR) grew haughty and sought to drive me (TRD) from the world. I said to it, 'Base one (RYQH)! On what account do you take pride (G'H^n the world which is not yours, for your end will be worm and maggot. By the [Temple] cult! I shall shave you for [the sake of ] Heaven.' "I arose and kissed him on his head. I said to him, 'May Nazirites [Ned.: makers of Na^iriteship] like you increase in Israel. Concerning you Scripture says, When a man shall make a special vow, the vow of a Na%irite, to separate himself to the Lord (Num. 6:2).' " (b. Naz. 4b = b. Ned. 9b) Comment: The context of b. Naz. is an anonymous discussion con­ cerning the author of the Mishnah about the difference between a temporary Nazirite, and a life-Nazirite like Samson. Various Tannaim are cited, all in a hypothetical framework, "He would say." No one is directly quoted. The phrase unto the Lord is mentioned and then comes the beraita about Simeon the Just's story, attached to Num. 6:2. After the story the discussion continues anonymously. The context of b. Ned. is a discussion on whether vows of Naziriteship are sinful or not. The discussion is anonymous, certainly Amoraic (if not later), but following comes a demurrer of R. Mani, that the instance of Simeon the Just does not decisively prove the case. The story thus is more appropriate for the issue of b. Ned. than of b. Naz.

35

S I M E O N T H E J U S T — III.ii.4-5

III.iiAA. Do not the ministering angels understand Aramaic? Be­ hold it has been taught (TNY>): B. Yohanan the High Priest heard an echo (BT QWL) from the house of the Holy of Holies, which was saying [in Aramaic]. "The young men who went to wage war against Antioch have conquered (NSHW TLY> D>ZLW L>GH> QRB> L'NTWKY')." C. Further the story is told concerning (M SH B) Simeon the Just, that he heard an echo from the house of the Holy of Holies, which was saying [in Aramaic], "Annulled (BTYLT) is the decree (*BYDT') which the enemy (SN H) thought to introduce (L?YYT H) into the Temple (HYKV), and [in Hebrew] Gasqelges (GSQLGS) [A. Cohen, trans.: Caius Caligula (sic)] has been slain, and his decrees have been annulled." D. They wrote down that hour and it tallied [with the time of his death]. Now it was in Aramaic that it [the echo] spoke. (b. Sot. 33a) C

y

y

Comment: The issue is raised by Rav Judah with the agreement of R. Yohanan, the contemporary Palestinian master, that one should not pray in Aramaic, for the angels do not understand it. The story con­ cerning Yohanan the High Priest, followed by and a further story con­ cerning Simeon the Just, seems to me an integral part of the composite beraita. But part D belongs after part B. Part C is an intrusion. So at the outset the elements were separate and probably circulated by them­ selves. III. ii.5. Needless to say [this is so of priests who ministered to] another matter. Since it says here, Needless to say [this is so of priests who minister­ ed to] another matter, it follows that the Temple of Onias was not an idolatrous shrine. Our Tanna thus concurs with the view of him who said that the Temple of Onias was not an idolatrous shrine. A. For it was taught (DTNY>): In the year in which Simeon the Just died, he said to them that he would die. They said to him, "How do you know?" He replied, "Every Day of Atonement an old man, dressed in white and wrapped in white, met me. He entered with me [into the Holy of Holies] and left with me. But this year an old man, dressed in black and wrapped in black, met me. He entered with me but did not leave with me." After the Festival (RGL) [of Tabernacles] he was ill for seven days and then died.

36

S I M E O N T H E J U S T — III.ii.5

And his brethren the priests forbore [to pronounce] the Name in [the priestly] benediction. B. In the hour of his departure [from this life], he said to them, "My son Onias shall assume the office [of High Priest] after me." His brother Shime i, who was two years and a half older, was jealous of him and said to him, "Come and I will teach you the order of the Temple service." He thereupon put on him a gown ('WNQLY), girded him with a girdle, placed him near the altar, and said to his brethren the priests, "See what this man promised his beloved and has now fulfilled: 'On the day in which I assume the office of High Priest, I will put on your gown and gird myself with your girdle.' " At this his brethren the priests sought to kill him. He fled from them, but they pursued him. He then went to Alexan­ dria in Egypt, built an altar there, and offered thereon sacrifices in ho­ nor of idols. When the Sages heard of this, they said, "If this is what happened [through the jealousy] of one who had never assumed the honor, what would happen [through the jealousy] of one who had once assumed the honor [and had been ousted from i t ] ! " This is the view of the events according to R. Meir. C. R. Judah said to him, "That was not what happened, but the fact was that Onias did not accept the office of High Priest because his brother Shime'i was two years and a half older than he..." (b. Men. 109b, trans. E. Cashdan, pp. 676-7) c

Comment: The context is an anonymous discussion of the status of the Temple of Onias. The responsible Tannaim obviously are Meir and Judah b. Ilai. Indeed, in this instance we are explicitly informed that the whole version of events printed here is that of Meir. There follows a completely different version of Onias's history, told by Judah. But all parties seem to agree on the story about Simeon the Just,—if they know it at all. The introductory story about Simeon comes both separate from, and before, the materials on Onias. Meir and Judah may there­ fore supply the terminus ante quern for part A, the middle of the second century A.D. As we have it, the beraita must be regarded as a composite of two traditions, A + B or C. It is noteworthy that the beraita A + B or A + C is not divided with a second superscription, which supports my earlier contention thatfora/te-superscriptionscould well have been sup­ plied in such a way as to break apart existing, unitary pericopae. Part A seems to me divided, as earlier stated, into two parts, the story of the prediction of Simeon's death, his death, and then a second item, that

S I M E O N THE J U S T — IV.i.1-2

37

the priests then ceased to pronounce the Ineffable Name. The latter is not integral to the story. It would have been better located in the list of miracles that ceased to take place after Simeon died. IV.i.l. [Concerning the high priests in the Second Temple]: Simeon the Just served forty years. R. Aha said, "It is written, Fear of the Lord augments one's days (Prov. 10:27)—these are the priests who served in the First Temple. But theyears of the wicked are diminished—these are the ones who served in the Second Temple." (y. Yoma 1:1, repr. Gilead, p. 4b) Comment: The reference to Simeon the Just's tenure in office is ano­ nymous. The observation of R. Aha supplies a terminus ante quern. In IV.ii.1 (b. Yoma 9a), the passage is in the name of Rabba b. b. Hana in the name of R. Yohanan, hence mid third-century for the latter, late third-century for the tradent. IV.L2.A. [Regarding the high priest's prayer on the Day of Atone­ ment in the Holy of Holies, it is said that he should not pray too long lest he frighten the congregation.] The story is told concerning (M SH B) one who went on a long time, and they decided to go in after him. They said it was Simeon the Just. They said to him, "Why did you go on a long time?" He said to them, "I was praying concerning the Sanctuary of your God that it not be destroyed." They said to him, "Even so, you ought not to have gone on a long time." B. Forty years did Simeon the Just serve Israel in the high priest­ hood. In the final year he said to them, "In this year I am going to die." They said to him, "How do you know?" He said to them, "Every year, when I would enter the House of the Holy of Holies, there was a certain old man, dressed in white and cloaked in white. He enters with me and departs (YWS*) with me. But in this year he entered with me and did not depart with me." (y. Yoma 5:2, repr. Gilead, p. 27a) C

Comment: The terminus ante quern is set by the immediately following comment: R. Abbahu was asked how it was possible for a man to enter with the high priest—or even angels with men's appearance. He replied that it was not a man but the Holy One blessed be He, Here part A of the long beraita already considered (IILii.5) stands by itself, without part C, also without mentioning the priests' ceasing to

38

S I M E O N T H E J U S T — IV.i.3

articulate the Ineffable Name (part B). More remarkable still, the pas­ sage does not even include a reference to the "fact" that Simeon actually died a week later. The story of the high priest who prayed too long is anonymous. Simeon's name is supplied as a gloss, because of the context. The story does not appear elsewhere. IV.i.3.A. The days that Simeon the Just was alive, it [the goat of Atonement] would not reach half-way down the mountain before it broke into pieces. When Simeon the Just died, it [the goat of Atonement] would flee to the wilderness, and the Saracens (SRQYN) would eat it. B. All the days that Simeon the Just was alive, the lot of the Name would come up in the right hand. When Simeon the Just died, some­ times [it would come up] in the right hand, and sometimes in the left. C. All the days that Simeon the Just was alive, the western lamp would burn. When Simeon the Just died, sometimes it would flicker out, and sometimes it would burn. D. All the days that Simeon the Just was alive, the strap of crimson would turn white. When Simeon the Just died, sometimes it would turn white, sometimes red. E. All the days that Simeon the Just was alive, the flame of the wood offering would burn strongly. When they had placed two logs of wood in the morning, they would not place [more] all day long. When Simeon the Just died, the power of the fire-offering was diminish­ ed, and they would not hesitate to place wood [on the fire] all daylong. F. All the days that Simeon the Just was alive, a blessing was sent on the two loaves of bread and the showbread. To each one would come about an olive's measure, and some ate and were satisfied, while some ate and left over. When Simeon the Just died, the blessing was taken from the two bread-loaves and from the showbread...(etc.) (y. Yoma 6:3, repr. Gilead, p. 33b) Comment: The context of the list of miracles that ended with the death of Simeon the Just is the Mishnah pertaining to the disposition of the sacrificial goat on the Day of Atonement. There is no close tie to the foregoing materials. The following pericope relates to a priest's taking his portion of the bread; the connection to the Simeon-list is the theme of the final item. The classification is historical: changes in Israel's supernatural situa­ tion following Simeon's death. The list is probably a composite, for, as we have seen, some of the items recur elsewhere, but not as part of the entire pericope before us. The details of his predicting his death and the events following it are omitted.

S I M E O N THE J U S T — IV.i.4, IV.ii.1-2

39

IV.i.4. The story is told that Simeon the Just heard an echo coming from the house of the Holy of Holies, and it said, "Gaius Goliqes [GYYS GWLYQS] is slain, and his decrees are annulled." (y. Sot. 9:13, ed. Gilead, p. 45b) Comment: The entire pericope now is in Hebrew; no Aramaic ap­ pears, unlike the Babylonian version of the same message. The context is set by the foregoing remark: while prophecy has ceased, Heaven still communicates through the echo. No Amoraic masters refer to the story, which is anonymous. There follows the story of the message to Yohanan the High Priest, this time in Aramaic, and further heavenly echoes are mentioned, with reference to the worthiness of Hillel, Samuel the Small, and other meritorious men, to receive the holy spirit. The story as it stands is a unity. The reference to GYYS GWLYQS is generally interpreted to mean Caligula. But this seems to me unlikely; if it is Caligula, it cannot be Simeon the Just. Or Simeon's pericope has been doctored. That accurate historical data are before us is unlikely. IV.ii.l. Rabbah b. b. Hana said in the name of R. Yohanan, "What is the meaning of the Scripture, The fear of the Lord adds days, but the years of the wicked are shortened (Prov. 10:27)?... The years of the wicked refers to the Second Temple which stood for four hundred twenty years, in which more than three hundred priests served. Deduct from them the forty years that Simeon the Just served, the eighty that Yohanan the High Priest served, the ten that Ishmael the son of Phiabi served, and some say, the eleven that Rabbi [sic] Eleazar b. Harsom served. Go and calculate—none of the remainder completed [even] his [one] year [in office]." (b. Yoma 9a) Comment: The context of the reference to Simeon is a saying of R. Yohanan transmitted by Rabbah b. b. Hana. The tradition about his forty years in office is apparently well known, presumably from Il.ii.l. Hence the latter must come before ca. 250 A.D. IV.ii.2. / did not reject them, neither did I abhor them to destroy them utterly (Lev. 26:44). Samuel said, "...neither did I abhor them—in the days of the Greeks, when I raised up for them Simeon the Just and Hashmona'i and his sons and Mattathias the high priest..." (b. Meg. 11a) Comment: Samuel's exegesis is to be dated to the middle of the third century. Clearly, Samuel imagined Simeon the Just was a contemporary of the Maccabees. Whether or not he knew the materials connecting

40

S I M E O N THE J U S T — IV.ii.3, Vl.iii.l, V L i v . l

Simeon to the time of Alexander of Macedonia I cannot say. And we do not know for certain that Samuel knew Alexander was not a contem­ porary of the Maccabees. Still, we may safely postulate that he did know it and hence may suppose that stories about Simeon the Just and Alexander were not available in third-century Nehardea. This seems plausible, also, because no such stories are told by a Nehardean master. All occur in Pumbedita or elsewhere, none among the authorities of Samuel's circle. But our sample is too limited for that fact to be proba­ tive. To be sure, Samuel may have thought "the Greeks" who troubled Israel included Alexander himself, but this would run counter to the tendency of rabbinical traditions about the Macedonian. Hence it seems more likely, as I said, that Samuel did not know the materials connect­ ing Alexander and Simeon the Just. IV.ii.3. Abbaye said, "Simeon the Just, R. Simeon, and R. Eleazar HaQappar are all agreed that a Na^ir is a sinner..." (b. Ned. 10a) Comment: The reference to the story of Simeon the Just and the Jewish Narcissus is interpreted to show that Simeon did not approve of Nazirites. The story appears in the preceding page. It seems reasonable to suppose the story lay before Abbaye, and that the materials of b. Ned. 9b-10a were edited with reference to Abbaye's thesis, hence in fourthcentury Pumbedita. These materials need not have then received their final form, but later changes would have been minor and inconsequen­ tial. Otherwise, the materials as now arranged could not have served the purpose Abbaye assigned to them. Vl.iii.l. When Alexander looked at Simeon the Just, he stood on his feet. The Kuteans said to him, "Do you rise before a Jew?" He said, "When I go forth to battle, I behold his likeness, and I conquer." (Lev. R. 13:5) Comment: Here is a late citation of the brief colloquy about Alex­ ander's respect for Simeon, appearing entirely by itself. I do not think the rest of the story was purposely omitted. The greater likelihood is that this pericope circulated independently. VLiv.l. [Abba Saul says the high priests would make a ramp for the heifer... All were prideful.] But lo, it is taught (TNY) "Simeon the Just made two heifers, and he did not bring out the second on the ramp on which he brought out the first." Can you say of that just man that he was prideful? R. Abun in the name of R. Eleazar said, "[It was] on account of the importance of the heifer-sacrifice." (Pesiqta de Rav Kahana, ed. Mandelbaum I, pp. 73, 1.11 to 7 4 , 1 . 1 )

SIMEON THE J U S T — VI.iv.2, 3, V I . v . l , 2

41

Comment: Here is a later version of materials familiar in III.i.1. The masters are different, but the references to Simeon are the same. In fact the beraita about the two ramps built by Simeon must have been shaped before Pesiqta de R. Kahana's editor made use of it together with the colloquy of R. Abun. If R. Eleazar b. Pedat in fact referred to the beraita, then it had to have been known in early Amoraic times in Palestine. This would point to a terminus ante quern of ca. 250 A.D. VI.iv.2. When Alexander of Macedonia saw Simeon the Just, he would stand up, and say, "Blessed is the God of Simeon the Just." His courtiers said to him, "Do you rise before a J e w ? " He said to them, "When I go to battle, I see his face and conquer." (Pesiqta de Rav Kahana, ed. Mandelbaum, I, p. 75, lines 4-7) Comment: See Vl.iii.l, VLiv.3. There we learned [TMN TNYNN (Avot 1:2)], "Simeon the Righteous was of the remnants of the whole law." (Pesiqta de Rav Kahana, ed. Mandelbaum, I, p. 308, 1. 17) Comment: I do not see the connection between the above reference to Avot and the context in which it occurs. Nor do I comprehend the language, "M$YYRY KL HYLKTH." Mandelbaum merely refers to Avot 1:3, as if the above replicated the language found there. VI.v.l. R. Aha said in the name of R. Hanina: "Out of ostentatiousness, each High Priest spent as much as sixty talents of gold on the runway." "But in a beraita we are told of Simeon the Just, who [during his ministry] led out two red heifers, that even he deemed it necessary not to lead out the second on the runway upon which he led out the first. Do you dare say that such a righteous man was ostentatious?" "Indeed not," as R. Abin explained in the name of R. Eliezer, "Simeon the Just did what he did in order to lend solemnity to the preparation of the ash of the red heifer." (Pesiqta Rabbati 14:14, [trans. W. Braude, p. 291]) Comment: See VLiv.l. Braude paraphrases. VI.v.2. Alexander of Macedon, whenever he saw Simeon the Just, would stand up and say, "Blessed is the God of Simeon the Just." When his retinue reproached him, "Do you stand up in the presence

42 Simeon the Just

I Tannaitic Midrashim

1. A t e guilt-offer­ ing o f w o r t h y Nazirite

Sifre N u m . 2 2

2. Prepared redheifer

Il.i Mishnah

Il.ii Tosefta

IH.i

Tos. Nez. 4 : 7

y. Ned. 1 : 1 y. Naz. 1 : 5

M . Parah 3 : 5 (Meir) Tos. Sot. 1 3 : 7 a ( 2 n d cen.)

4 . C h a n g e in supernatural after death

Tos. Sot. 1 3 : 7 b (see I V . i i . l )

5. W o r l d stands o n three things

6. Met Alexander and saved Temple

M. Avot 1:3

Tannaitic M a t e r i a l s in Palestinian Gemara

Ill.ii Tannaitic M a t e r i a l s in Babylonian Gemara

IV.i Amoraic Materials in Palestinian Gemara

b. Ned. 1 0 a (Abbaye)

b. N a z . 4 b b. N e d . 9 b (Judah + Simeon)

[y. Y o m a 6 : 3 ]

b. S o t . 3 3 a (Yohanan-Judah; 3 r d c.)

y. Sot. 9 : 1 3

b. Y o m a 3 9 a - b

y. Y o m a 6 : 3

VI Later Compilations of Midrashim

N u m . R. 1 0 : 7

Pes. R. K a h .

y. Ta. 4 : 2 y. M e g . 3 : 6 (Jacob b. Aha)

L e v . R. 1 3 : 5 Pes. R. K a h . Pes. Rab.

b. Y o m a 6 9 a

y. Y o m a 1 : 1 y. Y o m a 5 : 2 (R. A b b a h u )

8. Raised u p t o meet Greek threat

b. Y o m a 9a (Yohanan3 r d c.) b. M e g . 1 1 a ( S a m u e l ; 3 r d c.)

9. Predicted o w n death

b. S o t . 3 9 b b. M e n . 1 0 9 b

10.

b. M e n . 1 0 9 b

* N o t signified as T a n n a i t i c .

V ARN

Pes. R. K a h . Pes. Rab.

7. Served forty y r s . as h i g h p r i e s t (see n o . 4 )

Onias

IV.ii Amoraic M a t e r i a l s in Babylonian Gemara

y. Sheq. 4 : 2 CUlla)

3. Heard decree was annulled

43

SIMEON THE J U S T — VI.v.2

SIMEON THE JUST — VI.v.2

y. Y o m a 6 : 3

44

SIMEON THE JUST — VI.v.2

of a Jew?" he would reply, "Whenever I go down into battle and see his visage, I am victorious." (Pesiqta Rabbati 14:15, [trans. W. Braude, p. 293]) Comment:

See VLii.l. ii. SYNOPSES

1.

Sayings Attributed to Simeon the Just

In the first classification is only one saying of apophthegmatic character, Avot 1:3 (2): Avot 1:3(2) 1. Simeon the Just was among the remnants of the Great Assembly.

y. Ta. 4:2 1. T M N TNNYN „ „ „

y. Meg. 3:6 1. „ „ „

Pes. R. Kahana 1. „ „ „ remnants of the whole law ( K L

2. H e w o u l d say, O n t h r e e things the w o r l d stands, O n the T o r a h , and o n the cult, a n d o n deeds o f l o v i n g kindness.

2.

2.

„

„

„

HYLKTH) 2.

3.

3 . A n d all 3. three are in one S c r i p t u r e , Is. 5 1

„

„

„

3.

„

„

„

Clearly the Avot saying was accurately quoted in the third century, with the addition of an appropriate exegesis, presumably sometime after the Avot-collection was widely available. The version in Pes. de R. Kahana omits the operative moral teaching. The passage probably is garbled. 2.

Stories Attributed to Simeon the Just

We have one story told in the name of Simeon the Just about himself. The form is: Simeon the Just said + story told in the first person. When other characters appear in the story, their dialogue is supplied by Simeon. Sifre Num.

22

1. 2. 3.

R a b b i S i m e o n t h e J u s t said I n e v e r ( M ' W L M ) ate the guiltoffering o f N a z i r i t e s h i p b u t o n e

Tos. Nez. 4:7 (Text: S. L i e b e r m a n , [N.Y., 1 9 6 7 ] p. 1 3 8 ) 1. 2. 3.

„ „

„ „

Tosefta

„ [ O m i t s Rabbi] „ (MYMYY)

Nashim

45

SIMEON THE J U S T — SYNOPSES

4.

W h e n one came f r o m the south,

5. o f beautiful eyes, l o v e l y appear­ ance 6. a n d his l o c k s h e a p e d u p i n t o c u r l s 7. I said ( N ' M ) t o h i m , Q u i c k l y m u s t ( M H R ' Y T ) one destroy beautiful hair 8. H e said ( N ' M ) t o m e 9. I w a s a s h e p h e r d in m y t o w n 10. A n d I w e n t t o fill ( M L ' ) w a t e r from the well 11. I l o o k e d at m y s h a d o w 12. and m y heart g r e w haughty (PHZ) 13. It w a n t e d t o r e m o v e m e f r o m the world. (LH'BRNY) 14. I s a i d (N>M) t o i t , E v i l o n e (R$<) 15. L o , y o u t a k e p r i d e i n w h a t is n o t y o u r s . It b e l o n g s t o t h e d u s t , w o r m , a n d maggot. 16. L o , I s h a v e y o u [off] f o r H e a v e n . I shaved. 17. F o r t h w i t h I k i s s e d h i m o n his h e a d a n d said ( N ' M ) t o h i m 18. M a y s u c h as y o u i n c r e a s e i n I s r a e l , w h o do the will of the Omnipresent. 19. C o n c e r n i n g y o u is fulfilled 20. Num. 6:2

l

4. one

Story is told concerning ( M S H B ) who c a m e t o m e f r o m t h e s o u t h

^* 99 99 99 7. ( N M ) , My son, Why [ W h a t d o y o u see t o ] d e s t r o y this b e a u t i f u l h a i r 8. 9

(NM),

„

„

y

* 99 99 99

10.

„

11* 12. 13

99 99 99

A

„

„ f r o m t h e river

m y impulse „

„

„

y

* * 99 99 99

14

•*• ' • 99 99 99 15. You had the right to bejealous ( G R H ) only o f s o m e t h i n g w h i c h is n o t y o u r s , s o m e t h i n g destined to be made i n t o d u s t , w o r m , and maggot. 16. L o , it is incumbent on me to shave [Omits: I shaved] 1 7 . / bent my head „ „ „ 18.

My son, „

„

„

19

99 99 99 20. y. Ned. 1:1 = y. Na . 1:5 [Variations in y. Naz. 1 : 5 in brackets] 1. DTNY 2. [ O m i t s Rabbi] 3 Z

Z

1. 2

4.

6. a r r a n g e d f o r h i m in h e a p s ( T Y L Y T Y L Y M ) [Naz. o m i t s $ D R ] 7. „ „ » my son—What did you see to [ = w h y ] d e s t r o y this „ „ „ 8. H e said ( N M ) t o m e , Rabbi [ N a z . : NWM']

6.

9.

„

„

„

„ „ „ t o fill a pail ( M L ' S ' W B ) water I saw ( R ' H ) in the midst of the water m y impulse t o destroy C B D ) „ „ „ „ „ „

15.

„

„

„ [ O m i t s : It b e l o n g s t o t h e

„

„

4b = b. Ned.

9a

TNY>

3. never (MYMY)—guilt-offering of a n unclean Na%ir except f o r o n e man

4 . ft7w* up to me (*LH). 5. I s a w h i m ruddy f D M W N Y ) with [Naz.: a d d s D M W T ]

10. with 11. 12. 13. 14.

,,

b. Na .

5

#

5

came t o m e ( B ) j>

»

»

arranged for him in curls

7 . I said ( ' M R ) — s o n W h a t d i d y o u see t o d e s t r o y this b e a u t i f u l h a i r ? 8. „ „ „ ['MR] 9. 10.

„ „

„ „

„ for my father „ [to d r a w , § B ]

11 12. 13. 14. 15.

m y impulse „ „ „ to drive me ( T W R D N Y ) „ „ „ „ „ „ ( ' M R ) , Base one ( R Y Q H ) On what account do you take pride in

J

46

SIMEON THE JUST —

d u s t , etc.]

16. It is i n c u m b e n t o n m e t o sanctify you to heaven 17. „ „ „ [ N a z . : I embraced a n d kissed] A

0

,

19. 20

»

»

»>

C o n c e r n i n g y o u , Scripture

says

SYNOPSES

/fo awr/*/ w h i c h is n o t y o u r s ? For your end will be with w o r m a n d m a g g o t [ O m i t s : dust] 16. By the cult [ O m i t s : Z ^ ( H R N Y ) ] »

»

»>

17. / arose and [in place o f / shaved], I said ('MR) 18. M a y s u c h Na^irites as y o u [ O m i t s : who do the will...] 19. Scripture says [Instead o f is fulfilled] 20. „ „ „

The Tosefta stands between the fully revised Babylonian beraita and Sifre Num. Important improvements include the addition of my son (no. 7), this (no. 7), impulse in place of heart (no. 12), and, most striking, the complete revision of no. 15 by which the language is greatly clarified. I have rendered SH in passive, to be made, but it may be translated to makejproduce. The unclear shaved my head of no. 16, which is poor diction, is changed to a clause in Simeon's reply, / bent my head. These changes are not fundamental, but superficial and stylistic. The several versions certainly are interdependent. The Palestinian Talmudic versions, which are close to one another, though not identi­ cal in all respects, on the whole follow Tosefta, as is to be expected. Story is told of Tos. no. 4 is rightly omitted, but the Yer. versions add several words: ruddy, demut. The oath it is incumbent—to sanctify occurs, only to be changed in the Babylonian beraita to the exclamatory by the cult. The reference to dust, worm and maggot is omitted in both Pales­ tinian Talmudic versions, perhaps not a lapse of a scribe but a definite literary choice. The most important differences are, in general, be­ tween the earliest version and the latest; the intermediate versions are transitional. The accounts in Sifre Num. and b. Naz. are closely related, for all differences are minor. No major element in one account is omitted in the other. But the beraita consistently supplies details left out of the version of Sifre Num., for instance unclean Nazir, explaining what Simeon the Just had against guilt offerings of Nazirs; came to me, arranged for him (addition of sedurot 16) in curls; my son added to the colloquy. The difficult language of Sifre Num., MHR >YT, which I roughly translated, jg/z/V^/)' must one, is corrected in favor of a much more lucid what did you see [= what made you, why] (i.e. MH R'YT—not much of a change). The diction is then improved with the addition of this beautiful hair. The shepherd now works for my father. Fill is replaced by draw, which settles the matter of the duplicated verbs in C

SIMEON THE J U S T —

SYNOPSES

47

the Palestinian versions (no. 10), where both roots occur. Heart is dropped in favor of impulse (YSR), possibly more colloquial. The change of TRD for BR or >BD probably is for the same reason. Like no. 7, no. 15 is improved in the beraita by the inclusion of the more complete and lucid statement, phrased in the form of a question, On what account, followed by a declarative For your end... All that survives of the Sifre version is the stock-reference to dust, worm, and maggot, and the choice of PHZ and G'H. Similarly in no. 16, the Lo is replaced by the language of a vow, By the cult. In the absence of the oath "by the Temple cult", the force of the vow is diminished; by the cult intensifies lo. The changes in nos. 17 and 18 conform to the earlier ones: I arose and Na^irites add, in the former instance, a more collo­ quial expression, in the latter, a more pointed reference to the sort of Nazirites Simeon hopes will multiply. The general who do the will is made more specific and precise: Nazirites. The Scripture is set into different citation-form. In Sifre Num. the Scripture is fulfilled in the Nazirite; in the Palestinian and beraita versions is found the language common in the Babylonian Talmud, "Scripture says concerning you..." It is difficult to deny that the beraita-vetsion depends, and improves, upon that in Sifre Num. Valuable details are added to the Sifre's account. The language is clarified and in several points is made to conform to rabbinical diction and word-choice. While some of the differences may represent merely different linguistic conventions (N'M/'MR), most of them enhance the Sifre version. The beraita thus comes later than the version in Sifre Num. This dependence is not merely in the general outline of the story; the differences are not in generalities but in minor details. These cannot have been independent accounts which circulated separately; the authority responsible for the beraita seems to have had the Sifre version before him. The differences between the versions of the beraita in b. Ned. and Naz. are negligible. If Sifre were dated later than the other versions, what we have called improvements would have to be regarded as corruptions of superior, earlier versions. C

3.

Stories about Simeon the Just

Of the four stories told about, or containing references to, Simeon the Just, two are historical, and two are of a miraculous, or superna­ tural, character, a distinction the narrator would not have recognized. The former pertain to Simeon's preparing a heifer-sacrifice and to his

48

SIMEON THE JUST —

SYNOPSES

encounter with Alexander of Macedonia. The latter are, first, the heavenly-message story, and second, the list of supernatural changes in the life of the cult, marking Simeon's death. a. Heifer M. Parah 3:5 1. W h o made them? 2. Simeon the Just and Y o h a n a n the high priest m a d e t w o each 3.

5.

6.

y. Sheq.

4:2

1. 2.

3. 'Ulla objected before M a n a , L o it is taught (TNY): 4. Simeon the Just made t w o [omits: each] 5 . He did not bring the second out on the ramp on which he brought out the first 6. ful

Can you say he was waste­ [etc]}

Pes. de R. 1. 2.

Kahana

3. [ H e r e : Anony­ mous] L o it is t a u g h t 4. Simeon the m a d e t w o heifers

Just

5 . [Identical t o y . S h e q . ]

6. C a n y o u say that just man [ e t c ] ?

The Mishnah is referred to in the later versions, but not cited verbatim. The reference to Yohanan the High Priest is deliberately omitted. This leaves a lacuna, filled in by the latest midrashic compilation with the addition of heifers. The other change, for he supplying that just man, intensifies the ironic force of the question. TNY means that the editor alludes to the Mishnah. Clearly the later materials depend upon the earlier, but they have also greatly augmented the Mishnah, by supply­ ing the "fact" that the high priests had wastefully constructed the ramp referred to in M. Parah 3:6, "They would construct a ramp from the Tem­ ple Mount to the Mount of Olives." The assumption made by the later masters is that for each sacrifice a new ramp was constructed. But this must then apply to all the priests listed in 3:5, including Simeon the Just. The problem is how to distinguish Simeon the Just, a high priest admired by rabbis, from others on that same list, who are not held in high esteem. The later history of the high priesthood is told in lurid colors by Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition. No restraints limited expression of rabbinic hostility against the late priesthood. Hence, if anyone implies all high priests did the same lavish act, Simeon must forthwith be cited to show the act was not disreputable at all. The inclusion of no. 5 is not part of the citation of the Mishnah, though it occurs under the superscription TNY. I do not know whence the beraita derives, for Tos. Par. 3:7 follows the Mishnah at the perti­ nent place. The inference that the ramp could not be used twice was

SIMEON THE JUST — SYNOPSES

49

drawn from M. Par. 3:5-6, but we do not know drew it, why, or when it was important to add to the anti-priestly polemic this particular detail. But at that point the problem of Simeon's inclusion in the list had to be faced. The terminus ante quern is the middle of the third century A.D. Clearly, the detail about the priests' constructing new ramps circulated separate­ ly from the Mishnah and was added to the beraita later on. Yet, standing by itself, it is incomprehensible, for a saying Simeon did not bring the second out... would mean nothing outside of the context of "Simeon the Just made two." The additional detail of the beraita depended upon the Mishnah, having been added later as a commentary on Mishnah 3:6, as I said. We therefore cannot regard no. 5 as an independent tradition.

b. b. Yoma 69a 1. TNY> 2. Forbidden to mourn on the 25th of Tevet, the day of Mt. Gerizim. 3. Kuteans sought per­ mission to destroy Temple, from Alexander. 4. He gave permission. 5. Simeon the Just wore priestly garments 6. and arranged proces­ sion of Israelite nobility carrying torches. 7. When morning star arose, approached Alexan­ der. 8. Who are these? Jews who rebelled against you. 9. At Antipatris sun came out and the processions met. 10. Alexander rose before Simeon, saying if he saw him before battle, he would" win.

Lev. R. 13:5 1. 2.

Pes. R. Kahana 1. 2.

Pes. Rabbati 1. 2.

3.

3.

3.

4. 5.

4. 5.

4. 5.

6.

6.

7.

7.

8. 9.

8. 9.

6.

8. 9. 10. Kuteans asked, Do you rise before a Jew} »

11. Why have you come? 12. You want to destroy the Temple where they pray for you and your kingdom.

Alexander

11. 12.

»

»

10. A. would 10. [As in Pes. say, Blessed is de R. Kahana.] God of Simeon the Just. Courtiers: Do you rise? A.: See face 11. 11. 12. 12.

NEUSNER, The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70, I

4

50

SIMEON THE JUST —

13. Gave Kuteans over to J e w s , w h o mutilated them and destroyed Mt. Gerizim.

13.

SYNOPSES

13.

13.

Clearly, no. 10, which interrupts the narrative of b. Yoma 69a, circulat­ ed separately. It was erroneously placed in the Babylonian beraita, presumably because it supplied additional information on Alexander's encounter with Simeon the Just. But it did not explain his favor to the Jews, for immediately thereafter Alexander asks them (no. 11) why the Jews have come, and only after they explain their case in terms favorable to the king does he grant their request, and, more than the request, also the right to take vengeance against the Samari­ tans. If the materials in no. 10 circulated by themselves, however, then they may antedate the beraita, for they fit in too well to suggest later contamination. They presumably were shaped before ca. 250 A.D., but appeared only in the late midrashic compilations. This is one instance in which the unredacted form of a story may have indepen­ dently circulated early, only to be written down long afterward. On the other hand, it is possible that the beraita as we have it was the only redaction of the pericope about Alexander's respect for Simeon, in which case the later midrashic compilers took only a part of it, without the slightest reference to the context in which it had originally appeared. Lev. R. presupposes the connection by including Kuteans. The Pesiqtas improve matters by substituting courtiers—leaving no problem as to the identity of the questioners.

c. Heavenly Tos. Sot. 13:7Part (13:6) 1. Simeon the heard

A Just

b. Sot.

Echo

33a

1. Further story is told ( S W B M<SH B ) of S i m e o n t h e J u s t that he h e a r d a n echo from the house of the Holy of Holies* which was sayinz

2. T h e d e c r e e is a n ­ 9 » » » nulled ( B T Y L T ) 3. which the enemy 3 CSN'tD said ( D Y ' M I O 4. 4. to bring ( L H Y T Y H ) to the tem­ to bring ( L ' Y Y T ' H ) ple

y. Sot.

9:13

1. The Simeon echo from of Holies 2.

3. 4.

s t o r y is t o l d t h a t the Just heard an the house of the Holy and said

SIMEON THE J U S T — SYNOPSES

51

5. a n d Q S G L G S h a s 5» 5. G Y Y S G W L Y Q S has » >> » b e e n slain [in Hebrew] GSQLGS b e e n s l a i n [in Hebrew] 6. a n d h i s d e c r e e s a r e ^» 6. a n d h i s decrees a r e a n ­ 99 99 99 a n n u l l e d [in Hebrew] n u l l e d [in Hebrew] [=9] 7. a n d he heard them 7. 7. in t h e A r a m a i c l a n g u a g e 8. a n d t h e y w r o t e d o w n 8. 8. t h e h o u r a n d i t tallied 9. A n d / / spoke i n t h e A r a ­ 9. 9. maic language

N.B. Tos. Sot. 1 3 : 7 Part B

Omitted

Omitted

The pericope of Simeon-stories in Tos. Sot. 13:7 splits into two sepa­ rate traditions. The first tradition is represented here. The second occurs in the next synopsis (p. 52). For y. Sot. 9:13, the point of the story is that Simeon heard a heavenly echo. This version therefore excludes the Aramaic translation of the decrees (nos. 2, 3, and 4), for use of Aramaic is no issue. In other respects y. Sot. does not differ from Tos. nos. 5 and 6. The superscription is simply the story is told concerning, with no reference to a Tannaite tradent. For the Babylonian Talmud and Tosefta, on the other hand, the point of the story is that the heavenly voice spoke in Aramaic. Therefore nos. 2, 3, and 4 are in Aramaic, but these are in substance then summarized in Hebrew in nos. 5 and 6. No. 6 actually translates no. 2! The relationship of the first element in the three versions is fairly clear. The original was simply Tos. Sot. no. 1. This is augmented for editorial purposes with further in the Babylonian Talmudic account. Both the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds include story is told and supply the information on where the voice came from. From that point forward Tos. Sot. and b. Sot. are pretty much identical, except for the improvement of the representation of the verb to bring, and the revision of the spelling of the name of the enemy. The addition of no. 8 in b. Sot. is clearly a contamination from the foregoing account, about Yohanan the High Priest (below). The passage is quite meaningless here. No.7 in Tos. is out of place, for the point of the Tos. stories is not that the echo spoke Aramaic. That is the point in b. Sot. 33a. It is a probable contamination. The several traditions therefore serve quite separate purposes. The point is either that Simeon heard as echo, or that angels speak Aramaic, but it cannot be both. The simplest and purest version of the former is y. Sot. Tos. Sot. and b. Sot. have then been contaminated by the

52

SIMEON THE JUST —

SYNOPSES

inclusion of both tendencies, resulting in the egregious repetition of no. 2 in no. 6. If the point were that angels spoke Aramaic, the perti­ nent elements ought to have been Tos. Sot. nos. 1-4 and 7, or b. Sot. nos. 1-4 and 9. In neither does no. 8 fit at all. No. 1 of the Palestinian Talmudic version comes earlier than no. 1 of the Babylonian. But the relationship of the rest of the elements to one another is unclear to me. Certainly without Tos. Sot. we should have concluded that b. Sot. came after the version in the Palestinian Talmud. It would represent a thoroughgoing revision to serve the purpose of the argument for which it is cited in the Babylonian context. Hence the story would have been revised later on in Babylonia. But this supposition is impossible, since the Babylonian version is, except for no. 8, pretty much the same as the one in the Tosefta; indeed, it is almost certainly based upon it. Hence we have to postulate two quite separate versions of the pericope: Tos. + b. Sot.,or Tos. + y. Sot. The two may be based upon a common, simple story, of which nos. 5 and6 in the Palestinian Talmudic version are an accurate reminiscence. If this is so, then y. Sot. is the earliest of the three versions, followed by Tosefta, then the Babylonian based upon the Tosefta—a strange anomaly. As to the identification of the enemy referred to in no. 5 of all three accounts, we have no idea what name is here rendered into Hebrew characters. I see no profit in attempting to read Gaius Caligula into any of the consonantal representations before us. d. Tos. Sot.

2.

13:7b

Miracles

y. Yoma 6:3 1. A l l the days that Sime­ o n t h e J u s t w a s a l i v e , it [the g o a t ] w o u l d n o t r e a c h half­ way d o w n the mountain be­ f o r e it w a s t u r n e d i n t o b i t s . W h e n S i m e o n the J u s t died, it w o u l d flee t o t h e w i l d e r ­ ness, and the Saracens w o u l d eat it.

b. Yoma 39a-b 1. T N W R B N N : In the forty years that Simeon the Just served—[omits goatmiracle]

„ 2 . A l l t h e d a y s t h a t S i m e o n 2. t h e J u s t w a s a l i v e , t h e l o t o f alive] the Name w o u l d come up in t h e r i g h t [ h a n d ] . W h e n Simeon the J u s t died, some­ t i m e s it w o u l d c o m e u p in t h e r i g h t , s o m e t i m e s in t h e left.

„

„

[Omits

All-

SIMEON THE J U S T —

2*.

[2*.

see 7 * ]

3. A l l the time that Simeon the Just was alive 4. The Western lamp was continual ( T D Y R ) 5. W h e n he died 6. they w e n t and it h a d g o n e o u t 7. Afterward, some­ t i m e s it w e n t o u t , s o m e ­ t i m e s it b u r n e d

3.

days»

4.

w o u l d burn ( D L Q )

4.

5* 6.

»

»

»

5. 6.

99

99

99

„

7 ' •

53

SYNOPSES

„

2*. The red strap w o u l d turn white. Henceforward, s o m e t i m e s it w o u l d t u r n w h i t e , s o m e t i m e s it w o u l d n o t t u r n w h i t e . [See y . Y o m a 7* below] 3. [ O m i t s all-alive]

burn [ = y . Y o m a ) Henceforward

7 ' •

99

99

99

7*. A l l the days that S i ­ [7*. = 2* above] meon the Just was alive, the red strap w o u l d turn white. W h e n Simeon the Just died, s o m e t i m e s it w o u l d t u r n w h i t e , s o m e t i m e s it w o u l d turn red. A l l t h e d a y s e t c . , thefire 8 . 8. A n d t h e fire o f t h e 8 . [ O m i t s all-alive] fire o f w o o d - o f f e r i n g w a s c o n ­ o f t h e w o o d - o f f e r i n g would w o o d - o f f e r i n g w a s strong, flame up tinual and the priests did not have to bring wood to the fire exceptfor the two logs to carry out the commandment of the wood. 9. Once they had ar­ 9. O n c e t h e y hadplaced two 9 . r a n g e d it i n t h e m o r n ­ logs i n t h e m o r n i n g i n g , it w a s s t r o n g 99 99 99 ( H Y T H M T G B R T ) all day long 10. a n d t h e y w o u l d of­ 1 0 . 10. f e r o n it c o n t i n u a l offer­ ings and supplementary offerings and their drink-offerings 7*.

11. and they o n l y ad­ 1 1 . — 11. d e d t o it t w o l o g s o f t h e e v e n i n g offering 12. Lev. 6:5 12. t h e y a d d e d n o t h i n g all 1 2 . day l o n g [omits L e v 6 : 5 ] 13. W h e n Simeon the 1 3 . 13. 99 99 99 Just died 14. the strength (KH) 1 4 14. Henceforward, some­ •*• • • 99 99 99 of the fire-offering di­ t i m e s it w a s s t r o n g a n d m i n i s h e d (T§&) s o m e t i m e s it w a s n o t stronff 15. and they did not ,, ,, 15* „ „ ,, refrain f r o m adding w o o d all d a y l o n g

54

SIMEON THE JUST — SYNOPSES

16. A n d there was a blessing o n the t w o loaves of bread and the show-bread.

16.

17. The t w o loaves of bread w e r e d i v i d e d at t h e G a t h e r i n g (<SRT) a n d t h e s h o w - b r e a d at the festival ( R G L ) f o r all t h e w a t c h e s . 18. S o m e ate and w e r e sated, and s o m e ate a n d left o v e r 19. a n d o n l y as m u c h as a n o l i v e ' s b u l k c a m e t o each o n e . 20. W h e n Simeon the J u s t died the blessing departed... 21.

17.

b l e s s i n g sent u p o n »

»

»

16. b l e s s i n g was sent on the
17.

1 8 . Each one would get olive's bulk and „ „ „

an 1 8 . Each priest to whom as much as a n o l i v e ' s b u l k came —some ate,, ,, „ 19. [See a b o v e ; o r d e r is 1 9 . [See a b o v e , o r d e r is reversed] reversed.] 20.

„

„

„

21.

20. A curse w a s sent o n t h e *omer etc. 21.

[Predicted o w n death]

b. Yoma 39b b. Men. 109b 1. TNW RBNN 1. DTNY> 2. In that year in 2 which Simeon the Just died

y. Yoma 5:2 1. 2. Forty years Simeon the Just served Israel in the high priesthood. I n t h e last y e a r , he said t o them, In this year / am g o i n g t o d i e .

3. h e said t o t h e m t h a t 3 *» in this year he w o u l d die 4. T h e y said t o h i m , 4 W h e n c e d o y o u k n o w ? ~* 5. H e said t o t h e m , 5* Every DayofAtonement an old man w o u l d meet m e , dressed in w h i t e a n d cloaked in w h i t e . 6. He w o u l d enter 6* w i t h me and leave w i t h me. 7. Today an old man 7 ' • m e t m e d r e s s e d in b l a c k and cloaked in black. He went in w i t h me but he did n o t leave w i t h

3.

y

99

99

99

99

99

99

4 99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

%

~

99

99

99

5. H e said t o t h e m , E v e r y year that I w o u l d enter the house of the Holy of Holies, an old m a n „ „ „ 6«

99

99

99

7. This year h e e n t e r e d w i t h me but did not leave with me. [Omits black clothes]

me. O 8. A f t e r t h e f e s t i v a l h e °» fell ill f o r s e v e n d a y s a n d he died. 9. His brethren the 9 ' * priests held back f r o m b l e s s i n g w i t h t h e [Inef­ fable] name.

[As above]

8.

9.

SIMEON THE J U S T —

10. W h e n he was dying, h e said t o t h e m , M y s o n O n i a s etc. [The rest o f the story ap­ pears o n l y here.l [11. ]

10.

[11.

— ]

55

SYNOPSES

10.

[11. C o l l o q u y o f R. A b bahu: M a n was the Holy One.]

The changes in the supernatural setting of the cult and the prediction by Simeon that he would die are as follows: Tos. Sot. 13:7b 1. Western lamp 2. Fire of wood-offering 3. Blessing o f loaves

v. Yoma 6:9 1. Goat

b. Yoma 1. Lot

2. Lot

2. Red strap

3. Western lamp

3. Western lamp

4. Red strap

4. Fire of wood-offering 5. Blessing of loaves 6. Predicted death 7 . Ineffable Name

5. Fire of wood-offering 6. Blessing o f loaves

39a-b

b. Men. 109b 1. Predicted death 2 . Ineffable Name

y. Yoma

5:2

1. Prayed too long 2. Predicted death

If we could reconstruct a single, unitary source that underlay the several pericopae, it logically would look something like this:

Day

of Atonement

Daily cult

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Prayed too long Predicted death and died Priests s t o p s a y i n g Ineffable N a m e After he died-. G o a t Lot Red Strap

7. 8. 9.

Western lamp Fire of wood-offering Blessing of loaves

Nos. 1-6 all pertain to the Day of Atonement. Nos. 7-9 stand by them­ selves as a comparable, but separate list of supernatural changes. Strikingly, Tos. Sot. does preserve nos. 7-9 as a separate pericope. Similarly, b. Yoma 39a-b, nos. 6-7, probably circulated separately, as seen in the identical version in b. Men. 109b. There the pericope serves to introduce the long singleton about the succession to Simeon. Palestinian Talmud Yoma 5:2 similarly supplies the Yom Kippur per­ icope, but without the miracles in connection with the cult of that day. That leaves the lists in y. Yoma 6:3 and b. Yoma 39a-b, in which the

56

SIMEON THE JUST —

SYNOPSES

YomKippur miracles are presented together with those of Tos. Sot.; but b. Yoma keeps the Yom Kippur materials separate from the other mira­ cles, while y. Yoma inserts no. 3, Western lamp, into the midst of the others. We may therefore take it for granted that Tos. Sot. does constitute a single, separate pericope. The stories about the predic­ tion of Simeon's death probably circulated separately as well, there­ fore serving diverse editorial purposes later on. To these were attach­ ed the detail about the Ineffable Name or the prayer that went on too long; neither was integral to the prediction-story, but both found a satisfactory place. The miracles connected with the Day of Atonement service likewise may have circulated by themselves, but in the form before us they have already been contaminated by the list of Tos. Sot. As to the relationships among the several components of the perico­ pae, we find that the Babylonian beraita imposed its own conventional language, as would be expected. Normally, this meant choosing words common in Babylonian rabbinical Hebrew and rendering vague de­ tails more precise and pointed, e.g. all the days of y. Yoma becomes in the forty years. But the substance of the several miracles varies very little between the Palestinian and Babylonian versions. The important differences are between both and Tosefta. Thus Tos. Sot. 13:7b, nos. 6, 9, 10, 11, and 17 have no close equivalent, or no equivalent at all, in either Talmudic version. The Babylonian version, to be sure, transforms the participle of y. Yoma 6:3 no. 16 into a verb, adds omer (no. 20), and makes a few other, minor alterations. But in the main Tos. presents a striking contrast to the two Talmuds' versions, and these by and large closely resemble one another. The beraita in b. Yoma 39b is unchanged in b. Men. 109b. I imagine the editor of b. Men. 109b took it from existing materials to serve as an introduction to the story of real interest to him, about the Temple of Onias. Without the foregoing materials (nos. 1-9) the story told by R. Meir could have stood by itself. The death-story in b. Yoma 39b and y. Yoma 5:2 presents some contrasts. The Palestinian Tal­ mudic version makes explicit the forty years, but that detail had already occurred in b. Yoma 39a-b. Perhaps the editor of the beraita saw no reason to repeat the information. Since the y. Yoma pericope stands by itself, it was natural to include the more concrete detail. Hence we cannot in this instance suppose the Palestinian version to have been more detailed or concrete than the Babylonian one. The indirect discourse of the Babylonian beraita becomes direct discourse (or vice versa) in no 2. The detail about the old man dressed in white is omitted c

SIMEON THE J U S T — CONCLUSION

57

in no. 7 of the Palestinian version. It seems to me a striking omission, and the likelihood is that the editor of the Babylonian beraita supplied it to complete the symmetry of the story. He likewise invented nos. 8 and 9; no. 8 is absolutely necessary to complete the tale—that is, Simeon actually did die. No. 9 is not essential. In any event, the Baby­ lonian beraita probably comes after the Palestinian version of the same story and likely depends upon it. The augmentations are not derived from a separate oral or written tradition circulating by itself, but all were provoked by literary and artistic considerations. None presents a detail of independent, historical interest.

i n . CONCLUSION

Pharisaic-rabbinic materials on Simeon the Just contain no legal materials. This is striking, since Simeon stands (with Antigonus) as the only ancient "rabbi" who left not a single legal saying. Others in the chain of tradition ruled at least on the controversy of whether or not to lay hands (M. Hag. 2:2). The stories about Simeon scarcely relate to law. Apart from the single moral apophthegm in M. Avot 1:3, we have no materials one might call theological. The rabbinic record consisted chiefly of stories about Simeon, some told by him, others recorded anonymously. The content of these stories, on the other hand, is more or less congruent with non-Pharisaic traditions on Simeon. He was high priest. He piously carried out the most solemn obligations of the high priesthood, the rites of the Day of Atonement and of the red-heifer. He enjoyed divine favor, demonstrated by his receiving heavenly mes­ sages and also by the supernatural events characteristic of the Temple and cult during his high priesthood. Following R. Abbahu, we may suppose Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition included the detail that God accompanied Simeon into the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atone­ ment. Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition was unclear as to when Simeon lived. One predominant school placed him in the time of Alexander the Great. But Samuel seemed to imagine Simeon was a contemporary of the Maccabees, and modern scholars have read the name of Gaius Caligula or even Seleucus into another pericope, Still, the traditions do not depend upon any particular historical period. But all of them point toward a Pharisaic-rabbinic memory of a noble and pious high priest. Two other bodies of tradition on a Simeon, high priest, come down

58

SIMEON THE J U S T — CONCLUSION

from other circles in antiquity. One is Ben Sira 50:1-21, at the end of the praise of famous men. Since Ben Sira lived no more than a century after the Simeon of whom he wrote, we may find "the pride of his people, Simeon the high priest, son of Onias" a reliable historical reminiscence. This Simeon repaired and fortified the Temple, improved the water supply, fortified the city, and carried out other important functions of the priestly government of Jerusalem. Ben Sira's vision of the high priest as he came out of the inner sanctuary, "like the morning star among the clouds" and his recollection of Simeon in his "glorious robe, clothed...with superb perfection...like a young cedar on Lebanon" in general are congruent to the similar Pharisaicrabbinic tradition. But that tradition in no detail reflects knowledge of the Simeon-portrait in Ben Sira. Not a single common motif, detail, or image unites the two bodies of information. Ben Sira lists no mira­ cles, but rather provides a portrait of the worldly priest-administrator. The rabbis' praise finds its form chiefly in miracles. Ill Maccabees 2: Iff refers to the high priest Simon, but this high priest can have nothing to do with Simeon the Just of rabbinic tradi­ tion. In Josephus's Jewish Antiquities (12:32, trans. Ralph Marcus, VII, p. 25, and note pp. 732-6), we find an explicit reference to our Simeon: On the death of the high priest Onias, he was succeeded by his son Simon, who was surnamed the Just because of both his piety toward God and his benevolence to his countrymen. While Josephus had supposedly studied Pharisaic tradition, he did not refer to the Avot saying, let alone to the miracle-stories. The Simeon the Just of Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition has been identi­ fied with Simeon I (310-291 or 300-270 B.C.) son of Onias I and grand­ son of Yaddua, or with Simeon II (219-199 B.C.) son of Onias II [see S. Ochser, JE XI, pp. 352-4]. In fact the traditions we have considered have been divided by various scholars among several Simeons, including Simon Maccabee and Simeon son of Gamaliel I. It serves no good purpose to speculate on the historical facts underly­ ing these flimsy traditions. The likelihood that any of the rabbinic traditions accurately portrays the historical Simeon the Just is nil. First, the traditions are all highly developed stories, not brief, easily memorized lemmas. None of the stories can be reduced to a simple and unadorned formula. Not a single one reveals the marks of an oral tradition which has been written

SIMEON THE J U S T — CONCLUSION

59

down and then expanded. The forms of all the materials are manifestlylate. They conform to what is entirely familiar in Tannaitic and Amo­ raic literature, rather than to the more primitive forms one would have reason to expect on the basis of the Houses lemmas, as we shall see. The historical Simeon presumably lived ca. 300 B.C., before the existence of the Pharisaic movement itself, so we have no reason to imagine the Pharisees had any first-hand traditions. But the rabbinic traditions we do have cannot be supposed to be based on materials of any great antiquity. Simeon, like Simeon b. Shetah, is a typical righteous priest. He therefore appears in various lists of things good priests did and marks the end of a golden age. Any list of significant rites performed under named high priests naturally will include him, along with Moses, and equally credibly. One tradition seems to me more than routine, and that is the story that Simeon heard an echo announcing a decree was annulled. As we shall see, this message is related to one that came to Yohanan the High Priest (John Hyrcanus). Josephus preserves the same saying in pretty much the same words. What has happened, therefore, is that a remarkable incident pertaining to one high priest of olden times has naturally been expanded to include Simeon. The Simeon-tradition consists of the following sorts of materials: Stories of things Simeon did and said: world stands on three things, met Alexander; Supernatural events: heard decree was annulled, changes in supernatural life of cult after death, predicted own death; Cultic reports: prepared heifer, ate Nazirite-offering. Of these sorts of materials, none is on the face of it more credible than any other. We have no reason to suppose the second-century A.D. masters had in hand more than a name, Simeon (the Just), and an interest in shaping stories about him. He joins the chain of tradition, as we have seen, in the early third century, probably not much earlier. The name was known before that time, but its importance to the Tannaim may be measured by the paucity of Tannaitic references to him: the heifer, the Nazirite story, and receiving an echo—but no laws, no exegeses of Scripture, none of the materials characteristic of authorities about whom the rabbis claimed to have substantial tradi­ tions. The rest of the Simeon tradition comes later, but does not change the picture.

CHAPTER FOUR ANTIGONUS OF SOKHO. AND

Y O S I B.

Y O S I B.

YO'EZER

YOHANAN

i. ANTIGONUS OF SOKHO

Apart from the apophthegm in M. Avot 1:3, the only tradition pertaining to Antigonus is as follows: ...and let the fear of heaven be upon you [as in M. Avot 1:3]—so that your reward may be doubled in the age to come. A. Antigonus of Sokho had two disciples who used to study his words. They taught them to their disciples, and their disciples to their disciples. These proceeded to examine the words closely and demanded, "Why did our ancestors see fit to say this thing? Is it possible that a laborer should do his work all day and not take his reward in the evening? If our ancestors, forsooth, had known that there is another world and that there will be a resurrection of the dead, they would not have spoken in this manner." B. So they arose and withdrew from the Torah, and split into two sects, the Sadducees and the Boethusians: Sadducees named after Sadoq, Boethusians after Boethus. C. And they used silver vessels and gold vessels all their lives—not because they were ostentatious; but the Sadducees said, "It is a tradi­ tion among the Pharisees to afflict themselves in this world; yet in the world to come they will have nothing." (ARNa Chap. 5, trans. Goldin, p. 39) Comment: The story has nothing to do with Antigonus himself, but explains the formation of the Sadducean and Boethusian sects. The likelihood that the other parties were born in the midst of Pharisaism and were merely heretical offshoots is slight. The pericope is a com­ posite. First comes the long account of the break of the disciples into conflicting parties. Second, part C, And they used, is a separate and dis­ tinct unit, in which the routine Pharisaic criticism of the Sadducees for their lavishness is repeated. The link to the foregoing is obvious, but artificial. Part A would have stood by itself. Part B could have been interpo­ lated but could not have stood separately, since a pericope consisting merely of They arose and withdrew would mean nothing. A pericope about

61

T H E Y O S I ' S — I.ii.l

the Sadducees named after Sadoq, furthermore, would have had no special interest to Pharisaic tradents. Part C therefore stands by itself as a separate and distinct unit. It may be that the opening sentence was part of the foregoing. They arose and withdrew ... and used ... But then the additional explanation comes from a tradent friendly to the Sadducees, eager to turn aside the Pharisaic critique of Sadducean ostentation by explaining that it was really for sound (to them) theological reasons. In any event we do not have any similar text, so we cannot speculate on what circulated elsewhere in other forms. We have no idea as to the time or place of the redaction of this pericope. That must depend upon more careful inquiry into the date and place of the final redaction of ARN. Finkelstein (Mavo, p. 36), argues that part C must derive from a Boethusian tradition, giving reasons similar to those adduced above: "How is it possible that the sages of the Pharisees should speak in praise of the founder of the Boethusian sect..." This passage is there­ fore "a remnant of Sadducean literature." If the passage was actually shaped in early times, then Finkelstein's argument seems correct. On the other hand, if ARN is the product of a much later time, when the issues separating Pharisaism from Sadduceeism had long since been forgotten, the pericope could well have been composed in utter igno­ rance of what Sadducees and Boethusians actually said. The author might have constructed the story from his own imagination, responding to the philosophical difficulties of Antigonus's saying, by the construc­ tion of a little dramatic colloquy among disciples, leading to a historical break in "the Torah." Afflicting yourself in this world and having nothing in the world to come could be an inference drawn from the question in Part A, Is it possible that a laborer should do his work... In that case the story has no historical connection with ancient Sadduceeism. II. TRADITIONS OF YOSI B. YO'EZER AND YOSI B. YOHANAN

Apart from the Avot and Hagigah chains of Pharisaic tradition, the Yosi's occur in the following materials: I.ii.l. Rabbi Eliezer says, "Uncleanness in no way pertains to liquids (M$QYN). You may know that this is so, for behold, Yosi ben Seredah [sic] gave testimony ( YD) concerning the waters [read MY for BY] of the slaughter-house, that they are clean (DKYYN). Rabbi Aqiba says... (Sifra Shemini Parashah 8:5, ed. I. H. Weiss, p. 55a) C

c

Comment: This is the first legal saying attributed to a Pharisaic master. R. Eliezer here cites materials redacted in M. *Ed. 8:4. Aqiba and Eliezer supply the earliest possible terminus ante quern. M. Ed. includes Yosi b. Yo'ezer's opinion on other legal matters as well. The text is c

l

62

THE Y O S T S — Il.i.l

imperfect, for Yosi's name is given incorrectly. The text here reads Eliezer, that is, Eliezer b. Hyrcanus. Elsewhere it is Ele'azar. The content of the legal saying is important. It concerns purity laws, which to begin with applied only in the Temple. This tends to suggest that the saying in substance is genuine, for the Pharisaic masters, be­ ginning with Simeon the Just, later on were associated in the mind of the movement with the Temple and its procedures. The earliest laws of the Pharisaic movement pertained primarily to Temple law, as in M. Hag. 2:2. This is only part of the Yosi-tradition on purity laws. The setting in Sifra indicates that the saying was redacted under 'Aqiban auspices. But that fact does not tell us anything about possible changes in the tradition to conform to an 'Aqiban viewpoint; I see no partisan issue in the saying. Yosi b. Yo ezer would not "originally" have said, "I testify (that) ..." Where would such "testimony" have been given, and for what pur­ pose? The testimony-form seems to derive from the earliest Yavnean stratum; whether it is earlier than that we cannot now know. The say­ ing is not merely a revision from direct to indirect discourse. What is interesting is the persistence of Aramaic formulations in sayings attri­ buted to the early Pharisees. If the language of the early masters was Aramaic, the language of this lemma would be a mark of authenticity. So the content and the language in this instance suggest, but do not prove, an early date for the saying. c

Il.i.l. When Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem died, the grapeclusters ceased (BTL), as it is written, There is not a cluster to eat, my soul desireth the first-ripe fig (Mic. 7:1). (M. Sot. 9:9) Comment: Danby gives the meaning of "grapeclusters" as "metaphor for those of outstanding merit." Third-century midrashic explanation of the word is "a man in whom is everything": What does grapeclusters (>$KWLWT) mean? Rav Judah in the name of Samuel said, "A man in whom are all things [>Y$ SHKL BW]." (b. Sot. 47b) Albeck (Seder Nashim, [Tel Aviv, 1954] p. 259) offers the same: "Men in whom are wisdom and good deeds," following b. Tern. 15b. In his extended notes, p. 393, he lists a number of references in which the same ridiculous etymology appears. S. Y. Rapaport, ^Erekh Milin (Warsaw, 1914) pp. 99-105 defines it as "school, gathering place of the learned men." A further reference to grapecluster, in addition to Micah 7:1, is Is. 65:8. The sense of the Scripture is the same as in Aphrahat, Demonstration XXIII, Concerning the Grapecluster, where the "grape cluster" symbolizes the bearer of divine blessing. For Aphrahat it is the messianic blessing; for the rabbinic and Pharisaic sources it is the bearer of the true single and unified Torah, oral and written, revealed

63

T H E Y O S I ' S — II.i.2

to Moses and handed down from him to the Pharisees themselves. That "grapecluster" was lost or hidden from this time until after Aqiba, as we shall see. From that time controversies marred the formerly united and irreproachable tradition. This is spelled out in other materials. The saying is to be classified as a very late reminiscence. We do not know who originally said that the first of the pairs was also the last of the grapeclusters and drew from this the inference that the change after Yosi + Yosi was not for the better. We certainly cannot imagine that either Yosi "one day taught his disciples, 'My sons, Yosi and I are the last of the grapeclusters.'" Since that is obvious, one must ask, Who so stated and why? I do not know. But since the Yosi's stood at the head of the M. Hag. list, and since this list cannot come after ca. 140 A.D., it looks as if the responsible authority would appear in Ushan times. The setting is a collection of sayings about the end of old virtue. When murders multiplied, one rite ended; when adulterers did, an­ other; when the Yosi's died, the grapeclusters came to an end. Then comes an interruption about Yohanan the High Priest, presumably be­ cause Yosi + Yosi were understood to have been his contemporaries. The sequence resumes with the end of the Sanhedrin, followed by a long list of the deaths of ancient worthies and what ended when they died. The whole in current form cannot date from earlier than the third-century, to be sure, but in this instance we need not doubt that the list was composed of somewhat earlier materials. The editor did not consistently impose on those materials the form When X died,y ended. In any event, original teachings of the Yosi's cannot be present here. Note Epstein, Mishnah, pp. 684-5. c

II.i.2.A. For perushim (Pharisees? Separatists?) the clothes of an '-am ha ares count as suffering /^raAincleanness. For them that eat heave-offering the clothes of Pharisees count as suffering midras'-uncle&nness. For them that eat of hallowed things, the clothes of them that eat heave-offering count as suffering ^/t^r^-uncleanness. For them that occupy themselves with sin-offering water, the clothes of them that eat of hallowed things count as suffering /^/^/-uncleanness. B. Yosef b. Yo'ezer was the [most] pious (H^YD) in the priesthood, yet for them that ate of hallowed things, his apron counted as suffer­ ing /#/Vraj--uncleanness. (M. Hag. 2:7, trans. Danby, p. 214) y

Comment: Like the foregoing, this is to be classified as a reminiscence concerning Yosi/Yosef b. Yo'ezer. Here Yosi serves as an example of an ancient pious priest. Even the best of the virtuous old priests still served as a source of ^/^/-uncleanness. Any other name—e.g. Simeon the Just—would have served just as well. I do not imagine the saying circulated separately from the tradition about the conditions of midrasuncleanness. That is, we do not have an apophthegm about the matter

64

T H E Y O S T S — II.i.3

of /^/^/-uncleanness, only later on attached to the law. The reference to the example of Yosi is a gloss on the legal saying. The setting is a tradition about Temple uncleanness laws. To be sure, the Pharisees some time late in the Temple period asserted that Templepurity laws pertain also to the eating of unconsecrated food (hullin), but no hint of that development is in the above formulation. At best, in the context of the earlier laws in the pericope, the reference is to eating tithes and other holy offerings, but not ordinary foods. M. Hag. 3:6 concerns purity for eating or touching tithes, heave-offerings, sanctities (qddesh) and the like, so this view seems likely. We once more observe that the content of the laws attributed to early Pharisaic heroes pertains to Temple purity rules. My guess is that the Pharisees at the outset included priests who rejected the procedures of Temple priests, asserting their own views on Temple purity laws and other cultic matters (laying on of hands). Later on, Pharisaism proceeded to apply those same laws to the eating of an ordinary meal, saying the table of the Jew is like the cultic table of God. But the original disputes evidently centered on the cult itself. The view about eating ordinary food in ritual cleanness comes long after the Pharisaic group had achieved full self-consciousness, regarding itself as quite apart from the Temple group, and its own traditions as superior to those of the Temple schools; thus for Pharisaism a layman's judgment was superior to a priest's. C

II.L3.A. R. Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah testified concerning ( L) (1) the Mj/7-locust (QMS') is clean (DKY), and (2) that the liquids in the Temple shambles are clean (DKYYN), and (3) that he who touches a corpse becomes unclean (YQRB LMYTH M$>B). B. And the called him "Yosah the permitter" (WQRWN LYH Y W S H SRYY>).

(M. 'Ed. 8:4, trans. Danby, p. 436) Comment: Except for the italicized words, the whole pericope is in Aramaic. Instead of the more usual TM* and THR we find S'B (mista'av) and DKY (dekhe, dekhayin). Like the language of Megillat Ta'anit, the language of Yosi's opinion is not translated into rabbinic-Mishnaic Hebrew. The Hebrew formula at the outset (H YD) is imposed by the editor of the on that day materials. But obviously Yosi's and other testimonies of the pericope derive from masters who could not have been present. We do not have definitive evidences of the fixed forms in which Pharisaic teachings were transmitted before rabbinic times, but these materials are apt to have been part of those teachings. We may readily imagine the teaching began simply Yosi b. Yo^e^er said. The three-things form is followed here, with purity-laws instead of moral apophthegms. A second example is Yohanan the High Priest's abrog­ ations, M. M.S. 5:15. C

T H E Y O S T S — II.i.3

65

We do not know who called him "the permitter" (or lenient), or who held an opposite view, that the locust was capable of uncleanness, and that the liquids were susceptible. We may imagine someone taught that the liquids (blood, water) could receive uncleanness. The commentaries further discuss why Yosi should have ruled concerning the corpse, since Scripture (Num. 19:11,17) makes this perfectly clear. The various distinctions and explanations of course are of no interest here. We may suppose Temple priests, whose sayings were not preserved in Pharisaic tradition, held the contrary. But then why would the epithet "Yosi the permitter" have been preserved by Pharisaic tradents later on? We may regard the tradition as an accurate record of what early generations of Pharisees attributed to Yosi b. Yo ezer. Perhaps he himself as a priest issued such rulings. If he did so, it was not in the Temple, but in the party, and hence the teaching contains one of the Pharisaic disputes with the Temple authorities. Temple authorities then held the opposite, and we may assign to them both the hypothetical contrary rulings and the epithet. Presumably the Pharisaic tradents did not regard the epithet as particularly hostile, and, since it would have been known outside of their circles, they had no reason to suppress it. So Temple authorities applied a stricter rule than did the Pharisees: the locust could receive uncleanness, and purity rules did pertain to the liquids of the Templeslaughterhouse—a considerable inconvenience. The Temple in all re­ spects must be kept inviolable and the sanctity-rules must be applied as strictly as possible. This indeed later characterized the Sadducees in matters of purity-laws. The laws are strict, but affect only the Temple. The Pharisees tended to apply lenient interpretations to those laws, but regarded them as everywhere applicable, even in connection with com­ mon meals. The Essenes were equally strict, but kept the laws only in their commune, where it presumably was relatively easy to do so. As to the classification, the pericope contains an earlier legal saying by Yosi b. Yo'ezer. The Mishnaic setting, as I said, is traditions from Yavneh. The other masters in the same pericope however are not only Yavneans. In their form prior to the one before us, the sayings probably were originally given as a unit, for they consist of closely related uncleanness rules on 1. locust, 2. liquid, 3. corpse. All pertain to the chief legal issue about which Pharisaic tradition attributed teachings to the early mas­ ters. The unifying principle was not the legal theme by itself, but also a unifying form: three things attributed to Yosi b. Yo'ezer. To be sure, the logia may have circulated separately and only later on have been put together. If so, the earlier Pharisaic materials presumably were ex­ tremely brief, one-sentence, simple logia containing rules of Temple (uncleanness) law, mainly concerning matters of detail (locust, liquid). Dropping the attribution ("R. Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah testified con­ cerning") we find the following: [YL QMS' DKY [W
66

THE Y O S T S — Il.ii.l

M$QH BYT MTBHY> [D>NWN] DKYYN [W] DYQRB BMYT> MST'B [MS Kaufmann: MS'B] with the subscription: WQRW LH YWSY $RY\ The bracketed words are the connecting material. As we noted, the first connector (W L) is in Hebrew and carries forward the Hebrew redactional introduction. The redactor then has left the substance of the Yosi-saying unchanged. This again suggests that the subscription is part of a pre-Yavnean formulation. One should look for mnemonic considerations in the present lem­ mas, for in authentic Houses-sayings we can usually locate the rhymescheme or small units of which materials are constructed. What words or elements unite the three sayings? Clearly, DKY/DKYN joins the first and second. Otherwise they are not balanced or matched. What joins no. 3 to no. 2 is the syzygy clean\unclean\ otherwise, they too are unrelated either in subject-matter or in diction; no. 1 has six syllables, no. 2 ten, no. 3 eight, so there is no intelligible pattern or rhyme-scheme. The mnemonic principle can therefore have been the clean\clean\uncleantheme and that alone—not a very striking pattern. The Temple for centuries had carried on its affairs according to purity rules, presumably those in Scriptures as interpreted by the priests' traditions. If the Pharisees took seriously matters of detail, it must have been because Temple authorities and Pharisaic opinion sepa­ rated primarily on these matters. We of course do not know why the Pharisees believed that the ^//-locust was pure. For many centuries the Temple authorities presumably regarded the liquid of the slaughter­ house as capable of receiving uncleanness. Why just now did the Phari­ sees maintain otherwise? More important, why and how did it become a partisan issue? See Epstein, Mevo'ot, pp. 505-6; Mishnah, p. 181. C

Il.ii.l. It is impossible (>Y 'PSY) to set a reproach (DWPY) against any of the grapeclusters that arose for Israel from when Moses died until Yosef ben Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosef ben Yohanan of Jerusa­ lem arose. After Yosef ben Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosef ben Yohanan of Jerusalem died, and until R. Judah b. Baba arose, it is possible to set a reproach against them. (Tos. B.Q. ed. Zuckermandel, p. 362, lines 9-12) Comment: Variants give 'PSR, which I have followed in my transla­ tion. Other versions confirm this reading. This pericope obviously cannot date from before the middle of the second century A.D. The first clause, that it is impossible to reproach any of the grapeclusters, could have circulated separately, but it would have meant little, unless a contrasting after they died had been added.

THE Y O S T S — Il.ii.l

67

Hence the pericope is a unity. Reproach (DWPY) elsewhere means divi­ sion or controversy; the apparent meaning therefore is that until the last of the grapeclusters, the masters were unanimous on all things, but afterward controversy began to multiply in the Torah. This is parallel to the late Antigonus-story about the schism of the Sadducees and Boethusians. The viewpoint is consistent with M. Hag. 2 : 2 . The laying on of hands controversy began with the last of the grapeclusters. M. Hag. certainly gave rise to this saying. It is astonishing that a second-century tradition, presumably deriving from the circle of the martyred Judah b. Baba, to whom the ordination of all the surviving students of 'Aqiba is credited, should have asserted that all the generations of sages from the grapeclusters to Aqiba were reproachable. Clearly, important legal issues divided Yavneans and the later 'Aqibans. No one could have imagined that what distinguished the ancients from the moderns was the absence of controversy among the current or preceding generation. But if some other reproach than legal controversy was in mind, it is equally puzzling. We have here what seems to be a rejection of the entire Pharisaic tradition from Yosi + Yosi to, and including, Aqiba. The source is a post- Aqiban collection, so we cannot attribute to the Ishmaeleans any role whatever in shaping the tradition. The saying may be classified as a later reminiscence of the two Yosi's. It serves as an interpretation of the meaning ofgrapecluster: What ended? Irreproachability, perfection, absence of division, lack of schism. Im­ mediately following is the assertion that nearly all of Judah b. Baba's deeds were for the sake of heaven, except for a minor one: he violated the law against raising small cattle in Palestine. The inference is to be drawn that from the two Yosi's until Judah b. Baba, not all the deeds of the masters were for the sake of heaven—a strange allegation. My guess is that the introduction of the two Yosi's served as a con­ venient dividing point and nothing more. That is to say, since the grapeclusters are at issue, and since the purpose of the editor of the pericope is to assert Judah b. Baba renewed the blessing of the grapeclusters, it was natural to refer to the characterization, known from materials later placed into the Mishnah, of the two men as the end of the old line of tradition and the start of controversies. The purpose of the editor of the pericope therefore is to state that Yosi + Yosi themselves marked the end of a great era. But if, as alleged, the list of Pharisaic masters at Ushan times began with the Yosi's, then it is difficult to understand the reference to the two men as the end of something old. Rather they should be made into the start of something new; hence they should be said to be the first of the grapeclusters, a list of worthies ending with Judah b. Baba. In that case Aqiba and all the other ancients would not be listed among those not regarded as grapeclusters, but rather would be among those regarded as a model for the coming generation, a senti­ ment surely appropriate in Judah b. Baba's circle. The grapeclusters then should end with Judah b. Baba—and this Judah the Patriarch obvi­ ously could not abide. So he dropped the Toseftan materials entirely, c

c

c

c

68

T H E Y O S T S — III.i.1, III.ii.1

and ended the grapeclusters where they had formerly begun, with the Yosi's. But other versions preserve precisely this judgment. The setting is a discussion of raising small cattle in Palestine, a ruling that came long after Maccabean times. III.i.1. Mishnah: When Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosef b. Yohanan of Jerusalem died, the grapeclusters ceased, as it is said, There is no grapecluster to eat, my soul desireth the first ripe fig (Micah 7:1). TNY: All the pairs (ZWGWT) that arose from the death of Moses until Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosef b. Yohanan of Jerusalem arose, it is possible to set against them a reproach. Until R. Judah b. Baba arose, it is not possible to place against them a reproach. (y. Sot. 9:10, repr. Gilead, p. 44a) Comment: Now the tradition is reversed. The present "Tannaitic" for­ mulation of the Toseftan tradition is that the late Tannaitic generation (= Judah the Patriarch's) is reproachable, but the masters from Yosi -fYosi to 'Aqiba-Judah b. Baba were not reproachable, just as I suggested. Obviously, if the polemic has been reversed, the facts cannot have changed. If by reproach schism or division is meant, then the large cor­ pus of divisions of the Houses of Hillel and Shammai, of the laying on of hands controversy, and of other materials was available to demon­ strate the contrary. The intervening generations were demonstrably flawed, subject to reproach. Hence the Toseftan version has been de­ liberately changed, without reference to contrary information. The re­ proach of the intervening generation is turned to praise; the praise of the disciples of Judah b. Baba is turned into reproach. The setting is clear. The gemara following M. Sot. 9:9 reads, "Until R. Aqiba and all the pairs arose, there were no grapeclusters..." Then TNY, and the above follows. The gemara therefore asserts that the times from the last grapeclusters, the two Yosi's, until 'Aqiba, were irre­ proachable and unblemished, and following Judah b. Baba the masters again were reproachable. Hence the meaning of the TNY-passage con­ firms the reading of the introductory superscription as we have it. All is quite consistent. And all is quite contrary to the earlier version! But the whole thing furthermore contradicts the Mishnah to which it is attached. The Mishnah explicitly states Yosi + Yosi were the end of the grape­ clusters, with the implication that something good had come to an end, not that they had marked the beginning of an irreproachable chain of masters. The present version thus is contrary both to the Mishnah and to the Toseftan supplement to the Mishnah. c

III.ii.1. [Mishnah: And these are the laws stated in the upper cham­ ber of Hananiah b. Hezekiah b. Garon, when they went up to visit him. They took a count, and the House of Shammai outnumbered

T H E Y O S T S — III.ii.1

69

the House of Hillel. And on that day they enacted eighteen measures. Gemara: And what are the eighteen measures? We learned...one's hands.] And the hands. Did the students of Shammai and Hillel [so] decree? Shammai and Hillel decreed [it], as it is taught (DTNY>): Yosi b. Yo ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem de­ creed (GZR) [the capacity to receive] uncleanness (TWM'H) upon the land of the peoples and on glassware. Simeon b. Shetah ordained (TQN) a marriage-contract for the wife and decreed (GZR) [the capacity to receive] uncleanness upon metal utensils. Shammai and Hillel decreed uncleanness on hands. (b. Shab. 14b) c

Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem de­ creed uncleanness on the land of the peoples and glassware. But the rabbis of the "eighty years" [before the destruction of the Temple] did so, for R. Kahana said, "When R. Ishmael son of R. Yosi fell ill, they sent to him, 'Rabbi, tell us two or three of the things you stated in your father's name.'" "He replied, "Thus did my father say, One hundred and eighty years before the destruction of the Temple the wicked kingdom spread over Israel. "'Eightyyears before the destruction of the Temple uncleanness was imposed on the land of the peoples and glassware. "'Forty years before the destruction of the Temple the Sanhedrin went into exile and took its seat in the trade halls...'" And should you say, They [Yosi b. Yo'ezer and Yosi b. Yohanan] flourished during these eighty years also, it was taught: Hillel and Simeon Gamaliel and Simeon ruled as patriarchs during the [last] century of the Temple's existence. Thus Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan were much earlier... (b. Shab. 15a) Comment: This beraita may be classified as a report of a legal decision made by the two Yosi's. We cannot accurately date it, but it cannot derive from the second century B.C., when the two masters probably were alive, for the formulation begins after Shammai and Hillel. The beraita may be compared to the laying-on-of-hands list of M. Hag. 2 : 2

70

T H E Y O S T S — III.ii.2

and Avot 1 :lff. That is, its literary form is a chain of Pharisaic tradition, pertaining now not to sacrificial practice or to moral rules but to clean­ ness laws (pp. 11-23). The likelihood is that the beraita before us de­ rives from a period after the end of the second century A.D., for it is unlikely that Yosi b. Halafta, father of Ishmael b. R. Yosi, would have framed a teaching on the imposition of uncleanness on the land of the peoples and on glassware in ignorance of a beraita alleging Yosi + Yosi were the responsible authorities. The Talmud's discussion must be re­ garded as completely accurate. The rabbinical tradition did recognize that the two Yosi's long antedated Hillel and Shammai, hence came many years before the final century of the Temple's existence. On the other hand, it could be that a different tradition existed along­ side Yosi b. Halafta's. If so, it is striking that we have no evidence of it in any corpus of traditions earlier than the Babylonian beraita. The beraita-lketztute presumably did not originate in a single place, time, or circle of masters. Some of it may actually have come from Tannaitic schools in Palestine. But in the Babylonian Talmud, beraitas frequently give evidence of having been shaped, or at least reshaped, in the Baby­ lonian schools themselves. The absence of a reference in an earlier com­ pilation of traditions to the alleged decree of the two Yosi's and the presence of Yosi b. Halafta's contrary tradition on the same matter to­ gether suggest that the beraita-vetsion was unknown to Yosi b. Halafta. I cannot imagine who might have invented the story, or for what purpose. No contemporary polemic seems to me to have been involved. Nor do I see a relationship to any other teachings of the two Yosi's which might have provoked the attribution to them of similar decrees on the land of the peoples and on glassware. The early decrees all per­ tain to Temple-cleanness, not to the extension of Temple-cleanness laws to such remote matters as the uncleanness of foreign countries, on the one hand, or to glassware, on the other. These considerations were important only when cleanness laws were observed outside of the Temple as well as within it, and when numbers of Pharisees therefore were concerned with the applicability of cleanness-rules to daily life. Only then was the ruling concerning glassware and foreign dirt conse­ quential. Hence I tend to doubt the accuracy of the attribution. The question remains, Why then attribute the ruling not to the sages of the "eighty years," but rather to much earlier masters ? I suspect the answer will illuminate not the early traditions on the two Yosi's, but rather the mind of some circle within the school of Judah the Patriarch. In y. Shab. 1:4, R. Yosi attributes the decree to Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah. The setting is a Babylonian Amoraic discussion. In its present form the beraita constitutes a chain of tradition. The actual decrees attributed to the two Yosi's may originally have been separate, but were brought together for transmission before they reached the editor of the beraita. III.ii.2. TNY*: R. Eleazar says, "Uncleanness does not pertain to liquids at all. You should know [it] for behold, Yosef b. Yo ezer of c

71

T H E Y O S F S — III.ii.3, 4 , 5

Seredah testified concerning the ^//-locust, that it is clean, and con­ cerning liquids (M$QYN) of the slaughter-house, that they are clean." (b. Pes. 16a) Comment: The setting is a discussion concerning the opinion of Eleazar in the context of the opinions of Meir, Judah, Yosi, and Simeon. The discussion in fact is anonymous; the Tannaim are cited, not directly quoted. Thefirstnamed Amora is Nahmanb. Isaac. The text has Ele azar, not Eliezer. But the beraita reads R \ which could produce either attri­ bution. See above, I.ii.l for further comment. The corpse-uncleanness is omitted. c

111.11.3. R. Eliezer says, "Uncleanness does not pertain to liquids at all. You should know [it] for lo, Yosi b. Yo ezer of Seredah testified concerning the ^//-locust, that it is clean and about liquids of the [Temple] slaughter-house (BYT MTBHY'), that they are clean." (b. Ned. 19a) c

Comment:

See I.ii.l. The setting is the same as b. Pes. 16a.

111.11.4. TNN: Rabbi Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah testified concern­ ing the ^//-locust, that it is pure (DKN), and concerning the liquid (M$QH) of the slaughter-house, that it is pure (DKN), and that one who comes into contact with the dead, (that) he is unclean (QRB LMYT> MS'B); and they called him Yosef who permits [alternatively: Yosef the lenient]. (b. A.Z. 37a) Comment: See I.ii.l. The context is a discussion between R. Judah Nesi'a and R. Simlai. Several things have been permitted, and the warning is raised that "we shall be called a permissive court." Then the above is cited. Later on in the same setting the beraita is further dis­ cussed. R. Papa and others explain what locust is referred to.

111.11.5. TNN HTM: When Yosef ben Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosef b. Yohanan of Jerusalem died, the grapeclusters came to an end. What are the grapeclusters? A man in whom are all things. And Rav Judah said in the name of Samuel, "All the grapeclusters who arose for Israel from the days of Moses until Yosef b. Yo'ezer died learned Torah like Moses our rabbi. Henceforward they did not learn Torah like Moses our rabbi." In a Mishnah we learned: There was no reproach in all the grapeclusters that arose for Israel

72

THE Y O S T S — IV.i.l, 2

from the days of Moses until Yosef b. Yo'ezer of Seredah. Hencefor­ ward there was reproach in them... [Here a story is told of a certain hasid in whom was found only a single matter of reproach, that he reared a small goat in Palestine, which is forbidden.] And it is an established fact with us that whereever we deal with a certain hasid, it refers to either R. Judah b. Baba or R. Judah b. Ilai. Now [these] rabbis lived many generations after Yosef b. Yo ezer. R. Joseph said, "[It is the] reproach of the laying on of hands [controversy]." But does not Yosef b. Yo'ezer himself differ with reference to the law of laying on of hands? When he differed it was in his later years, when his heart had weakened. (b. Tern. 15b-16a) c

Comment: See Il.ii.l. The setting is autonomous. There is no apparent connection with the foregoing materials. For Samuel the reproach was poor learning. R. Joseph interprets "reproach" as division or schism. The question is raised, How can we say Yosi was beyond reproach when he himself participated in controversy? Hence the meaning of DWPY, as stated above, must be schism or controversy. The reference to in a Mishnah we learned of course is inaccurate, since the materials appear in a late beraita.

IV.i.l. Did not R. Ze'ira b. Abuna in the name of R. Jeremiah say, "Yosef b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem decreed uncleanness upon the land of the peoples and upon glass utensils"? Rabbi Yonah said, "Rabbi Judah b. Tabbai [did i t ] . " R. Yosi said, "Rabbi Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah decreed uncleanness on metal utensils. Hillel and Shammai decreed concerning the cleanness [sic] of the hands." (y. Shab. 1:4, repr. Gilead p. 11a) Comment: See III.ii.1. Here we have still another discussion of the decree about uncleanness upon the land of the peoples, but this one leaves no doubt as to the role of the two Yosi's. It allows us to date the formation of the beraita (III.ii.1) at least to the time of R. Jeremiah, midfourth-century, and R. Yonah of the same period. It is clear that until then there was no well-established tradition on who was responsible for the decree.

IV.i.2. Did not R. Ze'ira, R. Abuna in the name of R. Jeremiah

T H E Y O S I ' S — IV.i.3, IV.ii.l

73

say, "Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem decreed uncleanness on the land of the peoples and on glass uten­ sils." R. Yuda said, "Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah decreed [uncleanness] on metal utensils. Hillel and Shammai decreed concern­ ing the cleanness of hands." (y. Pes. 1:6, repr. Gilead p. 6b) Comment:

See IV.i.l.

IV.i.3. [Simeon b. Shetah made three ordinances, that a man may do business with his wife's marriage-contract, that children must go to school; and he decreed uncleanness concerning glass vessels.] Did not Rabbi Ze'ra R. Abuna in the name of R. Jeremiah say, "Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem decreed [the capacity to receive] uncleanness on the land of the peoples and on glass utensils." Rabbi Yosi said, "R. Judah b. Tabbi [did i t ] . " Rabbi Yonah said, "Judah b. Tabbi and Simeon b. Shetah decreed concerning metal utensils, and Hillel and Shammai decreed concern­ ing the cleanness of hands..." (y. Ket. 8:11, repr. Gilead p. 50b) Comment:

See IV.i.l.

IV.ii.l.A. It was asked, Did the rabbis disagree with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel [re disinheriting one's wicked children] or not? Come and hear concerning: B. Yosef b. Yo e%er had a son who did not behave properly. [What follows is in Aramaic] He had a loft [full of] denarii. He rose and sanctified it [to the Temple]. C. He [the son] went and married the daughter of the wreathmaker of Yannai the King. She gave birth to a son. He [the husband] bought her a fish. When he opened it, he found a pearl in it. D. She said to him, "Do not show it to the king, for he will take it from you for a small sum of money. Go and show it to the treasurers [of the Temple]. But do not suggest the price, for it is said that making an offer to the Most High is like [actually] giving [something] to an ordinary person. But let them state its value." E. He brought it. They assessed it for thirteen lofts of denarii. They said to him, "Seven are [available], and six are not." c

74

Y o s i b. Yo'ezer and Y o s i b. Yohanan

THE YOSI'S —IV.ii.l

I Tannaitic Midrashim

1. W h e n they died, grape­ c l u s t e r s ceased

ILi Mishnah

ILii Tosefta

IILi Tannaitic M a t e r i a l s in Palestinian Gemara

IILii Tannaitic M a t e r i a l s in Babylonian Gemara

Tos. B.Q. 8 : 1 3

y. Sot. 9 : 1 0

b. T e r n . 1 5 b - 1 6 a

3. Uncleanness o f land of peoples and glassware 4. Lay hands on sacrifice

M . Hag. 2 : 2

5. Let house be meeting place— let house be o p e n

M. A v o t 1:4-5

1 . Cleanness o f fluids in T e m p l e slaughter-house

I Tannaitic Midrashim

Sifra 8 : 5 (Eliezer)

ILi Mishnah

M . <Ed. 8 : 4

ILii Tosefta

IILi Tannaitic M a t e r i a l s in Palestinian Gemara

b. S h a b . 1 4 b - 1 5 a

y. S h a b . 1 : 4 y. Pes. 1 : 6 y. K e t . 8 : 1 1

IILii Tannaitic M a t e r i a l s in Babylonian Gemara

IV.i Amoraic M a t e r i a l s in Palestinian Gemara

M . Hag. 2 : 7

3 . Mj//7-locust clean

M , <Ed. 8 : 4

b. Pes. 1 6 a b. A . Z . 3 7 a

4. Corpse-uncleanness

M . <Ed. 8 : 4

b. A . Z . 3 7 a

6. N e p h e w killed self

IV.ii Amoraic M a t e r i a l s in Babylonian Gemara

V ARN

VI Later Compilations of Midrashim

IV.ii Amoraic M a t e r i a l s in Babylonian Gemara

V ARN

VI Later Compilations of Midrashim

b. Pes. 1 6 a b. N e d . 1 9 a b. A . Z . 3 7 a - b

2. W a s most pious of priesthood, but s u f f e r e d midrasuncleanness

5. Son gave pearl to Temple

IV.i Amoraic Materials in Palestinian Gemara

M. Sot. 9 : 9

2. Reproach against grape­ clusters

Y o s i b. Yo'ezer Alone

75

THE Y O S I ' S — IV.ii.l

b. B.B. 1 3 3 b

L e v . R. 6 5 : 2 7

76

THE YOSTS — Vl.i.l

He said to them, "Give me seven. As to the six, [in Hebrew] Behold, they are sanctified to Heaven!' They went and wrote, "Yosef b. Yo'ezer brought in one [loft of denarii] and his son brought in six [lofts]." F. Some say, "Yosef b. Yo'ezer brought in one, and his son took out seven." (b. B.B. 133b) Comment: The setting is an anonymous inquiry into the support for Simeon b. Gamaliel's opinion. No named tradents or masters partici­ pate in the discussion. The language shifts from Hebrew to Aramaic, then in the conventional form associated with the Temple transaction, back to Hebrew, given in italics. The beraita is a singleton. We have no idea when, why, or where it was written. It may be classified as a biographical narrative, and, apart from Vl.i.l, it is the only exemplum of biography in the Yosi-traditions. As it stands, parts C, D, and E form a single, unified narrative. Part F is tacked on as a revision of E. But it could not have circulated separately, for it would have meant little outside of the context of some story, if not this one, unless as an allusion. On the other hand, it certainly has the resonance of a pithy saying. The superscription, part A, stands quite separately. The problem is part B. It now serves to introduce the story of Yosef's son, who is not named. But had part C begun, The son of Yosef b. Yo*e%er married the daughter of... then the introductory clause would have been superfluous. Then part E refers back to part B. I sup­ pose that parts B and C could have generated a quite separate story than that in parts C and D. Vl.i.l.A. Yaqim of Serurot was the nephew of R. Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah. He was riding on his horse. He went before the beam on which he [Yosi] was to be hanged. He said to him, "See the horse on which my master has set me, and see your horse on which your master has set you." He said to him, "If he does thus to those that anger him, how much the more [good will he do to] those that do his will." He said to him, "Has any man done his will more than you?" He said to him, "If so to those that do his will, how much the [worse will he do to] those that anger him." The matter pierced him like the poison of a snake, and he went and brought on himself the four modes of death inflicted by the court: stoning, burning, decapitation, and strangulation. B. What did he do? He brought a post and planted it in the earth, raised around it a wall, and tied on it a cord. He made a fire in front

77

THE YOSI'S — Vl.i.l

of it and set a sword in the middle [of the post]. He hanged himself on the post, and the cord was burned through, and he was strangled. The sword caught him, while the wall [of stones also] fell on him, and he was burned. C. Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah dozed and saw his bier flying through the air. He said, "By a brief hour has he preceded me to the Garden of Eden." (Gen. R. 65:27, ed. Theodor-Albeck, II, pp. 742 1. 5 through 744,1.1 = Midrash on Psalms 11:7, Braude, I, pp. 166-7) Comment: This is a singleton, appearing in a late compilation, with no connections in theme or in detail to any antecedent traditions on Yosi b. Yo'ezer. We do not know how the story was shaped and have no idea whatever as to the sources of Yosef b. Yo^zer's supposed mar­ tyrdom. As it stands, the story stands quite apart from, and outside of, the other traditions on Yosef b. Yo'ezer. Had Yaqim been associated with any other ancient worthy, it would have made no difference for the substance of the story, which apparently is an echo of one of the several 'Aqiba martyrdom-legends. Part B is interpolated, a gloss ex­ plaining the foregoing. The identification of Yaqim of Serurot with Alcimus of I Mace. 7:16 and the further allegation that Alcimus was Yosi's nephew (!) are groundless; the various historical opinions based on that identification are absurd. in. SYNOPSES

A. 1.

c

Yosi b. Yo e%er and Yosi b. Yohanan

Reproach against Grapeclusters

Tos. B.O.

8:13

1. A l l the grapeclusters t h a t a r o s e f r o m Israel f r o m w h e n Moses died until Y o sef b . Y o ' e z e r o f S e r e d a h and Y o s e f b. Y o h a n a n o f Jerusalem

y. Sot.

1.

9:10

TNY:

(ZWGWT) »

>»

»

b. Tern. 15b-16a 1*. A n d R a v J u d a h said in the name o f S a m u e l , A l l the grapeclusters „ „ „ f r o m the days of Moses until Yosef

Pairs

b. Yo*e%er died would learn Torah like Moses our rabbi. Thenceforward, they did not learn Torah like Moses our rabbi. 1. T N Y ' : A l l the grape­ clusters t h a t a r o s e f o r Israel f r o m the days o f M o s e s u n t i l Y o s i b . Y o e z e r died {

78

THE YOSI'S —

2. It is not p o s s i b l e t o place r e p r o a c h against them. 3. A n d until arose J u d a h b. Baba 4. It is p o s s i b l e t o p l a c e against t h e m reproach

2.

SYNOPSES

It is p o s s i b l e

3 99

99

99

[ o m i t s : and] 4. It is not p o s s i b l e

2. There was not in them a n y reproach 3. 4. Thenceforward, in them reproach

there was

The Tos. has been much garbled in transmission to the Babylonian beraita, no less so to the Palestinian version. As to the latter, we have already observed that the sense of the tradition has been reversed. The beraita begins with the teaching in Samuel's name about study of Torah, followed by TNY* as in 1* above. It seems to represent at best a paraphrase of Tos. Yosi b. Yohanan has been dropped in both parts of the Babylonian Talmudic version; Judah b. Baba (no. 3) is likewise omitted here, but is referred to in the immediately following Talmudic discussion. This proves that the beraita originally contained no reference to him, for if it had, the subsequent discussion, aimed at showing Judah is referred to, would have been superfluous. The Babylonian beraita thus has drawn the sting from the Judah b. Babatradition, by leaving the impression that while the end of the grape­ clusters concluded old-time virtue, no particular sage later on can be credited with reverting to that former glory. Without the praise of Judah b. Baba as the restorer of ancient merit, the beraita has been deprived of its former contemporary relevance. It stands merely as an untendentious supplement to the grapecluster-Mishnah. I imagine the beraita was shaped after the version in Tos. B.Q., indeed after Rav Judah (d. 299), the language of whose citation of Samuel suggests that the original formulation of Tos. B.Q. was un­ known. Had it been known to Rav Judah (Samuel), he would have directly referred to it and would not have offered his own formulation, involving study of Torah, of the change in the history of the grape­ cluster. Alternatively, Samuel-Rav Judah did know Tos. B.Q., but, because of its political aspect (Judah b. Baba), preferred to formulate it in other, quite original, but neutral terms. But the beraita in any event accomplished the same end. It may, to be sure, have been formulated after the Judah b. Baba-version and circulated independently thereafter. The omission of Yosi/Yosef b. Yohanan later on could not have been consequential. He was merely a name on a list. No one had ties to him or direct access to traditions originally deriving from him.

THE YOSTS —

2.

79

SYNOPSES

Uncleanness of Land of Peoples and Glassware.

b. Shab. 14b 1. DTNY'

2. Yosi + Yosi 3. decreed uncleanness 4. on the land of the peoples 5. a n d o n glass­ ware 5*.

6. Simeon b. Shetah ordained (TQN) 7. marriage-set­ tlement for a wife 8. and decreed uncleanness o n metal utensils 9. Shammai and Hillel decreed 10. uncleanness o n the hands

y. Shab. 1:4 1. Did not R. Ze'ira b. A b u n a in R . J e r e m i a h ' s n a m e say 2. Yosef + Yosef 3 4 5»

1.

Ze'ira » 2. 3

not R.

R.

n

»

5»

»

5*

6. And S i m e o n b. S h e t a h decreed

6.

1.

7. 99

99

9 . Hillel and Shammai „ „ 10

„

Yosi +

Yosi

2. 3

Yosi +

Yosi

99

99

99

>>

»

99

4 »

»

>»

5*

5*. R . Y o s i said, J u d a h b. Tabbi R. Y o n a h said, J u d a h b. Tabbi and Simeon b. Shetah decreed... [ = y. Shab.]

6.

[As a b o v e ]

7. »

99

99

o

»

9 . Hillel and Shammai „ „ 10. cleanness 99

„

»

»

99

y.Ket. 8:11 1. Did not „

Abuna

4

5*. R. Y o n a h said, Judah b. Tabbai

8»

Did

°*

„

99

99

99

9. Hillel and Shammai „ „ 10. cleanness 99

99

„

99

What the Babylonian Talmud knows as a beraita allegedly formulated by Tannaim is available to the Palestinian Talmud only in the names of fourth-century Palestinian Amoraim from Babylonia (Jeremiah, Ze ira). Apart from the marriage-contract (no. 7), the materials are nearly identical in all important matters. Variations are in such minor details as the names Yosi/Yosef. The Palestinian versions are virtu­ ally identical with one another, b. Shab.'s S + H is the better order; and uncleanness (no. 10) must be more accurate than cleanness, which makes no sense. But the inclusion of no. 7 is irrelevant to decrees on purity laws—indeed, the language TQN is substituted, obviously unsatisfactorily, for GZR, otherwise used throughout. Alternatively, the beraita before us has been contaminated by materials from other sources. c

80

THE YOSI'S — SYNOPSES

B.

c

Yosi b. Yo e%er Alone

1. Cleanness of Fluids in Temple Sifra

8:5

M. 'Ed.

8:4

Slaughter-house

1. Rabbi Eliezer says

1.

b. Pes. 16a 1. WHTNY':

2. Uncleanness ( T W M ' H ) etc.

2.

Ele'arar 2

3. Y o u should k n o w t h a t it is s o

3.

3.

4.

4.

that] 4

for behold,

Y o s i b. Seredah testified c o n c e r n ­ ing 4* #

5.

BYMTBHY'

b. Ned. 19a 1. [As b. Pes.]

b. A.Z. 37a 1. DTNN

2

2.

99

[ O m i t s : for

' *

[Omits:

99

99

99

99

99

3.

[ A s b. Pes.]

3.

4.

[As b. Pes.]

4 ~*

99

99

4*. „

„

99

behold; A d d s : b. Yo<e er] „ „ „ Z

4 * . o n *ayilQMS> D K Y 5. a n d o n fluid o f the slaughter­

4*. 5.

DKN

4*.

MSQYN

5.

[As b. Pes.] [As b. Pes.]

DKN

5.

MSQH

6.

DKN

house (M$QH B Y T MTBHY') 6. that [they are] pure (DKYYN).

6. t h a t they are pure ( D ' Y N W N DKYN)

6» »> DKN

7.

7. A n d that one w h o touches a c o r p s e is i m p u r e (WDYQRB BMYT> M§T>B)

7.

7.

7. [As in Mishnah] LMYT> MS'B

8.

8. And they called h i m Y o s i the lenient (WQRW LH Y W S Y §RY')

8.

8.

8. [As in Mishnah] LYH

»

»

6«

99

99

99

YWSP

The citation of the Mishnah in b. A.Z. 37a is accurate and reveals only minor variations, none of which changes the meaning. The beraita-versions of b. Pes. and b. Ned are identical. Both differ markedly from the Mishnah in omitting nos. 7 and 8. But the real comparison is between Mishnah and Sifra. Sifra is shorter, leaving out all but the question of fluids (nos. 5-6). The rulings however pertain to unclean­ ness. I suppose the Mishnah preserves the earliest formulation of the saying, that is, the full list in Aramaic. Then Sifra presents merely part of it, for R. Eliezer's purposes. To be sure, the brief citation (nos. 5-6) could have been an independent tradition, circulating quite separately from the list of three Yosi-rulings supplied by M. Ed. In any event the entire list in M. Ed. now forms a unified pericope. Two of the three rulings are lenient and are so characterized at the end (no. 8). The whole is set into an editorial form of the Yavnean c

c

THE YOSTS — CONCLUSION

81

period, yet, as I suggested, the actual formulation, best preserved in the Mishnah, may well date back to earlier times. i v . CONCLUSION

At the outset we must distinguish between the corpus of Yosi + Yosi sayings, and that in which the two masters stand separately. Yosi b. Yo'ezer by himself is the subject of six stories or sayings; the pericope of M. <Ed. produces three of these. In addition we have a reference to him as "the most pious of the priesthood," and two very late stories about him. The two Yosi's are linked only in the several chains of Pharisaic tradition: M. Sot., Avot, Hag., and the beraita in b. Shab. 14b. Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem otherwise is completely ignored. Yosi b. Yo'ezer thus left one set of three sayings which may in fact be genuine. To this point, we may characterize early Pharisaic heroes as priests. Their traditions were primarily rules on ritual cleanness and the sacri­ ficial cult, both for Temple purposes. Antigonus of Sokho is an exception. What is exceptional about him is that he occurs in the Avot-list, in which the priestly connection or cultic interest of the early Pharisees is obscured, and moral teachings substituted. Antigonus is an anomaly, but, because of the paucity of evidence outside of the Avot-chain, not a very important one. Later Pharisaism clearly saw the advent of the pairs, beginning with the two Yosi's, as a significant turning, but whether this was to the good or otherwise was unclear. The decrees attributed to the two Yosi's pertaining to uncleanness of foreign lands and the capacity of glassware to be susceptible to uncleanness, and their rulings on laying on hands in sacrifice, all at first were primarily considerations for the Temple and its cult. Yosi b. Yo'ezer's laws are consistent with this pattern, for they concern Temple fluids and other cleanness rules. The other references to, and stories about, both men or about Yosi b. Yo ezer alone are late and not very credible. We find no hint that one held office higher than the other, e.g. president {Nasi) and vicepresident of some Sanhedrin. That issue is imposed on M. Hag. 2:2 by Judah the Patriarch's subscription. The Yosi-traditions would not have given rise to the supposition that the Pharisaic offices were at issue in listing the names of the early masters. The traditions likewise supply no hint of the existence of such offices—or, indeed, of a Phari­ saic "party," sect, or movement. c

CHAPTER FIVE J O S H U A B. P E R A H I A H JUDAH

AND

B. T A B B A I A N D

NITTAI THE SIMEON

B.

ARBELITE. SHETAH

i. JOSHUA B. PERAHIAH AND NITTAI THE ARBELITE

Nittai the Arbelite occurs only in M. Avot and M. Hag. In addition, we have four traditions on Joshua b. Perahiah, who further appears in the magical bowls found at Nippur (see my History of the Jews in Babylonia, V. Later Sasanian Times [Leiden, 1969], pp. 235-241). Il.ii.l.A. Joshua b. Perahiah says, "Wheat that comes from Alexan­ dria is [capable of becoming] unclean on account of its baling machine ('NTLY') [which sprinkles water on the wheat]." B. The sages said, "If so, let it be unclean for Joshua b. Perahiah and clean for all Israel." (Tos. Maksh. 3:4, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 675, lines 21-3) Comment: Still another ruling on purity laws, this pericope falls with­ in the classification of legal sayings. The form [Rabbi] X says is standard later on. The pericope is in a list of rulings on susceptibility to unclean­ ness on account of the application of fluids. The pericope may be com­ posite, for part A could have stood alone. Part B introduces as a col­ loquy the response of the sages, but this, lacking to him, looks tacked on. The language is good Mishnaic Hebrew. I imagine that had a ruling been preserved in Joshua b. Perahiah's own words, it would have con­ formed to the Aramaic noted in connection with Yosi b. Yo ezer. This pericope, if authentic, has been translated into the usage conventional later on. But we have no way to date it. Epstein, Mev6*ot, p. 510, takes for granted its antiquity; Mishnah, pp. 1153-4: sages said is "early style." c

III.ii.1. TNW RBNN: Always let the left hand thrust away and the right hand draw near...not like R. Joshua b. Perahiah who thrust one of his disciples away with both hands. (b. Sot. 47a) Comment: This is an allusion to the story of Joshua b. Perahiah and Jesus, to be dated after the story became well-known.

83

J O S H U A — III.ii.2, I V . i i . l

III.ii.2. It was taught (TNY*): A. R. Joshua b. Perahiah said, "At first whoever says to me, 'Go up/ I should bind him and put him in front of the lion. Now whoever says to me, 'Go down/ I should pour over him a kettle of hot water." B. For [we see that] Saul [at first] shunned [the throne], but, after he had taken it, he sought to kill David. (b. Men. 109b, trans. E. Cashdan, p. 678) Comment: The beraita is an autobiographical form for a moral apoph­ thegm. It follows the long beraita (cited above, p. 35) about the death of Simeon the Just and the foundation of the Temple of Onias by his son. The thematic connection to the foregoing is the reference to Alexandria. At this point stories about sages who went there follow. But the story does not say Joshua b. Perahiah was associated with Alexandria. We must assume the editor was familiar with the beraita, or at least the tradition, about Joshua b. Perahiah in Alexandria and therefore selected this saying for inclusion with the Onias-Temple story. The beraita could have circulated independently. We do not know where or why it was framed, or how the editor knew anything at all about Joshua. I imagine he would have known the M. Avot and Hag. lists, so would have been aware that Joshua b. Perahiah had held high office. But any other name on those lists would have served. Hence the attribution is not necessarily random. Part B certainly is not integral to the saying and probably was tacked on later. IV.ii.l.A. What was the incident with R. Joshua b. Perahiah? B. When Yannai the King killed the rabbis, Simeon b. Shetah was hidden by his sister, while R. Joshua b. Perahiah and Jesus fled to Egyptian Alexandria. C. When there was peace, Simeon b. Shetah sent, "From me, Jeru­ salem, the Holy City, to you, Alexandria in Egypt: O my sister, my husband [Joshua] dwells in your midst, and I remain desolate" D. He arose and came back and found himself in a certain inn ( W§PYZ>). They paid him great respect. He said, "How beautiful is this *aksania? / " [ = inn or inn-keeper]. E. One of his disciples [MSS: Jesus] said to him, "Rabbi, her eyes are narrow" He replied, "Wicked person! Do you occupy yourself with such [a thought]?" He sounded four hundred horns [ = shofar-bl&sts] and excommunicat­ ed him. He came before him many times. C

84 JOSHUA —IV.ii.l JOSHUA J o s h u a b. Perahiah Alone

I Tannaitic Midrashim

ILi Mishnah

ILii Tosefta

IILi Tannaitic M a t e r i a l s in Palestinian Gemara

Tos. Maksh.

1. Alexandrian w h e a t unclean

IILii Tannaitic Materials i n Babylonian Gemara

b. S o t . 4 7 a b. S a n h . 1 0 7 b

3. H a r d t o r e l i n ­ quish h o n o r

b. M e n . 1 0 9 b

and Nittai the Arbelite

I Tannaitic Midrashim

ILi Mishnah

1. Ordinationcontroversy

M . Hag. 2 : 2

2. M o r a l sayings

M. A v o t 1:6-7

IILi Tannaitic M a t e r i a l s in Palestinian Gemara

ILii Tosefta

IV.ii Amoraic Materials in Babylonian Gemara

- IV.ii.l V ARN

VI Later

85

Compilations of Midrashim

3:4

2. J o s h u a d r o v e Jesus away

Joshua b. Perahiah

IV.i Amoraic Materials in Palestinian Gemara

He [Jesus] said, "Receive me." But he [Joshua] refused to take notice. F. One day while he [Joshua] was reciting the Shema , he [Jesus] came before him. He planned to receive him. He made a sign to him with his hand. He [Jesus] thought he [Joshua] was [again] repelling him. He went and set up a brick and worshipped it. G. He said to him, "Repent" H. He answered him, "Thus have I learned from you: Whoever sinned and caused others to sin is deprived of the power of doing penitence" I. A Master has said, "Jesuspractised magic and deceived and led Israel as­ tray?' (b. Sot. 47a, trans. A. Cohen, pp. 247-8 = b. Sanh. 107b, trans. H. Freedman, p. 736 n. 2) c

Comment: The above appears in the uncensored versions of the Babylonian Talmud. I followed the text in R. Rabbinovicz, Variae

IILii Tannaitic Materials i n Babylonian Gemara

(b. S a n h . 1 0 7 b )

IV.i Amoraic M a t e r i a l s in Palestinian Gemara

IV.ii Amoraic Materials in Babylonian Gemara

V ARN

VI Later Compilations of Midrashim

Lectiones in Mischnam et in Talmud Bahylonicum (Repr. N.Y., 1960), vol. XI, Sanhedrin, pp. 339-340, and revised the above-cited translation to conform to Rabbinovicz's text. The referent of part A is the beraita quoted above. That does not mean the narrative is necessarily later than the beraita, for it may be a literary convention to introduce further ex­ planatory matter by means of questions. Indeed, the beraita presupposes knowledge of some such story as this. Classified as a biographical narrative, the pericope is set in a collec­ tion of beraitot about accepting penitents, particularly with reference to Elisha and Gehazi. Then comes supplementary discussion about Gehazi. Finally, the editor reverts to the above narrative, beginning with part A. Part B must now be integral to what follows. Without it we have no knowledge of why Joshua went to Egypt, or on what basis Simeon called him back. The message in part C is in a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic, as is the rest of the story. Hebrew passages are in italics. They conform to the rule that discourse between master and disciple tends to be in Hebrew, narrative material in Aramaic. Parts D, E, F, G, and H are all a unity. No detail is superfluous; none could have been comprehensible out of context. No element in the dialogue echoes

86

JUDAH AND

S I M E O N — I.i.l

a pre-existing logion, except part I, obviously a subscription, an inde­ pendent logion now attached to the foregoing story because of its thematic relevance. Part I is apt to be the earliest element in the as­ semblage. (It is quoted verbatim by Justin Martyr, see W. A. Meeks, Prophet-King [Leiden, 1968] p. 56.) The story cannot in any form date before ca. 100 A.D., and may de­ rive from later times. Perhaps parts B and C circulated earlier and sepa­ rately, as part of a corpus of traditions on early Pharisees and their lives, or, in the case of part B, of famous communications between Pharisees. Sending Joshua to Alexandria probably served a purpose apart from bringing him back with Jesus; many MSS omit and Jesus in part B. We may therefore speculate that a pre-existing tradition about Joshua in Alexandria may have been revised to serve the purpose of the antiChristian polemic. Tos. Maksh. would represent an element of that tradition. In its current form, the story is smooth and probably the product of a single hand, perhaps working with elements earlier told for other purposes.

II. TRADITIONS OF JUDAH B. TABBAI AND SIMEON B. SHETAH

I.i.l.A. Once (KBR) Simeon b. Shetah sentenced to death [one false] witness [against whom an] alibi [had been established] ( D ZWMM). Judah b. Tabbai said to him, "May I [not] see consolation if you did not shed innocent blood, for the Torah said that you may sentence [a murderer] to death on the evidence of witnesses, and [also] you may sentence witnesses to death on the basis of an alibi. Just as there must be two witnesses giving evidence, so also must be two against whom an alibi is established." B. And once (WKBR) Judah b. Tabbai entered a ruin and found a slain man still writhing, and a sword still dripping blood [was] in [text: from] the hand of the slayer. Said Judah b. Tabbai to him, "May [evil] come upon me if [it be] not [true that] either I or you have killed him. However, what can I do, since the Torah has said, At the mouth of two witnesses ...shall a matter he established (Deut. 19:15)? But he who knows [all], [even] master of [the] thoughts [of man], will exact punishment of that man." Hardly had he come out [from that place] when a serpent bit him [that man], and he died. (Mekhilta Kaspa III, lines 31-41, ed. and trans. Lauterbach, III, pp. 170-1) C

JUDAH AND

S I M E O N — I.i.l

87

Comment: The pericope is a biographical account, illustrating a point of law. But the law is not enunciated here. In both instances the irony is underlined: even though the false witness and the murderer ought to be punished, the law will not permit it. I do not think the stories are in­ tended as a critique of the law, or that they derive from circles holding a contrary opinion of what the law ought to be. The setting is a commentary on E x . 23:6-12. No Tannaite tradents are mentioned in connection with the pericope. Immediately preceding comes this story (trans. Lauterbach, III, pp. 169-70): S u p p o s e t h e y see h i m p u r s u i n g his f e l l o w - m a n t o k i l l h i m w i t h a s w o r d in his h a n d . T h e y say t o h i m , " K n o w y o u t h a t t h e m a n y o u a r e after is a s o n o f t h e c o v e n a n t , a n d t h e T o r a h h a s said, Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed ( G e n . 9 : 6 ) ? " B u t h e says t o t h e m , "I k n o w a b o u t all t h a t . " T h e w i t n e s s e s t h e n l o s e s i g h t o f h i m . A f t e r a w h i l e , h o w e v e r , t h e y find t h e o n e w h o h a d b e e n p u r s u e d slain b u t still w r i t h i n g , a n d b l o o d d r i p p i n g f r o m t h e s w o r d in t h e h a n d o f t h e p u r s u e r . I m i g h t u n d e r s t a n d t h a t h e s h o u l d b e d e c l a r e d g u i l t y . B u t it says, A.nd the innocent and righteous slay thou not.

There follows "Once Simeon b. Shetah sentenced to death..." The two stories look suspiciously alike. What they have in common is, first, the stock phrase, slain but still writhing, and blood dripping from the hand of the pursuer. The point of both stories, second, is that the law contains anomalies; a murderer cannot always be punished, for circumstantial evidence is insufficient. But the first story stresses that the murderer was properly warned and acknowledged the warning, details absent from the Judah b. Tabbai-version. And the Judah-story adds the detail that the man actually was punished by Heaven, so one should not be disturbed at the inability of the earthly court always to carry out justice, since the heavenly court will take up the slack. It is clear that the stories are, if separate, interrelated. The Judah-story is more specific and con­ crete. Its conclusion is far more satisfactory. It looks as if the generalized version comes first and has been revised. The pericope clearly is composite. Part A stands separate from part B and bears little relation to it, other than the obvious thematic one. The criticism is Judah b. Tabbai's against Simeon b. Shetah. In all other versions the situation is reversed. We must therefore suppose either that a tradition favorable to Judah b. Tabbai circulated, part A, only to be revised by tradents favorable to Simeon b. Shetah, or the contrary. Because the roles are reversed, not only here but in discussions on which of the two men was nasi and which was head of the court, it is certain that someone has intentionally reversed the names. The Judahgroup's version of the anonymous story comes as part B. Simeon's version of the miscarriage of justice appears elsewhere, where Simeon tells Judah he has killed an innocent man, that is, Judah b. Ilai's version, not Meir's, and the one Judah the Patriarch accepted. Two separate traditions are now brought together:

JUDAH AND

S I M E O N — I.i.l

I. Miscarriage of justice II. Circumstantial evidence. Both schools preserved both stories. Judah b. Tabbai's circle gave the former (part A), as I said, as a criticism of Judah against Simeon, and presumably added Judah's name in part B in place of the anonymous version of II. Simeon b. Shetah's school gave the former (I) as Simeon's critique of Judah. Perhaps the story about circumstantial evidence in which no one is mentioned comes from them as well. To be sure, the anonymous story did not necessarily originate among Simeon's stu­ dents. Since the Judah-version came later, it may have had no connec­ tion at the outset to Simeon. But it surely would have been preserved by them instead of the Judah-version, so the end-result is not much changed. We do not have sufficient evidence on the history of Pharisaic circles, houses, or schools before Hillel to speculate on why or how these par­ ticular materials took shape. Perhaps the two masters did teach disci­ ples, and later on the materials were amalgamated in collected tradi­ tions of early Pharisees. In the amalgamation the stories of the respec­ tive disciple-circles were put together, so that in the end the two men were represented as having worked together, one as head of the court, the other as nasi. They were further represented as having headed a single, united party. But the representation required the preservation of the traditions of each circle, and we consequently have duplicated versions of the same "event." This theory presupposes that the stories are very early, despite the absence of the marks of oral transmission. If the stories come later on—after 70—then they would suggest that the names of Judah and Simeon proved important to Tannaitic authorities at Usha, therefore provoking partisan accounts of the early masters. We may take for granted that part B is of no historical use. Part A purports to describe a murder trial. The legal issue involved is rules of testimony affecting such a trial. This represents the first tradition attri­ buted by rabbis to early Pharisees in which something other than cultic rules of purity is at issue. The conduct of murder trials may well have been in the hands of the high priesthood, however, so we cannot regard part A as a tradition necessarily pertaining to other than Temple priests. But, as I said, it is thefirsttradition that does not necessarily derive from priestly or Temple circles. Still, the law which it contains is not enun­ ciated in the usual abstract form, but merely is taken for granted. Since the story in which the version of Judah b. Tabbai's school ap­ pears occurs only in the Ishmaelean collection, one must note that all the versions in which Simeon b. Shetah predominates derive from 'Aqiban collections. This fact would be of greater consequence, if, in the case of the former subordinated figures among the pairs, e.g. Yosi b. Yohanan, Nittai the Arbeb'te, we had similar evidence that stories favoring the lesser of the figures were preserved in Ishmaelean circles. We have no such stories, and we can say nothing about the Ishmaelean attitude toward heads of the court (in later parlance). All we can say is that the assignment of one of the pairs to be nasi and the other to be head of

JUDAH AND

S I M E O N — I.ii.l

89

c

the court is characteristic of 'Aqiban and post- Aqiban collections. The one point at which we observe the contrary—or a confusion of tradi­ tions—is in the sole Ishmaelean tradition. Perhaps the revision and cre­ ation of pre-70 history that took place in Yavneh and Usha involved some sort of partisan debate on the relative value of traditions deriving from various schools and circles. But most of the materials we have now come down to us in the form the 'Aqibans gave to them. I cannot think of what motive Aqibans would have had to downgrade Judah b. Tabbai-traditions in favor of Simeon b. Shetah ones. But it is a fact that they did so. In this regard Meir consistently espoused the Mekhiltan view of Judah b. Tabbai; Judah b. Ilai favored Simeon b. Shetah's circle's view of matters, so the revisions evidently derive from Usha. But they cannot be later than that. Note M. Makkot 1:6, Tos. Sanh. 6:6. c

I.ii.l. A. And I shall give you rains in their season—on the evenings of the Sabbaths [when people stay home]. B. The story is told concerning (M SH B) in the days of Simeon b. Shetah, in the days of Shelomsu [SLMSW] the queen, that the rains came down from one Sabbath evening to the next, until the wheat became like kidneys, the barley like olive-pits, and the lentils like golden denars. C. And the sages tied up some of them and set them aside for coming generations, to make known how much [loss, damage] sin causes, to fulfill that which is said (Jer. 5:25), Your iniquities have turned these away, and your sins have kept good from you. (Sifra Behuqotai Pereq 1:1, ed. Weiss, p. 110b) C

Comment: The context is a saying on rain. A story about rain in the days of Herod immediately precedes, and the two may have formed a single pericope even at the outset. The form is certainly similar. In both pericopae the named authorities serve only to provide a date for a mi­ raculous event. By this time, "in the days of Simeon b. Shetah" means simply, "in the good old days," or "a long time ago." Moreover, the reference to the sages is clearly an anachronism. In the time the peri­ cope was shaped, "the sages", not the priests or the government, were the people likely to take responsibility for preserving examples of the way things were in the golden past. Furthermore, the assumption that in Simeon's day, Israel was sinless and therefore enjoyed supernatural abundance could have been drawn only if no one knew, or cared about, other facts of that time. Further stories, not in this collection, tell of the persecution of sages, witchcraft in Ashqelon, and other sins; no one could have ignored those sins on the part of the Jewish regime and or­ dinary folk. So the story comes long after the 'event' and is pure fantasy. The date is duplicated: BYMY Simeon BYMY Shelomsu. It would have been sufficient to refer either to Simeon or to Salome, and was un-

90

JUDAH AND

S I M E O N — I.ii.2

necessary to mention both. Perhaps Simeon is a gloss, since the context has Salome and Herod. But I cannot think of the motive in originally including both sage and queen. Perhaps the story takes for granted other materials linking Simeon and the queen ("his sister"). The peri­ cope otherwise is a unity. No detail could have been left out or circu­ lated separately. The point of the story comes at the end, "to make known how much damage is done by sin," and hence the moral and accompanying proof-text are integral. The story bears no close rela­ tionship to the life and times of Simeon b. Shetah. On the other hand, since it looks back on his times as especially prosperous, we may imag­ ine it could have circulated in circles favorable to the Simeon-tradi­ tions. The omission of Judah b. Tabbai here as elsewhere is not unimpor­ tant. It would have been natural for a tradent influenced by lists of the pairs to say, "In the days of Simeon and Judah," rather than of "SimeonSalome." Under the circumstances it is a striking revision of what ought to have been the normal formula. Perhaps the story was redacted in circles in which Judah-traditions either were not favorably treated or were regarded as unimportant. Since the story cannot derive from the times of Simeon himself, and probably comes long after Herod's time, one may suggest that even as late as the second century a tendency within Pharisaism (Judah b. Ilai's?) persistently favored Simeon and excluded Judah b. Tabbai from consideration even in routine contexts. Alternatively, such a circle knew nothing of Simeon's alleged associa­ tion with Judah. But this alternative seems possible only if the lists of the pairs were not widely known or referred to, and that is unlikely. I.ii.2. A. And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree (Deut. 22:22). A man is to be hung, but a woman is not to be hung. B. R. Eliezer says, "Even a woman is to be hung. C. R. Eliezer said to them, "Did not Simeon b. Shetah hang women in Ashqelon?" They said to him, "He hung eighty women, and yet [the law is] one does not judge [even] two [capital] cases on one day, but the times necessitated teaching through exemplary punishment [and also as regards to hanging women]." (Sifre Deut. 221, ed. Friedman, p. 114b, Finkelstein, p. 253) Comment: This pericope supplies important evidence of the antiquity of the story of Simeon's hanging in Ashqelon. The story is not told, merely alluded to. In some form it therefore must have circulated before ca. 100 A.D. The elements of the story here attested are four: Ashqelon, hanging, women, and eighty. The fact that they were witches must come later; the magical side to Simeon's action is utterly absent. As it

JUDAH AND

91

S I M E O N — Il.i.l

stands, the above pericope shows that Simeon b. Shetah served to ex­ emplify proper legal procedure for sages of Yavneh (Eliezer b. Hyrcanus). No one doubted Simeon supplied a valid precedent, the only issue being, for what rule? The classification is a biographical reference to something Simeon had done. The context is clear as given. Part B has a standard lemma of Eliezer. Part C duplicates it and is joined to the foregoing by the de­ bate-form: the verb >MR is shifted into the past tense, ignoring the form of the immediately preceding lemma, and the exegesis of part A is treated as if "they" had "said" it to him—hence, theyjsages say is imag­ ined before "a man is..." The colloquy thus is artificial. We have no reason to believe it is a verbatim report of something once actually said in the school on a par­ ticular day. It rather is a formalized account of how Simeon's actions both served as a precedent and also were justified in Yavnean discourse. Eliezer's disciples cannot be held responsible for the pericope in its present form. They would not have left matters with a refutation of their teacher. Nor in its primitive form—e.g. omitting they said to him— could the school of Eliezer have played a part, for their formulation ought to have read, "Rabbi Eliezer says, Even a woman is to be hung— just as Simeon b. Shetah did." Without a contrary view, the precedent of the just as clause is superfluous. The whole therefore must derive from circles that held a view contrary to Eliezer's. In that case, the in­ trusion of the reference to Simeon's action serves not to illustrate Eliezer's sound precedent, but rather the opposite: Some might suppose Simeon supplies a precedent to the contrary of our opinion, but that is not the case. So Eliezer's saying (C) comes from the opposition! If we had a clearer idea as to the opposition to Eliezer—we cannot routinely supply the names of Joshua, Gamaliel, or Aqiba—we might have grounds for speculating on what circle or group referred to Simeon in this matter. But at best, as I said, we may merely offer a date for some elements of the Ashqelon tradition, no later than ca. 1 0 0 A.D. c

Il.i.l.A. They sound the shofar because of any public distress—may it never befall. But not because of too great abundance of rain. B. Once (M SH §) they said to Honi the Circlemaker, "Pray that rain may fall." He answered, "Go out and bring in the Passover ovens, that they not be softened." He prayed, but the rain did not fall. What did he do? [MS Kaufmann omits.] He drew a circle and stood within and said, "Lord of the world, your children have turned their faces to me, for I am like a son of [the] house before you. I swear by your great name that I will not stir hence until you have pity on your children." Rain began falling drop by drop. C

92

JUDAH AND

S I M E O N — II.i.2

He said, "Not for such rain have I prayed, but for rain [that will fill] the cisterns, pits, and caverns." It began to rain with violence. He said, "Not for such rain I prayed, but for rain of goodwill, blessing, and graciousness." Then it rained properly, until the Israelites went up from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount because of the rain. They [went to him and] said, "Just as you prayed for the rain to come, so pray that it may go away!" He replied, "Go and see if the Stone of the Strayers has disappeared." C. Simeon b. Shetah sent to him, "If you were not Honi, I should have pronounced a ban against you! [MS Kaufmann: You need to be excommunicated.] But what shall I do to you? You importune God [MS Kaufmann: Before the Omnipotent], and he performs your will, like a son that importunes his father and he performs his will, and of you Scripture says, Let thy father and thy mother be glad, and let her that bare thee rejoice (Prov. 23:25)." (M. Ta'anit 3:8, trans. Danby, p. 198) Comment: The classification of Simeon's saying is a famous apoph­ thegm, in which Simeon rebukes the miracle-worker. Clearly, part C is separate from, and plays no role whatever in, part B. The story of part B could well have ended with his reply. Simeon's rebuke circulated separately and probably was an independent pericope, but it was natural to add Simeon's opinion to this Honi-story. The criticism of miracle-workers is made by Yohanan b. Zakkai in much the same terms: The miracle-worker is close to God, but like a slave (Yohanan) or like a child (Simeon), and not in the way Pharisaism prefers. But this gives us no grounds for dating the logion attributed to Simeon. As it stands, part C, excluding the Scriptural proof-text, is not composite, but a unity of thought and style; nor do we have to suppose the Scripture was supplied later on. We have no clue as to the school or master responsible for the final formulation of the pericope. Judah the Patriarch provides merely the terminus ante quern.

II.L2.A. "A man is hanged with his face to the people, and a woman with her face towards the gallows," the words of R. Eliezer. But the sages say, "A man is hanged, but a woman is not hanged." B. R. Eliezer said, "Did not [MS Kaufmann: M'SH B] Simeon b. Shetah hang women in Ashqelon?" They said to him, "He hanged eighty women, while two ought not to be judged in the same day." (M. Sanh. 6:4, trans. Danby, p. 390)

JUDAH AND

S I M E O N — Il.ii.l, 2

93

Comment: See I.ii.2. But Eliezer's opinion now is developed and con­ cerns a detail of the hanging, while the sages' saying is unaltered; the sayings therefore do not match, while in Sifre they are in proper bal­ ance. M. Sanh. looks like a development of Sifre, presumably worked in because the antecedent rule on hanging is debated by the same parties. 11.11.1. They differed only on the laying of hands. "They are five pairs. The three of the first pairs who said not to lay on hands, and the two of the last pairs who said to lay on hands, were nasis. The second ones [mentioned] were heads of the court (ABWT BYT DYN)," the words of R. Meir. R. Judah said, "Simeon b. Shetah [was] nasi, Judah b. Tabbai [was] head of the court." R. Yosi said, "At first there was no dispute in Israel..." (Tos. Hag. 2:8, ed. Lieberman, p. 382-3, lines 40-44)" Comment: The above pericope supplies supplementary information for M. Hag. 2:2. Once again we find Meir and Judah [b. Ilai] dis­ puting about the early history of Pharisaism. The motive, if any, for at­ tributing to Simeon the position of nasi is unclear to me. I cannot under­ stand why either party to the argument could have had an ulterior mo­ tive in espousing one position rather than the other. But this makes matters all the more complex, for we have no ground to conjecture about what either master had in hand as a tradition from olden times. The pericope serves merely to supply a valid terminus ante quern for M. Hag. 2:2. The list in its current form could not have been shaped later than the middle of the second century; since Meir and Judah refer to it, it must have been shaped before their day. The Mishnah follows Meir's view, just as in the case of the red heifers. But Judah's predominates nearly everywhere else. As noted, Meir preserves the view that Judah b. Tabbai took prece­ dence over Simeon; that view would have approved the earliest version of the slaying of innocent parties, in which Judah criticizes Simeon's judicial error. The tradition is classified as a later biographical remark on Simeon and Judah. The setting is clear: Usha in the second half of the second century. In its present form the pericope gives no evidence of being a composite. 11.11.2. At first, when the marriage-contract was kept by the father, divorcing her was held lightly in his eyes. Simeon b. Shetah ordained that the marriage-contract be kept by her husband, and he writes to her, "All the property that I have is liable and pledged for [ the sum of] your marriage-contract" (Tos. Ket. 12:1, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 274, lines 3-5; Lieberman, p. 95, lines 1-4)

94

JUDAH AND

S I M E O N — II.ii.3

Comment: Lieberman calls the above an "intermediate version" of the decrees of Simeon; in this connection see synoptic studies. The sentence in italics is in Aramaic, the rest in Hebrew. The pericope contains no evidence permitting the suggestion of a date. Attributing to Simeon such an ordinance may have been a way of saying, "In very olden times." We have no idea how the later masters knew of Simeon's rule. But the present form—at first... R. So-and-so ordained...—is wellknown, having been used in the formulation of the Yohanan ben Zakkai's decree-materials. The form at first... ordained... makes no sense here. A report of a legal decree, the pericope is a unity. No logion is at­ tributed to Simeon, nor is the language of his decree preserved, except for the clause to be introduced into, and probably already known from, the marriage contract. We again observe the omission of Judah b. Tabbai. Presumably he ought to have played a role in issuing such a decree, but his name is consistently omitted in references to legal materials attributed to the person or times of Simeon b. Shetah.

II.ii.3.A. R. Judah b. Tabbai said, "May I [not] see consolation if I did not put to death a false witness, in order to uproot from the heart of the Boethusians [their false opinion]. For they would say, ' [The false witness is not put to death] unless the accused has [first] been put to death.'" B. Simeon b. Shetah said to him, "May I [not] see consolation if you have not shed innocent blood, for behold, the Torah said, At the testimony of two or three witnesses the accused will be put to death (Deut. 17:6)—Just as there must be two witnesses, so also the [two] false witnesses [cannot be punished unless] both [are punished]." C. At that moment Judah b. Tabbai took upon himself not to teach law except according to Simeon b. Shetah. (Tos. Sanh. 6:6, ed Zuckermandel, p. 424, lines 29-34 = Midrash Tannaim, ed. Hoffmann, p. 117.) Comment: We have the reverse of I.i.l. Judah made the error, Simeon corrected it. A polemical context now has been supplied. In his struggle with the Boethusians Judah went beyond the measure of the law. In I.i.l the Boethusians were not mentioned. The version naming them must come later than the one in which they are absent and the motiva­ tion for the false ruling is not explained. The conclusion, part C, now accords with the view that Simeon was the dominant figure. Judah agrees never again to rule on law except with Simeon's concurrence. In the version of Judah's circle no such detail is mentioned, and this too must have been supplied later on, as a fitting consequence of the judicial

JUDAH AND

S I M E O N — II.ii.4

95

miscarriage. That the above is later than Judah b. Tabbai's therefore is clear. The story of Judah's criticism of Simeon's judicial error has thus been turned into an explanation of how Judah subordinated himself to Simeon and therefore was head of the court, not nasi. Since in this form it is likely to be later than the version of I.i.l, perhaps Meir's tradition (if he had 2. tradition) would have antedated Judah b. Ilai's, and, ac­ cording to the earliest Pharisaic tradition, Judah b. Tabbai did originally serve as nasi (see conclusion, p. 141). But in later formulations of the facts, Judah is removed from office, Simeon put in his place. The traditions were revised, and an explanation supplied for Simeon's greater authority. We have no clear information on when such a revision of the facts took place, or what motivated it. It must come long after the time of Simeon and Judah, for no one aware of the historical realities would have believed an account which reversed them. It stands to reason that some sort of conflict about Simeon's and Judah's respective places in the Pharisaic hierarchy continued for some time. This could not pos­ sibly account for echoes of the dispute even two centuries later. We do not know what kept such a dispute alive, unless we postulate that the schools of the two masters continued in existence for a while; or, as I said, that the later Tannaim created the issue to begin with, perhaps as an expansion of disagreement about the text of the original chain before Meir and Judah b. Ilai. M. Makkot 1:6 omits Judah's and Simeon's dispute. II.ii.4. Simeon b. Shetah said, "May I [not] see consolation if I did not see a man running after his fellow with a sword in his hand. He entered before him into a ruin, and the other followed after him, and I [myself] entered after him. I found him slain, with a sword in the hand of the murderer, dripping blood. "I said to him, 'Wicked! Who killed this man? May I [not] see consolation if I do not see it [sic]. You and I—[one of us] killed him. But what shall I do to you? For your case is not given into my hands, for lo, the Torah has said, By the testimony of two witnesses or three will the accused man he put to death (Deut. 17:6). But the One who knows [all] thoughts will exact punishment from that man." He did not move from there before a serpent bit him, and he died. (Tos. Sanh. 8:3, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 427, lines 19-24 = Midrash Tannaim, ed. Hoffmann, p. 120) Comment: Now Simeon takes Judah's place. The Toseftan stories persistently give the Simeon-circle's view of things, that is, Judah b. Ilai's. Meir's is in the Mishnah, as one would expect. The setting is identical to the Mekhilta's: the generalized account followed by the later one specifying a hero.

96

JUDAH AND

SIMEON — IV.i.l

III.i.1.A. R. Jeremiah asked, "May one who ate [only] vegetables bless?"... B. TNY: Three hundred Na^irites came up [to Jerusalem] in the days of RSimeon b. Shetah. For one hundred fifty of them he found grounds for absolution, andfor one hundred fifty of them he did not find grounds for absolu­ tion. C. He came to Yannai the King. He said to him, "There are here three hundred Nazirites who require nine hundred offerings. But ('L') you give half from your [property], and I shall give half from mine." He sent him four hundred fifty [sacrifices]. An evil tongue [rumor] came and said to him, "He gave nothing of his own." D. Yannai the King heard and was angered. Simeon b. Shetah was frightened and fled. E. After [some] days important men came up from the Kingdom of Persia to Yannai the King. When they were sitting and eating, they said to him, "We recall that there was here a certain old man who said before us words of wisdom. Let him teach us something (<WBD>)." They said to him, "Send and bring him." F. He sent and gave him his word, and he came. He seated him [self] between the king and queen. G. He said to him, "Why did you deceive me?" He said to him, "I did not deceive you. You [gave] of your money and I [gave] of my light [Torah], as it is written (Qoh. 7: 12), For wisdom is a defense even as money is a defense" H. He said to him, "Why did you flee?" He said to him, "I heard that my lord was angry against me, and I wanted to carry out this Scripture, Hide yourself for a little moment, until the anger be past (Is. 26:20)." And he [Yannai] cited concerning him [the following Scripture]: The advantage of knowledge of wisdom will give life to those that possess it (Qoh. 7:12). I. He [Yannai] said to him, "And why did you sit down between the king and queen?" He [Simeon] said to him, "In the Book of Ben Sira it is written (Ben Sira 11:1), Esteem her, so she shall exalt you and seat you between princes." J . He [Yannai] said, "Give him the cup so that he may bless."

JUDAH AND

S I M E O N — III.i.1

97

He [Simeon] took the cup and said, "Let us bless the food which Yannai and his companions have eaten" He said to him, "Are you stubborn even to such an extent?" He said to him, "What shall we say, 'For the food which we have not eaten'?" He said, "Give him something to eat." They gave him, and he ate and said, "Let us bless the food which we have eaten" (y. Ber. 7:2, repr. Gilead, p. 53b-54a = y. Nazir 5:3, repr. Gilead p. 23b) Comment: The opening beraita, in rabbinic Hebrew (italics), does not merely summarize the rest or serve as a brief mnemonic device. It is the first sentence of the story. Yet the story is not told in the same language. What seems likely, therefore, is that the opening sentence has been translated into Hebrew for the purpose of setting the story into beraitaform (TNY), while the rest has been allowed to stand. The pericope provides a veritable repertoire, or massekhet, of Simeon/ Yannai stories. The setting is a discussion of rules of saying grace, hence the reference point is part J. R. Jeremiah supplies merely a terminus ante quern; we have no reason to suppose the pericope is not older than the fourth century A.D., when it was cited whole and complete. As to Simeon the Just, so to Simeon b. Shetah is attributed special interest in Nazirites. He inferentially is an important priest, but not high priest. The pericope is a biographical narrative. Its setting in late Amoraic times can, as I said, prove little about when it was first composed. I do not think R. Jeremiah or others invented it to serve the purpose of the argument. It now is cited as a well-known incident. The pericope obviously is composite. Thefirstpart (B-D) concerns the sage's ability to hoodwink the king. It ends with Simeon's escape. The second story, parts E-F, does not depend upon the content of the first. The fact that Simeon was not present, but was remembered by the distinguished visitors from abroad, would have been sufficient. The third element, part F, now quite ignores the earlier setting. It is a brief allusion to Simeon's role at court. He sat between the king and the queen. Then parts G, H, and I serve to explain the foregoing stories and bring them into relationship with one another. Simeon fled to avoid momentary wrath, and his wisdom served him well. He sat between the monarchs, because of his wisdom. His wisdom saved him money. In all three instances odd aspects of Simeon's behavior are traced back to his knowledge of Torah. I imagine that the details of his behavior survived for a time before the reasons were supplied by "his Torah." It seems to me likely that stories about Simeon indeed circulated separately, only later on to be brought together and supplied with this single explana­ tion. Then part J follows, a separate pericope tacked on to the foregoing collection. Simeon's cleverness made it necessary for the king to inN E U S N E R , The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70, I

7

JUDAH AND

S I M E O N — III.i.1

elude him in the royal meal, not merely to use him as a ritual expert. Underlying the whole is the standard Pharisaic polemic, spelled out in the Scriptural citations, that wisdom raises a person to the heights and secures for him both wealth and glory. The king is ignorant and easily fooled. Really, the sage should rule. Without that polemic the stories serve as disjointed echoes of a great Pharisaic master and his rela­ tionships to the throne—he cheated the king of his sacrifices, made a profound impression on foreign dignitaries, sat between the king and the queen, and said a blessing over the royal meal. I therefore suppose, as I said, that the stories originally circulated separately, and only later were brought together and given form and meaning. The hand of the editor is most clearly revealed in parts G, H, and I. Without that collo­ quy, the stories, though juxtaposed, would still have little if anything to do with one another. With it they are united and make a standard point. As to the historical facts, nothing in Josephus's account of Alexander Jannaeus prepares us for a picture of the king's cordial treatment of the Pharisaic leader. On the contrary, only when he died did he (allegedly) counsel reconciliation with the party. Before that time he struggled with them and slaughtered many of them, probably because he rightly thought they were traitors to the state and throne. It is difficult to isolate elements in the stories that exhibit a mnemonic pattern. Part D is balanced, two verbs for each clause, plus the names of the heroes. Perhaps you give half and I give half would have been a fixed phrase, though this is less clear. Along the same lines, the division of the three hundred into halves would have been simple, had the original oral lemma consisted of three hundred Na^irites, with the rest spelled out later on. I see nothing in part E of the same order. Parts G, H, and I center upon Scriptures, and the heart of the tradition may have con­ sisted of the association of those Scriptures with Simeon. Part J , by contrast, gives us severalfixedphrases, let us bless... which Yannai/which we have not I which we have... eaten. These all are clearly plays on let us bless the food which we have eaten, and it looks as though variations on that phrase lie at the foundation of the little fable. But apart from these brief lemmas and key words, the stories are fully articulated and exhibit no marks that they were transmitted in formulae or fixed forms. The Houses-materials exhibit a striking contrast, for the rigid adherence to a single form, the highly disciplined articulation of the form in terms of balanced phrases, syzygous predicates, and the like are absent here. If the Houses-materials provide a sound model for how mnemonic tra­ ditions were finally written down and developed, then the Simeonstories and many others considered in this part of our study must be regarded as having a quite different literary history. The tradents may have handed down various sorts of fables, as in the reference of Eliezer b. Hyrcanus to Simeon's hanging witches in Ashqelon, but the redac­ tors who developed those traditions had before them little more than a theme and perhaps a story-line, which they developed according to their own imagination of how things must have been. But the tradition in

JUDAH AND

S I M E O N — III.i.2, 3

99

this sort of material could not have consisted of carefully redacted forms, formulae, and lemmas. III.i.2. We learned there (TMN TNYNN): Simeon b. Shetah sent to him. He said to him, "You ought (SRYK) to be excommunicated, for if a decree were issued, as it was issued in the days of Elijah, would you not be found leading the public to the profanation of the name? For whoever leads the public to the profanation of the name requires excommunication." (y. M.Q. 3:1, repr. Gilead, p. 10b [See y. Ta. 3:10]) Comment: The referent of we learned there is y. Ta. 3:10. Immediately after Simeon's rebuke, ending with the citation of Prov. 23, in the gemara follows the above pericope, without the introduction TMN TNYNN. Otherwise it is identical. The recipient of Simeon's message thus can only be Honi. The setting is stories about messages sent by various sages to recal­ citrants. The connection is chiefly in theme, in small measure in form, for some begin if you were not, just as in M. Ta. 3:8. But if the rebuke to Honi circulated independently, the above is not evidence of that fact. It is not the message cited in the Mishnah at all, rather an extension of it, therefore a secondary development. The category is an attribution of a saying to Simeon in the context of the story about another figure entirely. Simeon in the full version is not the center of things at all. The reference to the days of Elijah derives from Honi's rainmaking. III.i.3.A. We have learned (>NN TNYNN): Judah b. Tabbai was nasi. Simeon b. Shetah was head of the court. Some teach it vice versa (>YT TNYY TNY WMHLP). He who says Judah b. Tabbai was nasi finds support in the incident of Alexandria. III.i.3.B.a. The men of Jerusalem wanted to appoint Judah b. Tabbai as nasi in Jerusalem. He fled and went to Alexandria. The men of Jerusalem would write, "From Jerusalem, the great, to Alexandria, the small: How long will my betrothed dwell with you, while I am widow ( GWMH) on his account?" b. He departed, coming in a boat. He said, "Do you remember what the mistress of the house who received us lacked?" One of his disciples said to him, "Rabbi, her eye was blinking." He said to him, "Lo, two [sins] are against you: one that you suspected me [of looking at her], and one that you looked at her. Did C

100

JUDAH AND

S I M E O N — III.i.3

I say that her appearance was handsome of sight ? I only said [handsome] in [her] deed[s]!" He was angry with him, and he went away. III.i.3.C. He who says Simeon b. Shetah was Nasi gains support in the incident of Ashqelon. a. There were two pious men (H$YDYN) in Ashqelon, who would eat in common, drink in common, and toil in the Light [study Torah] in common. One of them died, and he was not properly mourned [lit.: an act of mercy was not paid to him]. But when a villager [lit.: son of the town], a tax-collector, died, the whole town took time off to mourn him (GML H$D). That [remaining] pious man began to be troubled, saying, "Woe, for the enemies of Israel [ = Israel] have nothing!" He appeared to him in a dream and said to him, "Do not despise the sons of your Lord. This one did one sin, and the other one did one good deed, and it went well for him [so on earth, while I was being punished for my sin, he was rewarded for his good deed]." [The account now proceeds to specify what sin the pious man had done, and what good deed the tax-collector had done.] After [a few] days, that pious man saw his fellow walking in the midst of (GW) gardens, in the midst of orchards, in the midst of fountains of water. He saw the village tax-collector [with] his tongue hanging out by a river. He wanted to reach the water, and he [could] not reach [it]. b. He saw Miriam the daughter of LY BSLYM (?) [Jastrow: the leek-like sprouts of onions.] Rabbi Le'azar b. R. Yosa said, "[She was] hanging from the nipples of the breasts. " Rabbi Yosi b. Hanina said, "The pin of the gate of Gehenna was fastened to her ear." He said to them, "Why is this so?" They said to him, "Because she fasted and would publicize [her good deed]." Some say, "She would fast one day and claim she had fasted two days." c. He said to them, "How long will it be thus?" They said to him, "Until Simeon b. Shetah will come, and we shall remove it from her ear and set it in his ear." He said to him, "Why?" He said to him, "Because he said, If I am made Nasi, I shall kill C

JUDAH AND

S I M E O N — III.i.3

101

the witches, and lo, he has been made Nasi and has not killed the witches. Lo, there are eighty [female] witches in a cave of Ashqelon, doing destruction [to] the world. So go and tell him." He said to them, "I am afraid, for he is the Nasi and will not believe ^

n

99

me. He said to him, "If he believes you, well and good, but if not, do this as your sign before him. Put your hand on your eye and remove it and return it, and it will return." He went and reported to him the incident. He wanted to do the sign before him, but he would not allow him to do so. He [Simeon] said to him, " I know that you are a pious man. More than this are you able to do. Moreover, I did not say publicly [that I would uproot witchcraft], but only thought it in my heart." d. Forthwith Simeon b. Shetah arose in a severe rainstorm. He took with him eighty young men. He put in their hands eighty clean gar­ ments. He put them into new pots, and put on the(ir) covers [of the pots]. He said to them, "When I whistle once, put on your garments. When I whistle a second time, all of you come out at once. When you arise, let each one of you embrace one [of the witches] and raise her off the ground, for the practice of that witchcraft does not work if you raise [the witch] off the ground." He went and stood before the mouth of the cave. He said, "Hello, hello, CWYYM >WYYM) open to me, for I am one of yours." They said to him, "How did you come on such a day?" He said to them, "I walked between the rain-drops." They said to him, "And what did you come here to do?" He said to them, "To study and to teach. Let each one do something of wisdom." One of them said what she said and brought bread. One of them said what she said and brought meat. One of them said what she said and brought vegetables. One of them said what she said and brought wine. They said to him, "What can you do?" He said to them, "I can whistle twice and bring up for you eighty young men. They will have pleasure with you and give you pleasure." They said to him, "That is what we want." He whistled once, and they put on their garments. He whistled a second time, and they all came up at once. He said, "Whoever wants, let him choose his partner."

102

J U D A H A N D S I M E O N — III.i.3

They lifted them up and went and crucified them. e. This is what we have learned (TNYNN): The story is told concerning (M'SH B) Simeon b. Shetah that he hung women in Ashqelon. They say he hung eighty women. While one does notjudge two [capital cases] on the same day, the hour required it. (y. Hag. 2:2, repr. Gilead p. lla-b = y. Sanh. 6:6, repr. Gilead p. 28b-29a) Comment: The pericope before us unites several discrete stories, and these are composites of other stories. III.i.3.A is a rendition of the dis­ pute between Judah b. Ilai and Meir, but the names of the Tannaitic masters are dropped. That does not mean the pericope is earlier. In fact it is a quite different formulation of the Meir-Judah dispute. III.i.3.B is a composite of two stories. The first (a) is the account of Judah's flight to Alexandria. The second (b) has to do with the es­ trangement of his disciple, an echo of the story of Jesus and Joshua b. Perahiah. The italicized words in III.i.3.B.a are in Hebrew, and the probability is that this logion was the kernel of a story—but not this one! It is assigned to Joshua b. Perahiah as well (p. 83). III.i.3.B.b is an abbreviated version of the remainder of the Joshua-story. It is pointless without the details supplied there. Hence the whole Judah-pericope (b) comes later than, and depends upon, the Joshua-parallel. III.i.3.C is a strange and difficult pericope. Thefirstelement, III.i.3.C.a stands completely apart from the rest, and has been clumsily tacked on by combining the second dream of the pious man with a reference to Miriam. The long discussion, which I have not translated, of the sins of the pious man and the tax collector is a further augmentation of part a. Then comes another, and separate story. The pious man now fades out, having supplied the connection to the new material. Here the chief fig­ ure is Miriam, the meaning of whose father's name (if that is what is intended) escapes me. Here we have some evidence for a terminus ante quern, since Yosi b. Hanina was a Palestinian Amora of the middle third century and a disciple of Yohanan b. Nappaha. But the date pertains only to the Miriam-story. Then comes a clumsy transition, in which Simeon b. Shetah, formerly absent from both stories, is introduced. III.i.3.C.c still is not a unity. The pious man now returns and is told to warn Simeon that he is des­ tined for Gehenna. The pious man is given a sign to demonstrate to Simeon, but Simeon does not require it. The transition to Simeon ends here. Since Simeon is Nasi, the story presumably comes after Judah b. Ilai. Finally comes the story of Simeon's execution of the witches, III.i.3.C.d. The story certainly stands entirely by itself, tacked on to the foregoing but, intrinsically unrelated to it. It surely circulated alone. Here Simeon is represented as a master of witchcraft, which illustrates R. Yohanan b. Nappaha's rule that one could not be appointed to the Sanhedrin unless he was a master of magic. The story therefore con-

JUDAH AND

S I M E O N — III.i.4, III.ii.1

103

forms to the conceptions of Yohanan b. Nappaha and his circle. But it would be farfetched to suggest on that flimsy basis that Yohanan b. Nappaha's circle fabricated the story. The exchange with the witches in the older of the two versions, y. Hag., is surely a single, unitary account. The denouement is extremely brief, in fact too rapid. The concluding element, III.i.3.C.e, therefore "explains" the whole story, now in Hebrew. Without it, we should have no clear notion as to what has just now taken place or why. The likeli­ hood is, therefore, that the earliest element in the repertoire is III.i.3.C.e, that is, the version of the Sifre, with the rest following in stages. But the foregoing tale says nothing about hanging witches—so III.i.3.C.e is hardly an appropriate subscription! It has the eighty and Ashqelon, but lacks the element crucial here: witches. The whole pericope may be classified as a biographical narrative. The setting must be third-century Palestine. III.i.4. TNY: Forty years before the Temple was destroyed, [jurisdic­ tion over] capital crimes was removed [from Jewish courts in Palesti­ ne]. And in the days of Simeon b. Shetah [jurisdiction over] cases of property-litigation (DYNY MMWNWT) was removed (NTL). (y. Sanh. 1:1, repr. Gilead, p. lb) Comment: The setting of the pericope bears no relationship to its con­ tent. Immediately preceding is a saying of how R. Aqiba would open his court proceedings, then the above, followed by a saying of Simeon b. Yohai, then Samuel. The whole is simply an unconnected collection of sayings pertinent to the Mishnah. The pericope itself is of a familiar sort: in the days of Simeon such-andso happened. As in I.ii.l Simeon figures as an ancient hero. It is a curious tradition. The Tannaim had substantial materials on the judgment of dyny mmwnwt in Temple times, e.g. M. Ket. 13:1-2, to mention just one among many sayings and case-reports. Certainly, no one maintained Pharisaic courts had lost the right to judge property cases. Nor is there a tradition that the days of Simeon were so evil a period as the forty years before the destruction. So both the meaning and intent of the pericope are unclear to me. c

III.ii.1.A. DTNN: Simeon b. Shetah sent to Honi the Circler, "You need to be excommunicated, and if you were not Honi, I should decree excommunication against you, but what shall I do? For you appease the Omnipresent, and he does your will, like a son who ap­ peases his father, and he does his will, and concerning you Scripture says, Your father and mother will rejoice, and she who bore you will be joyful (Prov. 23:25)." B. R. Joseph learned (TNY): Thaddeus of Rome accustomed the

104

JUDAH AND

S I M E O N — III.ii.2

Romans to eat kids roasted whole on the eve of Passover. Simeon b. Shetah sent to him and said, "Were you not Thaddeus, I should decree excommunication against you, because you make Israel eat holy things outside the precincts [of the Temple]." (b. Ber. 19a) In y. M.Q. 3:1 the passage is as follows: TNY: R. Yosi said, "Thaddeus of Rome... Passover" [as above]. The sages sent to him, "Were you not Thaddeus, we should decree excommunication against you." Apparently R. Joseph's tradition has been contaminated by the fore­ going pericope about Simeon b. Shetah, presumably because of the were you not formula. On the other hand, it is possible that Joseph's tra­ dition is simply a late version of that in y. M.Q. 3:1, in which now are supplied not only the name of Simeon b. Shetah, but also the reason for his condemning Thaddeus's action. The earlier pericope clearly refers to M. Ta. 3:8 (b. Ta. 19a) and here has been cited separately. It would not support my contention that Simeon's message to Honi was not integral to the earlier story. Here we are not told what Honi had done to warrant Simeon's rebuke; there we are told what Honi did, but Simeon's rebuke is not integral to the story. But the point is obvious, since the intent is merely to refer to the Mishnah. The setting is a list of decrees of excommunication on account of in­ sults to teachers. Joshua b. Levi states that twenty-four such incidents are mentioned in the Mishnah. That does not help us to investigate the background of the pericope, for Joshua simply refers to existing ma­ terials. The Mishnah remains the terminus ante quern for the pericopae, both separately and together. Comment:

III.ii.2. TNY": Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem decreed uncleanness on the land of the peoples and on glassware. Simeon b. Shetah ordained the marriage-contract for the wife and decreed uncleanness on metalware. Shammai and Hillel decreed uncleanness on hands. b. Shab. 14b (also cited in b. Shab. 15a) Comment: The chain of tradition, which we have seen earlier, here in­ cludes one of the ordinances (TQNWT) of Simeon, and a decree (GZRH) as well. It suffices to note that the beraita does not explain what Simeon had done about the marriage-contract and omits reference to establishing schools for children's education. As to the former, other traditions supply a full account of Simeon's ordinance, as well as the reasons for it. The list is abbreviated and for all practical purposes serves simply as a summary or set of brief allusions.

JUDAH AND

S I M E O N — III.ii.3

105

III.ii.3.A. TNW RBNN: "Three of the first pairs who said not to lay on hands, and two of the last pairs who said to lay on hands were nasis, and those second to them were heads of the court," the words of R. Meir. The sages say, "Judah b. Tabbai was head of the court, and Simeon b. Shetah was nasi" Who is the Tannaitic authority for the following teaching of the rabbis (DTNW RBNN): (b. Hag. 16b) B. Rabbi Judah b. Tabbai said, "May I [not] see consolation if I did not kill a false witness, to remove from the heart of the Sadducees [a false opinion], for they would say false witnesses are not put to death unless the accused has been executed." Simeon b. Shetah said to him, "May I [not] see consolation if you have not shed innocent blood, for lo, the sages have said false witnesses are not put to death until both of them are proved perj urers (Z WMM YM), nor are they flagellated until both are proved perjurers, nor are they fined [Lit.: do they pay money] until both are proved perjurers." Forthwith Judah b. Tabbai undertook never to teach law except in the presence of Simeon b. Shetah. C. All the [remaining] days of Judah b. Tabbai he would prostrate himself on the grave of the slain man, and his voice would be heard [from afar]. The people thought it was the voice of the slain man. He said to them, "It is my voice. You will know this on the morrow when he [I] dies, and his [my] voice is no longer heard." (b. Hag. 16b = b. Mak. 5b = y. Sanh. 6:3, repr. Gilead p. 28a) Comment: Variations in the several versions will be listed in the syn­ optic comparison below. The sages replace Judah in part A. The legal problem is now the pun­ ishment, not the number, of false witnesses. Only after the decree of the court has been carried out are the perjurers liable. In b. Hag. 16b the above serves as a comment on M. Hag. 2:2. Noth­ ing intervenes, and the attribution of the beraita reveals no Amoraic in­ fluence. Part B follows in b. Hag. 16b, and recurs in b. Mak. 5b and y. Sanh. 6:3. But b. Mak. 5b and y. Sanh. 6:3 omit part A. In b. Mak. 5b, part B illustrates a discussion of perjured witnesses and their punishment. The discussion both before and afterward is anonymous. Immediately following in both b. Mak. and b. Hag., R. Aha b. Rava comments to R. Ashi about the content of the beraita, but

106

JUDAH AND

S I M E O N — III.ii.4, 5

the story clearly is at least two centuries older. Part B is cited in b. Hag. as an existing beraita, which certainly circulated separately from part A, as we have already seen. In b. Hag., immediately following the whole pericope is a new Mishnah. There is no further Amoraic discussion, apart from the remark of R. Aha mentioned above. Part C is the latest development, a usual addition in the beraita-stt&tum. III.ii.4. ...We find that in the days of Simeon b. Shetah the rains came down for them on the eve of Wednesdays and Sabbaths until the wheat came up like kidneys, the barley like olive pits, and lentils like gold denars. They tied some of them together as an example (DWGM>) for the [future] generations, to teach how much [damage] sin causes, as it is said, Your sins have caused these things, andjour trans­ gressions have withheld the good (Jer. 5:25). So too we find in connection with Herod when they were engaged in the building of the holy house that rains would come [etc.]. (b. Ta'anit 23a) Comment: The context is an exegesis of Lev. 26:4, about rain "in its season." It is here part of a beraita. No authorities are mentioned. The whole is an anonymous narrative. Shelomsu is dropped. See I.ii.l.

IILii.5.A. Rav Judah said, "At first they would write for the virgin two hundred [zu%] and for the widow a maneh [one hundred], so [men] would grow old and not take wives, until Simeon b. Shetah came and ordained 'All his property is liable [for the payment of] her marriage-contract.' " B. It was likewise taught in a beraita (TNY ): At first they would write for the virgin two hundred i^ K) d f ° the widow a maneh, and they would grow old and not take wives. They decreed that they should leave it in the house of her father. But still, when he grew angry against her, he would say to her, "Go to your marriage-contract." They ordained that they should leave it in her father's house. But still, when he grew angry at her, he would say to her, "Go to your marriage-contract." They ordained that they should leave it in her father-in-law's house. The rich girls would make it into baskets of silver and gold, and the poor ones would make it of mud and urine. But still, when he would grow angry against her, he would say to her, "Take your marriage-contract and go." Then ( = until, T) S) Simeon b. Shetah came and decreed that he J

u

a n

r

JUDAH AND

S I M E O N — III.ii.6

107

should write to her, "All my property is liable [for the payment of] her marriage-contract." (b. Ket. 82b) Comment: Rav Judah's tradition is not the same as the beraita, for it omits the intermediate stages leading to Simeon's decree. For our pur­ poses, however, Rav Judah provides a terminus ante quern for the tradi­ tion about Simeon, for the language of Rav Judah and that of the beraita are nearly identical: Judah: Beraita:

U n t i l S i m e o n b . S h e t a h c a m e a n d o r d a i n e d , A l l h i s p r o p e r t y is liable for her marriage-contract. U n t i l S i m e o n b . S h e t a h c a m e a n d o r d a i n e d that he should write to her, A l l my p r o p e r t y is l i a b l e f o r her [sic] m a r r i a g e - c o n t r a c t .

The major difference therefore is that the beraita presents Simeon's ordi­ nance in the form of a clause in the marriage-contract itself. The beraita further shifts the whole into direct discourse, but fails to do a complete job of it, leaving her instead of the expected your. To be sure, the state of MS evidence is insufficient to build much of a case on any given reading, and MSS variants are not available to me. Tos. Ket. 12:1 reads jour, but there are sufficient differences so that we certainly cannot maintain the beraita is a copy, imperfect to be sure, of the Toseftan ver­ sion. Simeon again serves as a convenient name on which to hang a change in the marriage-contract, believed to have taken place long ago. The language, nonetheless, is a direct attribution: he ordained that one should do so-and-so. Hence the pericope should be classified as a legal saying, not as biographical narrative. The context is supplied by the saying of Rav Judah, in late third-century Pumbedita. The Simeon-part of the pericope is a unified narrative; what is important for our purpose is that Simeon's saying is a brief lemma. The legal problems are of no interest here. See David Weiss Halivni, Meqorot, pp. 225-6, for a valuable analysis. III.ii.6.A. Abbaye said, "How do I know it [re the silence of a husband in a case in which the wife is charged with committing adultery by one witness only, that the husband must divorce the wife if he remains silent] ?" B. DTNY>: The story is told that (M<SH B) Yannai the King went to Kohalit in the wilderness and there conquered sixty towns. When he returned, he rejoiced greatly, and invited (QR*) all the sages of Israel. He said to them, "Our forefathers would eat salt fish when they were engaged in the building of the Holy House. Let us also eat salt fish as a memorial to our forefathers." So they brought up salt fish on golden tables, and they ate.

108

JUDAH AND

S I M E O N — III.ii.6

C. There was there a certain scoffer, evil-hearted and empty headed, and Eleazar ben Po'irah was his name. Eleazar b. Po'irah said to Yannai the king, "O King Yannai, the hearts of the Pharisees are [set] against you." "What shall I do?" "Test (HQM) them by the plate (SYS) that is between your eyes." He tested them by the plate that was between his eyes. D. There was there a certain sage, and Judah b. Gedidiah was his name. Judah b. Gedidiah said to Yannai the King, "O King Yannai, Let suffice for you the crown of sovereignty [kingship]. Leave the crown of the [high] priesthood for the seed of Aaron." For people said that his [Yannai's] mother had been taken captive in Modi im. The charge was investigated and not found [sustained]. The sages of Israel departed in anger. E. Eleazar b. Po'irah then said to Yannai the king, "O King Yannai, That is the law [not here specified as the punishment inflicted on Judah] even for the ordinary folk in Israel. But you are king and high priest— should that be your law too?" "What should I do?" "If you take my advice, you will trample them down." "But what will become of the Torah?" "Lo, it is rolled up and lying in the corner. Whoever wants to learn, let him come and learn." (R. Nahman b. Isaac said, "Forthwith Epicureanism [>PYQWR$WT] was instilled in him [Yannai], for he should have said, 'That is well and good for the Written Torah, but what will become of the Oral Torah? ") F. The evil blossomed through Eleazar b. Po'irah. All the sages of Israel were killed. The world was desolate until Simeon b. Shetah came and restored the Torah to its place. (b. Qid. 66a) c

9

Comment: The italicized words are in Aramaic, the rest in Hebrew. Simeon's place in the pericope is certainly peripheral. It is as if a wellknown event is referred to at the end: Simeon b. Shetah made peace be­ tween the Pharisees and Yannai (or he overcame Yannai). But we do not know what actually is attributed to Simeon, for what he said or did is left unexplained. A persistent tradition on a falling out between the Pharisees and Alexander Jannaeus evidently circulated in later times. One form of that tradition placed the origin of the whole difficulty at the feet of Simeon b. Shetah himself, holding that the king believed he had been

J U D A H A N D S I M E O N — III.ii.7, 8

109

cheated; therefore Simeon fled for a time but later on returned. A se­ cond, and different, set of traditions, of which the above is one exemplum, held that difficulties between Yannai and the Pharisees ("rabbis") as a group led to the flight of many of them, including Judah b. Tabbai and/or Joshua b. Perahiah to Alexandria. Simeon managed to patch things up—we do not know how—and therefore summoned the refu­ gees to return. But the two traditions cannot be reconciled or trans­ lated into historical language, nor can we profitably speculate on what 'kernel' of historical truth underlay either or both of them. All we do know is that Simeon b. Shetah was believed to have played a role in either the difficulty, or the reconciliation, or both. We may classify the brief reference at the end with similar materials in which Simeon supplies either a date (in the days of) or the name of an honored ancient authority to whom to attribute a hoary law (marriagecontract ordinance: until Simeon came and ordained). In fact Simeon has no part at all in the story and is not mentioned until the very end. Whatever important role he played either in the party or at court did not suffice to give him influence over the course of events. This cannot be regarded as a biographical narrative. His role here in providing a date for the end of the persecution is not much different from his place in the story of how much it had rained "in the good old days." Abbaye supplies the setting for the citation—fourth-century Pum­ bedita. Josephus's version is given below, pp. 173-176. 111.11.7. TNY': Rabbi Simeon b. Shetah said, "May I [not] see consolation, if I did not see a man who ran after his fellow into a ruin, and I ran after him, and I saw a sword in his hand, and his blood was dripping, and the slain man was writhing. "I said to him, 'Wicked! Who killed this man? Either I or you ! But what shall I do, for your blood is not given into my hands, for lo, the Torah has said, At the testimony of two witnesses will the condemned he put to death (Deut. 17:6). He who knows thoughts will exact vengeance from that man who slew his fellow.'" They say they did not move from there before a serpent came and bit him and he died. (b. Sanh. 37b = b. Shav. 34a = y. Sanh. 4 : 9, repr. Gilead, p. 23b) Comment:

See I.i.l.

111.11.8. TNY*: R. Judah b. Dosetai says in the name of R. Simeon b. Shetah, "If a fugitive from Palestine fled abroad, his sentence is not set aside; if from abroad to Palestine, his sentence is set aside, on account of Palestine's prerogative." (b. Mak. 7a)

110

JUDAH AND

SIMEON — IV.i.1,2

Comment: Tos. Sanh. 3:11 omits reference to Simeon, as do many MSS of the above. I cannot explain why some MSS would have attrib­ uted the saying to Simeon.

IV.i.l. R. Ze'ira bar Abuna in the name of R. Jeremiah, "Yosef b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem decreed uncleanness on the land of the peoples and on glassware." Rabbi Yonah said, "R. Judah b. Tabbai." R. Yosi said, "R. Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah decreed uncleanness on metalware. "Hillel and Shammai decreed concerning the purity of hands." (y. Shab. 1:4, repr. Gilead p. 11a = y. Pes. 1:6, repr. Gilead p. 6b) Comment: In III.ii.2, b. Shab. 14b, the decree is credited to Simeon alone. For further comment, see synoptic studies. The classification is a form of the chain of tradition. The context is fourth-century Palestin­ ian Amoraic, but the tradition must be considerably earlier than R. Jeremiah.

IV.i.2.A. Simeon b. Shetah ordained three things: (1) That a man may do business with the marriage-contract of his wife; (2) and that children should go to school; (3) and he ordained uncleanness (TWM'H) for glassware. B. Did not R. Ze'ira, R. Abuna say in the name of R. Jeremiah, "Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem decreed uncleanness on the land of the peoples and on glassware." R. Yosi in the name of R. Judah b. Tabbai [sic]. R. Yonah said, "Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah decreed concerning metalware, and Hillel and Shammai decreed concerning the purity of hands." (y. Ket. 8:11, repr. Gilead p. 50b) Comment: The list of Simeon's decrees now is challenged, for, as we observed, the decree on metalware was credited to both Simeon and Judah b. Tabbai. Clearly, the tradition was in a state of confusion. Yet the basis for the confusion here lies before us: The desire to list the decrees or ordinances of Simeon alone. Since no one disputed that Simeon had a role in the third item on the list, it was included to his credit. Immediately following, therefore, comes the inquiry as to why Judah has been omitted. The inquiry is identical to R. Yosi's saying in y. Shab. 1:4 = y. Pes. 1:6, but with this difference: there R. Yonah is represented as saying "Judah b. Tabbai." If the text is an accurate rep-

J U D A H A N D S I M E O N — IV.i.3, 4

111

resentation of the tradition attributed to him, then we may suppose he went on to say that Judah b. Tabbai comes next on the list, and is cred­ ited with a decree on glassware. Then R. Yosi corrected the tradition by saying both ancients were responsible. Here, by contrast, R. Yosi's say­ ing recurs, but R. Yonah is cited. Perhaps the text or tradition before us is garbled. Part A is classified as a record of Simeon's legal ordinances. The con­ text in y. Ket. 8:11 is a discussion of the language of the marriage-con­ tract. The antecedent materials are similar to those in the Babylonian version. No authorities are mentioned; the whole probably is of Tan­ naitic origin. As to the list in part A, we may be certain that no. 3 is borrowed from other versions, for we have seen the formulation in precisely this language in b. Shab. 14b. The reference to the schools is unique. It ac­ tually belongs to Joshua b. Gamala. The content of no. 1 is not what we should have expected on the basis of earlier formulations. Indeed, this is not what Simeon ordained at all. At best it may be a separate tra­ dition, at worst a garbled summary. The list is a composite; we do not know who compiled it, but he could not have known either the beraita or Rav Judah's saying in b. Ket. 82a. IV.i.3. The hands of Simeon b. Shetah were heated [Jastrow, I, p. 476: "He was very severe in executing judgment."] A conspiracy of scoffers came, saying, "Take counsel. Let us testify against his son and kill him." They gave testimony against him, and his judgment was entered, to be put to death. When he went forth to be executed, they said to him, "My lord, we are liars." His father wanted to bring him back. He said to him, "Father, if you seek to bring salvation by your hand, make me as the threshold" [Jastrow: "Make me the threshold for the Law to pass over me"]. (y. Sanh. 6:3, repr. Gilead p. 28a) Comment:

See III.i.3, to which the above is a curious supplement.

IV.i.4. Simeon b. Shetah was employed in flax [to support himself]. His disciples said to him, "Rabbi, remove [this work] from yourself, and we shall buy for you an ass, and you will not have to work so much." They went and brought him an ass from a Saracen. Hanging on it was a pearl. They came to him and told him, "From now on you do not have to work any more."

112

J U D A H A N D SIMEON — IV.ii.l

He said to them, "Why?" They told him, "We bought you an ass from a Saracen, and hanging on it was a pearl." He said to them, "Did its master know about i t ? " They said to him, "No." He said to them, "Go, return it." (y. B.M. 2:5, repr. Gilead p. 8a) Comment: This biographical fable is told anonymously. A legal teach­ ing is cited as having been stated before Judah the Patriarch, but the narrator, or editor, who proceeds to explain Simeon's action, is never named, and can only be dated some time after 200 A.D. We have no clear idea as to how much later the story was told. It bears no relation­ ship to any other story about Simeon, who is normally represented as a courtier of Yannai, or a priest, or a judge, but never as a common labor­ er. Hence we must regard the story as late and unrelated to living tradi­ tions (if any) about Simeon's life and and work. The story as it stands certainly is a unity, as one would expect in a late, fictional narrative.

IV.ii.l.A. Yannai the King and the queen ate bread together, and, since he had killed the rabbis, there was no man [able] to bless in their behalf. B. He said to his wife, "Who will give us a man to bless for us?" She said to him, "Take an oath to me that if I bring you a man, you will not torment him." He vowed. She brought him Simeon b. Shetah, her brother. C. She sat him down between him and her. He said to him, "Do you see how much honor I pay you." He said to him, "It is not you who honors me, but the Torah that honors me, as it is written, £fcr way will liftyou up andhonoryou whenyou embrace her (Prov. 4:8)." He said to her, "Do you see that he does not accept authority (MRWT)." D. They gave him the cup to bless. He said, "How shall I bless? 'Blessed is he of whose [gift] Yannai and his companions have eaten*}" He drank that cup. They gave him another, and he blessed [it]. (b. Ber. 48a) Comment: The italicized portion is in Hebrew, the rest in Aramaic. Here an element of the pericope about the three hundred Nazirites, III.i.1, stands entirely by itself.

JUDAH AND

S I M E O N — IV.ii.2

113

A little gloss makes "the queen" into his sister, a singleton, but taken for granted by b. Sot. 47a. Clearly, so far as the redactor is concerned, no reference to any other elements in the former pericope is intended or required, for Simeon's absence is explained on other grounds in the introductory clause, part A. But part C is not integral to the story, which could as well have gone directly from part B to part D. The con­ cluding clause of part C in fact is borrowed from other accounts. Here it does not fit into the narrator's purpose. It is not only superfluous, but contradicts the spirit of the account. At this point Yannai ought to have accepted Simeon's explanation, rather than rejecting it. The reference to the "companions" is similarly unexplained. It would in this context have been sufficient for the blessing to be, "Yannai has eaten." Hence the whole pericope is based upon the earlier materials, artificially separated by the redactor from them for the present pur­ pose. The context is a discussion of whether one may bless if he has not eaten with the others present. Immediately following is a comment by R. Abba b. R. Hiyya b. Abba, that Simeon still erred, for he had not eaten anything, merely drunk a cup of wine. But the narrator clearly thought the story proved that very point, and it is so understood in Palestinian Talmudic contexts. What has happened is that in the inclu­ sion of the story for the Babylonian editor's purpose, the story has been revised, but its original point has also been missed, presumably because Babylonian law on this question differed from the Palestinian view. This is made explicit in the end: R. Hana b. Judah said in Rava's name, "The law is that if he ate with them a vegetable leaf and drank a cup of wine, he can be combined [for the purposes of saying grace]. But he cannot say Grace on behalf of others until he eats with them the quantity of an olive of grain-food." The classification is a biographical narrative told to illustrate a point of law. The setting is late fourth-century Babylonia. The story certainly derives from earlier sources, which we have already reviewed (y. Ber. 7:2, y. Naz. 5:3). It is revised and reduced from its former version, but the elements actually given are not much different. The revision must have taken place in a Babylonian school. IV.ii.2. [The passage is an extended account of Honi's rain prayer, as in the Mishnah.] Thereupon Simeon b. Shetah sent to him, "Were you not Honi, I should have placed you under the ban, for were the years like the years of Elijah, in whose hands were the keys of rain, would not the name of Heaven be profaned through you? But what shall I do to you, for you act petulantly before the Omnipresent, and he grants your desire, as a son who acts petulantly before his father, and he grants his desires. Thus he says to him, 'Father, take me to bathe in warm water, wash me in cold water, give me nuts, almonds, peaches, and

114

JUDAH AND

S I M E O N — IV.ii.3, 4

pomegranates/ and he gives them to him. Of you Scripture says, Let thy father and thy mother be glad... (Prov. 23:25)." (b. Ta. 23a, trans, J . Rabbinowitz, p. 117) Comment: See Il.i.l, M. Ta. 3:8, and III.i.2. The Palestinian version obviously has been expanded here. Note Epstein, Mevo*ot, p. 692. IV.ii.3. What was the incident with R. Joshua b. Perahiah? When Yannai the King put the rabbis to death, Simeon b. Shetah was hidden by his sister, while R. Joshua b. Perahiah fled to Alexan­ dria in Egypt. When there was peace, Simeon b. Shetah sent, "From me, Jerusalem, the Holy City, to you, Alexandria in Egypt, O my sister, my husband dwells in your midst and I abide desolate." R. Joshua arose and came back...[etc]. (b. Sot. 47a) Comment: Judah b. Tabbai of y. Hag. 2:2B and y. Sanh. 6:6B has be­ come Joshua b. Perahiah. We have already reviewed the entire pericope above, pp. 83, 99. Here our interest is in Simeon's role. We are not told who the sister was, but since the narrator thought it important, she is presumably the queen of b. Ber. 48a. The reason for Yannai's slaughter of the sages is not given. Simeon plays no role in earlier events. Afterward, because he is available in Jerusalem, he is merely able to summon the surviving "rabbis" to re­ turn. IV.ii.4.A. Why are not kings of Israel judged or permitted to judge? B. Because of an incident that took place in connection with (M SH SHYH D) the slave of Yannai the King. He killed someone. Simeon b. Shetah said to the sages, "Setyour eyes against him, and let usjudge him" They sent [word] to him, "Your slave has killed someone." He sent him [the slave] to them [the sages, for judgment]. They sent [word] to him, "You come too, for the Torah says, If warning has been given to its owners (Ex. 21:29). Let the owner of the ox come and stand by his ox." He [the King] came and sat down. Simeon b. Shetah said to him, "King Yannai, stand on your feet, so they [witnesses] may give testimony against you, and not before us [onlyJ do you arise, but before Him-Who-Spoke-and-the-World-Came-into-Being do you arise, as it is said, Then both the men between whom the controversy is shall standout. 19:17)." C

JUDAH AND

S I M E O N — IV.ii.5

115

He said to him, "Not asyou say, but asyour comrades say [shall I act]." He looked to the right, and they looked down at the ground. He looked to his left, and they looked down at the ground. Simeon b. Shetah said to them, " You are wrapped in thoughts (B LY MH$BWT). Let the Master of thoughts come and exact vengeance from you" Forthwith, Gabriel came and smote them to the ground, and they died. C. At that moment they said, "The King neitherjudges nor isjudged, neither gives testimony, nor is he the object of testimony" (b. Sanh. 19a-b) C

Comment: The italicized passages are in Hebrew, the rest in Aramaic. Here the slaughter of the sages is attributed to an angel of God, as an act of punishment for their supine behavior toward Yannai. Simeon is not victim, but cause of the punishment. And the king plays a creditable role. He obeys the sages and carries out their orders. But because of their own failure to carry out the law, Gabriel kills them, and the king goes free. Consequently the ruling is made that the king (= the state) is not summoned to a rabbinical court. The pericope is a singleton. It is given anonymously, not attributed to Tannaitic tradents. Before the passage come comments pertaining to the Mishnah, but not to this story, made by R. Joseph and Resh Laqish, and then, "But why this prohibition of the kings of Israel? Because of an incident..." The introductory matter does not involve named authori­ ties. It is a unity; no element could have been comprehended by itself, and none is superfluous to the story as it stands. The language is not con­ sistent; it starts in Aramaic and ends in beraita-Hebrew. But the nar­ rative is smooth. We have no basis on which to estimate when it would have been composed. Since it stands in no relationship to earlier ma­ terials, however, a prima facie assumption may be made that it is not part of whatever developing traditions existed concerning Simeon. It reveals no signs of mnemonic materials or patterns. The polemic is clearly against sages who fail to stand up to authority. The authority here is the "king," but in later times it could as well have been the patriarch or exilarch. But that will not permit us to assign to the storyteller such a motive. Josephus, Antiquities 14:168-184, has a roughly similar story, in which Samaias speaks against Herod before Hyrcanus. Epstein, Mevo*ot, p. 55, therefore turns Yannai here into Herod and says the law of part C is Simeon b. Shetah's! Others have identified Samaias with Shammai or Shema iah. c

IV.ii.5. [R. Hisda and R. Adda b. Ahava comment on Simeon's actions in Ashqelon.] (b. Sanh. 46a) Comment: See y. Hag. 2:2C. The Mishnah here includes Eliezer's

116

JUDAH AND

S I M E O N — IV.ii.6, V l . i . l

reference to Simeon's hanging women. Hisda's statement is revised in the light of that event. IV.ii.6. [Reference to] "the wheat grains of Simeon b. Shetah" [as particularly large.] (b. Hul. 119b) Comment: In the context of a discussion involving R. Aha b. Rava, the above appears as a proverbial expression denoting very large wheat, with reference to the story cited above, b. Ta anit 23a. c

Vl.i.l.A. R. Jeremiah asked, "Can Grace be recited in common including one who dined on vegetables?" B. Three hundred Nazirites came up in the days of Simeon b. Shetah. For one hundred fifty of them he found grounds for absolu­ tion, and for one hundred fifty of them he did not find grounds for absolution. He went up to Yannai the King. He said to him, "Three hundred Nazirites have come up, and they require nine hundred offerings. You give them half, and I half." Yannai gave them half. An evil tongue went forth and said, "Simeon gave nothing." He heard and fled. C. After some days, Persian dignitaries were eating at the table of Yannai the King. They said, "We remember that there was here a sage, and he said to us wise things." He said to his sister, "Send, bring him." She said to him, "Give him your word and he will come." He gave him his word. D. He came and sat between the king and queen. He [Yannai] asked, "What is the meaning of this?" He [Simeon] said to him, "As it is written in the Book of Ben Sira, Esteem her so she shall exalt you and seat you between princes" He said to him, "Why did you fool me?" He said to him, "Heaven forfend! I did not fool you, but you gave from yours, and I from mine, as it is written, For wisdom is a defense even as money is a defense (Qoh. 7:12)." E. He said to him, "And you did not tell me [that you had not given the money, but rather absolution] ?" He said to him, "Had I told you, you would not have done it." F. He said to him, "And why did you flee?" He said to him, "As it is written, Hide yourself for a little moment, until the anger be past (Is. 26:20)."

J U D A H A N D SIMEON — Vl.iii.l, VLxii.l

117

He mixed a cup [of wine] for him and told him to bless. G. He said, "Let us bless the food which Yannai and his companions have eaten." He said to him, "In all my days I never heard from you this matter." He replied, "What do you want? Shall I bless food which I have not eaten?" He mixed the cup for him a second time. He said. "Let us bless the food which we have eaten." (Gen. R. 91:3, ed. Theodor-Albeck, III, pp. 1114-1117.) Comment: See y. Ber. 7:2, III.i.1. Here Salome is Yannai's sister—or the pronoun has the wrong antecedent.

Vl.iii.l. The story is told (M'SH B): In the days of Simeon b. Shetah and in the days of Shelomsy the Queen, that the rains would come down from Sabbath eve to Sabbath eve, until the wheat became like kidneys, the barley like olive pits, and the lentils like golden denars. The sages gathered (SBR) some of them and put them aside for the coming generations. All this why? To show how much [dama­ ge] sin causes, to fulfill that which is said (Jer. 5:25) [etc.]. (Lev. R. 35:10, ed. Margoliot IV, p. 829, lines 1-4.) Comment:

See Sifra Beh., I.ii.l.

And

is added between Salome and

Simeon. VLxii.l. On the 18th of Tevet, the congregation [of the Pharisees] took its place in judgment. Because the Sadducees were seated in the Sanhedrin. Yannai the King and Shelominon [sic] the Queen were seated with it. And not a single one of Israel sat with them except for Simeon b. Shetah. They would ask responsa and laws and did not know how to bring proof from the Torah. Simeon b. Shetah said to them, "Whoever knows how to bring [proof] from the Torah is fit (KSR) to sit in the Sanhedrin." One time a practical matter fell among them, and they did not know how to bring proof from the Torah, except for one who was mumbling and saying, "Give me time, and tomorrow I shall return." He gave him time. He went and sat by himself but was unable to bring proof from the Torah. The next day he was ashamed to come

118

J U D A H A N D SIMEON — VLxii.l

J U D A H A N D SIMEON — VLxii.l

S i m e o n b. Shetah and J u d a h b. Tabbai

I Tannaitic Midrashim

1. Man put t o death illegally

Mekh. Kaspa III 3 1 - 4 1 (Judah criti­ cizes S i m e o n )

ILi Mishnah

2. A n o m a l y of law M e k h . Kaspa against circumstan­ III 3 1 - 4 1 tial e v i d e n c e (Judah) 3. Judah: May

ILii Tosefta

IILi Tannaitic M a t e r i a l s in Palestinian Gemara

IILii Tannaitic M a t e r i a l s in Babylonian Gemara

Tos. Sanh. 6 : 6 (Simeon criti­ cizes J u d a h )

y. Sanh. 4 : 9 y. Sanh. 6 : 3 (Simeon criti­ cizes S i m e o n )

b. ag. 1 6 b b. M a k . 5 b (Simeon criti­ cizes J u d a h )

Tos. Sanh. 6:6 + 8:3 (Simeon)

y. Sanh. 4 : 9 y. Sanh. 6 : 3

b. S a n h . 3 7 b b. S h a v . 3 4 a

Tos. Hag. 2 : 8

y . tfag. 2 : 2 a y. Sanh. 6 : 6 a

IV.i Amoraic M a t e r i a l s in Palestinian Gemara

IV.ii Amoraic M a t e r i a l s in Babylonian Gemara

V ARN

119

VI Later Compilations of Midrashim

M . Hag. 2 : 2

n o t lay on hands S i m e o n : M a y lay on hands ( =

No.

4) 4 . J u d a h w a s Nasi Simeon head o f court or vice versa 5. J u d a h b. T a b b a i in Alexandria

b. S h a b . 1 4 b ( S i m e o n alone)

6. Decreed uncleanness o n metal w a r e 7. Avot-chain

y. Shab. 1 : 4 y . Pes. 1 : 6 y. Ket. 8 : 1 1

A v o t 1:8-9

and sit on the Sanhedrin. Simeon b. Shetah took one of the disciples and set him in his place. He said to them, "One may not diminish the Sanhedrin less than seventy-one." Thus he did to them each day until all of them had vanished, and the Sanhedrin of Israel was seated. The day that the Sanhedrin of Sadducees vanished and the Sanhedrin of Israel was seated they made into a holiday. (Megillat Ta anit, ed. Lichtenstein, p. 342-3.) c

Comment:

(b. S o t . 4 7 a Joshua instead o f Judah)

y. Hag. 2 : 2 b y. Sanh. 6 : 6 b

As often in the medieval Scholion to Megillat Ta'anit we

find materials with no antecedents whatever in Talmudic literature. The pericope is a unity, highly literary—dramatic, smooth, with no lacunae in narrative—and independent of any earlier tradition. It is still another version of the struggle between Yannai and the Pharisees, but here the Sadducees are the antagonists, and the king merely a bystander. The queen plays no part. The form in which the Sadducees are represented as mumblers who need more time and in the end fail is familiar in other Megillat Ta'anit materials (Development, pp. 1 8 0 - 1 8 2 ) . The superior cleverness of the Pharisaic representative conquers all. Simeon here, like Yohanan ben Zakkai in similar pericopae in Meg. Ta., outwits the Sadducees, and his victory is celebrated. I cite the pericope merely to illus­ trate the way in which completely new materials in later times were fabricated, then assigned to earlier heroes.

120

Simeon b. Shetah Alone

1. Rained heavily in S i m e o n ' s t i m e 2. Hung eighty w o m e n in Ashqelon 3. Rebuked Honi

4 . D e c r e e re m a r ­ riage-contract 5. S i m e o n , Yannai, and the Nazirites 6. After Simeon's day no propertylitigation

JUDAH AND

I Tannaitic Midrashim

SIMEON — VLxii.l

ILi Mishnah

ILii Tosefta

J U D A H A N D SIMEON — VLxii.l

IILi Tannaitic M a t e r i a l s in Palestinian Gemara

Sifra B e h u q o t a i 1:1 Sifre Deut. 221

IILii Tannaitic Materials in Babylonian Gemara

IV.i Amoraic M a t e r i a l s in Palestinian Gemara

b. Hul. 1 1 9 b

b. T a . 2 3 a

M. Sanh. 6 : 4

y. H a g . 2 : 2 c y. S a n h . 6 : 6

M . Ta'anit 3 : 8

y. M . Q . 3 : 1 y. T a . 3 : 1 0 Tos. Ket. 1 2 : 1

y. Sanh. 6 : 3 (son)

b. B e r . 1 9 a

b. S h a b . 1 4 b b. K e t . 8 2 b y. Ber. 7 : 2

L e v . R. 3 5 : 1 0

b. Sanh. 4 6 b

b. Ta. 2 3 a

L e v . R. 3 5 : 8

b. Ber. 48a (says blessing)

G e n . R. 9 1 : 3

y. Sanh. 1 : 1

8. Simeon restored Pharisees t o f a v o r with Yannai

b. Q i d . 6 6 a

y. K e t . 8 : 1 1 y . Pes. 1 : 6

9. Decreed chil­ dren should go t o school

y. K e t . 8 : 1 1

1 0 . Returned pearl

y. B . M . 2 : 5

13. Vanquished Sadducees

VI Later Compilations of Midrashim

y. K e t . 8 : 1 1

y. Naz. 5 : 3

b. S h a b . 1 4 b

12. Tried Yannai f o r slave's m u r d e r

V ARN

b. Ta. 2 3 a

7 . D e c r e e re u n ­ cleanness o f metal w a r e

1 1 . Called J o s h u a back f r o m Egypt

IV.ii Amoraic M a t e r i a l s in Babylonian Gemara

121

(y. H a g . 2 : 2 , y. Sanh. 6 : 6 , Judah)

Deut. R. 1 3 : 5 b. Sot. 47a b. Sanh. 1 0 7 b

b. Sanh. 1 9 a - b

Meg. Ta. p. 3 4 2 - 3

122

JUDAH AND

SIMEON —

SYNOPSES

III. SYNOPSES

A. Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah 1. Man Illegally Put to Death and Anomaly of Law against Circum­ stantial Evidence Mekh.Kaspa

III

31-41

1 . O n c e ( K B R ) S. k i l l e d ( H R G ) a false w i t n e s s 2 . J u d a h b . T a b b a i said t o him 3 . M a y I [ n o t ] see c o n s o ­ l a t i o n if y o u h a v e n o t s h e d innocent blood [ = Tos. 7*]

4. and the T o r a h said 5. Slay at the t e s t i m o n y o f w i t n e s s e s , slay at t h e testi­ m o n y of perjurers 6 . J u s t as t h e w i t n e s s e s are t w o 7 . so the perjurers are t w o 7*.

7**

#

8. and once ( W K B R )

9. J u d a h b. Tabbai en­ tered a ruin. 1 0 . a n d f o u n d t h e r e a slain m a n still w r i t h i n g ( M P R P R ) 1 1 . and the s w o r d dripping blood ( M N J P

Tos. Sanh. 6:6 = Mid. Tan. ed. Hoffmann, p. 112 1 . J u d a h said

Tos. Sanh. 1. 2.

2. 3 . M a y I „ „ if I have not slain a perjurer to uproot from the heart of the Boethusians who say the ac­ cused must be put to death [ b e f o r e t h e p e r j u r e r is slain] (Mid. Tan. = Sadducees)

3.

4. 5.

4. 5.

6.

6.

7. 7*. Simeon said to h i m , M a y I [etc.] if y o u h a v e n o t shed innocent blood 7**. = Mekh. 6,7 8.

7. 7*.

7**

#

8 . S i m e o n said, M a y I [etc.] if I d i d n o t see o n e r u n n i n g a f t e r his f e l l o w w i t h a s w o r d in h i s hand. He entered before him into a ruin, and ran after him.

9.

9 . / e n t e r e d after him

10.

1 0 . a n d f o u n d h i m slain

11.

1 1 . a n d t h e s w o r d in the hand of the murder-

DM)

^

1 2 . from the hand of the slaver 1 3 . J u d a h b . T a b b a i said t o h i m , M a y [evil] come u p o n me

8:3

99

99

12.

12.

13.

1 3 . I said to him, Wicked one — 99

[see a b o v e ]

99

99

123

J U D A H A N D SIMEON — SYNOPSES

1 4 . i f n o t y o u o r I h a v e slain

14.

14. „

1 5 . But what should I do

15.

15. „ „ „ for your case is not given into my hand

1 6 . f o r l o , t h e T o r a h said, A t the testimony of t w o witnesses (Deut. 1 9 : 1 5 ) 1 7 . But he w h o k n o w s and the master o f thoughts ( H Y W D * WB
16.

16. „

17.

17.

18.

18. ,

19.

1 9 . H e d i d n o t move from there,, „ „

20. A t that moment J u d a h t o o k on himself not t o teach l a w except according to Simeon. [Mid. Tan. copies b. Mak. 5b, no. 20.]

20.

1 8 . he w i l l exact punish­ ment of that man 19. He had hardly come o u t w h e n a serpent bit him a n d he died. 20.

„

„

„

„

[ O m i t s : master of]

}

»

»>

The Tosefta has split the single but composite pericope of Mekh. Kaspa into its two components; the first, about killing a perjurer, is separated from the story about circumstantial evidence. In both in­ stances Judah is replaced as the hero by Simeon. Further, the Tos.'s Simeon now tells Judah he has shed innocent blood; the Mekhilta's Judah says the same to Simeon. The Tos.'s Judah explains his action: to inflict exemplary punishment. Of this Mekh. knows nothing. Tos. no. 3 seems to depend on Mekh. no. 1. The Tos.'s ver­ sion of the unpunishable murder is similar to the Mekhilta's and in most respect depends upon it, e.g. in the correction of master of (no. 17), which is redundant, and in strengthening the conclusion (no. 19) by killing the man in the very presence of the rabbi. Likewise no. 13 is intensified by the expletive wicked. The whole account is now given in the first person, as the narrative of Simeon himself. Both Toseftan versions are developments of the Mekhilta's composite pericope. But the developments are not merely of detail, which would permit us to impute dependency. Rather, the names of the masters are consistently reversed, and this suggests deliberate doctoring, not mere­ ly the augmentation of one detail or another. The further versions all depend in general upon the Toseftan one, as we shall now see. Mekhilta stands mostly apart from the later developments of the

124

J U D A H A N D SIMEON — SYNOPSES

pericope. For the next stage in the comparison, we shall give y. Sanh. 4:9, to which the other versions will be compared. y. Sanh. 4:9 = Mid. Tan. ed. Hoffmann p. 101 1 . S i m e o n said, M a y I see consolation 2 . If I d i d n o t see o n e p u r ­ suing another 3. He entered [Mid. T a n . : ran] a r u i n 4 . I e n t e r e d after h i m 5 . a n d f o u n d h i m slain 6. and this one going out 7. and the s w o r d was drippine blood 8 . I said t o h i m 9 . M a y I see c o n s o l a t i o n 1 0 . that this one slew h i m 1 1 . b u t w h a t shall I d o 1 2 . f o r y o u r b l o o d is n o t given into m y hands 1 3 . but the one w h o k n o w s t h o u g h t s w i l l exact p u n i s h ­ ment f r o m that man 1 4 . He did not even leave there [ H S P Y Q L S ' T ] 1 5 . before a serpent bit h i m a n d he died. 16.

y. Sanh.

6:3

1.

1.

2.

2.

3.

3.

4. 5. 6. 7.

4. 5. 6. 7.

8. 9. 10.

8. 9. 10.

11. 12.

11. 12.

13.

13.

14.

14.

15.

15.

1 6 . J u d a h b. Tabbai s a i d , M a y I see c o n s o l a ­ t i o n if I d i d n o t s l a y a false w i t n e s s . F o r t h e y w o u l d say, U n t i l h e is slain [the false w i t n e s s is n o t p u n i s h e d ] , as it is said ( E x . 2 1 : 2 3 ) , Soulfor soul

16.

17.

1 7 . Simeon b. Shetah said t o h i m , M a y I see consolation

18.

1 8 . if it is n o t r e g a r d e d t o y o u as if y o u s h e d i n ­ nocent blood.

19.

1 9 . A t that time he t o o k u p o n himself not to teach except f r o m the

5b

b. Mak.

TNY*

99

99

99

99

99

99

t o r e m o v e f r o m t h e heart of the Sadducees who w o u l d say 99

99

17. „

99

„

„

1 8 . if you did not shed 99

99

99

f o r t h e sages said, no punishment until the ac­ cused perjurers are both found guilty [+ flagella­ tion a n d fines, in s a m e formulal 1 9 . „ „ „ e x c e p t in the presence „ „

JUDAH AND

20.

b. Sanh. 37b 1. TNY> „ „ „ 2. „ „ „ another into a ruin 3 . / ran after him 4. 5. / saw him with a s w o r d in his hand 6. 7. a n d his blood was d r i p ­ p i n g a n d the slain man was writhing 8. »» » »> 9. 1 0 . Wicked! Who killed this man ? You or me 11. „ „ „ 12. „ „ ,„ f o r l o , t h e T o r a h h a s said D e u t . 1 7 13. „ „ „ f r o m that man who slew his fellow 1 4 . They said h e d i d n o t move f r o m t h e r e b e f o r e a s n a k e came and b i t h i m a n d he died 15. [As above] 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

SIMEON —

mouth of Shetah. 20.

b. Shav.

J

~'

99

Simeon

b. 2 0 . And all the rest of Judah*s life he prostrated himself on the grave of that witness, and his voice was heard, and people thought it was the voice of the slain man. He said, It is my voice. You will know it tomorrow when he dies. b. Hag. 1.

34a

1 • 99 99 2. „ „ Sanh.] 3 99

99

99

„

„

„ [as b .

Q °»

9. 10 ± K J

'

11 . 12

»»

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

16b

2.

„ fas b .

4. 5. I found him „ 6. 7. „ „ Sanh.]

125

SYNOPSES

3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

1 3 . T h e Omnipresent w i l l „ „ „ fromyou [omits who-fellow] 14. „ they d i d n o t m o v e before a snake bit h i m [ o m i t s came and]

13.

15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

15. 16. T N W RBNN 17. fAs b. Mak. 5b] 1 8 . [As b. M a k . 5 b ] 1 9 . [As b. M a k . 5 b ] 20. [ A s b. M a k . 5 b ]

[As abovel

14.

The beraita about Judah's exemplary but illegal punishment of the false witness, b. Mak. 5b = b. Hag. 16b, is an improvement on the equivalent version in y. Sanh. 6:3. There they would say is unclear. The Babylonian version supplies the identity of those who held the false opinion, namely the Sadducees. This further depends upon Tos. Sanh. 6:6, but Boethusians is dropped in favor of Sadducees. The exact

126

JUDAH AND

SIMEON —

SYNOPSES

quotation of the Boethusians/Sadducees varies somewhat, y. Sanh. supplies a proof-text for their opinion, which is absent in Tos. Sanh. and later dropped in b. Mak. = b. Hag. The most striking change occurs in no. 18, where the language if it is not regarded to you as if you shed is changed to the more direct you shed. This is a simplification and an improvement. Tos. knows nothing of Judah's pledge not to teach instruction/law except according to Simeon, which occurs in more dramatic detail— in the presence of—in the Babylonian beraita. The Palestinian is intermediate; it does not specify what it was that Judah would not teach. The beraita, in summary, is unquestionably later than, and an improvement upon, y. Sanh., being smoother, drop­ ping irrelevant details (e.g. the proof-text), but supplying important "omissions", e.g. what Judah would not teach, and adding flagellation and fines. In one respect, namely no. 16, to remove etc., the beraita obvi­ ously must depend upon Tos. But in all other important aspects, it is a development of y. Sanh. 6:3—thus eclectic or a composite, a puz­ zling result. The Mekh. version provides the briefest and least satisfactory story, omits the dramatic details of Judah's (Simeon's) report of what he had done, and of Judah's vow not to teach except following Simeon's opinions. No. 20 of the beraita is certainly a dramatic and colorful addition to the whole, known only in the latest version. The story about the murderer whom the law cannot punish is linked to the foregoing in Mekh. Kaspa, but everywhere else stands separate­ ly. In Mekh. Kaspa we again find the simplest and least embellished form. The changes from y. Sanh. 4:9 to b. Sanh. 37b = b. Shav. 34a are not considerable. The scene is somewhat clarified and sharpened. He entered.. .1 entered of y. Sanh. becomes the dramatic confrontation of b. Sanh.: / ran after him and saw him a moment after he did the deed. Then the details (no. 7) are greatly augmented, but again are drawn mainly from Mekh. Kaspa, further from the anonymous accounts, not summarized here, which invariably include the gory details. What shall I do of y. Sanh. 4:9 is greatly expanded by reference to the proof-text, but here this is artfully introduced in the context of the exchange be­ tween the sage and the murderer. Then, in no. 14 of b. Sanh., the narrator takes over for the unclear he did not leave, so we are now told who has provided the details of the denouement. As we observed above, the two stories are distinct and circulated by themselves. Only the Judah b. Tabbai-version was kept together. The Simeon-ones were allowed to develop separately. The beraitot in both

JUDAH AND

SIMEON — SYNOPSES

127

cases provide additional information, but we have no reason to sup­ pose they contain material drawn from other, independent traditions. In each instance, on the basis of the earlier versions we can readily account for the alterations.Only no. 20 is entirely independent of the foregoing, but it is certainly a dramatic embellishment, nothing more; it is the sort of addition that editors of beraitot loved to make. Now, assuming the Mekhilta is the earliest version of the pericopae, we note that the later accounts are in general dependent upon, or at least related to, it in all important details except for the identification of the hero. The whole can be said to be a living tradition, in that de­ tails found later on normally derive from earlier accounts and can be readily traced from one version to the next. But what lies before Mekh. Kaspa? I find it difficult to imagine that the literary relation­ ships we have observed do not signify the dependence, upon the Mekhilta, of the accounts in which Simeon is the hero. The Mekhilta of R. Ishmael-version is what Meir would have supplied; all the others in general follow opinion of Judah b. Ilai, making Simeon Nasi. All elements of the Simeon-materials thus are revisions of the foregoing, including the important fact that Simeon is the hero, Judah the judge who erred. In that case, the correct tradition must be the one which places Judah b. Tabbai superior to Simeon b. Shetah—just as in M. Hag. The others testify to the ability of Judah b. Ilai and those who shared his view not only to develop the older tradition, but also completely to revise its historical and biographical facts. The relative importance of Simeon and Judah seems to have constituted an impor­ tant issue for the late second century Tannaitic schools. 2.

Nasi—Head of Court

Tos. HaQ. 2:8

y. HaQ. 2:2a

y. Sanh. 6:6a

1 . T h e r e w e r e five p a i r s . 2 . T h r e e o f t h e first p a i r s w h o said n o t t o l a y o n h a n d s 3 . a n d t w o o f t h e last w h o said t o l a y o n h a n d s 4 . w e r e Nasis* 5. a n d t h e second w e r e heads o f court, according t o R. M e i r . 6. R . J u d a h says, S i m e o n b. S h e t a h w a s Nasi, J u d a h b . Tabbai head o f the court 6*.

1. 2.

1. 2.

3.

3.

4. 5.

4. 5.

6.

[As in 6*]

6*. W e have learned CNN T N Y N N ) : Judah b . T a b b a i w a s Nasi, S i m -

6 . [ A s in 6 * ]

6*. Some Tannaim teach C Y T T N Y Y T N Y ) Judah b. Tabbai

128

J U D A H A N D SIMEON — SYNOPSES

eon b. Shetah w a s head of the court.

w a s Nasi, a n d s o m e T a n n a i m teach S i m e o n b . S h e t a h w a s Nasi 7.

7. S o m e teach it i n r e ­ verse. [The story o f J u ­ d a h in A l e x a n d r i a a n d S i m e o n in A s h q e l o n f o l ­ lows.]

7.

The Tos. version thus has not been reproduced, merely cited, in the Palestinian Amoraic discussion. But y. Hag. rephrases the whole in explicit form: Judah was Nasi, Simeon was head of the court. In y. Sanh. two separate attributions to Tannaim simply assign the position of Nasi to each of the authorities. In any event the language of Tos. has been abandoned, while Tannaitic authority is claimed for its con­ tent. 3.

Judah b. Tabbai in Alexandria

y. Hag. 2:2b 1. The m e n o f Jerusalem wanted t o appoint J u d a h b . T . as nasi i n J e r u s a l e m . H e fled t o Alexandria. 2. T h e m e n o f Jerusalem w o u l d w r i t e 3. F r o m Jerusalem the great, t o Alexandria the small 4. H o w long will m y betrothed dwell with y o u , a n d I sit e t c .

y. Sanh.

6:6b

1.

2 3

»

» »

4 . H o w l o n g w i l l m y husband d w e l l i n y o u r midst „ „ „ in my house 5 . [ O m i t s t h e affair w i t h t h e student.]

5 . H e d e p a r t e d , c o m i n g i n a b o a t . H e said, y o u r e m e m b e r etc.

The version in y. Sanh. omits the introductory materials and knows nothing of the incident with the student at all. The augmentations in no. 4 suggest a somewhat later version, and my guess is that y. Sanh. depends upon, but abbreviates, y. Hag. The same pattern of summary and abbreviation of y. Hag. by y. Sanh. recurs in the Simeonstory, III.i.3c. 4.

The Decree on the Uncleanness of Metal Utensils

b. Shab. 14b 1. DTNY>

2. Y o s i b. Y o ' e z e r and Y o s i b. Y o h a n a n decreed uncleanness on the land o f the p e o p l e s a n d glass­ ware.

y. Shab. 1:4 1. R. Ze'ira b. A b u n a in the n a m e of R. Jeremiah 2

y. Pes. 1:6 1. [As y. Shab.] Abuna

R.

y. Ket. 8:11 1. [As y. Pes.]

2

2 99

99

99

99

99

99

JUDAH AND

3. Simeon b. Shetah ordained ( T Q N ) the marriage contract for the w o m a n

4. and decreed ( G Z R ) uncleanness on metalware 5. S h a m m a i and Hillel d e c r e e d u n ­ cleanness on the hands

SIMEON —

SYNOPSES

3 . R. Yonah said, Ju­ dah b. Tabbai. R. Yosi said, Judah b. Tabbai and S i m e o n b. Shetah decreed uncleanness o n met­ al w a r e [ O m i t s mar­ riage-contract] 4 . [See n o . 3 ]

3 . R . Judah said, J u ­ dah b. T. and Si­ m e o n b . §. [ A s y . Shab.]

5 . „ „ concerning the cleanness o f t h e h a n d s

5. [As y. Shab.]

4.

[See n o . 3 ]

129 3 . R. Yosi said J u ­ d a h b . T . R . Yonah said, J u d a h b . T . a n d S i m e o n b . §. decreed uncleanness on metalware [Omits marriage-con­ tract] 4 . [See n o . 3 ]

5. [As y. S h a b . ]

Since y. Ket. 8:11 contains the list of Simeon's decrees, we shall add the synopsis of that list here: Tos. Ket. 12:1 1 . A t first... S i m e o n b . S. ordained that her marriagecontract should be w i t h her husband, and he should write to her, A l l the proper­ t y w h i c h I h a v e is l i a b l e a n d pledged f o r this, y o u r mar­ riage-contract.

2.

b. Ket. 82b 1. R a v J u d a h . . . Sime­ o n b . §. o r d a i n e d all h i s p r o p e r t y is l i a b l e f o r h e r marriage-contract. TNY> N M Y H K Y : . . . u n t i l S i m e o n b . §. o r ­ dained that he should w r i t e t o h e r , A l l my p r o p e r t y is l i a b l e f o r her marriage-contract 2.

3.

3.

4.

4.

y. Ket. 8:11 \ . S i m e o n b. Shetah de­ creed three things

2. That a man m a y do b u s i n e s s w i t h his w i f e ' s marriage-contract 3. That children should go to school 4. and he ordained ( T Q N ) uncleanness on glassware

All the references to the marriage-contract pertain to details. None holds Simeon b. Shetah invented the marriage-contract. The reference in b. Shab. no. 4 appears in y. Ket. 8:11 no. 4, now an ordinance. The version in b. Shab. no. 4 is unrelated to more detailed accounts of the matter. The marriage-contract materials are not closely related. Tos. Ket. has certainly produced b. Ket., but y. Ket. (like b. Shab. no. 3) stands pretty much by itself. Perhaps the intent of the ordinance is what y. Ket. no. 2 maintains, but that is not what is specified. As to the decree on the uncleanness of metal utensils, all the tradi­ tions are identical in language, except y. Ket. no. 4, which, like b.

130

JUDAH AND

SIMEON —

SYNOPSES

Shab. no. 4, omits reference to Judah b. Tabbai. Since the lists of b. Shab. 14b and y. Ket. 8:11 have in common the omission of Judah b. Tabbai and a reference to the marriage-contract (but not the same reference), there may be some correspondence between them. But a list of Simeon's decrees ought not to have omitted the founding of the school-system, and TQN of y. Ket. changes to GZR in b. Shab. Hence the lists are not closely related. Moreover, the intent of y. Ket. 8:11 is to list Simeon's decrees; one might argue Judah b. Tabbai is not deliberately omitted, merely bypassed for stylistic purposes. But the same cannot be said for b. Shab. 14b, which either is defective or represents a purposeful revision of the tradition referred to by the Palestinian Amoraim. I presume the latter were influenced by the juxtaposition of Judah and Simeon in M. Hag. 2:2 and M. Avot, but I do not understand why the framer of the Babylonian beraita was not similarly impressed with those lists, if he knew them. B.

Simeon b. Shetah Alone

1. Heavy Rains Sifra 1 . M<SH 2. In the days o f S i m e o n b. S . , i n t h e d a y s o f S L M S W the queen 3 . that the rains w o u l d de­ scend f r o m Sabbath night t o Sabbath night 4. until the wheat w a s made like kidneys 5. the barley like o l i v e pits 6 . a n d t h e lentils l i k e g o l d denars 7 . a n d t h e sages b o u n d up (SRR) some of them 8 . a n d left t h e m f o r c o m ­ ing generations 9. to make k n o w n h o w m u c h sin causes. 1 0 . t o fulfill t h a t w h i c h is said J e r . 5 : 2 5

b. Ta. 23a 1 . S o w e find 2. „ „ „ [ O m i t s : Salome the Queen] 3. „ „ „ on eves of Wednesdays and Sabbaths 4 99

99

99

5» 6»

99

99

99

99

99

99

7. „ „ „ as an (DWGM )

example

}

8. „ „ „ [ O m i t s : and left •them; coming] Q /

99

1 0 . As 99

A

<

R. 99

99

2. (SLMSY) and 3. „

99

[Adds:]

n

4

''

•*

Lev. 1

99

99

99

it is said

^*

99

99

99

5* 6»

99

99

99

99

99

99

»

99

99

99

99

99

7 ' •

O °*

9 . All

99

this why

99

99

99

The differences between Lev. R. and Sifra are negligible. Only all this why betrays the mark of a later hand. The phrase could have been omitted without loss of meaning. It serves to underline the purposive sense of the infinitive, to make known. The Babylonian Talmudic version follows the usual Amoraic form, as it is said, in place of the Tannaitic

JUDAH A N D SIMEON —

131

SYNOPSES

midrashic to fullfill. Salome is now omitted, certainly an improvement, dropping a redundant detail; her name could have meant little to people out of touch with the stories of King Yannai and Simeon. Wednesdays is added because of the legal context. As an example like­ wise clarifies the sages' intent, though it does not augment the meaning. The version in b. Ta. is certainly a development of that in Sifra. Lev. R. is a more exact copy. This is a common phenomenon. Where traditions appearing in early collections recur in very late ones, they are normally copies, showing little evidence of either growth of a living tradition, or response to vivid discussions of the subjectmatter of the pericope. Both phenomena by contrast are apparent in b. Ta. Sometimes, to be sure, late compilations supply all sorts of new elements, but these rarely appear to be integral to the earlier version or part of an internal process of augmentation of words or phrases. Rather, they tend to be manufactured of whole cloth. 2.

Hung Eighty Women in Ashqelon

Sifre Deut. 2 2 1 1 . T h e m a n is h u n g , b u t not the woman. R. Eliezer says, E v e n a w o m a n is t o b e h u n g .

2 . R . E l i e z e r said t o t h e m , D i d n o t S i m e o n §. h a n g w o m e n in A s h q e l o n ? 3 . T h e y said t o h i m , H e hung eighty w o m e n , and one does not judge t w o on the same day 4. But h o u r required t o teach o t h e r b y that means 5.

M. Sanh. 6 : 4 1 . The woman is hung facing backward, the man facing the people, so R . E l i e z e r . The sages say, T h e m a n is h u n g , b u t not the w o m a n . 2 99

99

99

99

99

99

y. Sanh.

6:3

2.

3

4.

4.

5.

5. Simeon's hands were heated. A conspiracy of scoffers c a m e a n d said, C o m e , let u s t a k e c o u n ­ sel a n d testify a g a i n s t his s o n a n d k i l l h i m . T h e y testified against h i m a n d his case w a s settled t h a t h e b e k i l l e d . A s he was going forth t o b e k i l l e d , t h e y said to him, "My lord, we a r e l i a r s . " His f a t h e r wanted to bring him

132

J U D A H A N D SIMEON —

SYNOPSES

b a c k . H e said t o h i m , "Father, if y o u w a n t salvation t o come at your hand, make me like a threshold."

y> Hag. 2:2c 1. There w e r e t w o pious men w h o shared their f o o d and studies. 2. O n e died and w a s not p r o p e r l y mourned. 3. W h e n a villager, a tax-collector d i e d , t h e w h o l e t o w n t o o k t i m e off t o mourn him. 4. The pious man began to be troubled a n d said etc. 5. D o n o t disgrace the sons o f y o u r L o r d , f o r t h i s o n e d i d o n e sin, a n d t h e o t h e r o n e d i d o n e g o o d d e e d a n d it went well for him 6 . [Specifies t h e s i n ; t h e n s e c o n d d r e a m : p i o u s m a n s a w f e l l o w in h e a v e n , t a x - c o l l e c t o r suffering, a n d M i r i a m etc. W h y is t h i s s o ? B e c a u s e s h e f a s t e d e t c . ] 7. H o w long thus? 8 . U n t i l S i m e o n t a k e s it f r o m h e r e a r a n d p u t s in it h i s ? 9 . W h y ? B e c a u s e h e said, I f I a m m a d e Nasi I shall k i l l w i t c h e s , a n d l o , h e h a d b e e n m a d e Nasi a n d h a s n o t k i l l e d w i t c h e s . T h e r e a r e e i g h t y in a c a v e in A s h q e l o n . G o a n d tell h i m . 1 0 . I a m a f r a i d , f o r h e is Nasi a n d w i l l n o t b e l i e v e m e . If h e b e l i e v e s y o u , w e l l a n d g o o d , a n d if n o t , t h i s is y o u r s i g n \re e y e l . 1 1 . Simeon believed him 1 2 . T o o k e i g h t y y o u n g m e n etc. 1 3 . T h i s is w h a t w e l e a r n e d , T h e s t o r y is t o l d o f S i m e o n b . S h e t a h t h a t h e h u n g w o m e n in A s h q e l o n . T h e y said he hung eighty w o m e n ; w h i l e one does n o t judge t w o on the same day, the h o u r r e q u i r e d it.

y. Sanh. 1

6:6c

2 99

99

99

99

99

99

„

„ to cry

3 J

•'

4. „

5. „ „ „ [ m i n o r v a r i a t i o n s , o n e sin and went in it, o n e g o o d d e e d a n d went in

6.

[Specifies s i n ; omits: sin o f M i r i a m . ]

7 ' *

99

99

99

°*

99

99

99

Q

9 . W h a t is his lapse? He vowed a n d said 99

99

99

1 0 - 99 99 99 ( M i n o r v a r i a t i o n s )

11. n 1 2 . [ F r o m h e r e t o e n d , t h e a c c o u n t is a b b r e v i a t e d a n d simplified. 1 1 3 . T h i s is w h a t w e l e a r n e d , E i g h t y w o m e n d i d S i m e o n b . S . h a n g in A s h ­ qelon and one does not judge t w o in o n e d a y , b u t t h e h o u r r e q u i r e d it.

The tradition on the hanging of (eighty) women (witches) in Ashqelon comes in two forms. The earliest is a reference merely to hanging women. Nothing more is told. This tradition is virtually ignored in y. Hag. and y. Sanh., which produce the elaborate account about the witches and how they were outwitted by Simeon's superior knowledge

J U D A H A N D SIMEON —

SYNOPSES

133

of magic and of the libido of witches. A still further detail records the vengeance of the people of Ashqelon. It seems to me Sifre must be regarded as earliest, and the Palestinian Amoraic versions as quite separate, but much later assemblies of traditions. According to the former, Simeon did put to death a large number of women, but we do not know why. The elaborate accounts of y. Sanh. and y. Hag. supply the reason and much more. Of the two, y. Hag. is the more detailed, while y. Sanh. seems to be an abbreviation and a summary. But neither is likely to date before Amoraic times. The Babylonian Talmud con­ tains no equivalent materials, and we may perhaps assign the magical accounts to third or fourth-century Palestinian schools. 3.

Rebuked Honi

M. Ta. 3:8 1 . . . . S i m e o n b . §. sent t o him

J.M.Q. 3:1 1. [All omitted to here.] „ „ „ He said to him

2. W e r e y o u not Honi

2. Y o u require t o be ex­ communicated. F o r if a d e c r e e w e r e d e c r e e d as in the days o f Elijah, w o u l d y o u not be found bringing the public to profanation of the n a m e , f o r all w h o b r i n g the public to profana­ tion of the name require excommunication. 3.

3. I should decree excom­ munication upon you 4. But w h a t should I do to you 5. F o r y o u c o m e petulantly ( H T Y ) before the Omni­ present 6. and he does y o u r will f o r you 7. like a son w h o comes petulantly against his father 8. and he does his w i l l 9. and concerning you S c r i p t u r e says P r o v . 2 3 : 2 5

y. Ta. 3:10 1. [Mishnah ends w i t h P r o v . 2 3 : 2 5 . T h e n ] If a d e c r e e w e r e d e c r e e d as in t h e d a y s o f E l i j a h , w o u l d you not be found bringing the public to profanation of the name [etc. as in y . M . Q . n o . 2.] 2. [As y. M . Q . ]

3.

5.

5.

6.

6.

7.

7.

8. 9.

8. 9.

134

J U D A H A N D SIMEON —

b. Ber. 19a 1 . D T N N [ O m i t s s t o r y u n t i l Simeon sent to bim] „ „ „ You require to be excom­ municated

SYNOPSES

7*. 2 ^ 1. [Foregoing s t o r y m u c h developed. T h e n as in M . T a . ] „ „ „

2

2. F o r if t h e y e a r s w e r e l i k e t h e y e a r s o f E l i j a h , f o r t h e k e y s o f r a i n w e r e in t h e hand of Elijah, w o u l d not the name o f heaven be found profaned by y o u r hand.

3

3. 4

fAs above!

~*

99

99

99

^'

99

99

99

6. „

„

„

4

5. » 6* »

» »>

» »

7

7

* • „ » 8.

„»

„»

»>

»

' • 99 8. „ „99 99 „ [ A d d s : ] and he says to him, Father, take me to wash me in warm water, pour cold water over me, give me nuts, al­ monds, and pomegranates and he gives him

9

9 »

y

*

99

99

99

The Palestinian Amoraic versions introduce the theme of Elijah, but drop the rest of the colloquy of Simeon. The Babylonian beraita (b. Ber. 19a) borrows a single phrase, You require. The extended version in b. Ta. 23a not only adopts the whole of the Palestinian version, but then inserts the remainder of the Mishnah passage, and finally supplies a complete conversation between the son and the father—a full reper­ toire, leaving out not a single detail of the earlier versions. 4.

Simeon. Yannai. and the Nazirites

y. Ber. 7:2 1. T N Y 2. T h r e e h u n d r e d Nazirites c a m e u p in t h e d a y s o f R a b b i S i m e o n b . §. 2 * . O n e h u n d r e d fifty h e found grounds for absolu­ t i o n (MS> P T H ) , a n d o n e h u n d r e d fifty h e d i d n o t find g r o u n d s f o r a b s o l u t i o n 3. H e c a m e t o Y a n n a i t h e King 4. H e said t o h i m , T h e r e are here three hundred Nazirites requiring nine h u n d r e d sacrifices 5. S o ('L') y o u g i v e h a l f f r o m y o u r s , and I half f r o m mine 6. H e s e n t h i m f o u r h u n ­ d r e d fifty 7. A n e v i l r e p o r t went f o r t h a n d said t o h i m

v. Na?. 1. «

5:3 „

„

99

99

2 99

[Omits

b. Ber. 1. 2.

Gen.

R.

2\ m

99

99

99

Rabbi]

2*

2*. •

48a

99

99

2* ^

99

•

99

99

99

they f o u n d

3 U

'

99

99

99

99

99

99

4 ^«

5.

[ O m i t s >L>]

99

99

6*

3. „ „ (SLQ)

„ went up

4.

4.

„

„

5.

5.

[As y. Naz.]

6.

6.

Yannai gave half

7.

7.

„

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

7. ' •

3.

' •

99

99

99

135

J U D A H A N D SIMEON — SYNOPSES

8. He g a v e n o t h i n g o f his own. 9. Y a n n a i the K i n g heard and was angry. Simeon b. §. w a s f r i g h t e n e d a n d fled. 1 0 . After some days im­ portant men came u p f r o m t h e K i n g d o m o f Persia t o Yannai the K i n g .

1 1 . W h e n t h e y w e r e seated e a t i n g , t h e y said t o h i m , W e r e m e m b e r t h a t t h e r e is h e r e a certain o l d m a n a n d he said b e f o r e u s w o r d s o f wisdom. 1 2 . Let h i m teach f o r us a m a t t e r (<WBD>). 1 3 . T h e y said t o h i m , S e n d and bring him 1 4 . H e sent a n d g a v e h i m This! w o r d 1 5 . H e c a m e a n d h e sat b e ­ tween the king and the queen. 1 6 . H e said t o h i m , W h y did y o u deceive m e ? 1 7 . H e said t o h i m , I d i d n o t deceive y o u . 18. Y o u from your money and I from my light [Torahl, 1 9 . A s it is w r i t t e n Q o h . 7:12

8. „

„

„

9

1^* »

»

»

H«

99

99

99

8.

8«

9.

9. [ O m i t s : angry]

10. [Begins:] Yannai the King and the Queen were eating together. Since he had killed the rabbis, there was no one to bless for them. He said to his wife, Who will give us a man to bless for us} She said to him, Give me your oath that if I bring you a man, you will not torment him. He gave his oath and she brought him Simeon b. 5. her brother

99

A

99

^»

L

£

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

1 6 . ,,

„

,,

99

99

„

„

99

99

"

13 14 A

^«

A

' •

»

18. „

19 S

/

"*

99

99

Yannai-

99

99

of

99

12.

12.

13.

1 3 . He said to his sis­ ter, S e n d , b r i n g h i m

14.

17

99

1 1 . a t t h e table Yannai the King

11.

99

12

99

[As above]

14. „

„

„

99

99

1 5 . H e seated h i m between him and her

15

16. 17.

1 6 . H e said t o h i m , W h a t is t h i s 17. [Follows 1 9 ]

18.

18.

19.

19. [Quotes Ben Sira.] 19*. [Now come 1 7 and 1 8 ] 1 9 * * . W h y did y o u n o t tell m e ? If I told you, y o u would not have done it.

X

U

m

99

[Follows 1 9 ]

136

J U D A H A N D SIMEON — SYNOPSES

2 0 . H e said t o h i m , A n d w h y d i d y o u flee? 2 1 . H e said t o h i m , I h e a r d that m y lord was a n g r y against m e , and I w a n t e d t o fulfill t h i s S c r i p t u r e , I s . 2 6 : 20 22. A n d he read concern­ ing him Q o h . 7 : 1 2 b 2 3 . H e said t o h i m , A n d w h y d i d y o u sit b e t w e e n king and queen. 2 4 . H e said t o h i m , I n t h e B o o k s o f B e n S i r a it is w r i t t e n [etc.] ( 1 1 : 1 )

20

24*.

24*.

2 5 . H e said t o h i m , G i v e h i m t h e c u p s o h e w i l l bless 26. He took the cup and said

25

20.

20. „

„

„

„

„

21. „ „ [Omits: to]

„ wanted

21.

21. „

22. „

,,

,,

22.

22.

23. „

„

,,

2 3 . You see how much honor I pay you}

23.

2 4 . / / is not you that honors me, but the Torah honors me, as it is written Prov. 4:8 2 4 * . He said to her, Do you see he does not accept authority.

24.

25. „

2 5 . Mixed cup, said to him, bless

2 4 . B o o k o f Bar S i r a „ ,, ,,

„

„

24*.

99

99

26. „

„

„

2 6 . He said to him, How shall I bless} Blessed is he whose [gift] Y a n n a i a n d his companions have eaten?

26. „

2 7 . L e t u s bless t h e f o o d w h i c h Y a n n a i a n d his c o m ­ panions h a v e eaten 2 8 . H e said t o h i m , T o such an extent are y o u in your stubbornness? 2 9 . H e said t o h i m , W h a t s h o u l d I say, F o r t h e f o o d which w e have not eaten?

27. „

„

,,

27.

[As above]

2 7 . / never heard this from you before

2 8 . ,,

„

,,

28.

[See 2 4 * ]

28.

29

[29. A s a b o v e , 26]

no.

29

3 0 . H e said, G i v e h i m eat. H e a t e .

to

30

30

3 1 . a n d said, L e t u s bless the food which w e have eaten

31

3 0 . He drank it [the cup] they b r o u g h t h i m another cup and he blessed. 31.

»

„

„

31 Xm

-*

99

99

»

Gen. R. does not greatly differ from the Palestinian versions. The order of some of the elements changes, and there are a few minor changes in word-choice, not here indicated. But for the rest, we may regard Gen .R. as a fairly accurate representation of the Palestinian Talmud's accounts. There also are some differences in grammar and spelling between the two Palestinian versions. They have not been signified.

JUDAH AND

SIMEON — CONCLUSION

137

The real comparison is between the three Palestinian versions and the Babylonian one. The latter shows how material would be reshaped by an editor for the purposes of legal discussion. The version in b. Ber. omits all reference to elements extraneous to the inquiry of that discussion. It therefore drops the Nazirites and thus loses the explana­ tion provided by that incident for Simeon's absence. The more generalized since he had killed the rabbis make up the difference. The Babylonian tradition further omits all conversations related to the earlier incident with the Nazirites. The honor paid to Simeon is now credited to the king, rather than having Simeon take the place of honor on his own. This certainly improves matters and permits an even better sermon to make much the same point. Proverbs replaces Ben Sira, which is consistent with the Babylonian rabbinic denigration of Ben Sira. Finally the story of the blessing is repeated, in the establish­ ed form, except here, Simeon drinks the first cup, and they have to provide a second. But the explanation of his action is the same; so the argument has been converted into a dramatic gesture.

i v . CONCLUSION

Judah b. Tabbai's traditions invariably survive in the context of Simeon b. Shetah's, with the possible exception of the story of Judah's return from Alexandria. But even there Simeon plays a role in the account. By contrast, Simeon-stories in considerable numbers exclude all reference to Judah. Indeed, even where we should have expected to find Simeon and Judah, we find either Simeon alone or Simeon and Queen Salome. The Judah-traditions were assimilated into Simeonones, with Simeon's predominating throughout (except I.i.l.). But the predominance of Simeon may well derive from revisions of the traditions in the second century A.D. and afterward, particularly in disputed interpretations of early history by Meir and Judah b. Ilai. Simeon is persistently related to Alexandra Salome. In Josephus's ac­ count of Alexander Jannaeus and his wife, wefindno reference whatever to Simeon b. Shetah. Since Josephus was a Pharisee, the omission of Simeon's name is noteworthy. He presumably knew nothing of the Simeon-traditions in connection with the times of Alexander Jannaeus and Alexandra Salome. What we do find, in the case of Alexander Jannaeus, is stories of revolts against him by the "Jewish population" (War 1:88), producing "fifty-thousand deaths." In the War the Phari­ sees are never mentioned in that connection. His wife and successor,

138

JUDAH AND

SIMEON — CONCLUSION

Alexandra Salome, is described as "the very strictest observer of the national traditions"; the reference, however, has to do with the Temple priesthood (War 1:108). Then comes the well-known reference to the Pharisees: Beside Alexandra, and growing as she grew, arose the Pharisees, a body of Jews with the reputation of excelling the rest of their nation in the observances of religion and as exact exponents of the laws. To them, being herself intensely religious, she listened with too great deference; while they, gradually taking advantage of an ingenuous woman, be­ came at length the real administrators of the state, at liberty to banish and to recall, to loose and to bind whom they would. In short, the en­ joyments of royal authority were theirs; its expenses and burthens fell to Alexandra... if she ruled the nation, the Pharisees ruled her. (War. 1:110-112, trans. L. H. Feldman, pp. 53-5.) The Pharisees avenged themselves on their enemies of the time of Alexander Jannaeus, which suggests Alexander had persecuted Pharisees, though Josephus does not so specify. In the Antiquities (13:320ff.) the story is much different. Josephus everywhere embel­ lishes the account, e.g. to the narrative of the Jewish revolt (13:372), he now adds the following: ... at the celebration of the festival [of Sukkot] and as he stood beside the altar and was about to sacrifice, they pelted him with citrons... and they added insult to injury by saying that he was descended from cap­ tives and was unfit to hold office and to sacrifice. (Antiquities 13:372, trans. Ralph Marcus, p. 413) He thereupon killed "six thousand of them." Further, when Alexander further slaughtered "eight hundred of his opponents in Jerusalem," on account of their treason, "then his opponents, numbering in all about eight thousand, fled at night and remained in exile so long as Alexander lived" (Antiquities 13:383). These are not called Phari­ sees. Before he died, he further advised Alexandra to yield a certain amount of power to the Pharisees, "for if they praised her in return for this sign of regard, they would dispose the nation favorably to­ ward her" (Antiquities 13:400). Josephus waxes eloquent, in Jannaeus' dying speech, about the influence of the Pharisees and the importance of conciliating them, presumably because he was eager to convince the Romans to put the Pharisees (of Yavneh) into power. After Yannai's death, Alexandra did just that: Thereupon Alexandra... conferred with the Pharisees... and by placing in their hands all that concerned his corpse and the royal power, stilled

JUDAH AND

SIMEON — CONCLUSION

139

their anger against Alexander and made them her well-wishers and friends. (Antiquities 13:405) She gave power over to the Pharisees (13:408) and "restored the traditions of their fathers which had been abolished by Hyrcanus." Here we find no reference to their taking advantage of her simplicity. Consequently While she had the title of sovereign, the Pharisees had the power. For example, they recalled exiles and freed prisoners and in a word in no way differed from absolute rulers. (Antiquities 13:409) One is not readily tempted to follow the example of the historians who present a "harmony" of the rabbinic stories of Simeon and his contemporaries with the account of Josephus. Obviously all we have are compilations of inconsistent materials, given their final form over a century after the events described in them. Josephus's second ver­ sion is much embellished. For all we know, his account of events re­ flects that of the Pharisees; but neither gains much credence on that account. The report of exiles is congruent with the flight of Judah b. Tabbai —or was it Joshua?—to Alexandria. The relationships between Si­ meon and Yannai may similarly be harmonized with stories in Jose­ phus. But all the Simeon-stories place him in close relationship with Alexander Jannaeus before the "persecutions." Josephus says nothing about the relationship of any Pharisees with Jannaeus before the revolt. Indeed, the revision of Josephus's own attitude toward the Pharisees and Alexandra Salome suggests contemporary considerations have everywhere colored his second, detailed version of history. The rabbinic traditions on the Pharisees in the time of Yannai and a queen whose name no one can get straight are, as I said, by no means consistent. The break with the king came about because of an insult, or because Simeon cheated him, or for some other reason. "The Phari­ sees" called Yannai to court—but then failed to support Simeon. Simeon restored the Pharisees to power—but we do not know how. Or Salome "his sister" got him a safe-conduct. He was essential for saying Grace at the king's table—and made a fool of the king. Simeon was a poor man—or the queen's brother. The Persian embassy remem­ bered him—or was not present. Simeon vanquished the Sadducees— or they were utterly unknown. Yannai killed all the rabbis, but they managed to flee and later returned—or Gabriel killed them!

140

JUDAH AND

SIMEON — CONCLUSION

The fact is that the rabbinic traditions themselves are unclear as to the course of events. If one selects one group of traditions for har­ monization with Josephus's stories, the next group must be dropped. And one must further ignore important developments in Josephus's own account in order to follow him as a reliable informant. All we may say for sure is that some of the rabbinic traditions are roughly congruent with some of the things Josephus reports. That hardly justifies a fusion of the whole into a single historical account. The rabbis for their part know hardly anything of important events in the account of Josephus on Pharisaic-Hasmonean relationships. The whole thing sometimes is reduced to a temporary exile. They have heard nothing of Yannai's advice (if he gave it) to his wife about conciliating them. Most important, they see the Pharisees of those days pretty much like contemporary rabbis. Josephus' picture is of a political party seeking to dominate the country and succeeding in doing so. No hint in the Simeon-stories suggests a quest for the sort of power Josephus attributes to the party. The "rabbis" are needed by the court to say Grace. They cheat the king, harp on the value of their "Torah". They take pride in the petty ceremonial honors paid to them—sitting between the king and the queen. This picture of rabbis derives not from second-century B.C. Hasmonean court poli­ tics, but from a much later time, when the Pharisaic party had trans­ cended its origins and become fundamentally a scholastic society of sages, judges, and bureaucrats, exercising power in the Jewish com­ munity only through political institutions in the hands of patriarch and exilarch, with the imperial governments behind both. To such a group the trivial honors accorded by Yannai the King were note­ worthy. The practical power described by Josephus lay beyond their imagination. In summary, we are not able to verify either the details or the general picture of one set of stories in the "parallels" elsewhere. I judge the rabbinic traditions to be of modest historical veracity at best. They reveal no very accurate knowledge of contemporary, second century B.C. conditions or traditions. The failure of Josephus to men­ tion the very "rabbi" thought by the rabbis to have dominated the court of Yannai and Salome is remarkable. The Simeon of Talmudic stories there­ fore must be regarded entirely within the limits of rabbinic tradition. We have observed a general tendency to idealize the days of Simeon and Salome. Rain was plentiful, crops were abundant, and the effects of sin were removed. Simeon exerted sufficient power to hang eighty

JUDAH AND

SIMEON — CONCLUSION

141

"witches" in Ashqelon, presumably the Pharisaic equivalent to, and revision of, the stories in Josephus about their vengeful behavior. To him are attributed very ancient ordinances—the marriage-contract (or some clauses in it), the school system, and a ruling on purity laws. In these traditions Simeon's supposed superior or associate, Judah b. Tabbai, is unknown. Those responsible for shaping this picture of Simeon suppressed any mention of his name. Yet he was elsewhere either head of the court or Nasi. Clearly, two sets of traditions about Simeon and Judah were handed on, and in no way can they be harmo­ nized with one another (let alone, in the case of Simeon, internally). According to the Simeon-traditions we may draw the picture just given. According to the Simeon + Judah traditions, Simeon was simply an associate in the leadership of the party. The two men made a few decrees about Temple matters—whether to lay hands on the sacrifice, purity rules. One of the men judged a murder case. They both hid out in the time of Jannaeus's persecution. That is the whole picture. My guess is that the Judah + Simeon set is the more accurate of the two. The stories of Simeon alone tend to assign the name of Simeon to a great Pharisaic hero in the time of Alexander Jannaeus and Alex­ andra Salome. I suppose that the attribution is of the same accuracy as the assignment to Simeon's days of abundant rain, and the attribu­ tion to Simeon's authority of ancient rules in the marriage-contract, the foundation of the school system, and various moral sayings. It is a mere convention, certainly not related to a corpus of living traditions in the first instance shaped in those ancient days.

CHAPTER SIX SHEMA'IAH

AND

ABTALION

i. TRADITIONS

I.i.l. Shema'iah says, "The faith with which their father Abraham believed in me is deserving (KDY) that I should divide the sea for chem, for it is said, And he believed in the Lord (Gen. 15:6)." Abtalion says, "The faith with which they [themselves] believed in me is deserving that I should divide the sea for them, for it is said, And the people believed (Ex. 4:31)." [Mekh. Beshallah, ed. and trans. J . Z. Lauterbach, IV, lines 58-60, Vol. I, p. 220 ( = Mekhilta de R. Shime on b. Yohai, ed. Epstein-Melamed [Jerusalem, 1956], p. 58, lines 17-19)] c

Comment: This theological-exegetical pericope is part of a series of sayings concerning the merit for which God saved Israel at the sea. Bena'ah says it is for the merit of the binding of Isaac. Simon b. Teman says the merit comes from circumcision. Judah the Patriarch says, "That faith with which they believed in me is deserving..."—the same as Abtalion. Like Shema'iah, Ele azar b. Azariah says it is for the sake of Abraham, but does not cite Gen. 15:6. Ele'azar b. Judah of Kefar Tota says it is for the sake of the tribes. Then come Shema'iah and Abtalion. Following is Simon of Kitron (for the merit of the bones of Joseph). No order following generations or any other pattern can be discerned. The context is therefore difficult to locate. The terminus ante quern may be Judah the Patriarch. Strikingly, while Judah the Patriarch and Ele'azar b. 'Azariah take the positions of Abtalion and Shema'iah, respectively, they do not at­ tribute their opinions to the earlier masters. This may mean they did not know those opinions. In that case the editor drew Shema'iah and Abtalion materials from a source unavailable to Tannaim after 70. This seems to me unlikely. The later rabbis' failure to attribute their opinions to the earlier authorities may best be explained otherwise. The fact is they do not repeat the exact words of Shema iah and Abtalion, but formulate positions similar to theirs. It is rare that a clearcut logion attributed to the two "fathers of the world" is actually quoted at all. Generally, as is common among the Pharisaic authorities before Hillel, stories are told, testimonies are re­ ported, references are made to deeds done by the sages, but direct at­ tributions in the form of conventional, balanced logia are seldom found. c

c

c

SHEMA'IAH AND

A B T A L I O N — Il.i.l

143

c

It is also anomalous for Shema iah and Abtalion to be separated and given contradictory opinions. Everywhere else the two are treated as one authority. So it is a puzzling pericope, without formal parallel else­ where, the only theological-exegetical saying attributed to the two masters. It is a unity. Il.i.l.A. Hillel says, "One hin [= threeqabs] of drawn water renders the immersion-pool unfit." [We speak of hin] only ('L') [MS Kaufmann omits >L>] because (§) a man must speak (HYYB LWMR) in the language of his teacher. And Shammai says, "Nine qabs." And the sages say, "It is not according to the opinion of either." B. But until ('L* D S) two weavers came frome the Dung Gate in Jerusalem and testified in the name of (M§M) Shema'iah and Abtalion [MS Kaufmann: § = that], "Three logs [ = a fourth of a hin] of drawn water render the immersion-pool unfit," [and] the sages [MS Kauf­ mann omits the sages] confirmed their opinion. (M. <Ed. 1:3, trans. Danby, p. 422) C

Comment: The legal opinion of Shema'iah and Abtalion on the amount of drawn water it takes to disqualify a ritual bath is attributed not to their supposed disciple, Hillel, but to two lowly workers from a poor part of town. The usual order, Shammai, then Hillel, is reversed. I cannot suggest why. The interpolation between their lemmas accounts for nothing. Several curious allegations are before us. First, "the sages" declined the opinion of either Hillel or Shammai. Only an opinion in the name of Shema iah and Abtalion was acceptable. Why until "just that time" the sages were reluctant to go along with the distinguished leaders of (presumably) their own generation is not said. The "sages" here cannot be thought subordinate to Hillel and Shammai. What is equally inter­ esting, second, is that Hillel is specifically alleged—by the interpolation —to have used the language he heard from his master. One important corpus of traditions relates that Shema iah and Abtalion were his only master(s). Here the language of his master [bin] is explicitly not that of Shema iah and Abtalion [log]. The interpolation ignores that fact. Part B of the pericope is added to part A by a circle by no means im­ pressed with Hillel or his traditions, for Hillel's opinion is not on the spot accepted. His traditions are not even those of the sages with whom it is alleged that he studied. Quite to the contrary, if this tradition had stood alone, we should have had to conclude Hillel did not study with Shema'iah and Abtalion. We shall have to regard the pericope, there­ fore, as deriving from a circle that regarded Shema iah and Abtalion as Hillel's superiors and also denied Hillel knew their Torah—a circle hos­ tile to Hillel himself. Such a group had to come after Hillel and Sham­ mai. And it is not likely to have been a circle of Shammaites, for they c

c

c

4

144

S H E M A ' I A H A N D A B T A L I O N — II.i.2

would surely have reversed the order of the masters and placed Sham­ mai first. That this is the original order here is shown in the following, which has Shammai in the right place: A n d w h y d o t h e y r e c o r d t h e o p i n i o n s o f Shammai and Hillel w h e n t h e s e do not prevail (Lit.: F o r n o purpose, L B T L H ; M S K a u f m a n n : L B T L N ) ? T o t e a c h f u t u r e g e n e r a t i o n s t h a t a m a n s h o u l d n o t insist u p o n his o p i n i o n ( W M D *L D B R W ) f o r l o , t h e f a t h e r s o f t h e w o r l d d i d n o t insist u p o n t h e i r opinions. (

M . 'Ed. 1 : 4

This puts a good light on matters, but serves also to underline the anomaly observed above. But compare Tos. Ed. The sages' words, remarkably, were preserved only by humble men, not by the distinguished scholars of their circle. The moral lesson can­ not obscure the polemic: Hillel and Shammai failed, but ordinary folk succeeded, in preserving the sages' words—just as in the story of Hillel's rise to power, Tos. Pisha = y. Pes. = b. Pes.! I cannot guess who would have wanted to make the point that ordinary folk remember what sages should know but forget, but a circle hostile to Hillel's heirs would be a likely candidate. Such a group would have been responsible both for stories representing Hillel's true heirs not as his children but as learned masters of Torah, e.g. Yohanan ben Zakkai, and for materials such as these, in which Hillel himself "forgets" or ignores an important tradition of his supposed masters, which therefore was left to be pre­ served by low-class people. "The sages," standing in judgment on Hillel's opinion, rejected it even before they knew what Shema iah and Abtalion had to say, and as soon as they did, confirmed the opinion of S + A. The House of Shammai or circles responsible for the deposition of Gamaliel II at Yavneh present themselves as candidates, but only among other possibilities. The testimony-form for the transmission of Shema iah and Abtalion's sayings, appearing here, with reference to Yosi [b. Halafta], and else­ where, is the only form in which their legal sayings are preserved. The pericope naturally breaks into two units. Thefirstis Hillel says... Shammai says... The whole of part A could have stood separately. Part B is a separate story, linked to the foregoing by the awkward hut until and then, the sages confirmed their opinion. Without that redactional ele­ ment, part B would have taken the form M*SH B, and, as we shall see, it actually did. This confirms the supposition that the pericope is a composite. Someone had to add part B to the perfectly neutral materials in part A, thereby turning part A into a criticism of Hillel. The interpolation only... teacher underlines the criticism, but the in­ tent of the third hand could have been merely to explain Hillel's strange word-choice (hin rather than gab/log). Note Epstein, Mevo*ot, pp. 234, 423. c

c

c

c

II.i.2. [ Aqaviah b. Mahalallel testified to four opinions...] He said, "They do not give a proselytess or a freed bondwoman to drink of the water [of bitterness]."

SHEMA'IAH AND

145

A B T A L I O N — Il.ii.l

And the sages say, "They give her to drink." They said to him, "It happened (M SH B) to Kharkemit, a freed bondwoman who was in Jerusalem, and Shema'iah and Abtalion gave her to drink." He replied, "Only in show (DWGM ) did they make her drink." Whereupon they laid him under a ban, and he died while he was yet under the ban, and the court stoned his coffin... (M. 'Ed. 5:6, trans. Danby, p. 432, = Sifre Num. 7, ed. H. S. Horovitz, p. 11.) C

}

Comment: The story of a judicial decision of Shema'iah and Abtalion is inserted into the 'Aqaviah-story. It probably circulated separately, in ma'aseh b- form. If we did not have the above version (and parallel), we should know nothing about the allegation that they had taken an im­ portant role in administering Temple rites. I do not know why such an allegation would have been suppressed or allowed to disappear. The rabbis repeatedly claimed that Pharisees had governed Temple rites. Yohanan ben Zakkai was supposed to have abrogated this one. We have no reason to imagine that any circle within Pharisaism was eager to obliterate the record of the deed of the old sages. That the 'Aqaviahpericope cited their deed shows it was regarded as valid precedent. All we may say with certainty, therefore, is that Shema'iah-Abtalion mate­ rials circulated in forms other than those available to us, and we may further conjecture that some of those materials have been lost. The actual mcfaseh is a model of its genre, brief, simple, unified. Yet the adjectives about who Kharkemit was were supplied later on, to fit the story into the present context. Elsewhere the story serves a quite different purpose, and there we hear nothing about her status as a freed slave-girl. The earliest and simplest form of the story therefore must have been Kharkemit + ShemaHah and Abtalion + made her drink. To this are then supplied the conventional superscription, ma*aseh b- as well as the details about her personal status. y

Il.ii.l.A. Hillel says, "A Ml hin (ML? HYN) of drawn water of twelve log (LWG) spoils the ritual bath." Shammai says, "A full hin of drawn water of thirty-six log spoils the ritual bath." And the sages say, "Not according to the words of this and not ac­ cording to the words of this, but three logs (LWGYN) of drawn water spoil the ritual bath." B. The story is told (M SH B) that two weavers came from the Dung Gate which is in Jerusalem and gave testimony in the name of Shema'iah and Abtalion that three logs of drawn water spoil the immersion-pool, and the sages confirmed their words. C

146

S H E M A ' I A H A N D A B T A L I O N — III.ii.1, 2, 3

C. And why is the name of their place and of their vocation men­ tioned? For you have no calling more lowly than weaving, and no place so despised in Jerusalem as the Dung Gate. But just as the fathers of the world did not insist upon their opinions in place of an oral tradition (§MW H), how much the more so that any [lesser]'man should not insist upon his opinion in place of an oral tradition. (Tos. Ed. 1:3,ed. Zuckermandel,pp. 454, lines 31-3, 455, lines 1-6) C

c

Comment:

See Il.i.l and synopses. c

111.11.1. DTNN: He [ Aqaviah] used to say, "The [bitter] water is not administered either to a convert or to a freed slavewoman." And the sages say, "One administers the water." And they said to him, "The story is told of (M<SH B) Kharkemit the freed slavewoman in Jerusalem, and Shema'iah and Abtalion administered the water to her." He said to them, "They administered it to her as an example (DWGM )..." (b. Ber. 19a) }

Comment: The setting now is R. Joshua b. Levi's list of places in which the court inflicted excommunication for an insult to a teacher. The inclusion of Shema'iah and Abtalion is on account of the citation of M. <Ed. 5:6. See II.i.2.

111.11.2. [R. Huna said, In three places Shammai and Hillel differed.] The second: Hillel said, "A hin full of drawn water..." Shammai said, "Nine qabs" But the sages say, "Not according to the opinion of this one or that one." Until two weavers came from the Dung Gate of Jerusalem and testified in the name of Shema'iah and Abtalion that three logs of drawn-water render an immersion-pool unfit, and the sages ratified their words. (b. Shab. 15a) See Il.i.l. The setting is late third-century Sura. 111.11.3. [TNW RBNN: This law was hidden from the Men of Bathyra. After a long argument with Hillel, in which Hillel provides logical proofs, he wins. Then he says to the opposition:] A. "What caused it for you that I should come up from Babylonia Comment:

SHEMA'IAH AND

ABTALION —

III.ii.4

147

to be Nasi over you? It was your indolence, because you did not serve the two greatest men of the time, Shema'iah and Abtalion..." [They ask another question. Hillel cannot answer but observes the conduct of ordinary people. He saw the behavior and then remember­ ed the law and said,] B. "Thus have I received the tradition from the mouth of Shema iah and Abtalion." (b. Pes. 66a) c

Comment: What is important for our present purposes is the assertion, contrary to Il.i.l, that Hillel did preserve and rely upon what he had learned from Shema'iah and Abtalion. But strikingly, the author of the story (part B) held that whatever was worthwhile in Hillel's traditions was verified by its origin with his two teachers. Nothing Hillel could as­ sert in his own name was sufficient. Part A underlines this: those who fail to serve the sages lose their job as nasi\ On the one side is the view of M. Ed.: Hillel and Shammai lost traditions they ought to have known or did not study with Shema'iah and Abtalion to begin with. The middle position, represented here (B) is that Hillel did study with them, but only when he could cite them was he taken seriously. The third position is that his earlier learning had taken place abroad, and he was independent of the two predecessors. That third position is repre­ sented in part A. Hillel was educated elsewhere. He came up as a learned man. "You could have studied with the great sages, but were too lazy to do so. Therefore I am able to overcome you." But the endresult is the same as part B. The beraita is transparently composite. The .beraita s position on Hillel's relationships with the two earlier sages is complex, but hardly so negative as in the earlier materials. Shema'iah and Abtalion again are represented as having given laws pertaining to the Temple cult and holiday sacrifices. c

9

III.ii.4. TNY*: Judah b. Dortai (DWRT'Y) with his son Dortai separated (PR§) and went and took up residence, in the south. He said, "If Elijah should come and say to Israel, 'Why did you not sacrifice the hagigah on the Sabbath?' what would they say to him? I am astonished at the two great men of the generation, Shema'iah and Abtalion, who are great sages and great expositors (DR§NYM), but have not said to Israel, 'The hagigah overrides the Sabbath.'" (b. Pes. 70b) Comment: The setting is a discussion of the Mishnah, "When does he bring a hagigah with it?" Various sayings of Ben Tema are discussed. The discussion is anonymous. Then comes the beraita cited above. Rav immediately comments on it, "What is the reason of the son of Dortai?" Hence the beraita must antedate Rav, therefore is probably Palestinian and certainly of Tannaitic origin. The next comment is R . Ashi, "Are

148

S H E M A ' I A H A N D A B T A L I O N — IILii.5

we to arise and explain the reason of schismatics (PRW$YM)!" Further discussion is on the reason that the rabbis prohibit the hagigah on the Sabbath, but this may pertain just as well to the Mishnah cited earlier as to the

beraita.

This is a striking story, for it represents Shema'iah and Abtalion as "great men" who have failed in their task. The hostility is more impor­ tant than the complimentary epithets. They supposedly are the greatest sages and expositors of the time, yet have failed to teach the simplest law. We know nothing of a sect of "Dortaians" in the south. The beraita purports to tell the origins of a schismatic group, but the group now is unverified elsewhere. We surely cannot link the beraita to others hostile to the two sages, but it does testify that the sages were subjected to critical judgment in later Pharisaism. Since Hillel's rise to power is tied to a related problem (Pesah on the Sabbath), and Shema'iah andAb talion are credited with ruling the paschal sacrifice does override the Sabbath, this is a very puzzling story. See Epstein, Mevcfot, pp. 333, 373, 511. Epstein comments (p. 511) that this passage shows Shema'iah and Abtalion did say the paschal sac­ rifice does, and the hagigah does not, override the Sabbath. III.ii.5. [Re the coming of Hillel: He came from Babylonia and was a poor man. He could not afford to enter the school-house. He sat on the skylight] to hear the words of the living God from the mouth of Shema'iah and Abtalion. They say, that day was the eve of the Sabbath in the winter solstice, and snow fell down on him from heaven. When dawn rose, Shema'iah said to Abtalion, "Brother Abtalion, on every day this house is light, and today it is dark. Is it a cloudy day?" They looked up and saw the figure of a man in the window... (b. Yoma 35b) Comment: They ended up by warming Hillel by a fire, commenting that it was "worth (KDY) profaning the Sabbath for Hillel," an apoph­ thegm, built on the generative KDY-form. The story is a singleton, part of the tradition on the surface cordial to Hillel, that he had learned everything he knew from Shema'iah and Abtalion. But the further pre­ supposition of that corpus of traditions is that one would be praised who had acquired his traditions from them, and one would not be praised who had not, hence a circle favorable to Shema'iah and Abtalion to begin with. Its point is that Hillel is reliable because of his sacrifice in studying with the two great sages, as in III.ii.3.B. The story is part of a composite beraita which proves that whether a man is poor, rich, or evil, he is liable to study Torah. Those in the beraita held up as worthy examples are Hillel (poor), R. Eleazar b. Harsom (rich), and Joseph in Egypt (evil = sexually attractive). The Hillel-story antedates the composite beraita.

SHEMA'IAH AND

149

A B T A L I O N — III.ii.6

The supposition of the story-teller that one must pay to sit at the ses­ sions of the Pharisaic schools is striking. I am not sure that a criticism of Shema iah and Abtalion is intended. c

III.ii.6. [Mishnah: On Yom Kippur the high priest would arrange for his friends a day of festivity.] A. Our rabbis taught (TNW RBNN): It happened (M SHB) with a high priest that as he came forth from the sanctuary, all the people follow­ ed him. When they saw Shema iah and Abtalion, they left him and followed Shema'iah and Abtalion. Eventually Shema'iah and Abtalion visited him to take (their) leave of the high priest. He said to them, "May the descendants of gentiles ( MMYN) come to peace." B. They answered him, "May the descendants of gentiles who do the work of Aaron come to peace, but the descendant of Aaron who does not do the work of Aaron shall not come to peace." (b. Yoma 71b) C

c

C

Comment: The passage is anonymous, connected to the foregoing Mishnah without discussion, and followed by another Mishnah. The italicized portions are in Hebrew, the rest in Aramaic. As in other beraitot pertaining to this period, e.g., Simeon b. Shetah and the Nazirs, and the hangings in Ashqelon, the opening formula is in beraita-Hebrew, the body of the story in Aramaic. The allegation that the two masters descend from gentiles is made in a gloss on another beraita, b. Git. 57b = b. Sanh. 96b. The High Priest here is represented as objecting to the popularity of Pharisaic sages, therefore referring to their disreputable ancestors. Their response is that they do the work of Aaron. The priest does not. The work of Aaron which sages do is not the cult but the study of the Torah. After the destruction of the Temple Torah was alleged by the rabbis to be equivalent to the old Temple cult. Before that time, to be sure, it may well have been asserted that a sage of illegitimate ancestry takes prece­ dence over a high priest who has not studied Torah, but that is not the same thing as saying the study of Torah is the work of Aaron. Hence I suppose the beraita derives from a period when the more extreme asser­ tion was taken for granted. It furthermore was a time in which people could imagine that crowds would leave the high priest on the Day of Atonement and celebrate the great sages. This rabbinic conception may not derive from a period in which information on the actual state of af­ fairs in Temple times was still known. The story is a singleton. The words attributed to the two sages may have originated in an anti-priestly slogan of greater antiquity. But in their present setting, they are integral to the story—indeed, they may

150

SHEMA'IAH AND ABTALION —

III.ii.7, 8; IV.i.l,

2

have provoked the invention of the story. The final logion (B) could have circulated as an anti-priestly saying. 111.11.7. TN>: Naaman was a resident convert. Nebuzaradan was a righteous proselyte. Descendants of Haman studied Torah in Bene Beraq. Descendants of Sisera taught children in Jerusalem. Descend­ ants of Sennacherib taught Torah in public. Who were these (M>N >YNWN)? Shema'iah and Abtalion. (b. Git. 57b = b. Sanh. 96b) Comment: No authority is mentioned in connection with the above beraita. Who are these is an Aramaic gloss of the beraita. We have no basis on which to propose a date. Presumably, the gloss comes after Tannaitic times, and the glossator knew III.ii.6. 111.11.8. Surely it was taught [WHTNY>]: If an animal takes up its abode in an orchard, it requires predeter­ mination, and a free bird must be tied by her wings, so that it should not be mistaken for its mother, and this is testimony which they testified from the mouth of Shema iah and Abtalion. (b. Bes. 25a) c

Comment: The setting is a discussion of an opinion of R. Hisda or Rabbah b. R. Huna and R. Nahman. The beraita is a singleton, to be dated at the latest ca. 250 A.D., presumably in Babylonia. As is common for the early names of the Pharisaic chain of tradition, the attribution of a legal opinion is not in the form, Rabbi X says... Rather, the records are preserved as testimonies (Il.i.l, IV.ii.l), in stories (II.i.2), or in other forms which later became unconventional. This matter of festival law nowhere earlier occurs in the names of Shema'iah and Abtalion. The Houses debate the same theme. IV.i.l. [They asked Hillel (re Passover sacrifice)... He said, Observe the people's behavior. When he saw what they did, he said to them:] "Thus have I heard from the mouth of Shema'iah and Abtalion." (y. Shab. 19:1, repr. Gilead, p. 87a) Comment: See III.ii.3. IV.i.2. [This law was lost by the Elders of Bathyra (re Passover)]. They said, "There is here a certain Babylonian, and Hillel is his name, who served [as disciple] to Shema'iah and Abtalion..." [After a long discussion, in which Hillel brings various logical proofs and they refused to be persuaded, he said,] "Thus I have heard from Shema iah and Abtalion." c

SHEMA'IAH

AND

A B T A L I O N — IV.i.3; IV.ii.l

151

Once they had heard from him thus, they arose and appointed him Nasi over them When they had appointed him Nasi over them, he began to criticize them, saying, "Who caused you to require this Babylonian? Is it not because you did not serve the two great men of the world, Shema'iah and Abtalion, who would sit with you [in times past]." (y. Pes. 6:1, repr. Gilead, p. 39a) Comment: See III.ii.3. IV.i.3. [R. 'Aqiba and the sages debate on administering the bitter waters to a woman accused of adultery, in the following circumstance: Her first husband accused her of adultery and made her drink the bitter waters. Then he died. She remarried. The second husband ac­ cused her of committing adultery even against the first husband. Does he have the right to make her drink the bitter waters again?] The sages say, "Whether against one husband or against two, she drinks and repeats [the ritual]. "Khorkemit [sic] provides proof, for she drank and repeated, and did it a third time before Shema'iah and Abtalion [on account of an accusation of adultery against] one husband [only]." (y. Sot. 2:5, repr. Gilead, p. 13a) c

Comment: See II.i.2, M. Ed. 5:6. This is an allusion to the Mishnah. But the story of Kharkemit is augmented. Nothing in the Mishnah sug­ gests the above legal issue. There the story serves to illustrate a quite different legal point, namely, that one administers the waters to a freed bondwoman. Here that fact about the woman's status is necessarily dropped. The passage may have been revised for the purposes of the current discussion, but if so, the revision involved drastic changes, the imposition of a quite new set of facts. There is no doubt that the dis­ cussion is to be attributed to the generation of 'Aqiba. The possibility that Aqiba had a different version of what was important about Kharkemit cannot be ignored. c

IV.ii.l. R. Zakkai said, "This testimony [referring to the Mishnah: If the daughter of an Israelite was married to a priest who died and left her pregnant, her slaves may not eat Terumah in virtue of the share of the embryo, since an embryo may deprive (its mother) of the pri­ vilege (of eating Terumah), but has no power to bestow it upon her, according to R. Yosi] did R. Yosi testify from the mouth of Shema'iah and Abtalion, and they agreed with him." (b. Yev. 67a)

152

SHEMA'IAH A N D A B T A L I O N — IV.ii.l

Shema'iah and Abtalion

I Tannaitic Midrashim

1. Faith merited splitting the R e d Sea

Mekh. Beshallah I V , 58-60

2. W e a v e r s quote S + A re d r a w n w a t e r in i m m e r ­ sion-pool

Sifre N u m . 7

3. G a v e bitterw a t e r t o suspected adulteress

ILi Mishnah

ILii Tosefta

M . 'Ed. 1 : 3

Tos. 'Ed. 1 : 3

M . 'Ed. 5 : 6

S H E M A ' I A H A N D A B T A L I O N — IV.ii.l

IILi Tannaitic M a t e r i a l s in Palestinian Gemara

j IILii ! Tannaitic Materials i n • Babylonian Gemara

Jb.

IV.ii Amoraic M a t e r i a l s in Babylonian Gemara

Bes. 1 9 a

y. Sot. 2 : 5

1

5. J u d a h b. D o r t a i criticizes S + A

b. Pes. 7 0 a

6 . Hillel s t u d i e d with S + A though a poor man

b. Y o m a 3 5 b

7. H i g h priest insulted S + A

b. Y o m a 7 1 b

8. S + A were descended f r o m Sennacherib

b. G i t . 5 7 b b. S a n h . 9 6 b

9. Re marking animal and bird

b. B e s . 2 5 a

y. Shab. 1 9 : 1 y . Pes. 6 : 1

1 0 . R. Y o s i quotes S - f A re Terumah

b. Y e v . 67a

M. A v o t 1 : 1 0 - 1 1

i

V ARN

VI Later Compilations of Midrashim

Midrash on Psalms 1 7 A : 1

1 b. Pes. 6 6 a

Avot-saying

Amoraic M a t e r i a l s in Palestinian Gemara

b. S h a b . 1 5 a

4. Hillel quotes S + A

11.

IV.i

153

154

SHEMA'IAH

AND

ABTALION — VLxi.l

Comment: See IILii.8 for the same form, "This is testimony which X testified from the mouth of S + A." We do not know where or how the form was created. It does not appear in the earliest stratum of ma­ terials, but is attributed to R. Yosi in a beraita (IILii. 8) and here in a teaching of a third-century Amora. Such attributions of legal opinions to Shema'iah and Abtalion, while puzzling, cannot be rejected out of hand. We may here have a reminiscence of the 'Eduyyot-fotm of the transmission of legal materials. If so, the materials could have received their current form as early as the end of the first century A.D. But Yosi b. Halafta comes a century and a half after the two sages, and he did not hear the tradition from their mouths. Rather, the meaning obviously is on the authority of VLxi.l. Another comment on A prayer of David. Hear the right, O Lord (Ps. 17:1). Consider these words in the light of what Scripture says elsewhere: And this is the blessing of fudah, and he said: Hear, O Lord, the voice of fudah (Deut. 33:7). Now there, in a Mishnah, we learned: Hillel said, "A hin full of drawn water makes a ritual bath of purifi­ cation unfit." Note well, that it is the duty of a man to quote his master's exact words. Shammai said, "Nine qabs of drawn water make a ritual bath of purification unfit." But the sages said, "The practice is not in keeping with what the one said, nor with what the other said." Then came two weavers from the Dung-gate in Jerusalem and testified in the name of Shema'iah and Abtalion that three logs of drawn water make a ritual bath of purification unfit, and the sages accepted the testimony of the weavers. Since no craft is more lowly than a weaver's, and no place in Jerusa­ lem is more despised than the Dung-gate, why was the place whence the weavers came, and why also was the name of their craft recorded, except to show that, like the fathers of the world who did not persist in their own opinion where there was a tradition to the contrary, so no man should persist in his opinion wherever there is a tradition to the contrary? Since the opinions of Shammai and of Hillel in this instance did not prevail, why were they recorded? To teach coming generations that a man should not always persist in his opinions, for even Shammai and Hillel, the fathers of the world, did not. (Midrash on Psalms 17A:l-2, trans. Braude, p. 221)

SHEMA'IAH AND ABTALION —

155

SYNOPSES

c

Comment: See M. Ed. 1:3, Il.i.l .A. Braude solves all problems through paraphrase. ii. SYNOPSES

Synopses of the Hillel-materials will be provided below. 1. Splitting the Sea Mekh. of R. Ishmael 1. Shema'iah says, 2 . W o r t h y is t h e f a i t h t h a t A b r a h a m their father believed in m e 3 . t h a t I shall o p e n f o r t h e m ( L H M ) t h e sea 4. as it is said, G e n . 1 5 : 6 5. A b t a l i o n says, 6 . W o r t h y is t h e f a i t h t h a t t h e y b e l i e v e d in m e 7 . t h a t I s h o u l d o p e n f o r t h e m t h e sea 8. as it is s a i d , E x . 4 : 3 1

Mekb. of R. Simeon b. Yohai 2.

[ o m i t s HY>]

t h e [ f a i t h ] , their father

3 . I am opening f o r t h e m 4.

(LHN)

[ O m i t s as it is said]

5» »

»

»

6 . [ S a m e c h a n g e s as a b o v e , n o . 2 ] t h a t Israel in Egypt b e l i e v e d 7 . [ S a m e c h a n g e s as a b o v e , n o . 3 ] Q °»

»

>»

»

The Mekhilta of R. Simeon b. Yohai exhibits fixed stylistic differ­ ences from the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael. No. 6 represents a consider­ able clarification. The point of Abtalion is that their faith, not merely that of the fathers, is being rewarded. Hence Mekhilta of R. Simeon b. Yohai stresses this by supplying Israel in Egypt in place of the less precise they. The versions are otherwise very close and the differences merely stylistic. The Ishmael-version is older. 2. Weavers quote Shemaciah and Abtalion M. 'Ed. 1:3-4 1 . H i l l e l s a y s , A bin o f drawn-water spoils the miqveh 2 . B u t ('L* §) a m a n is o b ­ l i g a t e d t o say i n t h e l a n ­ guage o f his master 3. S h a m m a i says, Nine qabs 4 . A n d t h e sages say, N o t according to the w o r d s of this one, and n o t according to the w o r d s o f this one. 5. B u t u n t i l ('L'
Tos. 'Ed. 1:3 1. „ „ „ [ A d d s : ] a full bin o f twelve log „ „ „

A

»

99

15a 99

99

2. for a m a n

2.

3 . a full bin of thirty-six »»

b. Shab.

»

log

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

»

99

3 w

'»

»

4. „ „ „ but three logs of drawn water spoil the miqveh [ = M . <Ed. n o . 6 ]

4

^* C

5 . The story is told ( M S H B ) that „ „ „ 5» «

156

SHEMA'IAH AND ABTALION —

6. T h r e e logs o f d r a w n w a t e r s p o i l t h e miqveh 7 . a n d t h e sages con­ firmed t h e i r w o r d s

SYNOPSES

6« » »> »>

6. „ „ „ 7

7 * •

»

»>

»

The measurements thus are as follows: M.

'Ed.

Hillel:

Tos.

One

bin

[=

three

one

'Ed. bin

= twelve

logs

qabs]

Shammai: [Three bin] = nine qabs Sages: Three logs [=1/4 hin = 3/4 qab]

one bin = thirty-six logs = three

logs

Mishnah-Tosefta preserve the same relationships: 3—9—3/4 =

1

12—36—3

M. 'Ed. 1:3-4 8. A n d w h y d o they men­ tion the w o r d s of Shammai a n d Hillel t o n o p u r p o s e (LBTLH)

9. T o teach c o m i n g g e n ­ erations that a man should n o t insist o n his o p i n i o n , 1 0 . f o r lo, the fathers o f the w o r l d d i d n o t insist o n t h e i r opinion.

Tos. 'Ed. 1:3 8. And why are the names of their places and their occupation mentioned Do you have a more lowly occupation than weaving, or a more despised place in Jerusalem than the Dung Gate 9. But just as the fathers of the world

b. Shab. 11

»

n

91

11

11

99

91

11

o y

1 0 . d i d n o t insist o n t h e i r o p i n i o n in a place where oral tradition ($MW
15a

o °»

*

10*

In b. Shab. 15a the Mishnah is accurately cited, with only a small but essential improvement. There the strange L becomes § for. Tos. preserves the story about the weavers as a separate unit. The sages have already given "their" opinion—the opinion which in the Mishnah as in the story of the weavers (M SH B) derives from Shema iah and Abtalion. Tos. Ed. thus has the sages' opinion circulate separately from the pericope involving Hillel and Shammai. I have already re>

>

y

C

c

1

1H 3L H 12L 4L 3L

= = = =

3Q 1/4H 12L 3Q

= =

Q 3/4Q

c

SHEMA'IAH AND ABTALION —

SYNOPSES

157

marked on the exculpation of Hillel and Shammai. For the Mishnah what requires explanation is the citation of the two masters, Hillel and Shammai, when in fact their opinions do not constitute law. For Tos. the problem is different. No one is bothered about men­ tioning Hillel's and Shammai's opinion when it is not law. It is taken for granted that this may happen. The Tos. story emphasizes the mod­ est origins of the opinion attributed to Shema'iah and Abtalion—it came from weavers from the poorest district. The sermon is in form much the same. But the "fathers of the world" now are not Hillel and Shammai, but Shema'iah and Abtalion! And the operative element is the availability of an oral tradition (§M'H). The irony is that Hillel achieved the office of Nasi only because he had such an oral tradition from Shema'iah and Abtalion, yet here ignores it. The irony is under­ lined in Tos. no. 10. All this is revised by Rabbi Judah the Patriarch, who naturally makes Hillel and Shammai the fathers of the world, and their forebearance the point of the sermon. Here we may attribute to Judah the Patriarch a clearcut preference for the Mishnaic version of the materials. Hillel, his alleged ancestor, is at the center of things. Judah makes Hillel the example of modesty and humility. The story of the weavers occurs—presumably there was no other version of Shema'iah and Abtalion's opinions—but it is sub­ ordinated. We may therefore take it for granted that the story circu­ lated separately in the form in which it occurs in the Tosefta. Only afterwards was it revised to serve the purposes of the editor of Mishnah 'Eduyyot. M'SH B is dropped. And so are the significant lessons to be learned from the Dung Gate. The version of Tos. contradicts the letter and spirit of the Hillel-Bene Bathyra stories, which in Judah's time must have been famous. 3. Gave Bitter Water to Suspected M. 'Ed. 5:6 = Sifre Num. 7 1 . [ ' A q a v i a h a n d sages dis­ pute whether to administer bitter waters t o c o n v e r t o r freed female slave. ' A q a v i a h says o n e d o e s n o t d o s o . T h e sages say o n e d o e s . ]

2 . T h e y said t o h i m , T h e s t o r y is t o l d ( M ' S H B ) c o n ­ cerning K h a r k e m i t , a freed s l a v e g i r l , w h o w a s in Terusalem.

Adulteress

b. Ber. 19a 1. TNY>: He w o u l d say, O n e d o e s n o t cause to drink (MSQYN) the fe­ male convert n o r the freed slave girl, and t h e sages say, Y o u do. 2. „ „ „

y. Sot. 2:5 1 . R . * A q i b a said, I shall explain: F r o m one man, the wife does not drink and re­ peat; f r o m t w o men, the wife drinks and repeats. A n d t h e sages say, W h e t h e r f r o m one o r t w o men, the wife drinks and repeats. 2 . Khorkemit will prove it, for she drank and repeated and [did it still a] third [ t i m e ] , ( D r o p s Ma'aseh b-).

158

3.

SHEMA'IAH

A n d Shema'iah and A b -

AND

ABTALION — CONCLUSION

3. „

„

„

3.

talion administered the w a ­ ters t o her. 4.

He

said t o t h e m , T h e y

administered the waters t o h e r as an e x a m p l e ( D W G M ' HSQWH).

4 . and h e said „

„

4.

„

As we see, y. Sot. has 'Aqiba's opposition citing not the Mishnah before us, but rather a quite different reminiscence of, or allusion to, it. The story no longer concerns whether a convert or a freed slavegirl is made to drink the waters. She is not a freed slave-girl at all. Now she is just an ordinary wife, in the situation explained above. We therefore cannot suppose the Mishnah is accurately quoted by the sages opposed to 'Aqiba. A different, slightly related version is used for settling a separate issue. The kernel of both traditions must be an association of Shema'iah and Abtalion with the administration of the bitter waters to Kharkemit—who was either a freed slave-girl, or a wife in an especially complicated situation, but not both. i n . CONCLUSION

Shema'iah and Abtalion have no teachers. Much like the earlier pairs, they are quoted, but quote no one. They rarely are cited separate­ ly. Indeed, the story of "their" descent from Sennacherib would be more easily understood if the two were really one person. At any rate they function as a unit in nearly all traditions. By inference they are involved in the Temple cult, since they sup­ posedly ruled on the administration of the bitter waters to an adul­ teress. But this does not mean the later rabbis assumed they were priests, for the rabbis claimed Temple rites were ruled by rabbis. On the other hand the conflict with the high priest is a stylized sermon, recording an opinion familiar in later rabbinic materials. What is striking is the expansion of the sorts of legal opinions at­ tributed to the two masters. These include the measurements of a ritual bath, the aforementioned administration of bitter waters, Pass­ over sacrificial laws (by inference from the attribution of Hillel's opin­ ion), sacrifice of the hagigah on the Sabbath (by inference from the complaint of Judah b. Dortai), preparation of animals for use on festivals, and rights to consume Terumah. While we of course do not know whether the two masters really made such rulings, it is conse­ quential that the shape and content of the traditions attributed to them have changed from the earlier ones. The legal materials until Simeon

SHEMA'IAH

AND

ABTALION — CONCLUSION

159

b. Shetah were sparse and chiefly concerned purity rules. Simeontraditions somewhat extended the range to include marriage-contracts, educational reforms, and so on. But nothing like the extent and variety of the legal attributions to Shema'iah and Abtalion occurs earlier. S + A now rule on the range of issues characteristic of the Housesdebates: festival, purity, family, and agricultural laws. Their legal agenda corresponds to that of the first-century authorities. The traditions clearly are to be divided between those in which Hillel plays a role, and those in which he is absent. The latter include the faith that warranted splitting the sea, the administration of the bitter waters, the criticism of Judah b. Dortai, the encounter with the high priest, the attribution of their ancestry to Sennacherib, the animal in the orchard, and the right to eat Terumah. In few of these are the sages represented as putative ancient authorities for already wellknown, established practices, as is so often the impression given by Simeon b. Shetah-materials. On the contrary the S + A traditions independent of Hillel relate to two authorities who, while not abund­ antly represented, are credited with actual legal sayings (in testimonyform) and considerable authority (the "sages" approved an opinion given in the name of Shema'iah and Abtalion); who supplied important precedents made use of in later legal discussions (the bitter water); and who ruled on complex legal issues (the animal in the orchard, right to Terumah). Only in the Hillel materials do Shema'iah and Abtalion occur, like Simeon b. Shetah and earlier figures, as shadowy, scarcely known "great authorities," to whom conventional opinions are traced (e.g., Hillel and Bathyrans). Efforts to fill in the gaps by identifying Shema'iah and Abtalion with Pollion the Pharisee and his disciple Samaias of Josephus, Antiquities, 15: 1-4, have little in their favor, apart from the approximate similarity of the names of Shema'iah and Samaias. Pollion, or Samaias, is credited with arguing in behalf of Herod when he was on trial before Hyrcanus; he repro­ achfully foretold to Hyrcanus and the judges that if Herod's life were spared, he would one day persecute them all. Herod later on (15:370) showed kindness to Pollion and Samaias, even though though they refused to take an oath of loyalty to him. Typical of the 'method' of the historians is the effort to identify this story with b. Sanh. 19a-b, above, pp. 114-115, in which Simeon b. Shetah appears against Yan­ nai; they make Yannai into Herod, and Simeon is now Samaias. At any rate nothing in the rabbinic traditions of S + A hints at involve­ ments with Herod, nor is Shem'iah represented as Abtalion's disciple.

CHAPTER SEVEN YOHANAN

T H E HIGH PRIEST,

HONI THE

CIRCLER, A N D OTHERS M E N T I O N E D I N CONNECTION WITH BEFORE

PHARISAISM

HILLEL

i. YOHANAN THE HIGH PRIEST

Il.i.l. Yohanan the High Priest (1) did away with the confession concerning the Tithe. (2) He too (T?) made an end (BTL) of the Awakeners and (3) the Stunners. (4) And until his days the hammer was used to smite in Jerusalem. (5) And in his days none needed to inquire concerning demai-ptoduce. (M. Ma'aser Sheni 5:15) Comment: For the meaning of Yohanan's laws, see S. Lieberman, "The Three abrogations of Johanan the High Priest," Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (N.Y., 1950), pp. 139-143. The pericope lists legal actions of Yohanan (= John Hyrcanus). The language is different for each clause. He did away ( BR) with one thing. Also he annulled (BTL) two cultic practices. Then comes a different form: Until his days, joined to the foregoing by and. The final element, again joined by and, in his days a man did not have to ask, is still a fourth form. It is difficult to imagine the original materials drawn upon by the editor. The legal topics are not unrelated. The second and third con­ cern Temple rites. The first and fourth relate to the priestly dues. The setting is laws on the confession. The pericope is tacked on at the end. While it relates in theme, it is not integral to the antecedent ma­ terials and could have been dropped without losing significant laws; it surely circulated independently. The tendency of rabbinic .materials is to regard Yohanan the High Priest as a good priest until the very end. But this pericope contains no qualification of that judgment. Yohanan did what was right, and his laws remain valid (so far as they are relevant to contemporary condi­ tions). Wefindno hint that Yohanan at the end of his "eighty years" in office turned to minut or became a Sadducee. That must be regarded as a separate, and later tradition. After Simeon the Just, Yohanan is the only high priest so favorably regarded until the first century. He is the only Hasmonean of whom the rabbis not only approved, but whom they also held to provide valid precedents in the law. C

YOHANAN —

II.i.2, 3,

4

161

I cannot propose a date. The form is neither the X says... of later rabbinic usage, nor the testimony-form, but the three things, as with Yosi b. Yo'ezer. The preservation of historical-legal reminiscences in other than conventional style is not unusual. Perhaps this is a model for the "three things" style characteristic of early masters' sayings, copied in M . Avot 1:1-18. The lemmas are brief and self-contained. They may have been redacted according to the pattern in which they reach us, consisting chiefly of verb plus predicate. Until in his days would be light glosses. The redactional elements then complete the pericope. The pericope, like Yosi's, may represent the form of pre-Houses-materials. Those materials were redacted at Yavneh. Perhaps the earliest Pharisaic traditions consisted of brief lists on a single legal theme, e.g. unclean­ ness, Temple cult, like the little legal pericopae of the Qumranian writings. See Epstein, Mevd*ot, pp. 405-6. 11.1.2. Yohanan the High Priest did away with the confession con­ cerning the Tithe. He also made an end of the Awakeners and the Stunners. Until his days the hammer was used to smite in Jerusalem, and in his days none needed to inquire concerning ^^/-produce. (M. Sot. 9:10) Comment: Confession of is added to Tithe. The setting is a pericope on changes in the Temple cult. Immediately preceding is the reference to the end of the rite of breaking the heifer's neck, the bitter water, and the end of the grapeclusters. The above follows, in the context of the grapeclusters. Following is, "When the Sanhedrin ceased." The passage is nearly unchanged from Il.i.l, and the above is certainly a citation of the foregoing. 11.1.3. And who prepared [the red heifer offering]? ...Yohanan the High Priest prepared two... (M. Par. 3:5) Comment: See above, p. 25. The preservation of Yohanan in this context again indicates he was one of the good high priests of Pharisaicrabbinic tradition. 11.1.4. The Sadducees say, "We cry out against you, O you Pharisees, for you say, "The Holy Scriptures render the hands unclean, and the writings of Homer do not render the hands unclean.'" Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai said, "Have we nothing against the Pharisees but this? For lo, they say, 'The bones of an ass are clean and the bones of Yohanan the High Priest are unclean.'" They said to him, "As is our love for them, so is their uncleanness— N E U S N E R . The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 7 0 , I

11

162

YOHANAN —Il.ii.l, 2

so that no man will make spoons of the bones of his father or mother." He said to them, "Even so the Holy Scriptures..." (M. Yad. 4:6) Comment: ^^.Development of a Legend: Studies on the Traditions concerning Yohanan hen Zakkai (Leiden, 1970), pp. 60, 203. This pericope cannot date before the beginning of the second century, if then. Yohanan ben Zakkai is represented as referring to Yohanan the High Priest in a fa­ vorable light. The pericope further portrays Yohanan as admired by the Sadducees. I imagine that fact provoked later rabbis to make Yohanan the High Priest into a Sadducee/#?/# "at the very end of his life," so as to harmonize both the favorable view preserved earlier, on the one hand, with the Sadducean attitude shown here, on the other. Later on the inference was drawn and fully articulated in beraita-totm. If so, the traditions on his legal decrees probably come before this story. But I cannot suggest how much earlier. 11.11.1. Yohanan the High Priest heard from the house of the Holy of Holies, 'Theyoung men who went out to make war against Antioch have conquered' (NSHW TLY* D'ZLY L'GPP QRB> B>NTWKY>) and they noted that hour, and it tallied that they had conquered at that very hour. (Tos. Sot. 13:5, ed. Zuckermandel p. 319, lines 8-9) Comment: The italicized words are in Aramaic, the rest in Hebrew. The context is given above, p. 27. The point of the pericope is a mi­ raculous revelation to Yohanan, another indication of the high favor he enjoyed in rabbinical circles. The tallying of the hour of the supernatu­ ral revelation with the hour of the event occurs in other miracles, e.g. Hanina b. Dosa and Gamaliel's son, b. Ber. 34b. The kernel of the peri­ cope is the Aramaic passage, in which case the point must be as given, that Yohanan was vouchsafed a heavenly revelation. Later on, R. Yohanan used the Aramaic logion to prove an additional, and quite different point, about heavenly knowledge of Aramaic. Josephus has the same miracle-story (below, p. 173). 11.11.2. The knockers—These are those that pull (M$K) the calf between its horns as they do to the idol. (Rabban) Yohanan (b. Zakkai) [sic] said to them, "How long are you going to feed the altar unfit meat (terefot)" Until his days the hammer blow was in Jerusalem—on the inter­ mediate days of the festival. He also decreed concerning the Confession and annulled (BTL) the demai.

Y O H A N A N — III.ii.1

163

For he sent in all the towns of Israel, and saw that they separated only the great Heave-offering. As to First Tithe and Second Tithe, some were tithing and some were not tithing. He said, "As to Heave-offering, the mortal sin [inheres], and as to the Heave-offering of the Tithe, the sin of tevel [untithed produce inheres.]" A man would designate Heave-offering and Tithe and give to the priest, and would profane Second Tithe with coins, and as to the rest of the Tithe and the Poorman's Tithe—he who takes from his fellow must bring proof. (Tos. Sot. 13:10) Comment: Tos. Sot. has already been corrected in accord with b. Sot. 48a (below, p. 165), and corrupted by Rabban... b. Zakkai. Otherwise, y. M.S. 5:5 copies Tos. Sot. III.ii.1. Abbaye said, "We have a tradition that a good man does not become bad." But does he not? Is it not written (Ezek. 18:24), But when the righteous turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity? Such a man was originally wicked, but one who was originally righteous does not do so. But is that so? Have we not learned (TNN): Believe not in yourself until the day of your death. For lo, Yohanan the High Priest officiated as high priest for eighty years, and in the end he became a min [printed texts: Sadducee], Abbaye said, "Yohanan is the same as Yannai." Rava said, "Yohanan and Yannai are different. Yannai was originally wicked, and Yohanan was originally righteous..." (b. Ber. 29a) Comment: This biographical logion cannot have been cited before the middle of the fourth century, possibly much later, for it is brought as a comment on Abbaye's teaching. Abbaye, however, supposed Yohanan and Yannai the King were the same. Since Yannai is referred to as a priest but never called "high priest," while in our materials Yohanan is always called "high priest," we may imagine Abbaye knew the story about Yannai's fight with the Pharisees (b. Qid. 66a) and drew from it the inference that Yannai also was high priest. That provides a terminus ante quern for the beraita cited above, pp. 107-109. But it does not help us to date this one. It seems to me, as I said, that some time between the mid-second cen­ tury and the mid-fourth century, the implications of Yohanan b. Zak-

164

Y O H A N A N — III.ii.2, 3

kai's Mishnaic logion led to the conclusion that, late in life, Yohanan the High Priest had joined the Sadducees. The apparently Sadducean materials cited in connection with Antigonus of Sokho show that rab­ binic tradition assigned the beginning of Sadduceeism to the period be­ fore Joshua b. Perahiah. Hence, had that evidence been known, it would have been logical to place Yohanan in the Sadducean party, if at all, somewhat after that time. As to the beraita itself, it is probably a composite, for do not believe is a separate apophthegm, merely illustrated by lo, Yohanan. It could have stood by itself, and so could the Yohanan-phrase. As we shall see, the latter was quoted without the foregoing homily. Rabbah b. b. Hana refers to it, b. Yoma 9a, and hence a somewhat earlier date may be late third-century. But his saying is not in the form of a separate beraita about Yohanan the High Priest. It rather concerns a whole list of good priests (Simeon the Just, Ishmael b. Phiabi) who served a long time. It therefore seems to me probable that the pericope was placed into beraita-fotm after Rabbah b. b. Hana. Hence sometime in thefirstfifty years of the fourth century, the pericope was given its present form, then was cited with reference to Abbaye's opinion. 111.11.2. R. Yohanan said, "If anyone prays for his needs in Aramaic, the ministering angels do not pay attention to him, because they do not understand that language." But it has been taught (TNY*): Yohanan the High Priest heard an echo issue from within the holy of holies announcing, The young men who went to wage war against Antioch have been victorious. It also happened with (W$WB M'SH B) Simeon the Righteous... (b. Sot. 33a) See Il.ii.l. R. Yohanan supplies the terminus ante quern for the mid-third-century. The italicized words are in Aramaic. The heavenly messages to both high priests in Aramaic prove that angels do know Aramaic. Comment:

beraita:

111.11.3. WHTNY': He also annulled the confession and decreed in respect of demai. For he sent throughout Israelite territory and saw that they separated only the Great Terumah alone. But as for the First and Second Tithes, some tithed and some did not tithe. He said, "My children, Come and I will tell you. Just as in [neglect of] the Great Terumah there is mortal sin, so with respect to the Terumah of the Tithe and to untithed produce (TBL) there is mortal sin." He arose and ordained (TQN) for them: Whoever purchases fruits from an 'am ha!*ares must separate the First and Second Tithes from them.

165

Y O H A N A N — III.ii.4

As to First Tithe, he separates the Terumah of the Tithe and gives it to a priest. And as for the Second Tithe, he should go up and eat it in Jerusalem. With regard to the First Tithe and the Tithe of the poor, whoever demands them from his neighbor has [the burden of] proof [that they had not been already separated]. [Abbaye replied]: He made two decrees. He abolished the confes­ sion over the presentation of the First Tithe in the case of haverim, and he decreed in regard to the demai of the ^amme ha ares. (b. Sot. 48a) y

Comment: This beraita, for which Abbaye supplies the terminus ante quern, is a considerable expansion of the Mishnah cited above, Il.i.l. The whole is in beraita-Hebtew. Yohanan's reason now is given in detail, and in the form of a fabricated, direct address. The opening clause is taken directly from the Mishnah, but that does not prove the clause circulated separately; on the contrary, it is cited, then developed for the purposes of the author of the beraita. For further comment, see Il.i.l, above, p. 160. III.ii.4. TNY': They used to strike with clubs as is the practice with idolatry. He said to them, "How long will you feed the altar with corpses?" Corpses? (Nevelot)—but they were properly slaughtered! Rather, torn flesh (terefot), since the membrane of the brain may have been perforated. He arose and ordained (TQN) for them rings in the ground. (b. Sot 48a) Comment: The pericope explains the meaning of "knockers", referred to in the Mishnah. Like the foregoing beraita it provides a very consid­ erable expansion of the Mishnah, again supplying a fabricated logion in direct discourse. Immediately preceding is an explanation of Rav Judah in the name of Samuel: "They used to make an incision on the calf between its horns so that the blood should flow into its eyes. He came and abolished the practice because it appeared as though [the animal] was blemished." Then comes the beraita, which gives a different explanation: the practice was drawn from the pagan cult. But the point is much like the one given by Samuel: to prevent the animal from struggling, it would be stunned. The beraita has been revised by a gloss, and the gloss stands. The Palestinian version (IV.i.l) preserves the correction, so the above antedates R. Yohanan. I find it difficult to imagine that Samuel knew the beraita in its current form, for the simple reason that if he had known it, he presumably

166 Y O H A N A N — IV.i.l YOHANAN ILi Mishnah

ILii Tosefta

1. Did away with c o n f e s s i o n etc.

M. M.S. 5 : 1 5 M. Sot. 9 : 1 0

2. Prepared heifer

M. Par. 3 : 5

3. Bones unclean to protect from misuse

M. Yad. 4 : 6

Yohanan the High Priest

4. Heard heavenly

I Tannaitic Midrashim

IILi Tannaitic M a t e r i a l s in Palestinian Gemara

IILii Tannaitic Materials in Babylonian Gemara

IV.i

Tos. Sot. 1 3 : 1 0

b. S o t . 4 8 a

y. M . S . 5 : 5 y. S o t . 9 : 1 1

Tos. Sot. 1 3 : 5

b. S o t . 3 3 a

y. S o t . 9 : 1 3

Amoraic M a t e r i a l s in Palestinian Gemara

IV.ii Amoraic M a t e r i a l s in Babylonian Gemara

— IV.i.l V ARN

VI 167 Later Compilations of Midrashim

echo 5. E n d e d u p a Sadducee after e i g h t y y e a r s in High Priesthood 6. U s e o f D i v i n e N a m e in d o c u ­ ments

would have cited it, rather than explaining matters in other language entirely. Samuel said they made an incision, the beraita, that they stunned the animal. In the former instance the problem was a blemish. In the latter, it was possible damage to the animal's brain which would render it unfit for the altar (and Jewish use = TRP). So while the points are parallel, they are quite different, and, as I said, sufficiently different so Samuel could not likely have known the beraita. That does not mean the beraita was formulated later on, for it probably circulated separately until Rav Judah (d. 297 A.D.). The pericope is a legal reminiscence. The setting is difficult to ascer­ tain. We only know it was not Nehardea-Pumbedita, and could well have been a Palestinian school. In its present, revised form, the pericope may be regarded as a unity. IV.i.l. R. Yohanan said, "Yohanan the High Priest sent and in­ vestigated in all the towns of Israel, and found that they were separat­ ing only the Great Heave-offering (Terumah Gedolah), but as to First Tithe and Second Tithe, some were separating [them] and some were not. "He said, 'Since First Tithe is punishable by death and Second Tithe [comes under] the sin of tevel, let a man designate (QWR' §M)

b. B e r . 2 9 a

b. Y o m a 9a

P e s . R. K a h .

Meg. Ta.

Heave-offering and the Heave-offering of the Tithe and give it to the priest. "'Let him substitute coins for Second Tithe. As to the rest—Poor Man's Tithe, he who takes from his fellow must bring proof [of the legitimacy of his claim], and let him make the confession.'" [As to the knockers]: Yohanan the High Priest said to them, "How long are you going to feed unfit food (terefot) to the altar?" He went and made for them rings. [And in his days a man did not need to ask concerning demai\. For he set up pairs (ZWGWT). (y. M.S. 5:5, repr. Gilead, p. 33b = y. Sot. 9:11, repr. Gilead, p. 44b) Comment: The beraita-fotm is absent; instead, we have an attribution to R. Yohanan b. Nappaha. We shall compare this version to III.ii.4 below, in synopses. As to the pairs, the traditional commentaries on this passage assign the beginning of the pairs to Yohanan's times; they were set up to over­ see the law of demai. The explanation does not occur elsewhere and is not assigned to a named tradent.

168

Y O H A N A N — IV.i.2, IV.ii.l, V L i v . l , VLxii.l

IV.i.2. The story is told (M'SH §) that the young men went to do battle against Antioch, and Yohanan the High Priest heard an echo coming from the house of the Holy of Holies and saying, The young men who went to make war against Antioch have conquered. They wrote that time and placed in it the hour, and they found that it happened at that very hour. (y. Sot. 9:13, repr. Gilead, p. 45b) Comment: The italicized portion is in Aramaic, the rest in standard Hebrew. For further comment, see above, Il.ii.l. IV.ii.l. Yohanan the High Priest served eighty years. (b. Yoma 9a) Comment: The context is a saying of Rabbah b. b. Hana that the high priests of the Second Temple served less than a year, excluding Simeon the Just, Ishmael b. Phiabi, Eleazar b. Harsom, and Yohanan. See III.ii.1. VLiv.l. They said concerning Yohanan the High Priest that he served in the high priesthood for eighty years, and at the end became a Sadducee. (Pesiqta de R. Kahana, ed. Mandelbaum, I, p. 176) Comment: See III.ii.1. VLxii.l. On the third of Tishri the use of the divine name in legal documents was abrogated. For the evil kingdom of Greece decreed persecution against Israel. They said to them, "Deny the Kingdom of Heaven, and say, 'We have no portion in the God of Israel.'" But they did not mention the name of Heaven in their mouth. When the hand of the Hasmonean House was victorious, they decreed that they should write the name of Heaven in legal documents, and thus would they write, "In the year such-and-such of Yohanan the High Priest, who is High Priest to the Highest God." When the sages heard of the matter, they said, "But do you mention the name of Heaven in legal documents? Shortly this one will pay his debt and destroy his note, and the name of Heaven will be found thrown into the garbage." They stopped them, and that day they made into a festival. (Megillat Ta'anit, ed. Lichtenstein, p. 337.) Comment: This singleton is a rabbinic tradition critical of Yohanan the High Priest. It is a medieval fabrication.

169

YOHANAN — SYNOPSES

Synopses 1. Did Away with Confession M. M.S. M. Sot.

5:15 9:10

=

b. Sot.

Tos. Sot. 13:10

48a

y. M.S.

5:5

y. Sot. ( »

9:11

99

=

99

as i n y . M . S . 5:5) 1. Y o h a n a n the H i g h Priest did a w a y w i t h (
6.

1.

TNY>

1.

A l s o he annulled (BTL) »

»

1 X

»

99

99

91

19

99

99

„

„

„

7.

7.

8. H e said t o t h e m , Since First Tithe [is] in death and Second Tithe is in the sin of tevel

8. „

„

„

9 . L e t a m a n desig­ nate Heave-offering and Heave-offering o f T i t h e a n d g i v e it t o the priest

9.

99

99

»

2.

2.

2.

2.

3.

3.

3.

3.

4 . A n d h e decreed concerning demai

4 . H e annulled ( B T L ) demai

4.

4.

5. f o r he sent t h r o u g h the w h o l e b o u n d a r y o f Israel a n d s a w t h e y sepa­ r a t e d o n l y Terumah Gedolah. 6. A s t o First T i t h e and Second Tithe, some were tithing, and some w e r e n o t tithing.

^*

»

»

»

5 . Yohanan the High Priest sent and searched in all the cities of Israel and found „ „ „

5

6» »

»

»

6*

6.

7.

7 . H e said t o t h e m , M y children, C o m e a n d I shall say t o you.

8.

8 . J u s t as in Terumah °»o Gedolah m o r t a l sin inheres, so in H e a v e offering o f Tithe and tepefy m o r t a l sin inheres.

9.

9. He arose and ordained (TQN) for them: He w h o purchases fruits f r o m an 'am hd*ares separates f r o m them Heave-offering o f tithes and gives it t o t h e priest 10. Second Tithe— h e g o e s u p a n d eats

10.

1. R. Y o h a n a n said

7.

99

99

99

9. [ = y. M.S. 5:5]

99

»

99

' •

1 0 . [y. M . S . 5:5]

19

1 0 . and Second Tithe —he profanes it with

1 0» x

v

/

99

91

91

170

11.

12.

13. 14.

15.

16.

18. 19. 20.

—

YOHANAN —

it in J e r u s a l e m 1 1 . First Tithe and poorman's Tithe— he w h o takes a w a y f r o m his f e l l o w must bring the proof 12. W h a t are knockers? Rav J u d a h - S a m u e l [as above] 13. B M T N Y T ' TN>: 14. They would s m i t e it w i t h h a m ­ m e r s as t h e y d o b e ­ forehand 1 5 . H e said t o them, Until w h e n are y o u g o i n g t o feed corpses ( N B Y L W T ) to the altar

11. „

SYNOPSES

„

„

corns 1 1 . and the rest— p o o r man's Tithe „ „ „ and let him confess

11. „

„

„

„

„

12.

12.

12.

13.

13.

13.

1 4 . [y. M . S . 5:5]

1 4 . Yohanan the High Priest said to them

14.

15. » TRPWT

1 5 . H o w long are y o u g o i n g t o feed » » »

15

16. N B Y L W T ? Lo they slaughter them, but T R P W T lest t h e m e m ­ brane of the brain be pierced

16.

16.

16.

NBYLWT

18. He arose and ordained (TQN) for them 19. rings on the ground 20.

18.

altar [ o m i t s lestpierced] 1 8 . ,, ,, ,, a n d made

19.

19. rings [Omits on ground]

20.

2 0 . for he set up pairs

18.

„

j>

19 20.

We see that both the Babylonian and Palestinian gemarot preserve substantial expansions of the tradition. The two Palestinian versions differ very little, except in the striking failure of y. Sot. 9:11 to correct NBYLWT to TRPWT, the secondary, therefore necessarily later version. Tos. Sot. 13:10 does make the necessary correction, perhaps a scribal "improvement." The earlier form of the Amoraic material must be the Palestinian version attributed to R. Yohanan, with the beraita\r coming later. The Palestinian form omits the colloquy intro­ ducing Yohanan the High Priest's message, My children, come and I shall teach you. The Babylonian further improves the diction of his message, just as...so..., and corrects sin of tevel (whatever that might mean) to in...tevel, mortal sin... which makes sense. The Babylonian prefers to have the man eat his tithe in Jerusalem, while the saying of R. Yohanan

»

j>

YOHANAN —

171

SYNOPSES

is congruent to Palestinian realities of his day. No one could then go up to Jerusalem. The Babylonian improves on this, by rightly, but anachronistically, setting the whole thing back into Temple times. The Palestinians have him confess he has paid his dues, but this is manifestly dishonest, and the Babylonian drops that detail. The inter­ ruption of Rav Judah-Samuel obviously will be absent in the Palestin­ ian version. Then the Babylonian further improves on the brief collo­ quy, by supplying the detail of what they would do (b. Sot. 48a, no. 14), thus augmenting the Palestinian version's simple he said to them. The Babylonian further explains the legal dilemma, no. 17 lest the membrane, further developing the Palestinian version's no. 17. The concluding detail, no. 19, is augmented by on the ground in Babylonia. There can be no reasonable doubt that the Babylonian beraita not only comes later than R. Yohanan's version, but in fact depends, and improves, upon it in numerous details. But we have no grounds to suppose that R. Yohanan possessed some sort of "very ancient" tradi­ tion, or, if he did, that he transmitted it in the language in which it would have been formulated centuries earlier. On the contrary, in effect he did much as did Samuel, but instead of phrasing the whole in his own language, he told a story in standard Mishnaic narrative style. This then became the basis for the still later Babylonian beraita. 2. Heard Heavenly Echo Tos. Sof. 13:5 („ „ „ = y. Sot. 9 : 1 3 ) 1 . Y o h a n a n the H i g h Priest heard f r o m the house of the holy o f holies 2.

b. Sot.

3.

[See a b o v e , 1 ]

3

4.

„

4. „

„

„ [ = y. Sot.]

5. A n d they tallied ( K W N ) that h o u r and they tallied t h a t t h e y c o n q u e r e d at t h a t hour 6 . [See a b o v e , 5 ]

1.

33a

WHTNY>: »

»

6.

1.

9:13

M'SH §

„

„

„

»

2.

5.

y. Sot.

2. Y o u n g men w e n t f o r t h t o d o b a t t l e at A n t i o c h 3 . And Y o h a n a n the high priest h e a r d an echo coming forth from the h o u s e o f t h e holy o f holies „

„

4 . Theyouths who made war in Antioch have conquered [in Aramaic] 5. and t h e y w r o t e d o w n t h a t t i m e a n d set in it t h e hour 6 . a n d t h e y t a l l i e d it t h a t it w a s in t h a t v e r y h o u r

In no. 3, y. Sot. adds BT QWL, strikingly absent from Tos. Sot. no. 1.

172

YOHANAN —

SYNOPSES

The Babylonian version is furthest from the other two, which are quite close to one another, as we saw in connection with Simeon. The Babylonian beraita has dropped nos. 5 and 6, since the issue is whether or not the angels speak Aramaic, and those details therefore are of no consequence here. Otherwise, the differences among the three versions are not substantial. The Palestinian version no. 5 removes some of the verbal repetitions of Tos. Sot. and is certainly dependent upon it. The Babylonian beraita copies Tos. Sot. so far as it is relevant. But its omissions look deliberate and indicate dependence on the Tosefta version, not an independent formulation or the transmission of a separate tradition. 3. Ended as a Sadducee b. Ber. 29a 1. T N N 2. D o n o t b e l i e v e in y o u r ­ self etc. 3. F o r lo, Yohanan the H i g h P r i e s t s e r v e d in t h e high priesthood for eighty years 4 . a n d at t h e e n d b e c a m e (Lit: was made) a Sadducee

b. Yoma 9a

1. 2. 3. ...and the eighty that Y o h a n a n the High priest served...

Pes. R. Kah. 1. They said concerning 2. 3. Y o h a n a n p r i e s t that „

the high „ „

4 r

*

»

»

»

The beraita of b. Ber. 29a is referred to, but not closely quoted, in b. Yoma 9a. What is more interesting is the form of the citation in Pes. R. Kahana. There the compiler has imposed a quite different form from TNN. Now it is they said concerning with the additional that neces­ sary for the new form. Otherwise it is identical to the beraita and pre­ sumably represents a citation of it. The editor of a midrashic compila­ tion was prepared to impose his own redactional forms on antecedent materials, even those attributed to Tannaim. Conclusion Until Amoraic times Yohanan the High Priest was represented as a faithful and authoritative teacher of the law and high priest. This is remarkable, given the attitude of the Pharisees toward the priesthood. Yohanan is one of those exceptions in whose time miracles character­ istic of the cult in the time of Simeon the Just would have recurred. Like Simeon, he prepared a heifer-offering. His decrees and ordinances were not only preserved in the Mishnah, but discussed afterward in both countries with a view to locating his reasons. The fact that the

Y O H A N A N — CONCLUSION

173

real reasons for Yohanan's decrees had long since been forgotten may possibly serve as an indication of the antiquity of the tradition pre­ served in M. M.S. 5:15. It may well be that an old Pharisaic tradition here persists into rabbinic times, and I think that is the case. The logion about the young men may be the oldest saying deriving from Yohanan; it is set into two separate arguments, one on heavenly echoes, the other on the language of angels, but it must antedate both and may represent language associated with Yohanan from much ear­ lier times, to be compared to similar usage preserved in the name of Yosi b. Yo ezer of the same approximate period. We were readily able to account for the decided revision of the once favorable attitude toward Yohanan. The language of Yohanan ben Zakkai made it seem Yohanan the High Priest was a Sadducee, and the rest naturally followed. The calculation of the immense reign of Yohanan enhanced the drama of his final heresy. I do not know how the figure of eighty was reached. It was twice Simeon the Just's time. Josephus assigns him thirty-one years. Josephus's John Hyrcanus (135-104) first appears in War I:54ff. He succeeded his murdered brothers as high priest and led the state for thirty-one years (1:68). He enjoyed the "three highest privileges: the supreme command of the nation, the high priesthood, and the gift of prophecy. He could invariably predict the future." In the per­ tinent materials in the War, Josephus makes no mention of Pharisees. In Antiquities XIII, Josephus vastly expands his account. He credits John Hyrcanus with the destruction of the Gerizim temple and the conversion of Idumaea (13:254). The heavenly message now appears as follows: c

Now about the high priest Hyrcanus an extraordinary story is told, how the Deity communicated with him, for they say that on the very day on which his sons fought with Cyzicenus, Hyrcanus, who was alone in the Temple, burning incense as high priest, heard a voice say­ ing that his sons had just defeated Antiochus. And on coming out of the Temple, he revealed this to the entire multitude, and so it actually hap­ pened. The message here preserved in indirect discourse is presented in direct discourse in the rabbinic materials: "The youths who have made war on Antioch have conquered." But the message is nearly identical, and so is the setting. Josephus now brings the story of the Pharisees and Hyrcanus (13: 288ff., trans. L. H. Feldman):

174

Y O H A N A N — CONCLUSION

As for Hyrcanus, the envy of the Jews was aroused against him by his own successes and those of his sons. Particularly hostile to him were the Pharisees, who are one of the Jewish schools... And so great is their influence with the masses that even when they speak against a king or high priest, they immediately gain credence. Hyrcanus too was a disciple of theirs, and was greatly loved by them. And once he invited them to a feast and entertained them hospitably, and when he saw that they were having a very good time, he began by saying that they knew he wished to be righteous and in everything he did tried to please God and them—for the Pharisees profess such be­ liefs ; at the same time he begged them, if they observed him doing any­ thing wrong or straying from the right path, to lead him back to it and correct him. But they testified to his being altogether virtuous, and he was delighted with their praise. However, one of the guests, named Eleazar, who had an evil nature and took pleasure in dissension, said, "Since you have asked to be told the truth, if you wish to be righteous give up the high priesthood and be content with governing the people." And when Hyrcanus asked him for what reason he should give up the high-priesthood, he replied, "Because we have heard from our el­ ders that your mother was a captive in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes." But the story was false, and Hyrcanus was furious with the man, while all the Pharisees were very indignant. Then a certain Jonathan, one of Hyrcanus' close friends, belonging to the school of Sadducees, who hold opinions opposed to those of the Pharisees, said that it had been with general approval of all the Pharisees that Eleazar had made his slanderous statement; and this, he added, would be clear to Hyrcanus if he inquired of them what punishment Eleazar deserved for what he had said. Hyrcanus did so, and the Pharisees replied: Eleazar deserved stripes and chains; for they did not think it right to sentence a man to death for calumny, and the Pharisees are naturally lenient in the matter of punishments. Hyrcanus was outraged, and Jonathan in particular inflamed his anger, and so worked upon him that he brought him to join the Sadducean party and desert the Phari­ sees and to abrogate the regulations which they had established for the people and punish those who observed them. At this point, Josephus explains who the Pharisees are and alleges that everyone listens to them, while the Sadducees are followed only by the wealthy (etc.). Then Josephus returns to the account of War. Hyrca­ nus lived happily ever after and had the three greatest privileges etc. Clearly, the rabbis' tradition of Alexander Jannaeus (b. Qid. 66a)

Y O H A N A N — CONCLUSION

175

and Josephus's story of John Hyrcanus in Antiquities exhibit remark­ able affinities. On Abbaye's theory that Yannai and Yohanan were one and the same, we have no difficulties whatever, and it is Abbaye who cites the materials in b. Qid. 66a. I am impressed by the near-identity of the miracle-story with the rabbinical one, even more impressed by the antiquity of the language attributed to the heavenly echo, and would be inclined to imagine that to both Josephus and the rabbis was available a single, brief logion in Aramaic. The parallels certainly are too close to be accidental. The long story about Hyrcanus ( = b. Qid.'s Jannaeus) and the Pharisees is another matter. It is long, well developed, and involves not a single short phrase, but a complex narrative. Josephus has in­ serted it whole into his story. He does not account for Pharisaic hostility, but takes it for granted; then he makes Hyrcanus a Pharisee, so their hostility is even more incredible. Now comes the famous banquet, with Eleazer ( = Judah b. Gedidiah of the Talmud) as the trouble-maker, described with much the same adjectives, and his mes­ sage is identical in substance. Everyone "leaves indignant" in both versions. Then Jonathan (the Talmud's Eleazer b. Po'irah) tells the king to let the Pharisees show their true feelings. They impose the normal punishment. This detail is absent in b. Qid. 66a, but it is there taken for granted, "That is the law even for the most humble... shall that be your law too?" follows the departure of the sages. The version in b. Qid. 66a, if not garbled or defective, therefore is in­ comprehensible without the details supplied in Josephus's story, thus presumably comes later than Josephus. Now Josephus explains how Hyrcanus left the Pharisees and joined the Sadducees, after which he lived happily. This detail ignores the foregoing narrative. For the rabbis the break came on the threshold of his death and is left unex­ plained. Then Simeon b. Shetah comes along and restores the Phari­ sees to power. I find it impossible to imagine how the two versions could have been shaped independently of one another. They are so close that were Josephus's version to appear in a Talmudic document, we should readily have produced an uncomplicated synoptic comparison. Two facts seem to me decisive. The first is the length and complexity of the narrative, the second, the constant parallels of theme, development, and detail, between the two versions. The two cannot be thought entirely separate traditions, but, on the contrary, may be best account­ ed for within one of three theories: either Josephus here cites an

176

HONI — Il.i.l

ancient pre-rabbinic, Pharisaic story (highly unlikely); or both refer in common to a third, independent source; or the rabbis cite Josephus. This third seems to me most improbable, unless in fact the rabbis knew Josephus's writings in the original Aramaic. The b. Qid. 66a story cannot, for obvious chronological, stylistic and form-critical considerations, have been known to Josephus. If the rabbis did know Josephus's story, it would account for their tradition that Yohanan had been a Pharisee and had deserted the party. Yohanan the High Priest is also alluded to in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Deut. 33:11. See M. Ginsburger, Pseudo-Jonathan (Berlin, 1903), p. 362-3: "May the enemies of Yohanan the High Priest have no leg to stand on," evidently a curse.

II. HONI THE CIRCLER

ILi. 1 .A. Once they said to Honi the Circler, "Pray that rain may fall." He answered, "Go out and bring in the Passover ovens, that they be not softened." He prayed, but rain did not fall. What did he do? He drew a circle and stood within it and said before him, "Lord of the world, your children have turned their faces to me, for I am like a son of the house before you. I swear by your great name that I will not stir hence until you have pity on your children." Rain began falling drop by drop. He said, "Not for such rain have I prayed, but for rain [that will fill] cisterns, pits, and caverns." It began to rain with violence. He said, "Not for such rain have I prayed, but for rain of goodwill, blessing, and graciousness." Then it rained in good order, until the Israelites went up from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount because of the rain. They went to him and said, "Just as you prayed for the rain to come, so pray that it may go away." . He replied, "Go and see if the Stone of the Strayers has disappeared." B. Simeon b. Shetah sent to him saying, "If you were not Honi, I would have pronounced a ban against you, but what shall I do to you, for you importune God and he does your will, like a son that impor­ tunes his father, and he performs his will, and of you Scripture says, Let thy father and thy mother be glad, and let her that bore you rejoice (Prov. 23:25)." (M. Ta. 3:8)

177

HONI — Il.i.l, IV.ii.l

Comment: The pericope is cited anonymously. It follows a law that one does not sound the shofar on account of an excess of rains, and then comes ma'aseh she + they said to Honi. The biographical story is surely a unity, excluding the message of Simeon b. Shetah (see above, p. 91). The story is quoted without much change in Megillat Ta anit, ed. Lichtenstein, pp. 348-9. The message of Simeon to Honi further recurs as a separate pericope in b. Ber. 19a, above, pp. 103-104. In y. Ta'anit 3:9, the story is somewhat expanded (as in b. Ta'anit 23a, below). A series of glosses is supplied to various elements in the Mishnaic account, e.g. re the stone: c

" J u s t as it is i m p o s s i b l e f o r t h i s s t o n e t o m e l t a w a y f r o m t h e w o r l d , s o it is n o t p o s s i b l e t o p r a y t h a t r a i n s w i l l g o a w a y , b u t g o a n d b r i n g m e a thank-offering." T h e y w e n t a n d b r o u g h t h i m a t h a n k - o f f e r i n g . H e p l a c e d his t w o h a n d s o n it a n d said, " L o r d o f t h e w o r l d , Y o u b r o u g h t e v i l o n y o u r c h i l d r e n , a n d t h e y c o u l d n o t e n d u r e i n it, a n d y o u b r o u g h t g o o d o n y o u r c h i l d r e n , a n d t h e y c o u l d n o t e n d u r e in it, b u t m a y it b e y o u r w i l l t h a t y o u w i l l b r i n g prosperity." F o r t h w i t h the w i n d b l e w and the clouds dispersed and the sun shone and the land dried u p " (and so forth).

The y. Ta. materials certainly come later than the Mishnah and aug­ ment it, but the meaning is not much changed. The message of Simeon b. Shetah is similarly augmented in y. Ta. 3:10, as we noted earlier. Honi evidently occurs in Josephus's account of the conflict between Hyrcanus and Aristobulus (Antiquities 14:22-24, trans. Ralph Marcus pp. 459-60): N o w there was a certain Onias, w h o , being a righteous man and dear to G o d , h a d o n c e in a rainless p e r i o d p r a y e d t o G o d t o e n d t h e d r o u g h t , a n d G o d h a d h e a r d his p r a y e r a n d sent r a i n . T h i s m a n h i d h i m s e l f w h e n h e s a w that the civil w a r continued t o rage, but he w a s taken t o the camp o f the J e w s and w a s asked t o place a curse o n A r i s t o b u l u s and his fellow-rebels, j u s t as h e h a d , b y his p r a y e r s , p u t a n e n d t o t h e rainless p e r i o d . B u t w h e n in s p i t e o f h i s refusals a n d excuses h e w a s f o r c e d t o s p e a k b y t h e m o b , h e s t o o d u p in t h e i r m i d s t a n d said, " O G o d , K i n g o f t h e u n i v e r s e , since t h e s e m e n standing beside m e are t h y people, and those w h o are besieged are t h y priests, I beseech thee n o t t o hearken t o t h e m against these m e n n o r t o b r i n g t o pass w h a t t h e s e m e n ask t h e e t o d o t o t h o s e o t h e r s . " A n d w h e n h e h a d p r a y e d in t h i s m a n n e r t h e v i l l a i n s a m o n g t h e J e w s w h o s t o o d r o u n d h i m stoned h i m t o death.

The rabbinic traditions about Honi contain no parallel to this story. IV.ii. 1. [It happened that the people said to Honi, the Circle Drawer, etc.] A. Once it happened that the greater part of the month of Adar had gone and yet no rain had fallen. The people sent a message to Honi the Circle Drawer, "Pray that rain may fall." He prayed and no rain fell. He thereupon drew a circle and stood within it, in the same way N E U S N E R . The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70, I

12

178

H O N I — IV.ii.l

as the prophet Habbakuk had done, as it is said, / will stand upon my watch, and set me upon the tower (Hab. 2:1). He exclaimed, "Lord of the world, your children have turned to me because [they believe] me to be a member of your house. I swear by your great name that I will not move from here until you have mercy upon your children!" Rain began to drip, and his disciples said to him, "We look to you to save us from death. We believe that this rain came down merely to release you from your oath." Thereupon he exclaimed, "It is not for this that I have prayed, but for rain [to fill] cisterns, ditches and caves." The rain then began to come down with great force, every drop being as big as the opening of a barrel (and the sages estimated that no one drop was less than a log). His disciples then said to him, "Master, we look to you to save us from death. We believe that the rain came down to destroy the world." Thereupon he exclaimed before him, "It is not for this that I have prayed, but for rain of benevolence, blessing and bounty." Then rain fell normally until the Israelites [in Jerusalem] were com­ pelled to go up [for shelter] to the Temple Mount because of the rain. [His disciples] then said to him, "Master, in the same way as you have prayed for the rain to fall, pray for the rain to cease." He replied, "I have it as a tradition that we may not pray on account of an excess of good. Despite this, bring me a bullock for a thanks­ giving-offering." They brought him a bullock for a thanksgiving-offering, and he laid his two hands upon it and said, "Lord of the world, your people Israel, whom you have brought out from Egypt, cannot endure an excess of good or an excess of punishment. When you were angry with them, they could not endure it. When you showered upon them an excess of good, they could not endure it. May it be your will that the rain may cease and that there be relief for the world." Immediately the wind began to blow and the clouds were dispersed, and the sun shone, and the people went out into the fields and gathered for themselves mushrooms and truffles. Thereupon Simeon b. Shetah sent this message to him, "Were it not that you are Honi, I would have placed you under the ban; for were the years like the years [of famine in the time] of Elijah, in whose hands were the keys of rain, would not the name of Heaven be profaned through you? But what shall I do to you, who act petulantly

HONI — IV.ii.l

179

before the Omnipresent and he grants your desire, as a son who acts petulantly before his father and he grants his desires. "Thus he says to him, 'Father, take me to bathe in warm water, wash me in cold water, give me nuts, almonds, peaches, and pome­ granates,' and he gives them to him. Of you Scripture says, Let thy father and thy mother be glad, and let her that bore thee rejoice (Prov. 23:25)." B. Our rabbis have taught: What was the message that the Sanhe­ drin sent to Honi the Circle Drawer? [It was an interpretation of the verse], Thou shalt also decree a thing, and it shall be established unto thee, and light shall shine upon thy ways (Job 22:28). Thou shalt also decree a thing: You have decreed [on earth] below and the Holy One, blessed be He, fulfills your word [in heaven] above. And light shall shine upon thy ways. You have illumined with your prayer a generation in darkness. When they cast thee down, thou shalt say: There is lifting up. You have raised with your prayer a generation that has sunk low. For the humble person He saveth. You have saved by your prayer a generation that is humiliated with sin. He delivereth him that is not innocent. You have delivered by your prayer a generation that is not innocent. Yea, He shall be delivered through the cleanness of thy hands. You have delivered it through the work of your clean hands. C. R. Yohanan said, "This righteous man [Honi] was throughout the whole of life troubled about the meaning of the verse, A Song of Ascents, When the Lord brought back those that returned to Zion, we were like them that dream (Ps. 126:1). Is it possible for a man to dream continuously for seventy years? "One day he was journeying on the road, and he saw a man planting a carob tree. "He asked him, 'How long does it take [for this tree] to bear fruit?' "The man replied, 'Seventy years.' "He then further asked him, 'Are you certain that you will live another seventy years?' "The man replied, 'I found carob trees in the world. As my fore­ fathers planted these for me, so I too plant these for my children.' "Honi sat down to have a meal and sleep overcame him. As he slept, a rocky formation enclosed upon him which hid him from sight, and he continued to sleep for seventy years. When he awoke, he saw a man gathering the fruit of the carob tree, and he asked him, 'Are you the man who planted the tree?'

180

HONI — IV.ii.l

"The man replied, 'I am his grandson.' "Thereupon he exclaimed, 'It is clear that I slept for seventy years.' "He then caught sight of his ass, who had given birth to several generations of mules, and he returned home. "He there inquired, 'Is the son of Honi the Circle Drawer still alive?' The people answered him, 'His son is no more, but his grand­ son is still living.' "Thereupon he said to them, 'I am Honi the Circle Drawer,' but no one would believe him. "He then went to the study-house, and there he overheard the sage say, 'The law is as clear to us as in the days of Honi the Circle Drawer, for whenever he came to the study-house, he would settle for the sages any difficulty that they had.' Whereupon he called out, 'I am he,' but the sages would not believe him, nor did they give him the honor due to him. "This hurt him greatly and he prayed [for death] and died." Rava said, "Hence the saying, 'Either companionship or death.'" D. Abba Hilqiah was a grandson of Honi the Circle Drawer, and whenever the world was in need of rain, the rabbis sent a message to him and he prayed and rain fell. Once there was an urgent need for rain, and the rabbis sent to him a couple of sages [to ask him] to pray for rain. They came to his house but they did not find him there. They then proceeded to the fields, and they found him there hoeing. They greeted him, but he took no notice of them. Towards evening he gathered some wood and placed the wood and the rake on one shoulder and his cloak on the other shoulder. Throughout the journey he walked barefoot, but, when he reached a stream, he put his shoes on. When he lighted upon thorns and thist­ les, he lifted up his garments. When he reached the city, his wife, well-bedecked, came out to meet him. When he arrived home, his wife first entered [the house], and then he, and then the scholars. He sat down to eat, but he did not say to the sages, "Join me." He then shared the meal among his children, giving the older son one portion and the younger two. He said to his wife, "I know the sages have come on account of rain; let us go up to the roof and pray; perhaps the Holy One, blessed be He, will have mercy and rain will fall, without having credit given to us." They went up to the roof; he stood in one corner and she in another.

HONI —IV.ii.l

181

At first the clouds appeared over the corner where his wife stood. When he came down he said to the sages, "Why have you sages come here?" They replied, "The rabbis have sent us to you, Sir, [to ask you] to pray for rain." Thereupon he exclaimed, "Blessed be God, who has made you no longer dependent on Abba Hilqiah." They replied, "We know that the rain has come on your account, but tell us, Sir, the meaning of these mysterious acts of yours, which are bewildering to us? Why did you not take notice of us when we greeted you?" He answered, "I was a laborer hired by the day, and I said I must not relax [from my work]." "And why did you, Sir, carry the wood on one shoulder and the cloak on the other shoulder?" He replied, "It was a borrowed cloak. I borrowed it for one purpose [to wear] and not for any other purpose." "Why did you, Sir, go barefoot throughout the whole journey, but when you came to a stream, you put your shoes on?" He replied, "What was on the road I could see, but not what was in the water." "Why did you, Sir, lift up your garments whenever you lighted upon thorns and thistles?" He replied, "This [the body] heals itself, but the other [the clothes] does not." "Why did your wife come out well bedecked to meet you, Sir, when you entered the city?" He replied, "In order that I might not set my eyes on any other woman." "Why, Sir, did she enter [the house] first, and you after her, and then we?" He replied, "Because I did not know your character." "Why, Sir, did you not ask us to join you in the meal?" [He replied], "Because there was not sufficient food [for all]." "Why did you give, Sir, one portion to the older son and two por­ tions to the younger?" He replied, "Because the one stays at home, and the other is away in the synagogue [the whole day]." "Why, Sir, did the clouds appear first in the corner where you wife stood and then in your corner?"

182

H O N I — IV.ii.l

[He replied], "Because a wife stays at home and gives bread to the poor, which they can at once enjoy, while I give them money, which they cannot at once enjoy. "Or perhaps it may have to do with certain robbers in our neigh­ borhood. I prayed that they might die, but she prayed that they might repent [and they did repent]." E. Hanan ha-Nehba [the Modest] was the son of the daughter of Honi the Circle Drawer. When the world was in need of rain, the rabbis would send to him school children, and they would take hold of the hem of his garment and say to him, "Father, father, give us rain." Thereupon he would plead with the Holy One, blessed be He, [thus], "Master of the Universe, do it for the sake of these who are unable to distinguish between the Father who gives rain and the father who does not." And why was he called, Hanan ha-Nehba?—Because he was wont to lock (mihabbeh) himself in the privy [out of modesty]. (b. Ta. 23a-b, trans. J . Rabbinowitz, pp. 115-120) Comment: This Amoraic expansion of the Mishnaic passage constitutes a veritable Honi-tractate. Apart from parallels to materials already re­ ferred to, the whole is a singleton. It is transparently composite. Part A successively develops each of the elements of the Mishnah. Disciples are supplied, to allow a more congenial context for the exchanges. The ma­ terials are certainly later than the Palestinian Talmudic equivalents, e.g. Your children becomes the people you brought forth from Egypt, with many more additions. The pericope is late. The Simeon-message is greatly expanded, as we observed above (p. 177). Then comes part B, a beraita, Amoraic in origin, in which a conversation is supplied for the Sanhedrin. Part C consists of R. Yohanan's story about Honi and the man who planted a carob-tree. That story seems to me a unity. It must date be­ fore ca. 350 (Rava) but after ca. 250 (R. Yohanan). Then come the further stories of Honi's family. The whole Honi-corpus consists of the materials given here. We cannot doubt that the bulk of new materials comes very late. But how much older is the Mishnaic stratum? I find it difficult to offer even a rough guess. The special interest of R. Yohanan in the whole corpus likewise requires an explanation, but I cannot sug­ gest one. in.

OTHERS

The only names mentioned in Simeon the Just materials are those of his two sons, Shime^i and Honyo (pp. 36-7). They do not occur else­ where.

OTHERS

183

While Yosi b. Yo'ezer's son is left nameless, his nephew, Yaqim of Serurot, is mentioned (p. 76). No further rabbinic traditions refer to him. The sages Eleazar b. PoHrah and Judah b. Gedidiah mentioned in connection with the Pharisaic dispute with Yannai the King occur only there (pp. 107-108). The criticism of Shema'iah and Abtalion is the only tradition refer­ ring to Judah b. Dortai or to his son (p. 147).

CHAPTER EIGHT MENAHEM.

SHAMMAI

i. M E N A H E M

The only explicit reference to Menahem is in M. Hag. 2:2, cited above: "Hillel and Menahem did not differ, but Menahem went forth and Shammai entered in." This enigmatic saying is discussed in Amoraic pericopae, as follows: [Menahem went forth and Shammai entered.] Where did he go? Abbaye said, "He went forth to evil culture." Rava said, "He went forth to the king's service." It has also been taught (TNY> NMY HKY): Menahem went forth to the king's service, and eighty pairs of disciples dressed in silk (SYRYQWN) went forth with him. (b. Hag. 16b) Where did he go forth? Some say, "He went forth from measure to measure (MYDH)." And some say, "He went against his face (KNGD PNYW), he and eighty pair of disciples of the sages, dressed in golden silk [following Jastrow, read SYRQY instead of TYRQY] that brightened their faces like the saucer attached to a pot." For they said to them, "Write on the horn of an ox that you do not have a portion in the God of Israel." (y. Hag. 2:2, repr. Gilead, pp. lOb-lla) Comment: The Babylonian pericope is unrelated to other materials in the same context. Rava's saying is expanded in the beraita, or perhaps he cited the tradition contained in the beraita. I assume the eighty pair of disciples is a counterpart to Hillel's, in a beraita also from Pumbedita; perhaps it is a stock-phrase. The Palestinian pericope, isolated from its setting, is enigmatic. The meaning of "from measure to measure" has been variously explained; I do not know what it means. He went against his face generally is inter­ preted to mean, he went out unwillingly, but here again, I do not know the philological basis for that explanation. The passages compare as fol­ lows:

S H A M M A I — I.ii.l

b. Hag. 1. W h e r e did he g o ? 2 . A b b a y e said 3. He w e n t forth to evil culture 4 . R a v a said 5. He w e n t f o r t h t o the service o f the king 6. T N Y ' N M Y H K Y 7. M e n a h e m w e n t f o r t h t o t h e s e r vice of the king 8. A n d t h e r e w e n t f o r t h w i t h h i m e i g h t y p a i r s o f disciples 9 . d r e s s e d in silk (LBW$YN SYRYQWN) 10.

185

y.

Hag. 1. „ „ „ 2 . Some say 3 . from measure to measure h e w e n t forth 4 . Some say 5 . H e w e n t f o r t h against his face 6. 7. 8. H e a n d e i g h t y p a i r [sing.] o f disciples of the sages 9 . d r e s s e d ( M L B W $ Y N ) [in] silks of ( T Y R Q Y = S Y R Q Y ) gold 1 0 . F o r t h e y said t o t h e m , etc.

The Babylonian beraita has improved the Palestinian Amoraic tradition in a number of respects. First, the enigmatic language, from measure to measure and against his face, has been dropped in favor of commonplace and immediately comprehensible expressions. Second, the beraita changes pair to pair/, clarifies S YRYQY and drops the redundant gold. All of no. 10 is dropped in the Babylonian version. My guess therefore is that the Babylonian version depends upon the Palestinian one. It seems to me unlikely that the two traditions developed independent of one another, and in this instance the shorter and clearer probably im­ proves upon the longer and less lucid. But I do not understand why the substantial detail of no. 10 should have failed to serve the editor of the Babylonian beraita. We have no reason to attribute any tradition con­ cerning Menahem to a period before the circulation of M. Hag., for both Palestinian and Babylonian pericopae begin with the language of the Mishnah, "Where did he go," although the beraita has hidden that question in the declarative statement of no. 7. The Mishnah, in its present form, must have been known to all parties responsible for the foregoing pericopae. On this basis we must regard all the traditions as efforts to provide glosses for the Mishnah, not as independent traditions deriving from the period before it. For a discussion of the interpretation of the language of the pericopae and an account of Menahem, see Sidney B. Hoenig, "Menahem, Hillel's First Associate," Bit^aron 52, 1964, pp. 87-96. Hoenig identifies Mena­ hem with the Menahem ben Signai of M. Ed. 7:8. Others have found our Menahem in Menahem b. Judah, the Galilean Sicarius, and Menahem the Essene, both mentioned by Josephus. I see no merit in any of these guesses. So far as I can see, the Menahem of M. Hag. 2:2 appears only there. We do not gain much by supplying him with new patronymics and identities. See Epstein, Mishnah, pp. 138, 900. c

I I . T R A D I T I O N S OF S H A M M A I

I.ii.l.A. Shammai the Elder says, and keep it—when it comes."

"Remember

it—before it comes,

186

S H A M M A I — I.ii.l

B. They said concerning (>MRW
T h e y said c o n c e r n i n g ( M R W < L Y W
Mekhilta deR. Simeon b. Yohai omits TNY'. The tendency of the beraita is considerably different from that of the Mekhilta. Shammai's behavior in the Mekhilta is beyond reproach and held up as a good ex­ ample. In b. Bes., by contrast, Shammai behaves in a less than exem­ plary manner. It seems likely that b. Bes. has been reshaped for the pur­ poses of the Hillelite tradent. We therefore have three Shammai-elements. The House of Shammai may come first of all, but if so, their saying has not been copied or used in the formulation of Shammai's saying. It stands by itself. By contrast the House of Hillel's saying has produced a little Hillel-story, as often

187

S H A M M A I — I.ii.2

happens, just as Shammai's exegesis may lie behind I.ii.l.B. But it then is curious that Shammai's saying in I.ii.l. A is not referred to in the Sham­ mai story. The development of the Hillel-materials is therefore coherent: 1. House of Hillel, Blessed is the Lord... 2. Hillel the Elder—all his deeds—Blessed is the Lord. In any event the Houses-dispute and the dis­ pute of the masters Shammai and Hillel are quite parallel, and constitute one of the few points of contact between stories about the masters and sayings of their Houses. See Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 512. I.ii.2. This is one of three things that Shammai the Elder expounded, "One does not weigh anchor [of] a ship to [journey on] the Great Sea less than three days before the Sabbath." In what context is the rule given? For a long voyage, but for a short one, one may weigh anchor. [Sifre Deut. 203, ed. Friedman, p. 111b, Finkelstein, p. 239 (Tos. Shab. 13:10, 12-13, without Shammai)] Comment: The above saying is at the end of an extended pericope about besieging a city. It begins with a rule on destroying the trees. Then comes a requirement of offering peace two or three days before making war. Finally: O n e d o e s n o t b e s i e g e a c i t y less t h a n t h r e e d a y s b e f o r e t h e S a b b a t h , b u t if they encircled them and the Sabbath happened t o come, the Sabbath does not interrupt the war. T h i s is o n e o f t h r e e t h i n g s t h a t S h a m m a i . . .

If attributed to Shammai are all three rules, then the first would be about offering peace, the second about the timing of the siege, the third is the direct attribution above. But if that is the list in the editor's mind, he did not carefully explicate it. The language is, This is one... followed only by the rule about weighing anchor. The inference is, as I have sug­ gested, that the other two rules are immediately antecedent. But this is not clearly stated. We have a parallel, however, in Tos. Eruv. 3:7 (be­ low, p. 196), so the meaning must be as given. The pericope is a list of laws chiefly about the Sabbath. The link to the peace-offer is three days before. The setting is entirely anonymous. As a unity, the pericope would have read, "Shammai the Elder says/testi­ fied..." followed by the three laws. The part explicitly attributed to Shammai is a unity. The siege-rule circulated separately; the pericope is a composite. What is striking is the attribution to Shammai of Sab­ bath-rules. The Shammai/Hillel corpus contains legislation on subjects never earlier treated in Pharisaic traditions. See Epstein, Mevo'ot, pp. 278-9, who posits the list of three items, in­ cluding //o/z^j-materials. c

188

S H A M M A I — I.i.l

I.i.l.A. [Thou shalt therefore keep this ordinance—this means the law about the tefillin.] From year to year—this tells that one should examine the tefillin once in twelve months. Here it says, From year toyear (Ex. 13:10), and there it says, For a full year shall he have the right of redemption (Lev. 25:29). Just as year there means fully twelve months, likewise here—these are the words of the House of Hillel. 8. The House of Shammai say, "One need never ( LMYT) examine (BDQ) them." C. Shammai the Elder said, "These are the tefillin of my mother's father." (Mekh. Pisha III, lines 209-216, trans. Lauterbach, I. p. 157) C

Comment: Shammai's saying, C, to be classified as an autobiographical reference for legal purposes, depends upon the foregoing materials. It would be simply incomprehensible for such a statement to have circu­ lated independent of the argument between the Houses. The Hillelite opinion required an annual inspection; the Shammaite House said no inspection is ever required. Shammai then supplies an example of the foregoing: my grandfather's tefillin never required inspection. But the example seems curious. According to the House of Shammai, no example is required, for no tefillin, whoever the owner, need be in­ spected annually. To point to "my grandfather" as a person whose care of his tefillin exempts them from the need for annual inspection may imply that others, not so virtuous, would be wise to submit to inspec­ tion. But in the Hillel-version, y. Eruv. 10:1, the saying is not inter­ preted in this way, rather as support for the foregoing view. The saying has no parallel, nor do we find further references in Shammai-materials to his grandfather. The Tannaitic collections contain no Hillel-Shammai stories. The three Shammai-stories reveal no hostile view of the master, who is never used as a foil to the virtue of Hillel. The form of the pericope is odd. Nearly all Houses-pericopae follow the single form: House of Shammai, then House of Hillel. Where an extended introduction is included in the opening lemma, it often will be inserted into the Shammaite saying. Furthermore, the standard Housespericopae normally are easily reduced to brief mnemonic elements. For the one before us, therefore we should have expected: c

T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, " O n e n e e d n e v e r e x a m i n e tefillin" T h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, " O n e s h o u l d e x a m i n e tefillin o n c e in months."

twelve

This form is not ideal, for usually the Houses-lemmas are balanced opposites, e.g. uncleanjclean, or mere sequences of numbers, e.g. three/four. Here we should have expected either:

S H A M M A I — Il.i.l

189

H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : O n e d o e s n o t e x a m i n e tefillin. House o f Hillel: O n e d o e s e x a m i n e tefillin. Once in twelve months

would be a gloss. Or:

H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : O n e e x a m i n e s tefillin o n c e in six m o n t h s House o f Hillel: O n e e x a m i n e s tefillin o n c e in t w e l v e m o n t h s .

Such a version would have produced a simple superscription, they ex­ followed by the Houses opinions, as single words, e.g. the inclusion of the negative, followed by a repetition of the superscription as the Hillelite opinion, or the sequences of numbers in some readily discernible mnemonic pattern. The sayings attributed to Shammai here and to Hillel in y. Eruv. 10:1 presumably come after the dispute, but I do not see how they have been provoked by it. So the whole is a puzz­ ling pericope, standing quite outside the standard forms. amine tefillin,

c

Il.i.l .A. Second Tithe vetches may be consumed only in their green condition, and may be brought up to Jerusalem and taken out again. If they have contracted uncleanness—R. Tarfon says, "They should be divided among lumps of dough." But the Sages say, "They should be redeemed." B. Heave-offering [vetches]— The House of Shammai say, "They soak and rub in cleanness, and they give as food in uncleanness." And the House of Hillel say, "They soak in cleanness but rub and give as food in uncleanness." Shammai says, "They are eaten dry (SRYD)." R. Aqiba says, "Whatsoever concerns them may be done in un­ cleanness." [M. M.S. 2:4, trans. Danby, p. 75 (compare M. <Ed. 1:8)] c

Comment: Shammai's position is that the heave-offering vetches must be kept dry and eaten dry, so that at no point are they to be made sus­ ceptible to become unclean through the application of liquids (see H. Albeck, Seder ZeraHm [Tel Aviv, 1957], p. 251). The contrary positions are, first, that of the House of Shammai, that they may be fed to cattle in a state of uncleanness, but must be soaked and rubbed in cleanness; second, the House of Hillel, that they should be soaked in a state of cleanness, but may be both rubbed and fed to cattle in uncleanness. Shammai, who says at no point may they be rendered susceptible of un­ cleanness, assigns the most stringent protection of cleanness to the heave offering-vetches. R. 'Aqiba's position is the very opposite. Thus: Shammai

vs. 'Aqiba H o u s e of S h a m m a i v s . H o u s e o f Hillel

Shammai's saying stands entirely within the conventions of Mishnaic legal sayings. It is Shammai says, just as all others in the pericope say. The

190

S H A M M A I — II.i.2

classification and the form coincide: a legal saying in standard legal form. The setting is less clear than it seems on the surface. Shammai's say­ ing could not have been comprehended independent of the rest of the pericope. Therefore it depends upon the others and does not date in this form from before 'Aqiba, the last named in the pericope. An earlier form could have been, "Vetches of heave-offering—Shammai says [tes­ tified] : They should be eaten dry." Still, without knowing that con­ trary or otherwise differing opinions were maintained elsewhere, the passage would have posed a problem: If Shammai says so, who says otherwise? Hence I imagine the earliest form of the pericope would have had to include several differing opinions. If this is the case, then Shammai's opinion has passed through several states of transmis­ sion, the first of which is at this point hardly recoverable. But I see no reason to imagine some later scholar's opinion has been attributed to Shammai to gain greater acceptance. That possibility is excluded by de­ finition. In its present form, the Mishnah looks like a composite of earlier traditions. But my guess, as I said, is that the pericope despite appear­ ances may actually be a late, unitary composition, for a single hand in the end—after 'Aqiba—must have set the whole into final form, and the shape of antecedent materials is more difficult to imagine than on the face of it one would expect. Chronological considerations prevent the hypothesis that the named sages "one day" met and issued a resume of their conflicting opinions. But what other events underlie the pericope simply escape my imagination. We cannot conceive that on every perti­ nent legal issue, a Shammai-opinion was available, in the proper form and order, and that the same was so for other houses and masters. But if not, then why to Shammai is attributed an opinion on just this matter? The preservation of isolated opinions on various, unrelated questions in the name of pre- Aqiban authorities, opinions in no context, and bearing no formal or substantive relation to one another, certainly is puzzling. Less curious is the commonplace allegation that Shammai and his House differed on legal matters—that is an obvious Hillelite polemic. See Epstein, Mevo ot, p. 7 3 . c

y

II.i.2. If a man would change a s'ela of Second Tithe money in Jerusalem. The House of Shammai say, "[He must change] for the whole s'ela copper coins (M<WT)." And the House of Hillel say, "[He may take] one sheqeFs worth of silver and one sheqeFs worth in copper coins." They that made argument before the Sages say, "Three denars worth of silver and one of copper." R. 'Aqiba says, "Three denars' worth of silver and from the fourth [denar] a quarter in copper coin." R. Tarfon says, "Four aspers in silver."

191

S H A M M A I — II.i.3

Shammai says, "Let him deposit it in a shop and [gradually] consume its value (Y>KL KNGDW)." (M. M.S. 2:9, trans. Danby, p. 76 [Compare M. <Ed. 1:10]) Comment: Shammai stands entirely apart from the dispute. The datum of the dispute is changing the money. Shammai holds it should not be changed at all. The opinion is tacked on at the end of a set of logical opposites: House of Shammai vs. House of Hillel They that made argument (= ben 'Azzai and ben Zoma) Aqiba vs. Tarfon Shammai c

Chronologically, all are in approximately proper order except Shammai. But that makes sense, for, as I said, his opinion is at such variance with all others that it would disturb the symmetry of the opinions (Sheqe/ Denar, Fourth) to include it otherwise than at the end. The pericope could hardly have started, "If a man would change... Shammai says, Let him deposit [and not change]..." Hence the only logical place comes at the end of the opinions pertinent to the issue at hand. The terminus ante quern is in the middle of the second century A.D. Shammai's opinion in this case, as in the foregoing, depends upon the completed pericope. Standing by itself, it could mean nothing at all. Since we can hardly imagine a gathering of the above-named sages, whatever Shammai originally said has been revised to conform to the context. For considerations mentioned above, it remains difficult to un­ derstand how a tradition in his name on this subject circulated outside of the setting of an argument. In both instances the 'Aqiban school has transmitted pericopae setting Shammai into opposition with the House of Shammai. He indeed is left completely alone and in effect outside of the framework of the later dis­ putes. A polemic apparently is intended, that the House of Shammai does not really preserve the opinions of their master. But I see no reason to doubt the genuineness of attributions to Shammai on the part of the House of Shammai. See Epstein, Mevoyot, p. 67-7. 9

II.i.3.A. Whatsoever is leavened, flavored, or mingled [ = liquid; and conveys marked flavor] with Heave-offering, Or/^-fruit, or Diverse Kinds of the Vineyard, is forbidden. B. The House of Shammai say, "[If it is unclean, even though less than an egg's bulk, which is the quantity necessary to convey fooduncleanness] it can also convey uncleanness." And the House of Hillel say, "It can never convey uncleanness un­ less it is an egg's bulk in quantity." c

192

S H A M M A I — II.i.3

C. Dositheus of Kefar Yatmah was one of the disciples of the House of Shammai, and he said, "I have heard [a tradition] from Shammai the Elder, who said, 'It can never convey uncleanness unless it is an egg's bulk in quantity.'" (M.
S H A M M A I — II.i.4

193

nion. But then Shammai's opinion is accurately cited—and that of his House has been exchanged for the opinion of Hillel's House, so that Shammai's House is repudiated, and Hillel's supported, by the "authen­ tic" tradition of the master Shammai himself. When would such a revi­ sion of the traditions have taken place? My guess is that it would come long after the early disciples of Shammai had passed from the scene, for they surely would have been able to prevent the misrepresentation of either their, or their master's opinion. Dositheus's opinion and tradi­ tion, as I said, may well be authentic, in which case the House of Sham­ mai itself must have utterly ceased to exist in its original form, so that an opinion contrary to its actual views could be foisted on it. If we for the moment hypothesize that the Shammai-House in its original form pas­ sed from the scene sometime after ca. 70 A.D., then we may attribute the whole pericope to Hillelite-*Aqibans, who did in fact possess ac­ curate records of what Dositheus had said, and for obvious reasons in this instance chose to preserve them. The contrast to Shammai/Hillel sayings, e.g. M. Ed. 1:1-3, will be drawn below, pp. 303-307. c

II.L4.A. Women, slaves, and minors are exempt from the Sukkah. And every minor that no longer needs his mother must fulfill [the law of] the Sukkah. B. (M SH §) the daughter in law of Shammai the Elder bore a child [during the festival], and he broke away [some of the] roofplaster and made a Sukkah-too&ag over the bed for the sake of the infant. (M. Suk. 2:8) C

Shammai's opinion is not given; his deed is preserved in form. He did the opposite of what the foregoing law required, obviously because he held the child was liable to the observance of Sukkot. It is striking that Shammai's opinion is here not preserved in conventional legal form. It would have been, "Shammai says, Minors are not exempt from the Sukkah" Alternately, "A minor that no more needs... Shammai says, Even a. minor that needs..." If the formation of Shammai-traditions followed the same conventions as seen earlier and as applied to Hillel-traditions, then we must postulate that some such tradition actually was shaped in Shammai's name. But it was not pre­ served and handed on by the Hillelite-* Aqibans. Keeping the whole thing in story-form and not generalizing it into an apodictic legal opinion left the clear impression that Shammai's action was personal and private. It was an example of his tendency (like Gamaliel's) to apply the law more stringently to himself and his own family than was actually neces­ sary. Shammai's opinion therefore is left in the ambiguous state of a story. The classification is a legal tradition in the form of a story. The pas­ sage certainly is a unitary account; it is brief, pointed, and contains no extraneous details. The only non-essential is the superscription ma'aseh. Without it the story is complete, and we may take it for granted that the Comment:

ma^aseh

194

S H A M M A I — II.i.5, 6

superscription is added by the editor for redactional purposes. If so, this would be a story originating among disciples of Shammai. It contains no hostile elements, and its presupposition is that what Shammai did is what others should do. We do not have any notion of the original form or language of the story as it was told by Shammaites; it now is in normal Mishnaic He­ brew, but we cannot be sure that when it was shaped in Shammai's circle it was in that language. Why did the Hillelite- Aqibans preserve the story at all? And why, if they regarded it as authentic, did they not revise it, as they revised other Shammaite materials, to serve their own purposes ? It seems to me the Hillelite-position vis a vis Shammai is well served here. It was their view that Shammai applied the law more stringently than was required. The story is, as noted, sufficiently ambiguous—is this the law for everyone? or for Shammai alone?—so that there was no need to change it to satis­ fy the needs of the Hillelite tradents. The Dositheus-tradition, by con­ trast, left no doubt that Shammai's view was meant as law for every­ one, and therefore had to be given a new point, by supplying a context contrary to fact for preservation in Hillelite-* Aqiban materials. See Epstein, Mishnah, p. 605. 1

II.i.5. The House of Shammai say, "A q u a r t e r - ^ of bones, be they any of the bones or from two [corpses] or from three [suffices to convey uncleanness by overshadowing]." And the House of Hillel say, "[It may be] a q u a r t e r - ^ of bones from a [single] corpse, and from bones which are the greater part either in bulk or in number." Shammai says, "Even [a q u a r t e r - ^ ] from one bone." (M. *Ed. 1:7, trans. Danby, p. 423) Comment: The dispute appears in this form only here. What is of in­ terest is the now routine representation of Shammai as holding the most stringent position of all, and of the House of Shammai as departing from the master's opinions. This is R. Judah's version. Compare Tos. Oh. 3:4, and Epstein, Mevo ot, p. 118. y

II.L6.A. If a bride's stool lost its seat-boards—The House of Sham­ mai declare it susceptible to uncleanness. And the House of Hillel declare it not susceptible. Shammai says, "Even the frame of the stool remains susceptible to uncleanness." B. A stool fixed to a baking-trough—The House of Shammai de­ clare it susceptible. And the House of Hillel declare it not susceptible. Shammai says, "Even one that was made [to be used] inside it (>P H*SWY BH) [is susceptible]." (M. Kel. 22:4, trans. Danby, p. 637 [Compare M. *Ed. 1:11])

195

S H A M M A I — Il.ii.l

Comment: The stool (A) is in two parts, the frame and the covering, with the latter providing the seat. The stool also has a receptacle for small objects. The issue is, If the seat is no longer usable for ordinary sitting, is it still susceptible to uncleanness? The House of Shammai hold that it remains susceptible, because it can still be used for sitting— if not in the normal way—even though the seat-boards are removed. The House of Hillel hold that it is not susceptible, because the bride can no longer use the stool, even though others can. The legal prin­ ciple is this: If the object is no longer usable for its primary function in the ordinary way, do we take into account other possible functions in assessing susceptibility to receive uncleanness? Shammai's view is that even the frame may be susceptible without any covering, for in case of need it can still be used as a stool. In the second case the opinion of the House of Shammai is that the object (B) can still be used for a bakingtrough, and its original condition is unchanged. The House of Hillel hold that its original condition is sufficiently changed to warrant a change in the susceptibility to receive uncleanness. Shammai's opinion is that even though the chair was not used for sitting at the outset, the susceptibility is unchanged (so H. Albeck Seder Toharot [Tel Aviv, 1958], pp. 94-5). Shammai's opinion again differs from that attributed to either House. He takes a position outside of, and more extreme than, both Houses. Il.ii.l.A. A field that has been improved may not be sown at the end of the Seventh Year. What is a field that has been improved? When people plough five, he ploughs six; six, and he ploughs seven [rows]. B. Shammai the Elder says, "If the time (S H) were propitious (PNWYH), I should decree concerning it that it should not be sown." C. The court that followed him decreed concerning it that it should not be sown. [Tos. Shev. 3:10, ed. Lieberman, p. 176, lines 21-25 (M. Shev. 4:2, y. Shev. 3:3, b. M.Q. 13a, b. Git. 44b, b. Bekh. 34b)] C

Comment: The category is a saying in standard legal form, but the say­ ing is not a statement of the law, One should not do so-and-so. It is an auto­ biographical remark, "If I had the power, I would decree such-andsuch," with the concommitant implication that he did not have the power. This is immediately spelled out. Shammai could not do it, but the next generation did. Part C then repeats the law of part A, and ac­ counts for it, but depends upon the language of part B, not part A ("That followed him"). So B-C are a unit, attached to A. The obvious polemic is that Shammai was not much of an authority in his own day. On that basis Hillelite-*Aqibans would have preserved his saying. I cannot imagine that the saying was transmitted by Sham-

196

S H A M M A I — II.ii.2, 3

mai's disciples in this form, without a legal lemma precisely specifying Shammai's view of the law. As we have seen, Shammai is the subject of stories or autobiographical sayings, but rarely are his legal opinions preserved by themselves and without prejudice. Normally they stand in contrast with those of his House or agree with Hillel's, and seldom are they supplied as authorita­ tive legal opinions. While Shammai's saying is a separate logion, in fact it was shaped, as I said, right along with the following, anonymous observation about the later court. Without that observation, the point of Shammai's say­ ing is quite neutral, but with it the polemic against Shammai himself is underscored. It is independent of the influence of Shammai's own dis­ ciples. The original form and substance of Shammai's saying therefore lie outside of the framework of the pericope. As to the law involved, Lieberman (Tosefta Kifshutah Seder Zera^im, Part B, p. 517) points out that interpreters of the Mishnah supposed the law about ploughing in the Sabbatical Year applied to the period after the destruction of the Temple, when paying Roman taxes prevented full observance of the Year. This, he says, is shown to be false. "Even in Shammai's time" the problem was considerable. The rule was that one should not plough in the Seventh Year in the same manner as in other years. The reference here is to man who ploughs morefinelythan in ordinary times. According to the above explanation the reason Shammai could not decree against this practice had to do with economic necessity—the heavy taxes. But that necessity ought to have increased in the subse­ quent generations, particularly after 70, as the commentators on the Mishnah supposed. Hence whatever the actual facts of the matter, the intention of the narrator certainly is to represent Shammai as unable to do what later sages were able to do. 11.11.2. R. Simeon b. Leazar says, "Shammai the Elder says, 'Let him leave it in the store and eat against it.'" (Tos. M.S. 2:10, ed, Lieberman p. 252, lines 49-50) Comment: R. Simeon b. Leazar here cites the opinion of Shammai in M. M.S. 2:9 (II.i.2). See above, and synopsis below. 11.11.3. A camp that goes forth to an optional war may not [begin to] besiege a gentile city less than three days before the Sabbath. But if they began, even on the Sabbath they may not raise the siege. And so Shammai the elder would expound, "Until it fall (Deut. 20:20)—even on the Sabbath." (Tos. 'Eruv. 3:7, ed. Lieberman, p. 100, lines 25-28.)

S H A M M A I — III.ii.1, 2

197

Comment: The opinion attributed to Shammai in Sifre Deut. 203 (I.i.2) is here given anonymously, but an exegesis of Shammai's is sup­ plied to support that opinion. The whole passage appears without tra­ dents. Shammai's saying, an exegesis of legal materials, is a unitary text and follows the form conventional for its genre. Lieberman notes in his extended commentary (p. 343) that some MSS read £////MRW
198

S H A M M A I — III.ii.3

in the name of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, "A woman may wash one of her hands in water to give bread to an infant..." Then comes the story about Shammai. Jung explains the rabbis' requiring Shammai to do so with both hands: It was to emphasize that there is no prohibition against feeding a child on the Day of Atonement; therefore he must wash both his hands as a sign that the law is one may feed the child, since the contrary impression would have been given by Shammai's gesture. Abbaye supplies the terminus ante quern, since the pericope is followed by a gloss in his name. Many *amru ^alav stories are commented on in fourth-century Pumbedita, but I think the form is older than that. I find it curious that Shammai is represented here, as elsewhere, as subordinated to "the rabbis" (supplied in Jung's translation), or to "them." Shammai has no independent standing. He behaves in a way that makes the law seem stringent and is everywhere corrected or ig­ nored. Doubtless stories such as this were shaped in Hillelite, or even later, circles. They cannot have originated among Shammai's disciples. III.ii.3.A. Our rabbis taught (TNW RBNN): The story is told about (M'SH B) a certain man whose sons did not conduct themselves in a proper manner. He arose and wrote his estate over to Jonathan b. Uzziel. What did Jonathan b. Uzziel do? He sold a third, consecrated a third, and returned a third to his sons [of the man]. B. Shammai came upon him with his staff and bag. He said to him, "Shammai, if you can take back what I have sold and what I have consecrated, you can also take back what I have returned. But if not, neither can you take back what I have returned." He exclaimed, "The son of 'Uzziel has confounded me, the son of 'Uzziel has confounded me." (b. B.B. 133b-134a, trans. I.W. Slotki, p. 562) c

c

Comment: The legal principles are of no great interest here. The story must be classified as an anti-Shammai account deriving from the circle not of Hillel, but of Jonathan b. 'Uzziel or (more likely) the later tra­ dents eager to show Jonathan was the greatest disciple of Hillel. It can­ not come from Shammaites. Suddenly introduced from nowhere, Shammai is here (mis)represented as planning to debate with Jonathan, but unable to. Jonathan's action turns out to be legally secure against him. Shammai is left to confess he has been confounded. The setting of the beraita is supplied by a saying of Samuel to Rav Judah not to transfer inheritances even from bad sons to good ones. Even more interesting is the following story, which concerns the dis­ ciples of Hillel: The greatest of them was Jonathan, the least was Yo­ hanan ben Zakkai (see Development of a Legend, p. 219). So the frame­ work is a set of pericopae on the greatness of Jonathan b. Uzziel, and c

SHAMMAI —IV.i.l, 2

199

the above story is, with interruptions and glosses, part of a little Jona­ than b. 'Uzziel-tractate. The terminus ante quern is fourth-century Pumbedita, but the materials may be slightly older, and the final form somewhat earlier, than that period. As noted (Development, pp. 90-91), the beraita about Jonathan as the greatest disciple of Hillel is openly hostile to Yohanan. It supposes re­ cognition of Yohanan as a great authority of his time because it uses his greatness as a footstool for its hero, Jonathan b. 'Uzziel. It may be the creation of a mystic group in late Tannaitic times which practiced some new form of speculative technique different from the Merkavah tradition that went back to Yohanan, and which tried to justify itself by appeal­ ing to the shadowy, ancient Jonathan and by declaring him the greatest of those disciples of Hillel, of whom Yohanan was only the least. Here the legitimacy and excellence of Jonathan are further under­ lined : Jonathan not only vanquished Shammai, but Shammai admitted that fact. Any Hillelite would have to be impressed: Hillel's greatest disciple had achieved what Hillel himself never accomplished, for no­ where do wefindHillel so represented as victorious. I therefore imagine that the pericope derives from the same circle as the Jonathan-Yohanan b. Zakkai beraita, and that the purpose of the Jonathan-pericopae was to establish the legitimacy, indeed preeminence, of the master in the mind of the Hillelite circles in charge of the patriarchate, or of the Davidic exilarchate. At any rate the tradition of representing Shammai pretty much as the Hillelites would want to imagine him is here carried forward. The story cannot derive from the first century, when Shammai would have been so well remembered that no one would believe he went about crying, "The son of'Uzziel has confounded me." Hillelites of that period repre­ sent Shammai as a weightier opponent. We observe that the Shammai-traditions derive from a number of circles, first and foremost from Hillelites, second, from Shammai's own disciples, and third, from Jonathan b. 'Uzziel's circle (whether real or putative). We shall see that other materials pertinent to Hillel and Shammai come from still other authorities. The story seems to be a unity,- but only if it depends on y. Ned. 5:6, below. Otherwise, part B is certainly separate, for we have no hint of Shammai's involvement in part A. We shall return to this question in synopsis no. 3. IV.i.l. What is Shammai's reason? Lest he forget and make them hullin. (y. M.S. 2:4, repr. Gilead, p. 13b) c

See M. M.S. 2:9 = M. Ed. 1:10, to which the above sup­ plies an explanation. The gloss is anonymous and unrelated to named logia in the same context. Comment:

IV.i.2. Said Rabbi Yosi b. Rabbi Bun, "Thus was the deed []:

200

S H A M M A I — IV.ii.l, 2, 3

c

"Jonathan b. Uzziel's father prohibited him by vow from his pro­ perty, and arose and wrote them over to Shammai. "What did Shammai do? "He sold part, sanctified part, and gave the rest to him [Jonathan] as a gift, and said, 'If anyone comes and complains about this gift, let him recover from the purchasers and from the sanctuary, and afterward he may recover from this man.'" (y. Ned. 5:6, repr. Gilead, p. 19b) Comment: The Palestinian version of the Jonathan-story is strikingly different from the Babylonian beraita. Here the gift is to Shammai, who acts in behalf of Jonathan by saving for him part of the father's property. Shammai's presence is now comprehensible. The classification is a story about Shammai; no new legal principle evidently is involved, though one is immediately inferred. The context, however, is identical to the Babylonian: Hillel and eighty disciples, then Hillel's death scene, then R. Yohanan remarks, "This one is discerned to be a disciple of the sage." Then comes R. Yosi b. R. Bun, as above. R. Jeremiah, finally, comments on the story, and a Mishnah is quoted in support of Jeremiah's remark. This is the whole pericope. The story certainly is a unitary composition. No element comes as a surprise; nothing is intruded. IV.ii.l. It once happened [Ma'aseh ve] that Shammai the Elder's daughter-in-law gave birth, and he broke an opening through the plaster of the ceiling and covered it above the bed with the proper Sukkah-too&ng for the sake of the child. (b. Yev. 15a) Comment: A citation of M. Suk. 2:8, the pericope appears as cited by Mar Zutra, to prove that sages followed their own opinions even con­ trary to the established law. This certainly is what the original redactor wanted to say about Shammai. IV.ii.2. Shammai says, "Even a single bone from the backbone or from the skull [defiles by overshadowing]." (b. Naz. 52b = b. Naz. 53a) Comment: This is a citation of M. Ed. 1:7, above. c

IV.ii.3. [Baba b. Buta said], "This is what I have received (QBL) from Shammai the Elder; 'The white of an egg contracts when brought near the fire, but semen becomes faint from the fire.'" (b. Git. 57a) Comment: The tradition (QBLH) of Baba b. Buta comes in the con­ text of a long story transmitted by R. Manyumi b. Hilqiah, R. Hilqiah b. Tobiah, and R. Huna b. Hiyya.

S H A M M A I — IV.ii.4

201

One of them told a story about a man who wanted to divorce his wife, but could not afford her marriage-contract. He invited his friends and gave them a good feast and made them drunk, then put them all into one bed, and brought the white of an egg and scattered it among them and brought witnesses to prove they had had sexual relations with his wife. He then appealed to the court. There was at court a certain elder of the disciples of Shammai the Elder, named Baba b. Buta who said—as above. The teaching of Shammai then was tested and relied upon. The man was flogged and required to pay the marriage-contract. Abbaye and R. Joseph comment on the story, which is meant to show the virtue of the ancients. They therefore provide the terminus ante quern. The passage attributes no saying to Shammai, but rather a tradition, in direct discourse. What is important is that a disciple of Shammai is represented as transmitting a tradition of the master and that the master's tradition is accepted in court. We do not on that account have to con­ clude the story is intentionally favorable to Shammai or was originally shaped in his school, for it was a perfectly verifiable fact of nature that Shammai had recorded. The fact could easily be tested and found out. Still, we must regard the pericope as making use of materials in a man­ ner on the whole friendly to, and respectful of, Shammai, probably be­ cause Baba was a Shammaite who always ruled like Hillel. IV.ii.4. Shammai the Elder said in the name of Haggai the prophet, "His sender is liable, for it is said, Thou has slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon (II Sam. 12:9)." (b. Qid. 43a) Comment: The representation of Shammai as possessing and citing traditions of the latter prophets must be intended as favorable. Sham­ mai supposedly had access to highly reliable information—and there­ fore other opinions held by him are apt to be equally well founded. Since Hillel plays no part, the tradent hardly intended a hostile judg­ ment on Shammai's opposition. Hillel also claimed for his traditions either prophetic or supernatural origin, so it is important to find that Shammai's circle did the same in his behalf. The contrary point is that someone who tells another to go and kill does not free the agent fom liability for his action. The sender in fact is exempt and the slayer liable. Shammai holds the sender is liable. The Talmudic discussion then supplies various theoretical reasons for Shammai's position. No one is cited in this connection. The entire set­ ting is anonymous. The dispute however arises in the context of an ar­ gument between the Houses on exegetical rules, and the saying of Shammai is (reasonably) regarded as an example of Shammaite exegesis. It may be that House 0/*has been dropped before Shammai. But the only source is the text as given above. • The classification is an exegesis for legal purposes. Shammai's saying certainly is unitary. The Scripture is integral to the saying and cannot be regarded as a later gloss. We have no idea where and when the pas-

202

S H A M M A I — IV.ii.4

Shammai

I Tannaitic Midrashim

1. Remember S a b b a t h (see n o . 2 )

Mekh. deR Simeon p. 1 4 8 1.29-30

2 . T h r e e r u l e s re siege, trip before Sabbath

Sifre Deut. 2 0 3 (weigh anchor)

3. Phylacteries o f m y grandfather

Mekh. deR Ishmael Pisha IV, 209-216*

Il.i Mishnah

M. M.S. 2 : 4 M . <Ed. 1 : 8

5 . C h a n g i n g sela o f second-tithe m o n e y in Jerusalem

M. M.S. 2:9 M . <Ed. 1 : 1 0

6. W h a t conveys flavor can c o n v e y uncleanness o n l y i f it is a n e g g ' s bulk

M. O r l a h 2 : 5

7 . M a d e Sukkah for infant

M . Suk. 2 : 8

of

IILi Tannaitic M a t e r i a l s in Palestinian Gemara

Ill.ii Tannaitic M a t e r i a l s in Babylonian Gemara

IV.i Amoraic M a t e r i a l s in Palestinian Gemara

IV.ii Amoraic M a t e r i a l s in Babylonian Gemara

b. S h a b . 1 9 a (re siege)

y. M . S . 2 : 4

Tos. M.S. 2 : 1 0

c

b. Y e v . 1 5 a

M. Kel. 2 2 : 4

9 . P l o u g h i n g in Seventh Year

Tos. Shev. 3 : 1 0

10. W o u l d not add food to be eaten w i t h one hand

b. Y o m a 7 7 b

1 1 . Shammai and Jonathan b.
Il.ii Tosefta

T o s . <Eruv. 3 : 7 (re siege)

4. Heave-offering v e t c h e s eaten d r y

8. Uncleanness stools

S H A M M A I — IV.ii.4

b. B . B . 1 3 3 b - 1 3 4 a

M . <Ed. 1 : 7

b. Hul. 1 0 7 b

y. Ned.

5:6

b. Naz. 52b

1 3 . S e n d e r is liable

b. Qid. 43a

1 4 . W h i t e o f egg contracts

b. Git. 57a

1 5 . Three sayings

M. A v o t 1 : 1 5

V ARN

203 VI Later Compilations of Midrashim

204

S H A M M A I — IV.ii.5

sage was given its final form, or who is responsible for transmitting it for the purposes of the current argument. See Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 512. IV.ii.5. It was said of Shammai the Elder that he would not feed a child even with one hand, and they [the sages] ordered him to feed it with both hands. (b. Hul. 107b) Comment: See b. Yoma 77b. The pericope above appears, as earlier, in the context of a citation of the beraita of the School of Manasseh about Simeon b. Gamaliel. The story of Shammai is integral to the beraita, though it obviously constitutes a separate element added to the compo­ site. Abbaye comments on the discussion. He says that washing hands on the Day of Atonement is on account of the evil spirit that clings to unwashed hands, but, once the hands have been washed in the morning, there is no further need to wash them when about to feed others. This of course has nothing to do with the original dispute between Shammai and those who opposed him and forced him to act contrary to his be­ liefs. But it does make clear that the passage was cited in fourth-century Pumbedita.

i n . SYNOPSES

Passages in which Shammai appears along with the Houses of Hil­ lel and Shammai (M. M.S. 2:4 = M. Ed. 1:8, M. M.S. 2:9 = M. <Ed. 1:10, M. Kel. 22:4 = M. <Ed. 1:11, and M. <Ed. 1:7) will be pre­ sented in the context of the Houses. c

1. Rules about the Sabbath 3:7

b. Shab. 19a 1. T N W R B N N 2.

SifreDeut. 203 1 . When you besiege a city 2. Tells that one offers peace t w o o r t h r e e days be­ fore making w a r against it...

Tos. 'Eruv. 1. 2.

3. O n e does n o t start a s i e g e a g a i n s t a c i t y less t h a n three days before the S a b ­ b a t h , a n d if t h e y e n c i r c l e d them and the Sabbath hap­ pens to be, the Sabbath does not interrupt w a r .

3. A camp that goes forth to optional w a r d o e s n o t b e s i e g e a gentile c i t y less t h a n t h r e e d a y s before the Sabbath, and i f t h e y began, even on the Sabbath they d o n o t i n ­ terrupt.

3 . O n e does n o t besiege cities of aliens ( N K R Y M ) less t h a n t h r e e d a y s b e ­ f o r e t h e S a b b a t h a n d if they began, they do not i n t e r r u p t [ O m i t s : even on the Sabbath].

4 . T h i s is o n e o f t h r e e things that S h a m m a i the Elder expounded

4.

4.

SHAMMAI —

5. O n e d o e s n o t w e i g h a n ­ chor ( P L G ) to the Great Sea less t h a n t h r e e d a y s b e ­ fore the Sabbath. 6. O f what things are spoken? 7. O n a l o n g j o u r n e y , b u t on a near journey, one weighs anchor. 8.

205

SYNOPSES

5.

5.

6.

6.

7.

7.

8. Thus (KK) did S h a m m a i the Elder ex­ p o u n d , Until it falls— A n d even on the Sab­ bath.

8. A n d s o ( K N ) did S h a m m a i say „ „ „ [ o m i t s and]

Sifre contains numerous elements lacking in the two Talmuds, but has no knowledge of Shammai's exegesis of Deut. 20:20. Tos. Eruv. refers to an optional war, while to make a required war one presumably may lay siege at any time. Sifre Deut. is unclear on this point. The detail on the siege is the same: Once the siege has started, it must not be lifted despite the Sabbath. The beraita in b. Shab. follows Sifre in omitting reference to the optional war, but otherwise is identical to the Tos. version, except in leaving out what must have been thought redundant, even on the Sabbath. In this instance it is difficult to argue that the beraita is necessarily later than, and dependent upon, the Tosefta's version. It bears at least one important affinity to Sifre. On the other hand, the exegesis of Shammai is copied, with only a minor omission. I therefore imagine the framer of the beraita depended upon Tos., but has improved on it by generalizing a camp that goes forth to optional war into one does not besiege—presumably more satis­ factory for a legal context. Hence in the balance the beraita must be judged dependent upon, and later than, Tos. The appearance of no. 8 in both is the decisive factor, but the rest of the language is sufficiently close, except for the detail at the outset, no. 3, so that this conclusion is highly probable. c

2. Would Not Feed with One Hand b. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Yoma 77b T h e y said c o n c e r n i n g S h a m m a i t h e E l d e r T h a t h e d i d n o t w a n t t o g i v e t o eat w i t h his o n e h a n d and they decreed on him t o g i v e t o eat w i t h t w o h a n d s .

b. Hul. 1. „ 2. „ 3. „ 4. „

„ „ „ „

107b „ „ „ „

The two passages in fact are identical. The only differences are in the context in which they are cited. The essential materials exhibit no changes whatever.

206

SHAMMAI — SYNOPSES

3. Shammai and Jonathan b. *Uf(pjel b. B.B. 133b-134a 1. T N W R B N N 2 . Ma'aseh b3. O n e man w h o s e sons did not behave according to rule. 4 . H e r o s e a n d w r o t e his p r o p e r t y t o J o n a t h a n b . 'Uzziel. 5 . W h a t d i d J o n a t h a n b . 'Uzziel d o ? 6. H e s o l d a t h i r d 7. consecrated a third 8. a n d r e t u r n e d a t h i r d t o his s o n s . 9. S h a m m a i c a m e t o h i m in his staff a n d bag. 1 0 . H e said t o h i m , S h a m m a i , if y o u c a n take away w h a t I have sold and w h a t I h a v e c o n s e c r a t e d , y o u can t a k e a w a y w h a t I have returned.

1 1 . If not, y o u cannot take away w h a t I have returned. 1 2 . H e said, B e n 'Uzziel h a s c o n f o u n d e d me [twice].

y. Ned. 5:6 1 . R. Y o s i b . R . B u n said 2 . Thus was the thing OBD') 3. 4. Jonathan b. 'U^gier* father pre­ vented him by vow from his property and r o s e a n d w r o t e them to Shammai. 5. W h a t d i d Shammai d o ? 6. H e s o l d part 7 . c o n s e c r a t e d part 8. and gave him the rest as a gift 9. 1 0 . H e [ S h a m m a i ] said, Whoever will come and complain against this gift, let him retrieve from the hand of the pur­ chasers and from the hand of the sanctuary, and afterward let him remove from the hand of this one. 1 1 . [As above] 12.

One version completely reverses the other. The first question is, Which came first? It seems to me that the Palestinian version must have preceded the Babylonian beraita; the latter certainly is completely dependent upon it. The decisive fact is the intrusion of Shammai into the Babylonian version in no. 9. Who mentioned his name? Only in the Palestinian version is Shammai integral to the story. One could, to be sure, divide the beraita into fragments of two independent stories, one in which Jonathan b. 'Uzziel plays the major, and affirma­ tive role, the other in which Shammai somehow is brought into play. But that theoretical division seems to me unlikely, in the face of the fact that the Palestinian account supplies a complete and unitary story. Both parties there play a part from the outset. No one has to be intruded. The Babylonian beraita has replaced BD by its conventional super­ scription, ma aseh b. It has supplied a reason for the disinheritance. In the Palestinian version we understand at the very outset why Jonathan was included—it was his own father. In the Babylonian, we are as mystified by the gift to Jonathan as by the intrusion of Shammai. The Babylonian specifies part as third, obviously an "improvement." c

c

y

SHAMMAI —

SYNOPSES

207

The action of Shammai in the Palestinian version is now copied by Jonathan in the other. Since Shammai was involved in the Palestinian one, the Babylonians have to invent a dramatic encounter to bring in Shammai. Now whoever will come is turned into Shammai came... if you. The elements of no. 10 are otherwise not much different. The beraita is somewhat more fluent, if you can do this, you can do that, and if you cannot do this, you cannot do that. The Palestinian has been improved by the division into affirmative and negative clauses, thus making a bind­ ing condition, and the references to hand of purchasers!sanctuary turned into active verbs. The absence of no. 12 in the Palestinian version is for obvious reasons. Since the Babylonian version is later than the Palestinian one, we cannot avoid the conclusion that someone has intentionally changed R. Yosi b. R. Bun's story into an account hostile to Shammai, and that party must be a Babylonian of the fourth-century Pumbeditan school. Clearly, the Babylonian account depends on the Palestinian one, so, as I said, we must suppose the Babylonian comes later than, and represents a deliberate reversal of, the Palestinian. Why would a fourth-century Babylonian have taken a story friendly to Shammai and turned it into a hostile account in which Shammai confesses his utter humiliation? I doubt that issues pertinent to the actual life and times of Shammai could still have aroused much interest in fourthcentury Babylonia. Nor can anyone have wanted to make much of Jonathan b. 'Uzziel on the basis of Shammai's humiliation, except those responsible for the other materials on Jonathan in the same com­ plex pericopae in b. B.B. 134a. In that case, we must suppose a fourthcentury date for the whole set of Jonathan b. 'Uzziel pericopae, some­ thing we have been reluctant to do until now. A circle thus preserved, even invented, traditions hostile to Yohanan ben Zakkai. It seems to me that such a circle would have been unfriendly, also, to the Pumb­ editan tradents who used Yohanan ben Zakkai to show how the leadership of Israel devolved from Hillel not to Gamaliel his son, but to Yohanan b. Zakkai his best disciple (Development, pp. 293-7). The obvi­ ous point was that the leadership of Israel belongs not to the heir of Hillel/David, but to the sage. In that case the story humiliating Sham­ mai would have pleased the opposition to the sages denigrating heirs of Hillel/David after the flesh, that is, it would have pleased sages who served a master claiming to descend from David, and therefore to be related to Hillel—the exilarch. The revision of Yosi b. R. Bun's story served the polemical interests of such a circle. The humiliation of a r e

208

SHAMMAI —

SYNOPSES

Shammai carried out the purposes of the circle friendly to the exilarch and hostile to the exilarch's critics; the critics were the circle which preserved stories of Yohanan b. Zakkai as Hillel's true heir. So the revision of Hillel-Shammai materials relates to Babylonian politics, just as the citation of Yohanan b. Zakkai materials serves partisan purposes in the same place {Development, pp. 295-297). As it stands, R. Yosi b. R. Bun's story about Shammai is one of the few late stories in which Shammai appears as a genuine hero, a master of law and possessed of considerable virtue. We have no reason to imagine R. Yosi held any living traditions from the time of Shammai— nearly three centuries earlier. What motivated his fabrication of the story, however, is not clear to me. A further problem is the question why the exilarchic party should have glorified Hillel, the authority behind the Palestinian patriarch, the exilarch's great rival. Perhaps the answer comes in the tradition that Hillel came up from Babylonia and renewed the Torah which had been forgotten in Palestine. This tradition is an attempt to relegate the Palestinian patriarch to second­ ary status. Everyone knew that Hillel had taught in Palestine, and Hillel was, by the time this story was invented, the greatest name behind the rabbinic tradition. So what could be done? Hillel could be made of Babylonian origin, and the exilarch, no less than the patriarch, could claim descent from David—but there are no traces of such a claim through Hillel. iv.

CONCLUSION

Few stories in which Shammai appears by himself fail to reflect the well-known traditions about Shammai as Hillel's chief opponent. On the contrary, it is as if one cannot mention Shammai without denigrating him, either explicitly, as in the non-legal Hillel-Shammai materials (below), or merely by inference, as in the bulk of the Mishnah's Shammai-traditions. Among the pericopae in which Shammai is quoted with unmixed respect as a major authority, reliable precedent in law, informed exegete, or worthy sage are the following: Mekhilta deR. Simeon b. Yohai, p. 148, lines 29-30 (I.ii.l), on the simultaneous commandment to remember and keep the Sabbath; Sifre Deut. 203 (I.ii.2) = Tos. <Eruv 3:7 (II.ii.3) = b. Shab. 19a (III.i.1), on Shammai's three Sabbath regulations (offer peace three days before the siege, besiege a city three days before the Sabbath, start a long voyage three days before the Sabbath); Baba b. Buta cites Shammai and his opinion is accepted by

209

SHAMMAI — CONCLUSION

the court as law, b. Git. 57a (IV.ii.3); Shammai cites Haggai, b. Qid. 43a (IV.ii.4), surely a significant testimony to the excellence of Sham­ mai's traditions; and y. Ned. 5:6, R. Yosi b. R. Bun. This is the sum of all traditions either neutral or unequivocally favorable to Shammai. We certainly cannot attribute the bulk of them to the circle of his immediate disciples. The names of tradents are seldom given. We do not know who is responsible for pericopae appearing in the earliest compilations. Those in the later ones—e.g. in the Amoraic strata of the twoGemarot—surely do not come from his school, but from masters who for one reason or another handed on neutral or favorable mater­ ials concerning Shammai. In all, the corpus is small and unimpressive. Indeed, if we relied only on the materials in which Shammai is favor­ ably represented and stands by himself, we should have to suppose nearly all his teachings concerned the Sabbath, both law and exegesis of Sabbath-Scriptures, with a few later references to miscellaneous mat­ ters. We should have further to imagine he in effect had no disciples— indeed no House—other than Dositheus and Baba b. Buta, who alone cite him directly, and Baba always ruled like Hillel. Shammai therefore appears as a major master and significant op­ ponent of Hillel, but no genuine and substantial corpus of Shammaitraditions was permitted to survive in the conventional and credible form of sayings preserved by responsible, loyal students. This im­ pression is reinforced by the puzzling legal materials which were per­ mitted to survive. In extant legal materials Shammai is consistently represented as repudiating the opinion of the House of Shammai; or as holding an opinion different from the House that allegedly received its traditions from him, e.g. in most Mishnaic pericopae. Thus in M. M.S. 2:4 (Il.i.l), on eating second tithe vetches dry, his House held they did not have to be kept free of susceptibility of uncleanness, therefore dry; in M. M.S. 2:9 (II.i.2), the Second-Tithe money may not be changed, while the House of Shammai said it might; in M. Orlah 2:4-5 (II.i.3), Shammai's opinion is reported as verbally identical with that of the House of Hillel and contrary to that of the House of Sham­ mai; in M. Ed. 1:7 (II.i.5), on the uncleanness of bones for the purpose of conveying uncleanness by overshadowing, Shammai's opinion is different from that of the House of Shammai and closer to that of the House of Hillel, in that Shammai required the bones to come from a single corpse; in M. Kel. 22:4 (II.i.6), Shammai's posi­ tion differs from that of the House of Shammai and is more extreme than any other opinion in the pericope. c

c

210

SHAMMAI — CONCLUSION

Further hostile pericopae present Shammai as unable to accomplish necessary changes in the law; in Tos. Shev. 3:10, (Il.i.l) he could not prohibit a practice in violation of the Sabbatical year, but the court after him could and did do so. He is represented as being subordinate to "them" ( = the sages), as in b. Yoma 77b (III.ii.2) = b. Hul. 107b (V.ii.5), in which "they" decreed that he must violate his own ruling about not feeding a baby even with one hand, and requiring that he do so with two. This story gives the striking portrait of Shammai, allegedly second only to Hillel, as subjected to the authority of "the sages" even in matters of his own religious practice. It certainly is an extreme statement of the situation, one in which Hillel plays no overt role whatever. Mishnaic traditions also preserve Shammai's opinion in the form of a story, in which Shammai appears as a private party, applying the law to himself more stringently than he should, with the implication (made explicit by Mar Zutra) that others should not follow his idio­ syncratic behavior, but rather the law as taught by the Hillelite or Aqiban traditions; this is in M. Suk. 2:8 (II.i.4) = b. Yev. 15a(IV.ii.l), where he held the child was liable to keep the commandment of the Sukkah. Elsewhere Shammai is portrayed as accepting the law as the Hillelite school formulated it, directly or by inference, as Mekh. Pisha III, 209-216 (I.i.l). The tendency to revise materials to leave a negative impression of Shammai's power and influence is fully revealed in the latest stratum of all. The drastic changes in R. Yosi b. R. Bun's favorable story about Shammai and Jonathan b. Uzziel remove Shammai as a hero and replace him with Jonathan, further have Shammai confess he has been put in his place by the same Jonathan who, in the earlier story, was disinherited (for unstated reasons) by his father, b. B.B. 133b-134a = y. Ned. 5:6 (III.i.3, IV.i.2). The bulk of the Shammai-corpus therefore derives from hostile circles, though these cannot be thought identical with one another. The tendency of the Mishnah is clear. Shammai may have founded a House, but wherever his opinion is preserved, it is a repudiation of that of his House, either directly or by inference. Shammai thus is represented as one of those good Shammaites who knew the law really followed Hillel and therefore consistently taught either the Hillelite view of the law, or some obviously unacceptable—because extreme— view, anything but what was in fact contained in the House of Sham­ mai's traditions. The Mishnah presents Shammai as a disloyal, therec

c

211

SHAMMAI — CONCLUSION

fore acceptable Shammaite. In the Tosefta and some beraitot he further occurs as an ineffectual authority, subordinate to "them." We were able to locate the probable origin of one drastic revision of stories on Shammai in fourth-century Pumbedita, but while the earlier tendency was accurately represented there, the greater likelihood is that Mish­ naic and other revisions of whatever Shammaite traditions pertained to Shammai himself and their outright fabrications of hostile stories about him must date at the very latest from the circles around Judah the Patriarch. And some of them may be earlier than that. It therefore is striking that the Aqiban and Ishmaelean traditions preserved in the Mekhiltas are separate and different in tendency from the ones in Mishnah-Tosefta, presumably because the earlier masters had no motive in maligning or misrepresenting Shammai and his role. By contrast Judah the Patriarch did just that. Further remarks on the corpus of traditions relating to Shammai will be offered in connection with the Shammai-Hillel pericopae. To summarise: When Shammai is presented by himself, without hav­ ing to serve as Hillel's foil, his relationship with Hillel nonetheless continues to predominate in the formation of most traditions. Of Shammai as a master apart from the relationship to Hillel, we have scarcely any materials. Shammai-traditions therefore are not much different in quantity or in character from those of earlier, pre-Hillel Pharisaic masters, e.g. Joshua b. Perahiah or Judah b. Tabbai. Indeed, the Simeon b. Shetah-corpus is substantially richer than that part of the corpus pertaining to Shammai which reflects a neutral or favorable opinion about him and therefore stands independent of the Hillelrelationship. Hillel's immense prestige and the even greater power of his descendents succeeded in denying to Shammai more than a practically negligible position in the traditions, except on Hillelite terms. By contrast, in materials shaped by the Houses of Shammai and Hillel, Shammai is given a position of parity with Hillel, e.g. M. Ed. 1:1-3, because the House of Shammai had sufficient power to repre­ sent their master accurately and honorably. I should regard some of those materials in which Hillel and Shammai and their Houses are juxtaposed as possibly among the earliest parts of the whole corpus, shaped in something much like their present form about the time of the destruction of the Temple, before the rise of the Hillelite House and patriarchate to complete predominance. But such a judgment takes for granted that the Houses actually did exist as historical entities before 70 and that the House of Shammai shortly thereafter passed from the scene. c

c

CHAPTER NINE HILLEL

The corpus of traditions in which Hillel stands by himself is im­ mense. At no point do we discern the influence of Shammai or his followers in the formation of Hillel-traditions. Shammai of course plays no role in them, either directly or by inference. The corpus, at least on the surface, is uniformly favorable, and the contrast with the materials in which Shammai stands by himself is striking.

i. T R A D I T I O N S

I.ii.l .A With unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it [the Pesah] (Ex. 12:8)—It is a misyah to eat all of them together (L'KL KWLN K?HT). B. Hillel the Elder would fold them together and eat them (HYH KWRKN ZH BZH W'WKLN). (Mekhilta deR. Simeon b. Yohai, ed. EpsteinMelamed, p. 13, 1. 12, to Ex. 12:8) Comment: The classification is a lemma describing as precedent a rou­ tine practice of Hillel. The absence of any descriptive matter or expla­ nation of context is striking. We are not told why, where, or when he first did so, what witnesses were present, how he explained his action. All this is unimportant. The point is to attribute to Hillel a well-known practice. We have noted a similar tendency to attribute well-established customs to Simeon b. Shetah. This lemma turns an exegesis of Ex. 12:8 into a Hillel-story. First comes the anonymous exegesis, / / is a commandment (misyah) to eat all of them at once. Then Hillel the Elder would... The revision of exegeses to narrative recurs in Hillel materials, particularly with reference to Deut. 15. The movement is from generalized, anonymous exegeses to specific stories about Hillel. But normally the language of the exegesis is then repeated verbatim in the Hillel-fable, which is not the case here. Perhaps at the outset a polemic was intended against other ways of doing things, but by the time the pericope was shaped, ulterior inten­ tions in both the exegesis and Hillel-tradition had long since been for­ gotten. The Hillel-story cannot on the face of it be subjected to histori­ cal questions; the tradition behind the story, about how to eat the three foods, is simply hung onto Hillel. Since the preservation of the story of a master's way of keeping a commandment generally was meant to say,

H I L L E L — I.ii.2

213

"Do it this way, and not that way," however, the absence of reference to other ways of doing the commandment carried out by other groups may signify that the lemma was shaped when the issues to which the gesture was addressed had long since been forgotten. The lemma is a unity—formal, brief, unadorned, simple. But it could not have been understood outside of the exegetical context; would fold them can mean nothing except when attached to Ex. 12:8. The simple form of the lemma thus belies a complex development, from an exegesis to a story of what Hillel "actually" said or did. I.ii.2.A. And he who touches their corpse will be unclean (Lev. 11:24). Hillel says, "Even if they are in the midst of the water." B. For (§) I might say, "Just as the earth elevates unclean things from their uncleanness, and the ritual pool elevates unclean things from their uncleanness, so, just as the earth preserves clean things from becoming unclean, likewise the ritual pool should preserve clean things from becoming unclean." C. Scripture says (TLMWD LWMR), He who touches on their corpse— even if they are in the midst of the water. (Sifra Shemini, Parashah 9:5, ed. Weiss, p. 56a) Comment: The purity-law concerns the winged insects which one must not eat: Whoever touches these same insects or their carcass is made unclean until the evening (Lev. 11:24-5). The commentaries explain that even though both the one who touches it and the insect should be in a ritual pool, the insect still makes the man unclean. The exegesis of Scripture is meant to counter the theoretical view that, by standing in the ritual pool, a man prevents himself from being made unclean in touching an unclean insect (as in the whited sepulchre). Touching the corpse may take place anywhere, land or water, with the same result. Hillel's saying (part A) is a brief logion. This is joined to the anony­ mous exegesis of part B by I might say. It then is anonymously repeated at the end, where TLMWD LWMR substitutes tot Hillel says. The exege­ sis then (C) is given verbatim. As above, part A therefore is a secondary stage in the development of the pericope. The form of the Hillel-logion is the same as in the foregoing: a brief, gnomic reference to something Hillel "says" or had done. Just as in the exegesis of Ex. 12:8, a wellknown practice or doctrine is attributed to Hillel, so here an established exegesis is now assigned to him. The simplicity of the form is deceiving. Comprehending the logion requires considerable information, and the Hillel-logion in no form could have stood independent of the Scripture. The pericope's literary history—on the face of it—includes several stages: the anonymous ex­ egesis of part C comes first. Part B is an expansion of Part C, explaining the necessity of making such a comment at all. Finally, part A formu­ lates the whole as a Hillel-saying, joining it to the rest with for (§) as if Hillel himself were speaking.

214

H I L L E L — I.ii.3, 4

The form in I.ii.l and I.ii.2 is much the same: superficially simple, formal, brief, and undeveloped, but in fact complex. I.ii.3.A. And the itch will be healed (Lev. 13:37). Hillel says, "Not that he became afflicted with a bald spot within a patch of hair sur­ rounded by baldness (L> $NTQ NTQ BTWK NTQ). " [ S O Jastrow, II, p. 945, s.v. NTQ]... B. Because of this matter, Hillel came up from Babylonia. (Sifra Tazri'a, Pereq9:16, ed. Weiss, pp. 66b-67a) Comment: The pericope is interrupted by a saying, R. 'Aqiba says... Then comes Because of. The point is, so far as I can tell, that the new itch in the old itch is different from the old one, therefore the man is unclean on account of the new one. Then 'Aqiba comes (following the com­ mentaries) not to add or to differ, but to explain Hillel's rule: Why is a new itch in the midst of an old itch unclean? For the Torah has said, The itch is healed—he is clean, meaning that the uncleanness is on account of the healing, and the itch is now a new one, not healed with the for­ mer. 'Aqiban glosses on Hillel-pericopae are common in Sifra. The same considerations mentioned above apply without qualifica­ tion here. The saying is complex, and the whole pericope comes at the end of a considerable process of development. This is underlined by the subscription, the stock-phrase, On account of this thing Hillel came up from Babylonia. Hillel's emigration is by now well-known. Various puritylaws are listed as the reason for his move to Jerusalem. The subscription of the pericope follows the tradition that Hillel was already a learned man when he migrated. He required no further study but immediately upon arrival was able to solve difficult problems of law. The other, that Hillel had to begin studies in Jerusalem, first ap­ pears in later compilations. R. 'Aqiba surely supplies a terminus ante quern. Hillel's statement had to have reached its current form before ca. 100-130, if, as is alleged, Aqiba intended to explain it. I am not sufficiently expert in legal mat­ ters to know whether Aqiba's saying could have stood separately and unrelated to Hillel's; this judgment therefore relies on the traditional commentaries. c

c

I.ii.4.A. [If a man sells a dwelling house in a walled city, he may redeem it within a whole year after its sale; for a full year he shall have the right of redemption. If it is not redeemed within a full year, then the house that is in the walled city shall be made sure] in perpetuity (LSMYTT) [to him who bought it throughout his generations; it shall not be released in thejubilee (Lev. 25:29-30).]... to include one who gives a gift. B. At first (BR'SWNH) he [the purchaser] would hide (NTMN) on the day on which the twelve months [were completed] so that it should be permanently sold (HLT) to him.

H I L L E L — I.ii.4

215

C. Hillel the Elder ordained (TQN) that he [the seller] should assign (HL§) his coins [for redemption of the property] to the [Tem­ ple] fund (L$KH), and he would break down the door and enter. Whenever the other wishes, he may come and take his money. (Sifra Behar, Parashah 4:8, ed. Weiss, p. 108b) Comment: There is no exegesis, merely a citation. Parts B-C are inde­ pendent of the foregoing, and do not allude to it. M. 'Arakh. (p. 227) shows the connection explicitly—and makes it clear there is none, for there LSMYTT proves that a sale and a gift are alike. Hillel's ordinance pertains to the sale only, as is clear in part C. The connection to Lev. 25:30 is merely in theme. Obviously, Sifra depends upon an exegeticalredactional structure. But M. 'Arakh. does not, and there the situation that later provoked the decree is described, then the remedy given. The phrase beginning Hillel ordained certainly could not have been transmitted apart from the description of the situation necessitating the ordinance. Hence the whole must be classified as a unified biographical pericope containing legal materials. It is certainly not to be compared to normal legal sayings, in the form Hillel says. The context contains no other named authorities. The assumption is that a problem "at first" presented itself in Hillel's time. We are not told when purchasers began to prevent redemptions. Long before Hillel came from Babylonia, the difficulty of redeeming the land must already have become apparent. It is incredible that for five hundred or a thousand years, purchasers were able to get away with violation of the intent of Scriptural rules, so that only when Hillel came was it possible to stop the practice. By contrast, the Yohanan-ordinances all are quite credible. While the Temple stood, or beforetimes, such-and-so was the case with reference to cultic or liturgical law. Yohanan made an ordinance to take account of the changed circumstances after the destruction of the Temple. With reference to Hillel, joining at first to the exegesis of Lev. 25:30 is puz­ zling. The form is the same as in the report of the ordinances (TQNWT) of Yohanan b. Zakkai at Yavneh: At first... Yohanan b. Z. ordained... The actual decree is described, but its exact language is not preserved. We know what the man was told to do, but not how the necessary proce­ dures were carried forward, what documents were issued, and so forth. As in the decrees of Simeon b. Shetah earlier and Yohanan b. Zakkai, the form imposes a considerable demand on one's imagination. The his­ torical facts, moreover, hardly support the allegation that Hillel or any Pharisee would have been able to make adjustments in so important a matter as the transfer of real property. The further assumption that the Temple authorities participated in the process hardly demands much 1

1

Development,

pp. 206-209.

216

H I L L E L — I.ii.5

attention. I doubt that any decree of a Pharisaic master would have won not merely the compliance, but the active participation, of the Temple authorities. So the whole story probably is a fabrication. I think it likely that the at first... ordained form was shaped in connec­ tion with the traditions on Yohanan's decrees at Yavneh, when the form made good sense and was entirely congruent to facts. It then was applied to the record of, or used for telling about, earlier ordinances, where it made no sense at all. As to the facts of the matter it is difficult to hypothesize. Perhaps the Pharisees handed on, or the later rabbis independently knew about, the tradition of how the effects of Lev. 25:29-30 were coped with. Long ago it was worked out that a man could deposit his funds with the appro­ priate public authority and reacquire his property. Then the rabbis at­ tached the tradition to the name of Hillel and gave the whole both the form and the substance as we have it before us. If so, Hillel serves, like Simeon b. Shetah, as a great authority in olden times. Another possibil­ ity is that the law never was enforced at all. No one could redeem prop­ erty once it was sold. The whole thing is fantasy. But rabbis assumed that the laws of Scripture were enforced just as they believed they should have been. If so, how to cope with this quite theoretical difficulty? They thereupon invented the story of Hillel's ordinance to solve the fabri­ cated problem of what to do if the purchaser will not accept his money. The whole thing assumed legal weight when the rabbis in time to come indeed governed the life of the community. When the story was told, the rabbis actually did control Jewish community life. They therefore may have felt the need to explain how the well-known law of Lev. 25: 29-30 had been enforced and would again be enforced when the Temple would be rebuilt. The ordinance-story supplied that reason. I know of no evidence that people ever actually carried out this law or that the application of the law just now constituted a difficult problem. Of these possibilities, the first seems simplest, but we have no evidence to sup­ port it, none to exclude the others. Nor is there much to be gained by spinning out theories based on rabbinical traditions about the applica­ tion of laws in Temple times. If the Pharisees did not control the gov­ ernment and the Temple, they could not do what the tradition on Hillel said he had done. Then why invent such a tradition? Or what provoked concern for the law in the first place? I have no answers to these ques­ tions, but the exegesis of Scriptures seems to me the likeliest provoca­ tion. I.ii.5 [Yohanan b. Zakkai's disciples asked him in what garments the ^zra^-sacrifice was to be carried out. He gave them an erroneous tradition, then they corrected him.] And some say, "It was Hillel the Elder, but he could not say, 'What my own hands have done.'" (Sifre Num. 123, ed. Friedman, pp. 41b-42a) Comment:

See Development

of a Legend,

p. 19. The pericope cannot have

H I L L E L — I.ii.6

217

been shaped before the time of Yohanan b. Zakkai, and probably comes long after Yohanan's death. A tradition that may be told about two masters is not based upon a recollection of what someone had actually said or done or on a report coming from a reliable tradent. It is to be classified as a biographical tale. The original provocation of the tradition may have been the effort to turn a story hostile to Yohanan b. Zakkai into one friendly to him. But why should Hillel's name have been raised in this connection? It is not integral to the story, and some say is immediately corrected: Hillel was not a priest (as if Yohanan was!), and therefore could not have been the master to whom the story is assigned. Perhaps someone had a special in­ terest in attributing the tale to Hillel, presumably a patriarchal sage or the patriarch himself, uncomfortable at the story of a model teacher which omits the name of the teacher's own (alleged) teacher, Hillel. But this sort of conjecture and similar, even more complicated possibilities profit very little, for the pericope is too slight. Sifre Zutta, Huqat 19:3, ed. H. S. Horovitz, p. 302, lines 5-11, has a strange version of the story: Yohanan is dropped, and Hillel claims, "I saw Joshua b. Perahiah (!) burn it in the large [garment]." The pericope ends with the same logion about "What my eyes have seen..." This ver­ sion surely depends upon the earlier Yohanan b. Zakkai-Hillel ones and has been contaminated with materials from other pericopae as well. It cannot be regarded as a part of the living Hillel-tradition, but is grossly fabricated by tradents or scribes who had no accurate knowledge of the facts of the original pericope. I.ii.6.A. Whatever of jours that is with jour brother jour hand should release (Deut. 15:3)—but not he who gives his mortgages to the court. B. On this basis [Lit.: From here], they said C. Hillel ordained (TQN) the pro^buL D. On account of the order (TYQWN) of the world. E. That he saw the people, that they held back from lending to one another and transgressed what is written in the Torah. F. He arose and ordained the pro^buL G. And this is the formula (GWPW) of the pro^bul: "I give to you, so-and-so and so-and-so, the judges in such-and-such place, every debt which I have, that I may collect it whenever I like," and the judges seal below, or the witnesses. [Sifre Deut. 113, ed. Friedman, pp. 97b-98a, ed. Finkelstein, pp. 173-4. (Finkelstein prints parts D-G in small type; cf. Midrash Tannaim to Deut. 15:4, ed. Hoffmann,p.80,below, p. 222)] Comment: We note first of all that the at first... Hillel ordained... form has not been used. But a number of other sorts of commonplace forms and stock-phrases are mixed together. First comes the anonymous exe-

218

HILLEL

—I.ii.6

gesis on which thepro^bulallegedly is based to begin with: debts in the hands of a court are not released. The rest of the pericope seems to depend upon the exegesis. In fact parts (C-D) E-F do not. Part B suggests that Hillel ordained the pro^bul on the basis of the exegesis, while part E gives another, and different reason, not based upon scriptural exegesis at all, but a word-play on TQN in verbal and nominative form. Part C certainly is a simple, stock-phrase report of the whole matter. It could have stood with either part D or part B, but parts B and D make one another redundant. The "historical event," part E, on which the pro^bul is based poses a problem, for the same conditions that in Hillel's time provoked the proybul surely pertained for many centuries. How can one explain why in just this time the people discovered the evil impulse described in Deut. 15:9-10? In fact, what we have is a historical paraphrase of Deut. 15:9-10: Take heed lest there be a base thought in jour heart andjou say, The seventh year, the jear of release is near' and jour eje be hostile to jour poor brother and jou give him nothing... You shall give to him freely... because for this the Lord jour God will bless you... For the poor will never cease out of the land. The absence of an explicit reference to this Scripture is striking (it is quoted in later versions), but the foregoing story about people's not lending before the year of release at just the time of Hillel takes the place of the Scripture's description of this same "event." The story, part E, thus serves as an exegesis, through historical narr­ ation, of Deut. 15:9-10. As we saw, other exegeses are turned into historical narratives about Hillel's deeds or events of his day, though normally the narrative depends on the exegesis, which is not the case here. Part F then repeats part C, adding the word arose and to supply a con­ nection with part E, and thus to preserve the (fictitious) historical framework of the story. Part G is tacked on; the story is complete with­ out it. Part G could as well have followed part A. We do not know what Hillel said; part G ignores Hillel. Thus part F satisfactorily completes the story of Hillel. Including the formula is superfluous here, but makes good sense following part A. Presumably the anonymous exegesis con­ sisted of part A + G, to which various Hillel-materials are attached, first by assigning the exegesis to Hillel (parts B-C), then by making up a story (parts E-F). Part B introduces the story: On this basis, referring to the exegesis, therefore tying the following to it, Hillel ordained the pro^bul. The in­ trusion of they said makes no sense. We are not told who said. It is a stock-introduction to a new story or clause. Actually it ties to the opening of part E, they said that he saw, or to part C, they said that Hillel. But part D and part E cannot be joined. Two different stories have been joined together. One is Parts (A) + B,C + (G): 6

(But n o t h e w h o g i v e s ) O n t h i s basis ( o m i t : they said) Hillel o r d a i n e d t h e pro^bul ( A n d t h i s is t h e f o r m u l a )

H I L L E L — I.ii.6

219

The other is Parts (A) + C, D, E, (F) + (G): (But n o t he w h o gives) Hillel ordained O n account of the repair of the w o r l d ( O m i t : that) H e s a w t h e p e o p l e , t h a t t h e y h e l d b a c k He arose and ordained

The version of Parts A + B, C + G is the simplest statement of mat­ ters. The second, parts D, E, F, introduces a "historical" provocation for the matter, ignoring the exegesis and reporting an "event" to take its place. The two versions circulated separately, in Midrash Tannaim, p. 80, and M. Shev. 10:3, below. The viewpoint of the former version is that Hillel's action was based upon sound exegesis of Scripture. It did not represent modification of the law merely to accomodate the law to historical circumstances. Rather, the law always had been what Hillel now said, but it was Hillel who recognized that fact and acted upon it. Hillel's greatness is in re­ covering the tradition, not in inventing new laws to meet the needs of the time. The contrary tendency ignores the exegesis. Hillel did change the law to accomodate it to the needs of the day. The decree was "for the order of the world," and had no exegetical basis. The specific prob­ lem therefore has to be spelled out. Likewise, others who choose to is­ sue taqqanot are justified in doing so as circumstances require. The same issue was raised at Usha with reference to Yohanan b. Zakkai's ordi­ nances (Development, pp. 206-209, 291), but not with regard to Hillel's. These two tendencies recur in stories of Hillel's origins. Some say he came as an ignorant man and learned whatever was worth knowing from Shema'iah and Abtalion and proved his points by reference to traditions he had heard from them. The other viewpoint is that Hillel was a master of Torah before he came from Babylonia, and he came to Palestine to solve one or another problem, as in Sifra Tazri'a I.ii.2, where a stock-phrase is added, on this account Hillel came upfrom Babylonia. The two tendencies are represented separately in biographical materials, but in legal ones may be mixed together, either as here, in two separate accounts of the decree, or as in the places to which on this account is tacked on at the end. The two stories must have circulated separately. The clumsy means by which they are amalgamated, e.g. the repetition of the "reason" for the decree and the use of § (here translated that) where itfitsand where it does not fit, suggest that completed versions already existed. We have no firm basis on which to formulate a theory of events. Perhaps Hillel actually made such a decree for the reasons specified, and the fact that he could do so underlines the immense power and prestige he enjoyed within Pharisaism. But that decree would not have affected the life of the great numbers of Palestinian Jews who were not Phari­ sees. Debtors were here given a good motive to dislike Pharisees, who now made their debts perpetual. This leads to a second possibility. The pro^bul existed before Hillel's day. He served as a convenient name on which to hang the Pharisaic acceptance of the proybul, despite its con-

220

H I L L E L — I.ii.7

travening Scriptural law. But then the debtors' interests would become problematical. On the one hand, the debts are now allowed to pile up and be carried forward. On the other hand, the theory of the pro^bul for Pharisaic consumption is that it loosens credit. But both theories pre­ suppose the law was widely observed, and debts indeed were forgiven according to Deuteronomic law. Evidence of actual practice here be­ comes decisive. While historical considerations lead to an impasse, form-critical ones do not. We may take it for granted that the story as we have it represents the effort first to attribute the anonymous exegetical justification of the pro^hul to Hillel, then to combine both views of taqqanot, a compromise between those who held one may legislate to meet the needs of the day and those who held legislation always depended upon Scriptural exege­ sis. The latter believed exegesis was possible to permit all needed legisla­ tion. The former may have thought otherwise, or, more likely, had no sufficiently rich exegetical tradition to permit them to rely upon Scrip­ tural exegesis for important matters. It was Aqiba and his associates who so enriched the exegetical tradi­ tion that they could find pretty much whatever they wanted in Scrip­ ture. Earlier, those who had had to issue decrees without the Aqiban method thought it reasonable to do so merely because the times ob­ viously required it, for example, Yavneans, from Yohanan b. Zakkai's time onward. Their view of matters is consistently represented in stories of Yohanan's own decrees: At first... when the Temple was de­ stroyed. .. Yohanan did what the times required, with or without Scrip­ tural proof. It was natural to shape Hillelite materials in the same frame­ work, even where it distorts the materials. It seems likely that the first viewpoint specified above would appropriately derive from circles in­ fluenced by Aqiban exegetical innovations, the second from circles in which those innovations are either unknown or unacceptable. The sec­ ond possibly would be the older of the two. But it is no more credible, from a historical viewpoint, on that account. And the anonymous exe­ gesis (A) does not reveal peculiarly 'Aqiban techniques, so may be older than 'Aqiban times. 1

c

c

c

I.ii.7. A. Moses was one-hundred-twenty years old (Deut. 34:7). He was one of four who died at the age of one-hundred-twenty, and these are they: Moses and Hillel the Elder, and Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai and R. Aqiba. B. ...Hillel came up from Babylonia at the age of forty years, and served [as a disciple of the] sages for forty years, and sustained Israel for forty years... C. Six pairs—their years were equal: Rebecca and Kohath, Levi c

1

T h e A r a m a i c ' a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t o f a d e b t ' , p u b l i s h e d b y J . T . M i l i k {Discoveries in the JudaeanDesert [ O x f o r d , 1 9 6 1 ] , p p . 1 0 0 - 1 0 4 ) does take account o f the Sabbatical r e m i s s i o n o f d e b t s , b u t is not a pro^bul a n d i g n o r e s t h e pro^bul in e v e r y respect.

221

H I L L E L — I.ii.7

and Amram, Joseph and Joshua, Samuel and Solomon, Moses and Hillel the Elder, Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai and R. Aqiba. (Sifre Deut. 357, ed. Finkelstein, p. 429) c

Comment: See Development of a Legend, pp. 23, 213, 227. We have two separate pericopae, one states explicitly that the heroes lived one-hun­ dred-twenty years; the other says merely that their life-spans are the same. Apparently, part C is revised by parts A-B (part B serving as an exposition of part A), which drop everyone but Moses-Hillel, and Yohanan-*Aqiba. The whole is anonymous; no master is quoted in con­ nection with, or in, the pericope. What is striking is the link of Moses-Hillel, which echoes the Baby­ lonian saying that Moses gave the Torah, afterwards Ezra, then Hillel restored it when it was forgotten, as did Hiyya and his sons afterward. The pairing of Yohanan and 'Aqiba and Moses-Hillel cannot be in­ consequential. The implication is obvious: Hillel was as influential in the revelation of the Torah as Moses. The absence of a prophetic basis for Hillel's Torah is elsewhere explained: the generation was unworthy. Obviously, a tradition linking Yohanan and Aqiba is shaped in the later school of 'Aqiba, ca. 150 A.D. or afterward. Given the impor­ tance of Hillel to the late second-century Tannaitic schools and patriar­ chate, we need not doubt that the connection of Moses with Hillel testi­ fies to the mind of the whole Tannaitic circle. If so, the tradition that Hillel came as an ignorant man and learned everything he knew from Palestinian sages must also have had important advocates in the period from 150 to 200 and later. Such a tradition would have been important to Palestinians reacting to the development of rabbinical academies in Babylonia. The tradition that Hillel was a Babylonian would have meant a great deal to Babylonian masters. In particular, those who claimed that the Oral Torah had survived there as much as in Palestine may have wanted by so claiming to incorporate into the normative tradi­ tions antecedent (non-Pharisaic) Babylonian views of Scripture, law and theology. Masters from, or trained in, Palestine would have preferred the Oral Torah as taught in the Palestinian schools. The former would have told the Hillel-Hiyya-stories, which said the Torah, when for­ gotten in Palestine, was restored by Babylonians. The latter would have emphasized Hillel's "ignorance" before his emigration. This pericope serves the purposes of the latter. But I doubt that it was shaped with those purposes in mind; rather, in being preserved, it served them. All we can regard as fact is that no one lived for one-hundred-twenty years, and therefore anyone who said otherwise could not have known, or cared about, the facts of the matter. On that basis, we have to date the formation of the whole pericope among masters who never had known 'Aqiba, the last named on the list. The pericope is to be classified as a biographical reference. It is a composite, but the separate elements A and C may have been formed by a single hand out of antecedent tra­ ditions from several sources and shaped by quite unrelated tendencies (Hillel/Moses, Yohanan/ Aqiba). c

4

222

H I L L E L — I.ii.8, I l . i . l

I.ii.8A. Whatever of jours is with jour brother jour hand shall release (Deut. 15:3)—not he who gives his mortgages to the court. On this basis Hillel ordained (TQN) the pro^bul. B. And thus did Hillel expound: Whatever of jours is withjour brother —not he who gives his mortgages to the court. (Midrash Tannaim, ed. Hoffmann, p. 80, 1. 32ff.) Comment: See above, p. 217. Here we have parts A and B of the com­ posite version of Sifre Deut. 115. Now the exegesis is explicitly attrib­ uted to Hillel, and the story of "the repair of the world," parts D, E, F, is dropped. This confirms my theory that two originally separate stories are combined. Part B assigns the anonymous exegesis of part A to Hillel, by adding WKK DR§ HLL to the foregoing. But this re­ peats A and ignores on this basis (MKN), which is integral to A. B looks like a gloss intended to make clear what is already obvious. I.ii.9. [With flaming fire at his right hand (Deut. 33:3)]: Just as fire makes a mark on the flesh of whoever touches it, so whoever makes profit in matters of Torah loses his life. For so would Hillel say, "And he who uses the crown shall perish.." (Midrash Tannaim ed. Hoffmann, p. 211,1. 26) Comment: Here an exegesis is supplied for a clause in Hillel's saying, Avot 1:13. This is characteristic of Midrash Tannaim, see Development, pp. 36-40. The exegesis obviously is a gloss. Il.i.l .A. [A loan secured by] a pro^bul is not released [by the seventh year]. B. This is one of the things that Hillel the Elder ordained. C. For (S) he saw that the people refrained from giving loans to one another and [were] transgressing what is written in the Torah: Beware that there be not a base thought in thine heart... (Deut. 15:9). D. Hillel ordained the pro^bul. (M. Shev. 10:3, trans. Danby, p. 51) Comment: The context is discussion of the cancellation of loans by the Seventh Year. The formula of the pro^bul follows as in Sifre Deut., and further rules are given. No sage is mentioned in the setting. Now we have the version omitting the exegesis of Deut. 15:3, but providing both the citation of Deut. 15:9 and the "historical" reason. We see that each of the two versions united in Sifre Deut. circulated separately. As a separate pericope, the "historical" version has been given a new form. First, the exegesis of Deut. 15:3 is dropped, as I said, and a new super­ scription is supplied instead, part B. The superscription suggests that the record of Hillel's taqqanot was preserved in the form of a list, much

223

H I L L E L — II.i.2

like the list of Yohanan b. Zakkai's taqqanot {Development, pp. 43-47). But this is the only item on the "list." So the superscription must be a stock-phrase. The real story begins in part C, but the introductory formula, mcfaseh b- is not given, rather a much more integral kf, when he saw (MS Kauf­ mann omits K). Then, as I said, Deut. 15:9 is spelled out, duplicating the historical event. Finally comes the subscription, D, which drops he arose and of Sifre Deut. 115. To be sure, part D repeats part B; but it is integral to the story. We earlier noticed the duplication of introduc­ tory formulae and stock-phrases. In its present form the pericope is a composite of editorial materials—superscription, subscription—and a historical-legal narrative (part C). The formula of the pro^bul is repeated without alteration. It certainly is integral to the tradition of Hillel and the pro^bul. The chapter concerns the release of debts in the Seventh Year, and proceeds from one rule to the next, finally explaining that the loan secured by a pro^bul is not released. At that point Hillel's decree is included. Judah the Patriarch selected the story that traces the pro^bulto histor­ ical necessity, rather than to an exegetical foundation. Why should Judah have preferred this version? I imagine he would have wanted the story to serve as proof for two propositions: first of all, his ancestor had exercised enormous power and was able to change laws of centuries' standing; second, the nasi does not have to rely upon exegesis but can do pretty much anything he wants in response to historical conditions. The nasi, whether Hillel or Judah, has the power and authority to change the law on account of contemporary necessity, but does not have to rely upon tradition, whether explicit, or formulated through exegetical means and validated by the consensus of the schools. So if the story originally came from circles around Yohanan b. Zakkai or Gama­ liel I at Yavneh, before the widespread acceptance of the Aqiban exe­ getical methods, it was later on preserved for the purposes of the patri­ arch. This conforms to the tendency of Judah the Patriarch in selecting earlier materials of Yohanan b. Zakkai: He in general preferred those materials which served as useful precedent in the conduct of the later patriarchate (set Development, pp. 291-293), and, in particular, portrayed the Yavnean decrees as based on historical necessity, not exegetical foundations. The Ushans, by contrast, supplied the exegetical basis and claimed Yohanan had done nothing new. c

II.i.2. Hillel ordained (TQN) the pro^hul on account of the order of the world (TYQWN H<WLM). (M. Git. 4:3, trans. Danby, p. 311) Comment: Here we have parts C and D of Sifre Deut. 115 as a separate, unitary stock-phrase. In Sifre Deut. it served to introduce the "histori­ cal event." Here it summarizes the whole matter. The context is a peri­ cope listing several ordinances on divorce-writs issued by patriarchs "on account of the good order of the world," Gamaliel the Elder in

224

H I L L E L — II.i.3, 4

particular. The form of Gamaliel's ordinances however is at first... Rabban Gamaliel ordained..., that is, the form conventional at Yavneh from the time of the formation of Yohanan b. Zakkai's traditions. Its absence in the Hillel-saying is therefore striking, since in this setting it would have been natural to say atfirstpeople refrained... Hillel ordained... 11.1.3. A. A man may not say to his fellow, "Lend me a koroi wheat, and I will repay you at threshing [-time]." But ('L') he says to him, "[Lend it to me] until my son comes," or "until I find the key." Hillel forbids (>W$R). B. And thus Hillel used to say, "A woman may not lend a loaf of bread to her neighbor unless she determines its value in money, lest wheat should rise in price, and they be found (WNMS'W) partakers in usury (B>WT LYDY RYBYT)." (M. B.M. 5:9, trans. Danby, p. 357) Comment: The concern in the first case is that wheat will increase in value, hence usury might be involved. What is prohibited is trading in futures. The specification of the coming of the son implies, Albeck says {Seder Ne^iqin, p. 88), that the son now has the required wheat and will bring it. Hillel prohibits this form of loan as well. The saying of Hillel (B) then presents the same law through a different example. The value of the loaf must be determined, and the woman returns not the original quantity, but the original value, of bread. Otherwise the possibility of usury is still present. This later is the standard form for the transmission of a legal tradi­ tion : the statement of a general rule of law, followed by the dissenting opinion of a named master. The form Hillel used to say, joined to the foregoing by vekhen, does not follow that convention, which would simply be Hillel says. It rather is the form used for apodictic, general moral sayings, as in Avot. The classification is a legal saying. The context is the determination of neshekh and tarbit. In the foregoing segments the following masters are mentioned: Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, Yosi [b. Halafta], Judah [b. Ilai], and in the following, Simeon [b. Yohai]. All date from the middle of the second century. We have no way of knowing how Hillel's saying was transmitted. It seems unlikely that a generalized rule was given, followed by his application of it. The more probable form was the concrete case, including the reason for the ruling (lest wheat should rise... partakers in usury). But the "reason" is a secondary gloss on the particular rule, and the primary attribution to Hillel would have been simply, A woman may not lend... in money. See Tos. B.M. 6:10. 11.1.4. A. Hillel said, " 1 . Do not separate (PR§) from the congregation; and 2. do not trust yourself until the day of your death; and 3. do not

H I L L E L — II.i.4

225

judge your fellow until you come to his place; and 4. do not say a thing which cannot be heard (§M ), for it will be heard in the end; and 5. say not 'When I have leisure I will study.' Perhaps you will not have leisure." B. He used to say, "6. A brutish man dreads not sin; and 7. an ignorant man cannot be saintly; and 8. the bashful man cannot learn; and 9. the impatient man cannot teach; and 10. he that engages over­ much in trade cannot become wise; and 11. where there are no men, strive to be a man." C. Also (*P) he saw one skull floating on the face of the water. He said to it, 12. "Because you drowned, they drowned you, and at the last they that drowned you shall be drowned" D. He used to say, 13. "The more ( = He who multiplies—MRBH) flesh, the more worms; 14. the more possessions, the more care; 15. the more women, the more witchcraft; 16. the more slavewomen, the more lewdness; 17. the more slaves, the more thieving; 18. the more Torah, the more life; 19. the more schooling, the more wisdom; 20. the more counsel, the more understanding; 21. the more righte­ ousness, the more peace. 22. If a man has gained a good name he has gained [it] for himself; 23. if he has gained for himself words of Torah, he has gained for himself life in the world to come." [M. Avot 2:5-7, trans. Danby, p. 448 (MS Kaufmann omits and throughout A, and drops nos. 19-21)] C

Comment: The italicized logion is in Aramaic, the rest in Hebrew. The pericope is a collection of moral sayings, in the simplest redactional structure. The whole is joined by and in one clause after another; or he used to say, or in the case of part C, moreover (>P). The invention of a "historical" narrative-setting for the saying about the skull is not un­ familiar; we have seen the same sort of fabrication in connection with the ordinance in Deut. Sifre 113. The twenty-three separate sayings are not all of the same kind. The first five are discrete, unrelated logia. The and is a connecting word; indeed, where the thematic connection is obvious, as in the antonymic parts later on, no and is supplied. Part B contains five related, evenly balanced sayings, and then an independent logion (no. 11). Part C, as noted, is a separate logion given a narrative setting. Part D returns to the model of part B, in which nos. 13-17 are balanced pairs of negative characteristics, nos. 18-21 positive ones, as follows: Flesh/worms possessions/care women/witchcraft

Torah/life [schooling/wisdom] [counsel / u n d e r s t a n d i n g ]

226

H I L L E L — II.i.4

bondwomen/lewdness \ bondmen/thieving

[ f

i

g

h

t

e

o

u

s

n

e

s

s

/

p

e

a

c

e

]

/

Then come nos. 22-3, the contrast between the good name for oneself and the words of Torah for life in the world to come. It is difficult to imagine parts D and B as composites of separate say­ ings. They clearly are arranged to make a single point through a set of examples. Part C is a separate narrative + logion, and part A is a com­ posite of logia. The likelihood is that once the form had been stated, it generated new examples. This tractate in Hillel's name occurs quite apart from Avot 1:12, where Hillel counsels people to be disciples of Aaron, and then are further attributed to him four Aramaic logia, followed by if I am not for myself etc. That little collection is shorter and different from this one; its elements demonstrably circulated separately (e.g. he who uses the crown perishes, Avot 1:13 = Midrash Tannaim, p. 211). I take it for granted that nos. 1-5, 11 and 12 could likewise have circulated as independent logia. The context of the foregoing pericope is sayings of masters from Judah the Patriarch, so presumably identified with the later patriarch­ ate, rather than with its founder. But immediately following is Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai took over (QBL) from Hillel and Shammai. He used to say... This is a continuation of the list ending in Avot 1:18, but there the list goes from Hillel and Shammai to Gamaliel, then Simeon his son, and stops, picking up in Avot 2:1 with Rabbi [Judah the Patriarch]. Hence I am not sure that the editor of the pericope understood/////?/ to mean the later one. Hillel earlier (Avot 1:12) is not called "the Elder," in contradistinction to the later Hillel(s). On the contrary the inclusion of the Yohanan ben Zakkai-pericope suggests that the editor assumed he was attaching his material to the right Hillel, namely, the Hillel who had taught Yohanan and who gave the tradition over to him in prefer­ ence to Hillel's omitted son and grandson. My guess, therefore, is that the foregoing pericope should be understood as having formed part of the Hillel-tradition in the third century (or later), and that the intention of the editor, or at least, the understanding of the redactor who added Yohanan b. Zakkai to the Hillel materials before us, was that it indeed was the Hillel. That such sayings circulated in Hillel's name in Tannaitic times is un­ likely, since none is ever quoted, referred to, or attributed to him before the third century masters. This is prima facie evidence that the whole is from Amoraic times. But other such balanced syzygies of moral sayings occur in Hillel's name, perhaps accounting for the attribution to Hillel of any that followed the same pattern, or generating new Hillel-sayings according to formula. The pericope obviously is a composite. Parts B, C, and D represent substantial developments into rather sophisticated forms, the first and the last balanced images, the middle a story. None can be regarded as primitive. The sayings in part A, famous in their own right, presumably were popular proverbs now assigned to Hillel.

H I L L E L — II.i.5, 6; Il.ii.l

227

II.i.5.A. R. Sadoq says, "Keep not aloof from the congregation, and do not make yourself like those who seek to influence the judges. Make them [words of Torah] not a crown wherewith to magnify yourself or a spade wherewith to dig." B. And thus Hillel used to say, "He that makes worldly use of the crown shall perish" C. Thus you may learn that he that makes profit out of words of Torah takes his life from the world. (M. Avot 4:5, trans. Danby, p, 453) Comment: Hillel's worldly use saying now serves as a gloss on the later R. Sadoq. It circulated as an independent logion, apart from its setting in Avot 1:13. The italicized words are in Aramaic. The Hebrew sub­ scription (C) supplies a commentary, in the manner of a Targum. The citation of Hillel's saying as a gloss on Sadoq's proves nothing about the antiquity of the former. An editor, shaping the whole, might well have drawn the Hillel-saying from available materials. R. Sadoq need not have heard it, and probably had not. If he had, he presumably would have cited it, or alluded to its striking image, in the name of Hillel. He refers to a crown (). Hence the edi­ tor brought together two crown-sayings originally circulating independ­ ently of one another. To Sadoq is also attributed Hillel's congregationsaying.

II.L6.A. [If] the [last] day of the twelve months was come and it was not redeemed, it becomes his forever, no matter whether he bought it or was given it as a gift, for it is written, In perpetuity (Lev. 25:30). B. Before time (BR'SNH) the buyer used to hide himself on the last day of the twelve months so that [the house] might be his in perpe­ tuity (HLT). Hillel the Elder ordained that he [that sold it] could deposit (HLS) his money in the [Temple] Chamber, and break down the door and enter. The other, whenever he wants, will come and take his money. (M.
Il.ii.l. Hillel the Elder says, " 1 . Do not be seen naked; do not be seen clothed;

228

H I L L E L — II.ii.2

2. "do not be seen standing; and do not be seen sitting. 3. "Do not be seen laughing and do not be seen weeping, for it is said, There is a time to laugh and a time to weep, a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing (Qoh. 3:4-5)." (Tos. Ber. 2:21, ed. Lieberman, p. 11, lines 70-2) II.ii.2. Hillel the Elder says, "4. When (B$
H I L L E L — II.ii.3, 4

229

in the second pericope. But even in the first, the separate examples— naked, standing, laughing—by themselves would not have formed a meaningful wisdom-teaching, while together they present a forceful and vivid image. As above, the successive examples may have been add­ ed following the established form, so one hand presumably shaped the whole, possibly developing a single formula. No. 5, and all rejoice, and no. 6, and not everyone may be glosses; the rest seems without interpola­ tions. C

II.ii.3. The story is told concerning (M SH B) Hillel the Elder who purchased for a certain poor man, son of good [parents], a horse that would work ( ML) for him and a slave who would serve (§M§) him. (Tos. Pe'ah 4:10, ed. Lieberman, p. 58, lines 36-7) C

This brief biographical narrative, with the superscription is simple and unadorned, a unity in all respects. The adjec­ tival clauses probably are glosses. The setting is anonymous laws about providing for a poor man the necessities to which he is accustomed, e.g. good dishes, adequate funds, and food; if he is spoon-fed, one spoon-feeds him. Then comes, even a slave, even a horse, as a comment on Deut. 15:8, But you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be. The Hillelstory then repeats verbatim this commentary on the same passage: Hillel bought a slave and a horse. After the story comes another, about the men of Galilee who fed a man a litre of meat every day, because he had been accustomed to it. It is striking that two Hillel-stories, an ordinance (pro^bul) and the above pericope, serve as narrative, or "historical," commentaries to Deut. 15. The conventional, anonymous exegesis in both instances is translated into "historical" accounts of Hillel's life and deeds. The for­ mation of Hillel-stories out of anonymous commentary must follow, and depend upon, the commentary itself. The inclusion of identical words in this instance, and identical details in the story of the ordinance of the pro^bul and in Deut. 15:29-30, make it virtually certain that the stories depend upon the antecedent exegesis. We may therefore point to a genre of materials: the transformation of exegesis into apophthegmatic biography—text-commentary in the form of "historical" paradigms told about a famous master. Comment:

ma'aseh b+,

II.iiAA. As to food for the Sabbath (KLKLT §BT)—The House of Shammai declare free of liability. And the House of Hillel declare liable. R. Judah said, "Hillel himself used to prohibit [it] (HYH >W$R)." B. He who gathers food (KLKLH) to send to his fellow should not eat it until he tithes. R. Judah says, "Hillel himself used to prohibit [it]."

230

H I L L E L — II.ii.4

C. He who brings figs from place to place, and the Sabbath takes place [during transit], at the end of the Sabbath should not eat [it] until he tithes. R. Judah says, "Hillel himself would prohibit [it]." (Tos. Ma'aserot 3:2-4, ed. Lieberman, p. 237, lines 4-6, p. 238, lines 1-2) Comment: If a man gathered food for the Sabbath, not for himself but to send to someone else, the food is liable for tithes. The intrusion of Hillel is striking. Here we find Judah's asserting that Hillel is separate from the House of Hillel. The legal context, Lieberman says, is that one has set aside a fig for the Sabbath. When the fruit is attached to the ground, it is exempt from tithes; but when one picks it, it forthwith requires tithing. Variant readings hold Hillel prohibited for himself (only), and not for others; other traditions hold he prohibited it for all, but was the only one who prohibited it. The Tosefta differs from the Mishnaic tradition: A basket of fruit [intended] for the Sabbath— The House of Shammai declare exempt [from tithes]. And the House of Hillel declare liable [to tithes if consumed before the Sabbath], R. Judah says, "Also if a man gathered a basketful to send to his fellow, he may not eat therefrom until he has given tithe." (M. Ma'aserot 4:2b) c

See also M. Ed. 4:10. In the Mishnaic traditions, R. Judah's tradition on Hillel's differing from the House of Hillel is dropped. Judah's saying is fully spelled out, but Hillel no longer stands behind it. For further commentary, see Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshutah, ad loc. pp. 694-5. The pericopae are similar to the Shammai-stories, which separate Shammai from the House of Shammai. The tradition is complex, as Lieberman makes clear, but for our purposes it is sufficient to note three facts. First, the tradition on Hillel's opinion given in the name of Judah is excluded from the Mishnah. The contrast to the preservation in the Mishnah of Shammai's difference from the House of Shammai is obvi­ ous and striking. Evidently Judah the Patriarch deliberately excluded evidence on Hillel's relationship to the House of Hillel similar to that of Shammai to the House of Shammai. Second, the opinion of Hillel himself was not preserved in language one might expect. We have no lemma containing Hillel's legal opinion, only a generalized tradition, at­ tributing no verbatim-formula of Hillel's opinion to Hillel: HYH 'WSR. Third, the formula R. Judah said Hillel himself... is a stock-phrase ap­ plied to several cases. That stock-phrase could not have been formulated much before the third quarter of the second century, and before that time Hillel's opinion, if any, was preserved in unknown forms; I cannot suggest what shape his legal opinion would earlier have been given. See Epstein, Mevo*ot, pp. 101-2. y

H I L L E L — II.ii.5, 6

231

II.ii.5. Hillel the Elder would fold together (KRK) the three of them and eat them. (Tos. Pisha 2:22, ed. Lieberman, p. 150, line 67) Comment: See Mekhilta de R. Simeon b. Yohai, p. 13,1.12, I.i.l. The pericope on Hillel's practice is unrelated to foregoing materials. Imme­ diately preceding is Simeon's saying concerning the liability to con­ sume the three foods, afterward, the time that they are to be eaten. The fact that they are to be eaten together is not mentioned. The story about Hillel's manner of eating them is inserted as a fixed, unitary pericope, slightly expanded from the version appearing in the earlier compilation, but otherwise unchanged. This must therefore represent the simplest form in which Hillel-stories were cast: Hillel the Elder + verb (would do) + object. No legal rule is explicated, but it is taken for granted that Hillel's gesture is paradigmatic. We cannot call it a "historical" or biographical story, for the tradent does not intend to say, "Once Hillel did so-and-so," but rather, "Hillel's ordinary and routine practice was so-and-so." The pericope is a legal teaching in narrative style, a common form for the transmission of Hillel's legal traditions, perhaps earlier than the translation of those tra­ ditions into the generalized and non-narrative, apodictic style of later times. We thus see three stages: 1. Exegesis o f Scripture 2 . R e v i s i o n o f S c r i p t u r a l e x e g e s i s i n t o H i l l e l - n a r r a t i v e : Story is told of Hillel 3 . R e v i s i o n o f H i l l e l - n a r r a t i v e i n t o g e n e r a l i z e d , a b s t r a c t legal o p i n i o n a t ­ t r i b u t e d t o H i l l e l : Hillel says, o r , Hillel would say.

The third stage is absent here. II.ii.6.A. One time (P'M >HT) the fourteenth fell on the Sabbath. They asked Hillel the Elder, "Does the Pesah override the Sabbath?" He said to them, "And do we have only one Pesah in the year which overrides the Sabbath? We have many more than three hundred Pesahs in the year, and they override the Sabbath." B. The whole courtyard ( ZRH) collected (HBR) against him. He said to them, "The continual offering is a community sacrifice, and the Pesah is a community sacrifice. Just as the continual offering, a community sacrifice, overrides the Sabbath, so the Pesah, a com­ munity sacrifice, overrides the Sabbath. C. "Another matter: It is said concerning the continual offering: its season (Num. 28:2) and it is said with reference to the Pesah: its season (Num. 9:2). Just as the continual offering, concerning which its season is said, overrides the Sabbath, so the Pesah, concerning which its season is said, overrides the Sabbath. D. "And furthermore (W WD), [it is a] qal vehomer: Although the C

C

232

H I L L E L — II.ii.6

continual offering, which does not produce the liability of cutting off, overrides the Sabbath, the Pesah, which does produce the liability of cutting off—is it not logical that it should override the Sabbath? E. "And further, I have received from my masters [the tradition] that the Pesah overrides the Sabbath, and not [merely] the first Pesah but the second, and not [merely] the community Pesah but the indivi­ dual Pesah [as well]." F. They said to him, "What will be the rule for the people who did not bring knives and Pesah-oSztmgs to the sanctuary?" G. He said to them, "Leave them alone. The holy spirit is upon them. If they are not prophets, they are disciples of prophets." H. What did Israel do in that hour? He whose Pesah was a lamb hid it in its wool, a kid—he tied it between its horns; so they brought knives and Pesahs to the sanctuary and slew their P&r^-sacrifices. I. On that very day they appointed Hillel as nasi, and he would teach to them concerning (B) the laws of the Pesah. (Tos. Pisha 4:13, ed. Lieberman, p. 165-6, lines 80-94) Comment: This pericope stands separately from the context of fore­ going materials. The chapter contains a collection of stories about pub­ lic debates on Passover in the Temple. It is followed by a story about Agrippa's Passover census. The subsequent chapter returns to legal matters. The pericope is transparently composite, a collection of loosely re­ lated traditions on Hillel's dispute with "them," later on named as the Bathyrans, and his consequent elevation to the position of nasi. The dispute supplies a dramatic, narrative setting for exegeses which could have stood separately, anonymously, and without such a setting, and probably did, much like the slave and horse for the poor man. Indeed, y. Pes. 6:1 contains just such a collection of uncleanness and Pesah-exegeses, attributed to Hillel and supplied with superscriptions and sub­ scriptions that "on this account Hillel came up from Babylonia." So the stories of Hillel's rise to power were joined with collections of Pesah and uncleanness-exegeses. Part A introduces the whole matter and is complete in itself: Hillel was asked and thereupon supplied a complete and final answer. Then the following arguments are attached to the foregoing joined by the whole courtyard, supposedly disagreeing with him, but saying nothing in response to his repertoire. Later on "they" would be named, still later would demolish his arguments. The arguments are as follows: A . M a n y Pesahs o v e r r i d e t h e S a b b a t h ; B . C o m m u n i t y sacrifices o v e r r i d e t h e S a b b a t h ; C. Its season a p p l i e s b o t h t o c o n t i n u a l o f f e r i n g a n d t o Pesah, t h u s b o t h o v e r ­ ride Sabbath;

233

H I L L E L — II.ii.6

D . Qal E.

vehomer;

I h a v e a tradition f r o m m y m a s t e r s .

Nothing is said about who the masters are. Subsequent versions supply Shema iah and Abtalion, presumably following the Avot list. In part F the response is given: Everyone "forthwith" agrees. Part F could as well have followed part A (or any of the subsequent arguments), but it is held back until the whole repertoire is completed. Part G is a still further, separate element, in which a probably wellknown apophthegm is attributed to Hillel, followed by part H, an illus­ tration of the prophetic heritage. The people can be relied on, because they have access to the holy spirit, or at least automatically do the right thing. Then comes part I, on that very day. The House of Hillel persistently appealed to the holy spirit and other supernatural informants in deciding questions of law; this element is consistent with the Houses-traditions. But no claim of supernatural revelation was asserted in Hillel's behalf. On the contrary, his failure to receive the holy spirit had to be explained away. Distinguishing the exegetical from the narrative elements, we find the following: c

Narrative A . One time B . J o i n e d issue [or E ] F. W h a t to do G . H o l y spirit H. W h a t did people d o ? I . T h e y m a d e h i m nasi

Exegetical A . M a n y Pesahs o v e r r i d e B . C o m m u n i t y sacrifices C . Its season D . Qal vehomer E. Tradition

We see, therefore, that, except for A or E, but not both, the exegetical and dispute-materials are independent of the narrative framework; all, including A and E, are inserted without much, if any, reference to the narrative details. We can reconstruct the ma aseh without referring to the argumentation. The composite pericope gives every evidence of coming at the end of a long process of development. The problem of the Pesah comes before the arguments. The story of the rise to power is developed in its own terms. Then the two are combined. As to the historical framework, we are told that, incredibly, no one for generations had known what to do when the fourteenth of Nisan fell on the Sabbath, until Hillel came along and told them what to do. Yet this contradicts part E and parts G-H, in which we are told, "You can rely on what the people normally do and do not have to depend upon exegetical investigation, except for post facto justification for ac­ cepted practice." Later on this anomaly is explained, with reference to part E. This state of affairs is tied to the foregoing by explaining that Hillel himself approved referring to popular practice, saying that the people are under the holy spirit. Since other sayings concerning Hillel allege he alone of his generation was worthy of receiving the holy spirit, but the generation's poor character prevented it, the pericope must be set <

234

HILLEL

—II.ii.6

apart from other sorts of Hillel-traditions. But I cannot suggest who in particular would have wanted to allege in Hillel's name that the holy spirit is upon Israel, or what polemic was involved in so stating. While the ruling is not presented in the taqqanah-foim, the same dif­ ficulties earlier observed now recur. Part A in fact contradicts parts F-G, for, as I said, part A alleges no one knew what to do until Hillel came, and parts F-G claim everyone knew precisely what to do, but Hillel was able either to provide adequate exegetical authority or to cite masters. But no one else in Jerusalem had heard anything from those same masters on this subject. Shema iah and Abtalion are not mentioned, probably because it would at the outset have been incredible that only Hillel knew their teaching about a matter of Temple procedure that must have arisen several times in their lifetimes alone. But later they are inserted as a gloss on "my masters." The anomaly then has to be ex­ plained: You were too lazy to study with S + A! The little narrative in part H is a separate story, without any real con­ nection to the rest, except in that hour, which, like one time and on that very day, is a convenient joining-formula for the historical-narrative framework. These considerations therefore require the further division of the narrative framework into part A and parts F, G, and H, and part I certainly is still a third element in the narrative. The anonymity of the pericope, the clumsy joining of its composite elements into a single, unitary account, and the historical dubiety of the story that Hillel's arguments were accepted by Temple authorities and that he was therefore made nasi over the Temple (!), all point to a rel­ atively late date for the story as a whole. I do not see how anyone could have made it up or put together its several parts while the Temple was standing, for at that point no one could have believed it. My guess is that available exegetical elements were claimed for Hillel after the nar­ rative parts were put together; then Hillel's name would have been supplied for any exegesis proving that the P^ra^-offering overrides the Sabbath. The earlier sequence—from exegesis to apophthegm—sug­ gests the arguments could have been worked out at the same period, then attached to the story of Hillel's rise to power, once the issue of the Pesah was established as the primary theme of that story. As to the narrative, the obvious division is between the elements that say Hillel became nasi because of the excellence of his exegetical inge­ nuity, on the one hand, and those that say he became nasi because he had a tradition. But here (unlike y. Pes. and b. Pes.), that distinction does not seem to be important. No one dramatically underlines that Hillel was ignored until he could quote his masters, for part E is pretty much equivalent to the foregoing. Hence the real contrast is between the allegation that people know what to do and do not require rab­ binical instruction, but merely rabbinical confirmation for what they al­ ready do, and the thesis that until Hillel's exegeses, no one, even his masters, knew what to do at all. I am not sure who would have wanted to advance the former theory, but since it seems to me to claim less for Hillel than the foregoing, I imagine it would not have come from the c

235

H I L L E L — II.ii.7

patriarchal circles, who would have preferred the view that Hillel was superior even to Shema iah and Abtalion. It will not serve to classify the pericope as a legal saying in a historical framework. It is far too complex for such a category. We had best divide it and classify, as above, parts B-E as legal-exegetical, and parts A, F-I as biographical. For reasons already stated, I do not see how it can have taken shape much before the start of the second century, and it comes probably later than that. That a shred of historically usable information is before us seems to me unlikely. c

II.ii.7. Hillel the Elder says, (A) "To the place which my heart loves, there my feet lead me. (B) "If you will come to my house, I shall come to your house. "If you will not come to my house, I shall not come to your house." (C) "As it is said (Ex. 20:24), In every place where I shall cause my name to be mentioned I shall come to you and bless you" (Tos. Suk. 4:3, ed. Lieberman, p. 272, lines 8-10) Comment: Hillel's "exegesis" of Ex. 20:24 begins as a popular saying, which then is made into a comment on Scripture. Lieberman observes that Hillel made use of it vis a vis Heaven: "If your feet lead you to the Sanctuary on account of your heart's desire, I shall come to your house and bless you." The whole, in Hebrew, is in three parts, A = proverb B = p a r s i n g o f t h e p r o v e r b (Ifyou C = Scriptural proof-text

will come... if you will not

come...)

A considerable tradition, parts of which we have already considered, assigns to Hillel various enigmatic sayings of an apparently theological nature. That they existed before being assigned to Hillel may generally be taken for granted. It is difficult to find grounds to associate the formation of these peri­ copae with a particular school or circle. Some obviously are mystical, but this one is not. It asserts the Temple is the place where the divinity bestows his blessing; it is indeed a blessing to go to the Temple. Since others held the opposite, we may take it for granted that a polemical in­ tention underlies the formation of the saying. But it would not serve to speculate on precisely who said the contrary, or when to Hillel was at­ tributed an affirmative evaluation of the Temple. We certainly do not have to imagine the whole comes after the Temple was destroyed; the evidence on that question is not decisive one way or the other. In our studies of Yohanan-traditions we observed the revision of Templestories and priestly sayings to conform to the views of his disciples and later rabbinical circles. But this saying, if it comes from a Templecircle, is unrevised. That the Temple is a source of blessing certainly is not alien to the sentiments of Pharisaism or rabbinic Judaism later on.

236

H I L L E L — II.ii.8

The context is stories about the celebration of the rejoicing of Bet HaSho'evah. The hasidim and deed-doers would dance with torches. Then comes Hillel's saying, which on the face of it is out of context. It is followed by the story that Simeon b. Gamaliel would juggle eight torches. The setting therefore is stories about the festival in Temple times. I do not see why Hillel's saying was included. Someone assumed it was an appropriate addition to the Bet HaSho'evah collection. Later versions "explain" the connection by supplying a narrative framework involving the Festival. II.ii.8.A. Hillel the Elder expounded (DR§) the language of com­ mon people. B. When (K§) the Alexandrians would betrothe women, another came and seized (HTP) her from the market, and the incident (M'SH) came before sages. They sought (BQ§) to declare ( SH) their sons mam%erin. C. Hillel the Elder said to them, "Bring out to me the marriagecontract of your mothers." They brought [it] to him, and written in it was, "When you enter my house, you will he my wife according to the law of Moses and Israel." [Tos. Ket. 4:9, ed. Lieberman, p. 68, lines 3034 (y. Ket. 4:8, y. Yev. 15:3, b. B.M. 104a)] C

Comment: The italicized phrase is in Aramaic, the rest in Hebrew. Part A is a superscription, explaining the point of the story. Without it the story is complete, but fits into no context. With it the story shows that Hillel would interpret the language of the documents of ordinary folk as carefully as the language of the Torah or of the sages. The story then follows, with no internal superscription at all. Standing separately, it would have been introduced with ma^aseh ve + verb. The tense-structure is difficult. At the outset we have the verb to be plus participle, hence when they would betrothe, continual action. This is followed by verbs of completed action, another came and seized, and the matter came before... The verb-forms now suggest a single incident. This is reenforced, for the sages wanted to make—a specific decision, but (C) Hillel intervened. We are not told the occasion on which Hillel inter­ vened. Rather, we have a narrative in which Hillel's legal opinion is preserved in the form of an "historical" event. But the event is transpar­ ently invented. In generalized language, it would have been Hillel said, One interprets

the language

of...

On the one hand, the language begins with the implication that we deal with a rule for a recurring situation; on the other, we are led, in B-C, into the narrative of a single, one-time event, producing a decision on a "particular" day and under "particular" circumstances. The heart of the matter is the language written into the marriage-contracts, nor­ mal and continual, rather than exceptional and singular. The language

H I L L E L — II.ii.8, 9

237

specifies the betrothal takes effect when the woman actually enters the man's domain, therefore nothing untoward takes place if a betrothal to another has preceded the final consummation of the marriage. The whole then is made to serve as illustration of Hillel's legal rule that the language of documents of other than rabbinical origin is to be carefully interpreted and enforced. The story sequentially must follow the prin­ ciple and illustrate it. Lieberman observes that the pericope corresponds to M. Ket. 4:6: T h e f a t h e r is n o t l i a b l e f o r his d a u g h t e r ' s m a i n t e n a n c e . R . E l e a z a r b . ' A z a r i a h t h u s e x p o u n d e d [the Ketuvab] b e f o r e t h e sages in t h e v i n e y a r d at Y a v n e h , " T h e s o n s i n h e r i t a n d t h e d a u g h t e r s r e c e i v e m a i n ­ t e n a n c e — b u t l i k e as t h e s o n s i n h e r i t o n l y a f t e r t h e d e a t h o f t h e i r f a t h e r , s o the daughters receive maintenance o n l y after the death o f their father." (M. K e t . 4 : 6 , trans. Danby, p. 250)

The Hillel-story likewise illustrates the fact that the language of the documents may be subjected to close exegetical study, which may pro­ duce further laws. As to the legal issues involved, see Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshutah, ad loc, pp. 245-7. The pericope is to be classified as a legal tradition preserved in nar­ rative form. The setting is complex. Immediately preceding comes the rule that it is a commandment to nourish the daughters, but not the sons (= M. Ket. 4:6). Then the Hillel-story follows. Clearly, the only connection between the two is via the Mishnah quoted above, that is, the Tosefta's reference to the liability for the daughter's maintenance relates to the Mishnah-rule that the father is indeed so liable, followed by the exposition by Eleazar of the language of the Ketuvah. Then the Tosefta supplies an additional example of such exposition, in the name of Hillel, as if the foregoing had preserved Eleazar's exposition. The following matter derives from Meir's exposition of the language of a legal document unrelated to marriage, then Judah's exposition of the language of the Ketuvah, and so forth. So the thematic basis for the whole is clear. Obviously the Hillel-story is included on account of the congruity of theme, and the whole could not have been shaped in its present form before the last third of the second century. That does not tell us when the Hillel-story was first told, then redacted. The only hint as to its primary elements lies in the confusion of the verbs, from gener­ al to completed action. This would suggest that a generalized account of Alexandrian practice existed. This produced the "incident," and Hillel then was introduced as the authority who issued the affirmative ruling. The "sages" are not identified; they play a passive and minor role. Once Hillel comes, they disappear. The presumption therefore is that a Hillel-ruling was sufficient to vanquish all opposition, which other stories do not confirm. That presumption may suggest a relatively late date for the story. C

II.ii.9.A. The story is told that (M SH S) sages entered the house of

238

HILLEL

—II.ii.9

Guryo in Jericho and heard an echo saying, "There is here a man who is worthy (R'WY) of the holy spirit, but his generation is not suf­ ficiently righteous (ZK?Y LKK)," and they set their eyes on Hillel the Elder. B. And when he died, they said concerning him, "Oh (HY) the modest [man], the pious [man], disciple of Ezra." C. Another time ($WB P M >HT) they were sitting in Yavneh and heard an echo saying, "There is here a man who is worthy of the holy spirit, but his generation is not sufficiently righteous (ZK?Y LKK)" and they set their eyes on Samuel the Small. D. And when he died, they said about him, "Oh the modest [man], the pious [man], disciple of Hillel..." (Tos. Sot. 13:3, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 318, line 23 to p. 319, line 4) C

Comment: The Hillel-pericope follows the form of the Samuel-version and corresponds to it in every detail. Hillel is disciple of Ezra, Samuel of Hillel. We may take it for granted that the pericope is from heirs of the circle of Samuel the Small, and that its underlying tendency now is to stress that the true disciple of Hillel is not Gamaliel his descendant, but the pious, modest sage. The further tendency is to explain why Hillel and Samuel "his disci­ ple" did not receive the holy spirit: the generation prevented it, but otherwise they both would have received it. We do not know who as­ serted otherwise, saying that it was a mark of Hillel's and Samuel's own unworthiness that they did not receive the holy spirit. I cannot imagine it was the patriarchal circle. Perhaps it was Shammaites, confronted by the Hillelite claim that an echo had confirmed their predominance. They would have asserted no one had supernatural confirmation for his laws, not even Hillel. The opposition would have countered that the echo had indeed praised Hillel and explained his failure to prophesy. In the present pericope we have no echo of such a contrary story, that Hillel was unworthy of the holy spirit, though he had hoped to receive it. I doubt that such a story was told in a form we can now recover. But the stories of the rise of Hillel to patriarch do stress that all Israel has access to the holy spirit! So we may suppose that such a story or saying existed, but has everywhere been dropped. Only the existence of an al­ legation to the contrary provides evidence that a hostile story, or group of stories, may have existed at Yavneh. But they may have been told concerning Samuel the Small, and Samuel's defenders may have as­ serted he was no different from the great Hillel, who also would have received the holy spirit had his generation, like Samuel's, been worthy of it. So the polemic may have served a much later circle of masters, who would have invented the pericope. I cannot account for the setting in the house of Guryo (= Gurion) in

H I L L E L — II.ii.9

239

Jericho, which serves as the counterpart of the "vineyard at Yavneh." The Samuel-pericope proceeds to relate his dying words in Aramaic: Simeon and Ishmael would be slain with the sword, the companions would be killed, and the rest of the people would be despoiled, etc. The reference must be to the Bar Kokhba War, and hence the whole peri­ cope dates from after that time. We have already seen other materials from the same chapter, about Aramaic messages to Yohanan the High Priest and Simeon the Just (above, p. 162, 173). The larger frame­ work therefore is a compilation of heavenly-message stories, coming in itsfinalform after the Bar Kokhba War. The introductory materials re­ late to the alleged cessation of the holy spirit from Israel. Even though the holy spirit has ended, the echo continues to connect Israel to Heaven. Then comes Hillel, followed by Samuel the Small, Yohanan the High Priest, and Simeon the Just. Intervening is a reference to Judah b. Baba: Also concerning Judah b. Baba they sought to say, "Disciple of Samuel," but the hour was confused (TRP). We may therefore conclude that the whole pericope infinalcomes from the Judah b. Baba-circle, but I feel confident that antecedent materials were used; the Yohanan-pericope makes this virtually certain. The Hillel-materials are in two parts. First (A) comes the story of the sages, then (B), the lament at Hillel's death. The latter has nothing to do with the framework, but was important to the Judah b. Baba-tradents, for without a reference to the death-scene, what they wanted to say about Judah b. Baba would have been irrelevant. The two Hillelstories have been joined, one on account of the context about heavenly echoes, the other tacked on by the Judah-tradents for redactional con­ siderations. We need not doubt, therefore, that parts A and B circu­ lated separately and were drawn together after the Bar Kokhba War, presumably at Usha, and therefore the terminus ante quern of the Hillel stories must be ca. 150 A.D. Having isolated the whole to ca. 100-150 A.D., we may ask, Who was eager to suppress the authority of "the holy spirit" at Yavneh? As I said, it obviously is the same circle that supported Joshua b. Hananiah's view of the law: // is not in heaven (b.B.M. 59b). That group held it was not the holy spirit but rather the authority of the sages which would decide the law. This was certainly the House of Shammai, which denied echoes gave law. If we now join together the two themes, first, Hillel would have received the holy spirit if anyone did, second, the holy spirit is simply unavailable, and therefore the law will be decided by rabbis, the obvious choice for prob­ able origin is the Hillelite group within the patriarchal circle, both eager to uphold the reputation of the alleged ancestor of the House of Gama­ liel, and also anxious to reaffirm the authority of the patriarch even against those who claimed to receive heavenly revelations. But this is not consistent with the stories linking Gamaliel and Simeon b. Gama­ liel to the House of Shammai. To summarise: First we observed that parts A and B of the pericope

240

H I L L E L — II.ii.10, 1 1

must (separately) derive from a circle around Samuel the Small. We further noted that the redactional framework derives from the period after the Bar Kokhba War and must be provided by the Judah b. Babacircle (which we have already met in other connections). That circle is responsible for joining B to A, D to C. We then noted that the tendency of some Hillel-materials is not only to defend Hillel's reputation, but to deny that anyone could draw upon heavenly revelation in the forma­ tion of the law. This Shammaite tendency is most reasonably attributed to the patriarchal group. I imagine it was Gamaliel II, not Simeon b. Gamaliel II, who was responsible, for the materials very likely were in their present form, though separate, before Judah b. Baba's circle joined them together for its purposes. We may classify both A and B as biographical narratives. The separate elements are unitary as they stand, brief and simple, in one case a very short story, in the other a famous logion about the lament for Hillel. The latter could go back to the pe­ riod after Hillel's death. Of the former we can say nothing. ILii. 10. A. A man says to his fellow, "Lend me a keg of wine until my son comes" or "until I open the cistern." If he had a jar in the middle of the cistern, and the cistern was opened, and it fell and broke, even though he is liable for its responsibility, it is permitted. And Hillel prohibits. B. To what is this analogous? To one who gives coins to his fellow to give him fruits at the harvest, and they were stolen or lost. He is liable for them. If they were too little or too much, he is liable to make it up to him (LH'MYD LW). (Tos. B.M. 6:10, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 384, lines 10-14) Comment: See M. B.M. 5:9, ILi.3. Hillel's reason is given in part B, an extended gloss. We have here further examples of the rule given in the Mishnah: trading in futures is prohibited. No other authorities are named in this context.

Il.ii.l 1.A. Seven things did Hillel the Elder expound before the Elders of Patyra: B. (1) Qal vehomer, and (2) ge^erah shavah, and (3) binyan av, and (4) katuv ehad veshene ketuvim, and (5) kellal andperat, and perat and kellal and (6) kayose bo mimaqdm aher, and (7) devar halamed meHnyano. C. These seven middot did Hillel the Elder expound before the Sons [sic] of Patyra. (Tos. Sanh. 7:11, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 427, lines 4-8)*

HILLEL —II.ii.ll

241

Comment: The text is defective. The subscription, part C, duplicates the superscription, part A, but with important variations, middot for devarim, and sons for elders (others texts correct elders). Either A or C belongs, but not both. The passage alludes to the famous story of Hillel and the Elders of Bathyra, who otherwise do not occur in Hillelmaterials antecedent to Mishnah-Tosefta at all. The Toseftan version of the story excludes all reference to Bathyrans. The opposition of Tos. Pisha is simply "all the courtyard," or "them." This pericope, by con­ trast, refers to the exegetical clause of the other, but not to the setting, the legal issue, or the outcome, that is, it does not know the narrative of Tos. Pisha A, B, and G, H. I. The arguments of Tos. Pisha (II.ii.6), moreover, do not illustrate all of the above principles: A. B. C. D. E.

M a n y Pesahs o v e r r i d e t h e S a b b a t h C o m m u n i t y sacrifices „ „ Its season Qal vehomer ( c u t t i n g off) I have received a tradition

= = heqqesh = ge^erah shavah (2) = qal vehomer (1) =

The others, so far as I can make out, do not occur. The norms of interpretation are as follows: 1. inference a minori ad majus; 2. inference by analogy; 3. constructing a family on the basis of one passage (a specific regulation in one biblical passage is extended and applied to a number of passages); 4. the same rule as the preceding, but based on two biblical passages; 5. the general and the particular, the particular and the general; 6. exposition by means of another, similar passage; 7. deduction from the context—so S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (N.Y., 1950) pp. 53-4. Lieberman observes, "The con­ text suggests that Hillel was not the author of these rules and norms; he simply used recognized arguments to prove that the Paschal Lamb is offered on the Sabbath, if the fourteenth of Nisan happens to fall on that day. He employed seven norms of interpretation to prove one particular law from the Torah." Lieberman further observes (p. 54 n. 58), "Hillel asserted... that his opinion was based on the authority of his teachers... It appears that his tradition went only as far as the law it­ self was concerned. The proofs were his own." I find it striking that in our stories Hillel does not refer to nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. One can hardly claim Hillel made use of all, or even most, of the rules. We rely on Lieberman's sense of the passage, which is that Hillel is not here credited with the invention of the norms at all. In that case part B of the pericope before us is an independent list, to which is attached A/C. No reference to the subject of the argument with the Elders/Sons of Patyra occurs; nor do we hear of a tradition from his teachers. The pericope thus is an attribution to Hillel of the use of middot jdevarim in an already established list. The list obviously antedates its connection with Hillel's supposed argument. Nothing in the materials before us explains why the list should have been associated with that argument; the contrary actually is the case. It would never have occurred to us

242

H I L L E L — II.ii.12, 1 3 , 1 4

that the Hillel-argument of Tos. Pisha was constructed to illustrate these principles, or any one of them. I doubt that any such list underlies the formation of the pericope of Tos. Pisha. What we have is the routine attribution to Hillel of famous apoph­ thegms, the revision of well-known Scriptural exegeses into Hillelstories, and similar tendencies to attach existing materials to Hillel. A pattern in the formation of Tannaitic materials was to attribute to Hillel as many well-known sayings and stories as one could. A less pro­ nounced, but similar tendency was to assign to Simeon b. Shetah de­ crees, ordinances, and sayings believed to be "very old." Syriac PTWR' means table, producing the equivalent of Hebrew §LHNY, money-changer, e.g., Aphrahat translates Matthew 25:27, trapevytes as patora\ see Karl Brockelmann, Lexicon Syriacum (repr. Hildesheim, 1966), p. 618, col. B. Judah b. Bathyra was a money­ changer in Nisibis (History I , pp. 46-52). So perhaps the Bene Bathyra were Temple money-changers, at least in the view of the Yohanan b. Zakkai and Judah the Patriarch-tradents who included references to them in stories about Yohanan at Yavneh and Hillel in the Temple. 2

11.11.12. R. Judah says,"Hillel himself prohibited it." (Tos. <Ed. 2:4, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 457 line 29, duplicated in line 32) Comment: See Tos. Ma'aserot 3:2-4, II.ii.4. The passage is identical and is cited here from the locus classicus. 11.11.13. [Re Yohanan b. Zakkai and students] Some say that it was Hillel the Elder whom they asked, and it was not that he knew, but that he wanted to stimulate the disciples. (Tos. Ahilot 16:8, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 614, line 22) Comment: See Sifr6 Num. 123. The legal matter is different, as ex­ plained in. Development, p. 19,199. This is the version of Joshua's circle. 11.11.14. This is one of the matters on account of which Hillel came up from Babylonia. (Tos. Nega'im 1:16, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 619 line 18) >

Comment: We have a stock-phrase, attached pretty much wherever one likes. Here, as in Sifra Tazri a, the context is an anonymous rule about priestly rulings on cleanness and uncleanness of nega^im. No legal dispute is preserved in context, and why Hillel would have to come up from Babylonia to rule on such a matter is not specified. The stockphrase, here as elsewhere, serves the purposes of those who hold Hillel was learned when he arrived in Jerusalem, and that he was able forth­ with to issue important rulings -in matters of law. c

H I L L E L — I I . i i . 1 5 , III.i.1

243

c

Sifra Tazri a pereq 9:16, I.ii.2, in general pertains to the same legal theme, but in detail the laws there differ from those here. There Hillel has a lemma. Here only the stock-phrase is given. Hillel's emigration is well-known. Clearly, a tradition in the second century associated Hillel's migration with laws on nega'im. The stock-phrase is attached after the same words in both Tos. Neg. and Sifra. But no one elsewhere told the "story" or narrative as it would have been connected with nega'im. A dramatic setting is absent. Y. Pes. awkwardly attempts to make up the loss by associating cleanness-materials with the Temple-story. ILii. 15. [Re Yohanan b. Zakkai and disciples] Some say that it was Hillel the Elder whom they asked; not that he did not know, but he wanted to stimulate the disciples. (Tos. Parah 4:7, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 633, line 25) Comment: See Sifre Num. 123, I.ii.4, above. III.i.1. He was coming from the way, what does he say? "I am sure that these are not in my house." Hillel the Elder says, "From a bad report he does not fear (Ps. 112:7)." (y. Ber. 9:3, repr. Gilead, p. 66b) Comment: The context is a Mishnah: One who was coming along the way and heard the outcry in the city and says, "May it be [his] will that this not be in my house" has offered a vain prayer. The pericope sup­ plies the language he should say instead of the vain prayer. It is permitted for him to express a hope or a sentiment of confidence, but not a prayer. Hillel then adds an appropriate Scripture. One can readily predict the future of such a pericope. Hillel will be represented as coming along and hearing an outcry and saying the right thing; then about him will the Scripture be cited. This is by now the conventional development of a Hillel pericope, from exegesis to narrative, and we shall see precisely this sort of progress. But what lay before the Palestinian Talmudic account? It is not attrib­ uted to a Tanna, but because the later Babylonian version is called Tan­ naitic, I include the Palestinian one here. We can say nothing about a terminus ante quern. The whole context is anonymous; no one refers to Hillel's teaching. Hillel's saying is incomprehensible apart from the context of the Mishnah. It could not have circulated by itself, outside of the frame­ work in which Hillel's reference to Ps. 112:7 would have been perti­ nent. We cannot suppose that a separate logion has been attached to a later dispute, particularly since the logion merely refers to the Scripture to begin with. But if not, all we have is a generalized reminiscence of a Scripture Hillel "would cite" in a time of stress—not a very impressive historical record.

244

H I L L E L — III.i.2, 3, 4

III.i.2.A. Hillel the Elder used to say, "When they are gathering, scatter, and when they are scattering, gather." B. So Hillel would say, "If you have seen the Torah beloved for Israel and all rejoice in it, scatter. But if not, gather." (y. Ber. 9:5, repr. Gilead, p. 68a) Comment: Hillel's logion (parts A-B) serves as a comment to Ps. 119: 126. We shall compare it to Tos. Ber. 6:24, II.ii.2, in synopses, below, p. 285. What is interesting is the context. Immediately preceding is a saying attributed to Simeon b. Yohai, "If you see people losing heart in Torah, greatly stand and strengthen yourself in it, and you will receive the re­ ward of all." Then Ps. 119:126 is cited as Simeon's "reason," followed by the above pericope. The next logion is unrelated. Simeon's saying reflects Hillel's: One should gather in times that Torah is not beloved of Israel. Simeon supplies the comfort that, if you renew your energies, you will enjoy the reward of the whole generation. At any rate, Simeon's saying could have been understood without Hillel's, and vice versa, so we cannot claim dependence of one on the other; the connection is the proof-text, explicitly assigned to Simeon here, to Hillel in Tos. Ber. 6: 24. We have either two separate comments on its plain meaning, or re­ lated and somewhat interdependent ones. The latter seems to me pos­ sible ; if so, Simeon supplies a terminus ante quern for Hillel's saying in its present form. Part B augments and explains part A, supplying an exact explanation of what to scatter and why. The primary logion therefore is part A. 111.1.3. WHTNY: M<SH B [concerning] Hillel the Elder who purchased for a poor man who was son of good [parents] a horse to work for him and a slave to serve him. (y. Pe'ah 8:7, repr. Gilead, p. 37a) Comment: See Tos. Pe'ah 4:10, II.ii.3. The context is a set of stories of philanthropy; no named authorities discuss Hillel's action. 111.1.4. [Mishnah: A. The pro^bul is not affected by the Seventh Year. B. This is one of the things that Hillel the Elder ordained (TQN). C. When he saw that the people held back from lending to one another and were transgressing what is written in the Torah, as it is said (Deut. 15:9), Take warning, lest there be inyour head an evil thing saying .. .Hillel the Elder ordained the pro^buL D. This is the formula (GWPW) of the prozbul....] E. Gemara: ...And is the pro^bul & matter of Torah? When Hillel ordained [it], they supplied a support [for it] in a teaching of the (SMK) Torah.

H I L L E L — III.i.5, 6

245

F. R. Huna the Elder said before R. Jacob b. Aha, "It follows the opinion of him who holds that tithes are a matter of Torah-law." [Then] Hillel ordains against a matter of Torah law? (y. Shev. 10:2, repr. Gilead, p. 29b) Comment: The reference of the gemara is to the exegesis of Deut. 15:3. Hillel relied on that exegesis. The Palestinian rabbis discuss the status of the laws and the basis for Hillel's ordinance. Since the Mishnah had already supplied the "historical" version, the absence of an exegetical basis provoked an effort to harmonize the two separate and conflicting justifications for the ^>r0^£///-ordinance.

111.1.5. Hillel the Elder would fold the three of them together as one. R. Yohanan said, "They disagreed with Hillel the Elder." (y. Hal. 1:1, repr. Gilead, p. 2b) Comment:

See Mekh. de R. Simeon b. Yohai, p. 13, line 12, I.ii.l.

111.1.6. They asked Hillel the Elder what to do for the people who had not brought their knives with them. He said to them, "I heard a law and forgot it. But let Israel [do as they like]. "If they are not prophets, they are disciples of the prophets." Forthwith, whoever had [as] his pesah & lamb would hide it [the knife] in its wool; [or] a kid—he would tie it on his horns. They turned out (NMS'W) [to have] their paschal sacrifices bringing their knives with them. When he saw the deed, he was reminded of [remembered] the law. He said to them, "Thus have I heard [it] from Shema'iah and Abtalion." (y. Shab. 19:1, repr. Gilead, p. 86b-87a) Comment: See Tos. Pisha 4:13, II.ii.6, parts E, F, G, H. The pericope stands by itself and begins as if it were a separate story. But it is incom­ prehensible without the Passover/Sabbath controversy. The legal issue settled here concerns carrying on the Sabbath. The passage is an allu­ sion to the well-known story. It is not, however, a close copy, but a somewhat different version, in which the elements are rearranged. In Tos. Pisha, Hillel cites his teachers (unnamed), then the story is told. Here he knows nothing until the people carry out their usual practice; then he is reminded of what he had heard from Shema'iah-Abtalion. We hear nothing of his consequent promotion to be nasi; that element is separate and distinct, not invariably included when the rest of the story is told. But the narrative framework has been so substantially changed that the omission of reference to his becoming nasi is not re­ markable. We also are no longer in the Temple court; the "opposition" is absent. Hillel is the sole authority, and his word is decisive.

246

H I L L E L — III.i.7

The law of the chapter concerns doing on the Sabbath what can be done before the Sabbath. The general rule is that what can be done be­ fore should be done before; what cannot may be done on the Sabbath day. Immediately preceding the Hillel-pericope is Yosi b. R. Bun's ci­ tation of Huna, who cites the Mishnah. Then they asked, a story without the usual superscription, ma^aseh = BD\ R. Ze'ira afterward comments on the Hillel-pericope in the name of R. Eleazar, "A teaching of Torah without the house of the father [of the law attached to it, or cited with it] is no Torah." The point is that Hillel's tradition would not have been accepted if he could not have assigned it to his masters. Then comes further, anonymous discussion of the laws in Hillel's story. What is striking is discussion of the story by Ammi and Simon as if the Sons of Bathyra were mentioned in the foregoing. That element in the pericope must be drawn from discussion of the longer version (below), placed here out of context by a later editor or copyist. The point is that the law was lost to the Bathyrans so as to magnify Hillel—a point with no meaning whatsoever in the above version. C

III.i.7. [Mishnah: These acts pertaining to the Passover-offering override the Sabbath: slaughtering it, tossing its blood, scraping its entrails, and burning its fat-pieces. But roasting it and rinsing its entrails do not override the Sabbath. Carrying it (to the Temple) and bringing it from outside to within the Sabbath limit and cutting off a wen (from the carcass) do not override the Sabbath. R. Eliezer says, "They do override it." (M. Pes. 6:1, trans. Danby, p. 143)] C

Gemara: A. This law was lost ( LM) from the Elders of Bathyra. B. One time the fourteenth [of Nisan] turned out to be the Sabbath, and they did not know whether the pesah overrides the Sabbath or not. They said, "There is here a certain Babylonian, and Hillel is his name, who served Shema'iah and Abtalion. [He] knows whether the pesah overrides the Sabbath or not. Perhaps there will be profit (TWHLT) from him." They sent and called him. C. They said to him, "Have you ever heard, when the fourteenth [of Nisan] falls on the Sabbath, whether it overrides the Sabbath or not?" D. He said to them, "And do we have only one pesah alone that overrides the Sabbath in the whole year? And do not many pesahs override the Sabbath in the whole year? [ = R. Eliezer re carrying]" E. (Some Tannaim teach a hundred, and some Tannaim teach two hundred, and some Tannaim teach three hundred.

H I L L E L — III.i.7

247

He who said one hundred [refers to] continual offerings. He who said two hundred [refers to] continual offerings and Sab­ bath additional-offerings. He who said three hundred [refers to] continual offerings, Sabbath additional-offerings, [and those] of festivals, and of New Moons, and of seasons.) E.' They said to him, "We have already said that there is with you profit." F. He began expounding (DR§) for them from heqqesh and qal vehomer and from ge^erah shavah: G. "From heqqesh: Since the continual offering is a community sacrifice and the pesah is a community sacrifice, just as the continual offering, a community sacrifice, overrides [the] Sabbath, so the pesah, a community sacrifice, overrides the Sabbath. H. "From qal vehomer: If the continual offering, [improperly] doing which does not produce the liability of cutting off, overrides the Sabbath, the pesah, [improperly] doing which does produce the liability of cutting off, all the more so should override the Sabbath. I. "Ftomge^erah shavah: Concerning the continual offering (Tamid), In its season is said (Num. 28:2), and concerning the pesah, In its season is said (Num. 9:3). Just as the continual offering, concerning which is said In its season overrides the Sabbath, so the pesah, concerning which In its season is said, overrides the Sabbath." J . They said to him, "We have already said, 'If there is [ = no] profit [benefit] from the Babylonian.' K. "As to the heqqesh which you said, there is a reply: No—for if you say so concerning the continual offering, there is a limit (QYSBH) to the continual offering, but can you say so concerning the pesah, which has no limit? L. "The qal vehomer which you said has a reply: No—if you say so concerning the continual offering, which is the most sacred (QD$ QDSYM), will you say so of the pesah, which is of the lesser sanctities (QDSYM QLYM)? M. "As to thege^erah shavah that (§) you said: That (§) a man may not reason (DN) a ge^erah shavah on his own [but must cite it from tradition]." [There intervenes a gloss of R. Yosi b. R. Bun in the name of R. Abba b. Mammel about making one's own geyerah shavah and the sorts of troubles that ensue.] N. Even though he sat and expounded for them all day, they did

248

H I L L E L — III.i.7

not accept [it] from him, until he said to them, "May [evil] come upon me! Thus have I heard from Shema'iah and Abtalion!" When they heard this from him, they arose and appointed him nasi over them. O. When they had appointed him nasi over them, he began to criticize (QNTR) them, saying, "Who caused you to need this Baby­ lonian? Is it not because you did not serve the two great men of the world, Shema'iah and Abtalion, who were sitting with you?" P. Since he criticized them, the law was forgotten ('LM) by him. Q. They said to him, "What to do for the people, and they did not bring their knives?" R. He said to them, "This law have I heard, but I have forgotten [it]. But leave Israel [alone]. If they are not prophets, they are dis­ ciples of prophets." S. Forthwith, whoever had as his pesah a lamb would hide it [knife] in its wool; [if] a kid,—he would tie it between its horns. So their pesahs were found bringing their knives with them. T. When he saw the deed, he remembered the law. U. He said, "Thus have I heard from Shema'iah and Abtalion." (y. Pes. 6:1, repr. Gilead, pp. 39a-b) Comment: Immediately following is the same discussion as above: R. Zei'ra in R. Eleazer's name said, "Any Torah which has no father's house is no Torah." The pericope before us is a veritable repertoire of traditions on Hillel and the Temple—but apart from the superscription, part A, the Bathyrans are completely forgotten. That detail must have been added last, apart from the obvious glosses. Linking Hillel to the fall of the Bathyrans certainly comes after the formation, around Hillel's discipleship of Shema'iah-Abtalion, of the bulk of the materials on his rise to power. The essential story is contained in the following parts: B. N o one k n e w w h a t t o d o w h e n the fourteenth o f Nisan coincided w i t h t h e S a b b a t h , s o "a c e r t a i n B a b y l o n i a n " is called, b e c a u s e o f his discipleship o f Shema'iah-Abtalion. C. H e is a s k e d t h e q u e s t i o n . D . H e says t h e a n s w e r is o b v i o u s : M a n y pesahs o v e r r i d e t h e S a b b a t h ! E ' . T h e y accept h i s e x p l a n a t i o n .

At this point, the story could have ended; nothing is required to com­ plete the picture. We do not have to be told about the immediate abdi­ cation (N) of the Bathyrans. That "event" is no issue. Part E is certainly a late gloss on part D; Tos. Pisha has already cor­ rected the language of many to read three hundred, I assume a scribal im­ provement of an otherwise older version. Then comes a new and different repertoire of materials: Hillel's

H I L L E L — III.i.7

249

proofs. We have no reason to attribute them to Hillel himself. They rather are additional "proofs" anyone might have supplied for the same proposition, an exercise in exegetical logic independent of the historical setting: F. G. H. I. K. L. M.

Superscription for the whole Heqqesh Qal vehomer Ge^erah shavah R e f u t a t i o n o f heqqesh R e f u t a t i o n o f qal vehomer R e f u t a t i o n o f ge^erah shavah

After part I comes a reversion to part E', this time in negative form. Having accepted his proof, "they" now reject it! Part J certainly marks the end of a separate and complete version. Parts K, L, and M explain the rejection of proofs attributed to Hillel. On the proofs, see Epstein, Mevo'ot, pp. 510-511. Part N is a separate element in the story, joined to the foregoing by even though he sat and expounded. The point is that he has a tradition from Shema'iah, etc. On that basis, he is made nasi. It now concludes Hillel's proofs and artificially links them to the "historical" account. Afterward comes another and separate story, how Hillel gloated at the fall of the Bathyrans. It underlines the importance of serving Shema'iah and Abtalion. In fact it represents a secondary development of part N: Hillel came to office only because he had studied with Shema'iah-Abtalion; the Bathyrans lost office only because they had not paid them adequate attention. Part P is a connecting element, leading into a still third story. This one refers to what to do for the people who had not brought their knives. Obviously, Hillel knew the answer of S + A—that is the point of the foregoing. But the narrator intends to tell the story of how the people are really prophets. Therefore he makes Hillel forget what he had learned—on account of a moral lapse! This allows the famous log­ ion to be stated by Hillel: Leave Israel alone—if they are not prophets.... The logion is then illustrated by the behavior of the people. The theme of part P is recovered in parts T-U. He remembered the law. Then comes the standard phrase: Thus have I heard.... The foregoing analysis leads to the division of the whole pericope into the following separate parts: I. P a r t s B , C , D , E ' : Hillel s o l v e s t h e p r o b l e m , all a g r e e . I I . P a r t s F - M - f N : R e p e r t o i r e o f exegetical p r o o f s , all r e f u t e d . P a r t N m a y h a v e b e e n c o n t r i b u t e d b y t h e final e d i t o r i a l h a n d , t y i n g t h e w h o l e t o p a r t A — b u t in d o i n g s o , t h e e d i t o r has r e p e a t e d p a r t U . III. P a r t s O - P : Hillel u n d e r l i n e s t h e f a u l t o f t h e o p p o s i t i o n , b u t is s u p e r naturally punished on that account. I V . P a r t s Q - S , w i t h s u b s c r i p t i o n T - U : T h e p e o p l e k n e w w h a t t o d o all a l o n g , because t h e y a r e disciples o f p r o p h e t s . Hillel t h e r e u p o n says their practice c o n f o r m e d to the law.

250

H I L L E L — III.i.7

Let us n o w

reconsider the picture presented b y each o f the

four

elements: I . B , C , D , E ' : N o o n e k n o w s t h e l a w . Hillel, w h o h a d s t u d i e d w i t h S h e m a ' i a h a n d A b t a l i o n , w a s l i s t e n e d t o o n t h a t a c c o u n t . H e said t h e answer was o b v i o u s . They forthwith agree. T h e t e n d e n c y o f t h e f i r s t s t o r y i s t o s t r e s s H i l l e l k n e w t h e l a w , but w a s recognized

only

because

o f his

discipleship

of

Shama'iah-Abtalion.

H o w e v e r , a s s o o n a s h e s t a t e d t h e l a w , without r e f e r r i n g t o , a n d q u o t i n g his m a s t e r s , e v e r y o n e exclaimed in a g r e e m e n t . I I . F , G , H, I , J , K , L , M , N : Hillel t r i e d e v e r y l o g i c a l - e x e g e t i c a l d e v i c e , w i t h o u t success. F i n a l l y h e said t h e t r a d i t i o n c o m e s f r o m S h e m a ' i a h A b t a l i o n . T h e o p p o s i t i o n t h e r e u p o n a b d i c a t e d a n d m a d e h i m nasi. T h e t e n d e n c y o f t h e first s t o r y is u n d e r l i n e d — i n m o r e e x t r e m e f o r m . Now

H i l l e P s k n o w l e d g e is o f n o c o n s e q u e n c e w h a t e v e r . A l l t h a t m a t ­

ters is t h e a b i l i t y t o cite S h e m a ' i a h - A b t a l i o n . B u t o n c e h e c o u l d d o s o , t h e o p p o s i t i o n n o t m e r e l y a g r e e s , b u t abdicates office a n d places

Hillel

in it instead! S o Hillel o w e s his p o w e r t o his discipleship, n o t t o his l o g i c . D i s c i p l e s h i p is t h e k e y t o a u t h o r i t y . M e r e a b i l i t y t o r e a s o n m a k e s no

difference.

I I I . O - P : W h e n H i l l e l b e c a m e nasi, h e b e h a v e d s o o b n o x i o u s l y t h a t h e a v e n p u n i s h e d h i m b y d e p r i v i n g h i m o f w h a t h a d m a d e h i m nasi t o b e g i n w i t h : knowledge of the traditions o f Shema'iah-Abtalion. T h e s t o r y f o l l o w s t h e s a m e t e n d e n c y as t h e

foregoing.

I V . Q , R , S , T , U : Hillel d i d n o t k n o w t h e l a w . H e o b s e r v e d w h a t p e o p l e did and was reminded that the people w e r e following the correct pro­ c e d u r e s , as e n u n c i a t e d b y S h e m a ' i a h - A b t a l i o n . T h e f o u r stories m a k e m u c h the same point t h r o u g h r e w o r k i n g various materials. HillePs i m p o r t a n c e depends u p o n S h e m a ' i a h - A b t a l i o n . W i t h ­ o u t k n o w i n g their t r a d i t i o n s , h e w o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n r e c o g n i z e d would not have persuaded the

and

opposition.

T h e r e d a c t o r o f the stories stands outside o f t h e Hillelite circle and, o f c o u r s e , c o m e s w e l l after its p r e d o m i n a n c e w a s a n established fact. E v e r y o n e k n o w s w h o " t h e c e r t a i n B a b y l o n i a n " i s , is w e l l a w a r e o f h i s rise t o p o w e r . T h e real q u e s t i o n is, W h y d i d t h e r e d a c t o r o f t h e w h o l e , as w e l l as t h o s e

responsible f o r the formation o f the several parts,

c h o o s e t o emphasize HillePs utter subordination t o his masters? W h a t ­ ever the brilliance o f one's logic, posessing accurate traditions f r o m a r e c o g n i z e d m a s t e r is d e c i s i v e . W h o w o u l d h a v e w a n t e d t o s a y s o , a n d to w h o m ? N o s t o r y a b o u t H i l l e l i n p o w e r c a n h a v e f a i l e d t o r e f l e c t t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e l a t e r p a t r i a r c h a t e , a n d t h e i m p o r t a n c e to t h e p a t r i ­ a r c h a t e , f r o m ca. 1 5 0 A . D . o n w a r d , o f H i l l e l s t o r i e s . Is a p a t r i a r c h a l i n ­ t e r e s t at h a n d ? I d o n o t see a n y . T h e p a t r i a r c h w o u l d n o t necessarily h a v e objected t o all elements o f t h e p o r t r a y a l o f Hillel: his rise t o p o w e r is r e p r e s e n t e d as c r e d i t a b l e . B u t a n o b v i o u s , a n t i - p a t r i a r c h a l t e n d e n c y c o m e s i n d i v i s i o n I I I , s o m e w h a t m o r e s u b t l y i n d i v i s i o n I V : t h e nasi can be p u n i s h e d b y H e a v e n f o r harassing t h e rest o f the sages.

Hillel

H I L L E L — III.i.8, 9

251

was no better than others—everyone knew what he knew. All he could contribute was the attribution to Shema'iah and Abtalion. Divisions I-II consistently portray Hillel as important because of his masters, but we need not necessarily hear an echo that the nasi had better listen to his masters, since no one openly accused the nasi of "ignorance." III.i.8.A. Hillel the Elder expounded the language of common people. B. They would write in Alexandria, for (§) one of them would betrothe a woman, and his fellow would snatch her from the market. And when the deed (M SH) came before sages, they wanted to declare them mam^erim. Hillel the Elder said to them, "Bring forth the marriage-contract of their mothers." They brought forth the marriage-contract of their mothers, and found written in them: "Whenyou enter my house,you will be my wife ac­ cording to the law of Moses and [ theJ Jews" (y. Yev. 15:3, repr. Gilead, p. 78a) C

Comment: See Tos. Ket. 4:9, II.ii.8. The context is examples of the exegesis of the language of legal documents. The Houses of Shammai and Hillel are given as examples, then the above, followed by Leazar b. 'Azariah and Meir. In each case the superscription is the same, except the above: X made the marriage-contract [as] a midrash. The superscrip­ tion above (A) does not belong here, but the story (B) does. As before, the story is somewhat disjointed. It begins with they would write, but then proceeds to tell the story without saying whatthey would write. The circumstances of the case are told in verbs of continuing ac­ tion: they would do so-and-so. Then the narrative changes to verbs of completed action: the matter came... they sought... Hillel said to them etc., as earlier. Hillel's direct address should have your. III.i.9.A. Hillel would expound the language of common folk. B. Thus would they write in Alexandria. For (§) one of them would betrothe a woman, and his fellow would grab her from the market. And when the matter came before sages, they sought to make them mam^erim. Hillel the Elder said to them, "Bring out the marriage-contract of your mothers." And they brought out the marriage contract of their mothers, and they found written in them, "Whenyou enter my house, you will be my wife according to the law of Moses and the Jews." (y. Ket. 4:8, repr. Gilead, p. 29a) Comment: See Tos. Ket. 4:9, II.ii.8. The context is similar to y. Yev. 15:3.

252

H I L L E L — III.i.10, 1 1

III.i.lO.A. Eighty pair [sic] of students did Hillel the Elder have. The greatest of these was Jonathan b. 'Uzziel, and the youngest (least, QTN) was Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai. B. One time he [Hillel] fell ill. And they all entered to visit him. Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai stood in the courtyard. He said to them, "Where is he, the youngest among you, for he is the father of wisdom and father of the generations, and one need not say, the greatest among you?" They said to him, "Lo, he is in the courtyard." He said to them, "Let him enter." When he entered, he said to them, "To cause those who love me to inherit substance, and their treasuries shall I fill (Prov. 8:21)." (y. Ned. 5:6, repr. Gilead, p. 19b) Comment: ^^Development, p. 137, 216. The pericope is meant to un­ derline the discipleship of Yohanan, the true heir of Hillel. In part B Jonathan b. Uzziel plays no part. He is entirely passed over. But the specific reference, one need not say, the greatest amongyou, is based on, and is a deliberate revision of, part A. Yohanan is great in part A because he is a footstool for Jonathan b. 'Uzziel. Part A refers back to Hillel through circles around, or finding their spiritual patrimony in, Jonathan b. Uzziel. Part B corrects this by saying that Yohanan was the greatest of the disciples and the true heir—the obvious exclusion being not only Jonathan, but also Gamaliel I, Hillel's own successor according to Avot. The citation of Prov. 8:21 is the kernel of the story, an exegesis-through-expansion into a dramatic scene. The tradition would have been that Hillel had "applied" Prov. 8:21 to Yohanan b. Zakkai, and that tradition presumably developed in, or was preserved by, Yohanan's circle at Yavneh, a circle much pressed by Gamaliel II. But that presumption does not exclude other possibilities. Part A is simple and undeveloped, a declarative sentence. It serves as a superscription for other materials and has been abbreviated {Development, p. 216). Part B by contrast is highly developed, by no means a primitive pericope, and is supplied with dramatic conversations and an appropriate setting in the life of the master. Part A is to be classified as a biographical reminiscence, part B as a biographical incident. Neither can relate closely to accurate historical traditions shaped during Hillel's life. I cannot believe Hillel would have passed over his son in favor of an outsider who was otherwise entirely unknown, a very young man. The story probably testifies to the polemic of the Yohanan-circle at Yavneh against Hillel's heir, Gamaliel II. The evidence that Gamaliel I was Hillel's grandson comes even later, with Avot, then the beraita of b. Shab. 15a following afterward. c

c

5

III.i.11. (M'SH S) The sages entered the house of Gedy'a (GDY ) in Jericho and an echo came forth and said to them, "There is among

H I L L E L — III.ii.1, 2, 3

253

you one man who is worthy (RW'Y) of the holy spirit, but the generation is not appropriate (KDYY)," and they set their eyes on Hillel the Elder. When he died, they said concerning him, "Woe for the modest one, the pious one, the disciple of Ezra." (y. Sot. 9:13 [ = 9:16], repr. Gilead, p. 45b) Comment: See Tos. Sot. 13:3. The whole passage—including the con­ text—is drawn from Tos. Sot., with glosses and some variations. For further comment, see II.i.9.

111.11.1. Our rabbis taught (TNW RBNN): It once happened of (M<SH B) Hillel the Elder that (§) He was coming from a journey, and he heard the sound of an outcry in the city. He said, "I am confident that this is not in my house." And of him Scripture says, He shall not be afraid of evil tidings; his heart is steadfast, trusting in the Lord (Ps. 112:7). (b. Ber. 60a) Comment: See y. Ber. 9:3, III.i.1. The superscriptions are supplied in duplicate. Hillel's exegesis now has been turned into a narrative about Hillel, and the Scripture is applied to him. The antecedent materials are unrelated. Rava comments on the Scripture immediately afterward, but not on the Hillel-story. The pericope is a unity; the application of the Scripture is integral here, because of y. Ber. 9:3.

111.11.2. TNY>: A. Hillel the Elder says, "In the time of the gather­ ers, (KN$) disseminate (PZR) [it], and in the time of the disseminaters, do you gather." B. "If you have seen a generation for whom the Torah is beloved, disseminate, as it says, There is that scatters andyet increases (Prov. 11:24). "And if you have seen a generation for whom the Torah is not be­ loved, gather, as it says, When it is time to work for the Lord, they make void thy Torah (Ps. 119:126)." (b. Ber. 63a) Comment: See Tos. Ber. 6:24, y. Ber. 9:5. Part B serves as a comment on, and an expansion of, part A. The pericope is a composite of a pri­ mary saying and a glossed, secondary development. Immediately pre­ ceding is a comment of Rava on Ps. 119:126. Then the beraita follows, on account of the inclusion of the same Scripture. Then comes a saying of Bar Qappara, unrelated to the foregoing.

111.11.3. And similarly a woman [may borrow] loaves from her neighbor [etc.]. Only on the Sabbath is it forbidden, but on weekdays

254

H I L L E L — III.ii.4, 5

it is well. Shall we say that our Mishnah does not agree with Hillel, for we learned (DTNN): And thus Hillel used to say, "A woman should not lend a loaf to her neighbor without first valuing it, lest wheat advance, and they [the lender and the borrower] come to [transgress the prohibition of] usury?" You may even say [that it agrees with] Hillel: the one is in a place where its value is fixed; the other, where its value is not fixed. (b. Shab. 148b, trans. H. Freedman, p. 754) Comment:

See M. B.M. 5:9. The citation is anonymous.

III.ii.4. Our rabbis taught (TNW RBNN): No man was ever crushed (M K) in the Temple Court ( ZRH), except on one Passover which was in the days of Hillel, on which an old man was crushed, and they called it, "The Passover of the crushed." (b. Pes. 64b, trans. H. Freedman, p. 326) C

C

Comment: Hillel is not the subject of the pericope; he supplies a date, like Simeon b. Shetah. The beraita bears no relationship to the context, except in theme: vast populations assembled in the Temple court. The next beraita concerns Agrippa's census. He collected kidneys from each paschal sacrifice, and found 600,000 pairs, at which more than ten peo­ ple had registered. That was "the Passover of the Dense Throngs."

II.ii.5.A. Our rabbis taught (TNW RBNN): This law was hidden from the Sons of Bathyra. B. On one occasion, the fourteenth [of Nisan] coincided with the Sabbath. They forgot and did not know whether the Passover over­ rides the Sabbath or not. They said, "Is there any man who knows whether the Passover [-offering] overrides the Sabbath or not?" They said to them, "There is a certain man who has come up from Babylonia, and Hillel the Babylonian is his name, who served the two greatest men of the time, and he knows whether the Passover overrides the Sabbath or not." [Thereupon] they sent and called him. They said to him, "Do you know whether the Passover overrides the Sabbath or not?" He said to them, "Have we then only one Passover during the year which overrides the Sabbath? Do we not have many more than two hundred Passovers during the year which override the Sabbath!" C. They said to him, "How do you know it?" He said to them, "In its appointed time is stated in connection with

255

H I L L E L — III.ii.5

the Passover, and In its appointed time is stated in connection with the continual offering; just as Its appointed time which is said in connection with the continual offering overrides the Sabbath, so Its appointed time which is said in connection with the Passover overrides the Sab­ bath. D. "Moreover, it is a qal vehomer: if the continual offering [the omission of] which is not punished by cutting off, overrides the Sab­ bath, the Passover, [neglect of] which is punished by cutting off,—is it not logical that it should override the Sabbath!" E. They immediately set him at their head and appointed him nasi over them, and he was sitting and expounding the whole day on the laws of Passover. F. He began rebuking (QNTR) them with words. He said to them, "Who caused it for you that I should come up from Babylonia to be nasi over you? It was the laziness that was in you, because you did not serve the two great men of the generation, Shema'iah and Abtalion." G. They said to him, "Rabbi, what if a man forgot and did not bring a knife on the eve of the Sabbath?" He said to them, "I have heard this law but have forgotten it. But leave it to Israel. If they are not prophets, yet they are disciples of prophets!" On the morrow, he whose Passover was a lamb stuck (THB) it [the knife] in its wool; he whose Passover was a goat stuck it between its horns. He saw the deed and recollected the law and said, "Thus have I received the tradition from the mouth of Shema'iah and Abtalion." H. The Master said, "In its appointed season is stated in connection with the Passover, and In its appointed time is stated in connection with the continual offering: just as Its appointed time which is said in con­ nection with the continual offering overrides the Sabbath, so Its ap­ pointed time which is said in connection with the Passover overrides the Sabbath." I. And how do we know that the continual offering itself overrides the Sab­ bath ? Shall we say, because 'In its appointed time* is written in connection with it? Then the Passover too, surely, 'In its appointed time* is written in connection with it? Hence [you must say that] 'Its appointed time has no significance for him [Hillel]; then here too, 'Its appointed time* should have no significance for him? Rather Scripture says, This is the burnt-offering of every Sabbath, beside 9

256

H I L L E L — III.ii.5

the continual burnt-offering (Num. 28:10); whence itfollows that the continual burnt offering [Tamid] is offered on the Sabbath. J . The Master said: "Moreover, it follows a minori: if the continual offering [the omission of] which is not punished by karet, overrides the Sabbath; then the Passover, [neglect of] which is punished by karet,—is it not logical that it overrides the Sabbath!" [But] this can be refuted: as the continual offering, that is because it is constantly and entirely [burnt]. He first told them the a minori argument, but they refuted it; [so] then he told them the ge^erah shavah. But since he had received the tradition of a ge^erah shavah, what was the need of an a minori argument? Rather he spoke to them on their ground: "It is well that you do not learn a ge^erah shavah, because a man cannot argue [by] a ge^erah shavah of his own accord. But [an inference] a minori, which a man can argue of his own accord, you should have argued7" Said they to him, "It is a fallacious a minori argument" K. The Master said, "On the morrow, he whose Passover was a lamb stuck it in its wool; [he whose Passover was] a goat stuck it be­ tween its horns." But he performed work with sacred animals? [They did] as [did] Hillel. L. For it was taught: It was related of Hillel (>MRW
The

context

is t h e

same

as t h e P a l e s t i n i a n

version:

a

attached t o t h e M i s h n a h . T h e italicized parts are in A r a m a i c (I,

j)We

h a v e a f i r m terminus

ante quern f o r p a r t s F - G , i n p a r t M :

J u d a h , d. 2 9 7 . T h e a t t r i b u t i o n t o R a v c o u l d m o v e t h e d a t e b a c k

Rav by

H I L L E L — III.ii.5, 6

257

about fifty years. Parts F-G are a secondary development of the brief pericope given in the summary of F-G in part M: He began to rebuke them, and then forgot his learning. This has been attached to the Pass­ over story, and the law Hillel forgot is made the issue. The practice of the common folk thereupon is added as well, but is not integral to the brief pericope. It now is a story hostile to patriarchs who harass the sages. Part A begins with a standard superscription: TNW RBNN. The Palestinian story is here preserved through part B. Then part C begins with a new connecting phrase, i/0#> doyou know it? This is missing in the Palestinian version, which has the assembled throng without qualm ac­ cept Hillel'sfirstargument, y. Pes. part E'. The connector is an improve­ ment, for it explains why all the subsequent exegetical proofs are intro­ duced. Then comes the ge^erah shavah, part C, the qal vehomer, part D, but the other materials are dropped, particularly the heqqesh, y. Pes. parts G/K. The Babylonian version now makes Hillel nasi, and that ends the story. The further story of how he forgot his learning follows in the same se­ quence as in the Palestinian version, but with the omission of Parts K, L, and M of the Palestinian version, in which Hillel's several proofs are refuted by "the assembled throng." This whole assemblage is added afterward, in the Babylonian parts H, I, and J . It is no longer integral to the historical event, but now serves as a commentary on the pur­ ported arguments, given anonymously and in Babylonian Amoraic form (Master said). Part F-G are not much different from y. Pes., parts O-P-Q-R-S-T. Part K introduces a new pericope, with the double-superscription TNY', 'amru alav al: In Hillel's time people brought their sacrifices in an ordinary (profane) state, and only after they reached the Temple did they declare them sacrifices. This prevented the sin of performing work with sacred animals. One recalls the Simeon the Just-stories about the supernatural recognition of his merits; here the tendency is to show how excellent was Hillel's governance of the cult. The beraita gives in historical form what could as well have been a legal logion: One does not lay on hands until.... Now we have two hundred pesahs in part B, and the several Tannaitic versions and glosses in y. Pes. are dropped. For further comment, see synopses. c

c

III.ii.6. Which Tanna do you know [to hold] that precepts do not nullify each other? It is Hillel. For it was taught (TNY>): It was related of Hillel (>MRW ): You might think that he should wrap them at once and eat them in the manner that Hillel ate it, therefore it is J

N E U S N E R , The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70, I

17

258

H I L L E L — III.ii.7

stated, They shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs—even each separately." To this R. Ashi demurred, "If so, what is [the meaning of] even?" "Rather," said R. Ashi, "This Tanna teaches thus: You might think that he does not discharge his duty unless he wraps them together and eats them in the manner of Hillel, therefore it is stated, They shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs—even each separately." (b. Pes. 115a, trans. H. Freedman, p. 590) Comment: The discussion of HillePs sandwich (Mekh. deR. Simeon b. Yohai, p. 13,1.12; Tos. Pisha 2:22; y. Hal. 1:1) is introduced by an extraneous question on whether the precepts nullify one another. R. Yohanan contradicts the foregoing by citing a beraita that explicitly says Hillel did not properly carry out the Scriptural law. R. Ashi then revises the beraita and gives it the opposite meaning: One should fol­ low HillePs practice, but if he does not, he still discharges his obliga­ tion. We see therefore how later legal considerations led to the drastic alteration of traditions attributed to Tannaim. Amoraic authorities holding opinions contrary to the received form of the Tannaitic tradi­ tion did not hesitate to revise the tradition to conform to their own legal principles. The citation of HillePs action—on the whole, in the old version with only slight changes—is by R. Yohanan, mid-third century Palestine; then R. Ashi, early fifth-century Babylonia. The tradition certainly had reached its final form by the turn of the third century, but the beraita serving as a supplementary commentary on that tradition does not necessarily derive from Tannaitic times. Strikingly, Ex. 12:8 is dropped, Num. 9:11 substituted. III.ii.7.A. Our rabbis taught (TNW RBNN): The poor, the rich, the sensual (Lit.: evil, R§ ) come before the [heavenly] court. They say to the poor, "Why have you not occupied yourself with the Torah?" If he says, "I was poor and worried (TRWD) about my sustenance," they say to him, "Were you poorer than Hillel?" B. They said about (>MRW LYW
C

C

J

H I L L E L — III.ii.7

259

Shema'iah said to Abtalion, "Brother Abtalion, on every day this house is light, and today it is dark. Is it perhaps a cloudy day?" They looked up and saw the figure of a man in the window. They went up and found him covered by three cubits of snow. They removed him, bathed and anointed him, and placed him opposite the fire, and they said, "This man is worthy that the Sabbath be profaned on his behalf (R>WY ZH LHLL...)." (b. Yoma 35b, trans. Leo Jung, p. 163) Comment: The pericope is in the context of stories about how private persons contributed their wealth to the Temple: R. Ishmael b. Phiabi, R. Eleazar b. Harsom. Then comes the Hillel-story as given. Afterwards follow examples of wealthy and handsome students of Torah. At the end comes a subscription: Hillel makes the poor liable, Eleazar b. Harsom, the rich, and Joseph, the evil (= handsome). The beraita is not necessarily constructed of pre-existing materials, for the three parts ex­ hibit uniform narrative style. It contains no named tradents or author­ ities. The Hillel-pericope is in two parts. Part A is a simple reference to HillePs poverty. Poorer than Hillel sounds like a stock-phrase—presum­ ably everyone knew Hillel was as poor as one could be. Part B has a superficial connection to Sabbath laws, but the connection comes after the fact. The fact was the climactic logion, This man deserves... For that purpose it was necessary to specify the day was the eve of the Sabbath. But this may represent a secondary development to embellish the story about Hillel in the snow, augmenting the story with warming Hillel by the fire even on the Sabbath. The logion is based on a generative for­ mula, as we shall see. Part B is surely a unitary account, highly literary and of considerable narrative sophistication. I do not think its point is that Hillel studied with Shema'iah-Abtalion, and that whatever he knew that was worth­ while came from them. That polemic plays no role here; it is taken for granted. The real point is the dramatic account of how Hillel studied despite great poverty. Of course, that point presupposes the theory that Hillel had to study, therefore migrated as a poor man, with no local con­ nections, quite unrecognized. He had to pay for admission to the school. That detail must provide an important clue to the date of the story. When were guards set at the doors of the schools to prevent those who could not pay tuition from entering? I do not know when such a practice became widespread. Nothing in the foregoing traditions hints at it. But no one hearing the story could have believed it, had it not been common practice to keep out impoverished students. We may classify the pericope as a biographical narrative; no exegetical tradition is transformed into a Hillel-story, and no legal principle is in­ troduced through it.

260

HILLEL —III.ii.8, 9

III.ii.8. Our rabbis taught (TNW RBNN): Hillel the Elder had eighty disciples. Thirty of them were worthy (R'WY) of the Divine Spirit resting upon them, as [it did upon] Moses our rabbi. Thirty of them were worthy that the sun should stand still for them [as it did for] Joshua the son of Nun. Twenty were ordinary. The greatest of them was Jonathan b. Uzziel; the smallest [least] of them was Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai. (b. Suk. 28a, trans. I. W. Slotki, p. 123) c

Comment: See Development, pp. 90-91, and above y. Ned. 5:6. The first thirty were thus as "worthy" as Hillel himself. III.ii.9.A. It was taught (TNY>): They said about Hillel the Elder (>MRW
H I L L E L — III.ii.10, 1 1 , 1 2

261

name, and conceivably the festival was an important holiday in that tra­ dition. But we do not know when Sukkot assumed such a significant role in the mystical tradition, nor can we be certain that the mystical tradition attributed to Hillel began with him. IILii. 10. Rav Judah in the name of Rav said, "The law follows R. Eleazar. But when I stated it in the presence of Samuel, he said to me, 'Hillel taught (§NH): The [following] [different] genealogical classes went up from Babylonia—Priests, Levites, profaned Priests, proselytes, emancipated slaves, bastards, Netini, Shetuqi, and Asufi and all these may intermarry'..." (b. Yev. 37a) Comment: The attribution to Hillel first comes in the mid-third cen­ tury. We have no earlier hint of such a tradition. Nowhere else does Hillel give a ruling on who may marry whom, so it is not a sort of law one would have expected. Attributing a tradition on the Babylonian migration in Ezra's time to Hillel certainly is not surprising. But we have no idea about the history of the lemma, how it was preserved for two hundred years, or why it should first surface with Samuel. Nor are we sure this is our Hillel. Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 54, says this is the grand­ son of Judah the Patriarch, which is highly plausible. In classification, it is a legal-historical tradition; in form it is a near-standard legal say­ ing ; the only unusual aspect is §NH instead of >MR. II.ii.ll. For it was taught (TNY>): It was said of (>MRW
Comment: The above beraita records common practice "in Hillel's time," but does not specify Hillel ordained the practice. This is, there­ fore, not meant as a legal tradition, but as a historical reminiscence of "the good old days" under Hillel's rule. The beraita is cited in an anon­ ymous editorial context. The pericope seeks the Tannaitic authority for a distinction between vows and freewill offerings. Meir and Judah are brought as candidates, but neither is cited as participating in the theo­ retical discussion. In the end the authority is Simeon the Just! So we have no evidence of Tannaitic knowledge of the above beraita, nor any idea when Amoraic reference to it was made. But it looks like the be­ ginning of the story about the people as prophets, which turns the rule into a dramatic narrative of popular practice. III.ii.l2.A. TNW RBNN: When Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi

262

HILLEL —III.ii.13

died, the holy spirit departed from Israel. Nonetheless they made use of the echo. B. For (§) one time (P M 'HT) they were sitting in the upper chamber of Gurya's house (BYT GWRY>) in Jericho. An echo from heaven gave [came] upon them and said, "There is in your midst one man who is deserving that the Shekhinah should rest upon him, but his generation is not worthy (R WY) of it." C. They all looked at Hillel the Elder. D. And when he died, they lamented him, "Alas, the pious man (H$YD), alas, the humble man, disciple of Ezra." (b. Sot. 48b) C

}

Comment: See Tos. Sot. 13:3, y. Sot. 9:13, etc. Samuel the Small fol­ lows. The context is a discussion of the end of Urim and Thummim; then R. Nahman refers to the three prophets mentioned here. The beraita is not cited by him, however, but serves as a gloss to his comment. So the context is anonymous and provides no hint as to who cited the beraita. III.ii.13. [Mishnah: Hillel instituted theprosbul.] A. We have learned elsewhere (TNN HTM): A prosbul prevents the remission of debts. This is one of the ordinances made by Hillel the Elder. For (§) he saw that people held back from lending money to one another, and transgressed the precept in the Torah, Beware that there not be a base thought in your heart (Deut. 15:9). He arose and ordained [the] prosbul. B. The text of [the] prosbul is as follows... C. But is it possible that while according to the Torah the Seventh Year releases [debts], Hillel ordained that it should not release [debts] ? Abbaye said.... (b. Git. 36a) Comment: The % of Tannaitic texts (PRWZBL) becomes /; the ante­ cedent Mishnah has ^. Here we have the "historical" version, as in the Mishnah. Compare Sifre Deut. 113. The above pericope is an amplification of the Mishnah. Immediately thereafter the question is raised: How could Hillel have set aside a law in the Torah? The discussant is Abbaye; presumably the pericope in which Hillel was cited was shaped in fourth-century Pumbedita or later. The answer is, "He was dealing with the Sabbatical year in our time," that is, after the destruction of the Temple! The principle of Rabbi Judah the Patriarch is then quoted: When the release of land is in opera­ tion, so is the remission of debts. The rabbis, however, ordained that

H I L L E L — III.ii.14, 1 5

263

the remission of debts should continue, despite the cessation of the re­ lease of land. When Hillel saw people refrained, he then instituted the prosbul.

Then it is asked, "Is it possible that according to the Torah, the Seventh Year does not release debts, and the rabbis should ordain that it does?" Abbaye responds, along with Rava. The latter's reason is strik­ ing: The rabbis have power to expropriate [people's property]. Then the question is raised (b. Git. 36b): W h e n H i l l e l i n s t i t u t e d t h e prosbul, d i d h e i n s t i t u t e it f o r his o w n g e n e ­ ration o n l y , o r f o r f u t u r e ones as w e l l ?

The practical bearing is on the issue of whether the rabbis can now abolish it. Samuel is cited: one makes out a prosbul only in the court of Sura or of Nehardea; and Samuel criticizes the prosbul and says that he will abolish it if he can. The discussion of the prosbul in Babylonia is based upon the Mishnah alone. The exegetical foundation of the prosbul plays no role in the rab­ binical discussion, which assumes that the matter was only a response to historical necessity, with no exegetical basis whatever! This fact makes it likely that the exegetical pericope in Sifre Deut. 113 was not available in Babylonia in Samuel's time and even as late as Abbaye. y. Shev. 10:2 presents the quite different discussion of the Palestinians, who did know the exegesis. The Babylonian Amoraic discussion again proves that our analysis of the Sifre Deut. 113 pericope into two sepa­ rate stories is valid. The stories certainly circulated separately, and one of them may never have reached Amoraic Babylonia at all. 111.11.14. We have learned in another place (TNN HTM): At first a man used to hide himself on the last day of the twelve­ month period, so that it should become his forever. Hillel the Elder [therefore] ordained that he should throw his money into the chamber and that he should break the door open and enter, and the other, whenever he likes, should come and take his money. (b. Git. 74b) Comment: See Sifra Behar 4:8, M. 'Arakh. 9:4. Rava and R. Papa, or Shimi b. Ashi, discuss the above Mishnah, applying its legal principle, concerning a gift forced on the donee, to the delivery of divorce-docu­ ments. The question of setting aside Torah-law is not raised, presum­ ably because it was self-evident that the only issue was how to carry out the law, not how to suspend its operation.

111.11.15. Rav Judah in Rav's name said, "The law follows R. Eleazar. When I stated it before Samuel, he observed to me, 'Hillel teaches (§WNH) ten genealogical classes went up from Babylonia and all are permitted to intermarry.' Yet you say the law follows R. Eleazar!'" (b. Qid. 75a)

264

H I L L E L — III.ii.16, 1 7 , 1 8

Comment: See b. Yev. 37a. This is an abbreviation of the full citation there. IILii. 16.A. Hillel the Elder used to interpret common speech. B. For it has been taught (DTNY>): The men of Alexandria used to betroth their wives, and when they would enter the marriage-canopy, others would come and seize them (>WTM) from them (MHN). C. And sages sought to declare their children mamt(erim. D. Said Hillel the Elder to them, "Bring me your mother's Ketuvah [sing.]." They brought to him the Ketuvah of their mother, and he found written therein, 'When you enter the huppah,you mil be my wife*" E. And they did not declare their children marn^erim. (b. B.M. 104a) Comment: See Tos. Ket. 4:9, y. Yev. 15:3, y. Ket. 4:8. Here part A, integral to the earlier versions, stands before the formal superscription TNY\ The context is a set of pericopae on authorities who interpreted the language of ordinary people: Meir, Hillel, Joshua b. Qorhah. Yo­ hanan comments on Joshua b. Qorhah's story. Then comes Yosi, on whose saying Rabina and Maremar remark. Thus the terminus ante quern is supplied by Yohanan for one element in the whole set. Otherwise it is without identifying marks of Amoraic interest or discussion. Hence we do not know who cited Hillel's story or how the whole collection was originally shaped for inclusion in the Babylonian Talmud. 111.11.17. Our rabbis taught (TNW RBNN): Hillel the Elder had eighty disciples. Thirty of them were worthy (R'WYM) that the Shekhinah rest on them as Moses our rabbi. Thirty of them were worthy that the sun stand for them as Joshua b. Nun. Twenty of them were average. The greatest of them was Jonathan b. Uzziel, the least was Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai. (b. B.B. 134a) c

Comment: See y. Ned. 5:6, b. Suk. 28a, above. The context is a col­ lection of Jonathan b. 'Uzziel—materials. Preceding is the story of Jonathan's confounding Shammai; then comes an intervening story, finally the above. Immediately following is a long encomium ('MRW LYW) on Yohanan b. Zakkai, in which Abbaye and Rava are referred to. At the end comes a further beraita about Jonathan b. Uzziel: "When he sat and studied the Torah, every bird that flew over him was burned." Hillel figures as part of the background for a conflict of beraitot\ Jonathan b. 'Uzziel's vs. Yohanan b. Zakkai's. The whole comes from fourth-century Pumbedita, or later. C

c

111.11.18. Our rabbis taught (TNW RBNN):

H I L L E L — III.ii.19, IV.i.l

265

A. Since the last prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi died, the Holy Spirit departed from Israel. Even so, they used the echo. B. Once (P'M 'HT) the rabbis were reclining in the upper chamber of Guria's (GWRYH) house at Jericho, and an echo gave [ = came] upon them from heaven [saying], "There is here one who is worthy (R'WY) that the Shekhinah should rest on him as on Moses our rabbi, but his generation is not righteous (ZK'Y) for it." Sages set their eyes on Hillel the Elder. C. And when he died, they said, "Alas, the pious man, the humble man, the disciple of Ezra." (b. Sanh. 11a) Comment: See Tos. Sot. 13:3, y. Sot. 9:3. The context is a story about Gamaliel II and Samuel the Small. Then comes a story in which Judah the Patriarch had a somewhat similar encounter with Hiyya. Stories fol­ low about Meir, again Samuel the Small, and biblical heroes, who sup­ ply precedents for the behavior of Samuel the Small. After the above pericope is the story of the echo's message about Samuel the Small, then Samuel's death-scene, finally Judah b. Baba's failure to receive a similar funeral oration. The context is therefore no different from the Tos. and y. Sot.: Samuel the Small-Judah b. Baba-Hillel. No Amoraic authorities appear in connection with the Hillel-peri­ cope, and the stories contain no glosses attributable to later authorities.

III.ii.19. DTNY>: It was related (>MRW
IV.i.l. Hillel the Elder said, "These [tefillin] are from my mother's father." (y. <Eruv. 10:1, repr. Gilead, p. 59b) Comment: See, for Shammai, I.i.l, Mekh. Pisha III, lines 209-216, trans. Lauterbach, I, p. 157. Now Hillel rather than Shammai refers to his grandfather's tefillin. The whole passage is as follows: T N Y : " O n e m u s t i n s p e c t tefillin o n c e in t w e l v e m o n t h s , " t h e w o r d s o f Rabbi [Judah the Patriarch]. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, "They d o n o t require inspection." Hillel t h e E l d e r says, " T h e s e a r e . . . "

266

HILLEL — IV.i.2

As in Shammai's case, also here the saying of Hillel could not have cir­ culated separately, but must have been preserved in the context of the dispute around the opinions of Simeon and his son Judah. Simeon b. Gamaliel II now has the opinion of the Shammaites, and Judah, of the Hillelites. Hillel supplies proof for the opinion of Simeon b. Gamaliel, according to the commentary Qprban Edah: "These tefillin were never inspected and remain in the presumption that they are valid." It is curious to find a House of Hillel-House of Shammai debate in the form of Simeon vs. Judah the Patriarch, with Hillel, rather than Shammai, cited in support of Simeon's (= House of Shammai's) opin­ ion. I cannot account for the anomaly. c

IV.i.2.A. For three things did Hillel come up from Babylonia. B. He is clean (Lev. 13:17b). One might think he should go free and [be allowed to] go his way. Scripture says (TLMWD LWMR), And the priest will declare him clean (Lev. 13:17a). If the priest declares him clean, [then] one might [say], If the priest says unclean to be clean, let it be clean. Scripture says, He is clean and the priest will declare him clean (Lev. 13:17). C. On this [account] Hillel came up from Babylonia. D. One Scripture says, And you will sacrifice the pesah to the Lord your God [from the] flock and herd (Deut. 16:2); and one Scripture says, From the sheep and the goats you will take [it] (Ex.12 :5). How then? Sheep for the pesah, and sheep and oxen for the hagigah. E. One Scripture says, Six days will you eat massot, and one Scripture says, Seven days will you eat massot (Deut. 16:8, Ex. 12:15). How then? Six from the new, and seven from the old. F. And he expounded and caused [them] to agree (H$KYM) and came up (
HILLEL — IV.i.3

267

The pericopae are classic harmonizations of apparently conflicting verses. Part B contrasts two parts of the same verse and harmonizes them; parts D and E do the same with separate Scriptures. The method is identical in all cases. Were parts D and E not attached, we should not have known that to Hillel was attributed the exegesis. All three parts, B, C, and E, could have circulated separately. Only part B is elsewhere given in HillePs name (Sifra Tazri'a 9:16). The theme (Passover) of D and E supplies the connection to HillePs rise to power, attached by part F to the foregoing stories. Hillel plays no part in the exegeses, which are not dramatized. We may take it for granted that a stock-phrase, on this account Hillel came up from Babylonia did indeed circulate by itself, to be added as a superscription or subscription in a number of contexts, e.g. Sifra Tazri'a 9:16, Tos. Nega'im 1:16. Some sort of stock-phrase such as part F served the same purpose. It is reminiscent, if in a different form, of the earlier pericope, he was sitting and expounding to them all day long. They did not accept from him until he said to them, May [evil] come upon me if I have [not] heard thus from Shema'iah and Abtalion. When they had heardfrom him thus, they arose and appointed him nasi over them. Here the common elements are expound and receive. The more primitive form is the one before us. It may be that at the outset came a simple stock-phrase, something like expounded, agreed and arose [over them] accepted [him], that is, a set of verbs later on supplied with personal endings (hejthey) and still later, with the context (migration!rise to power). All this is conjecture. What is certain is the existence of certain stockphrases attached to various contexts on account of them (uncleanness, Passover laws) and given a historical framework (came up from Baby­ lonia, became nasi). The tendency to historicize exegeses into Hillelnarratives is analogous. The whole historical tradition on HillePs migra­ tion and rise to power comes to us in a complex, highly developed state. Nothing remains as a still primitive saying, in a few words, containing a simple point. Everything has been recast into long and substantial stories. All stories in their present form exhibit the marks of composites of existing, finished pericopae. We have no primitive Hillel-story in any extant compilation. The elements forming the composite pericopae are themselves so fully articulated that even the prior levels of develop­ ment are no longer to be uncovered. The Houses-pericopae, by con­ trast, are much briefer and simpler, as we shall see. IV.i.3.A. WhenHillel the Elder saw them observing [it] in pride (PHZ), he said to them, "If we are here, who is here? Does he need our praises? Is it not written (Daniel 7:10), A thousand serve him and myriads of myriads rise before him ?" B. When he saw them behaving properly (BKWSR), he would say, "If we are not here, who is here? For even though there is before him much praise, the praise of Israel is more beloved before him than all." "What is the reason (T'JVP): And pleasant are the praises of Israel (II

268

HILLEL —IV.i.4, 5

Sam. 23:2). He who is enthroned over the praises of Israel (Ps. 22:3)." (y. Suk. 5:4, repr. Gilead, p. 24a) Comment: The context is the same as b. Suk. 53a, reports on the Re­ joicing at the Place of Drawing Water. The Hillel-logia are all in Ara­ maic, in italics; in b. Suk. they are in beraita-Hebtew. The sayings, ear­ lier characterized as popular aphorisms given a theological interpreta­ tion in b. Suk. 53a, are here set into a completely historical, this-worldly, and moral framework. The saying If I am here is now plural. The point is that "we Jews are nothing, and God does not need us." The negative formulation, in part B, is likewise provided with a historical-biographi­ cal setting: When he saw them... he would say. So the saying becomes an apophthegm. Since the passage is not introduced by a Tannaitic superscription, I have not characterized it as such. But the primary logia must be re­ garded as independent of either a theological or a historical setting; to Hillel were attributed highly enigmatic sayings, and later redactors did their best to invent appropriate narrative or historical circumstances to make sense of them. Nothing in context supplies a hint as to Amoraic authorities that might have discussed, or have been responsible for the inclusion of, the pericope in its present form. IV.i.4. R. Levi said, "A scroll of genealogies did they find in Jerusalem, and written in it was, 'Hillel from David'..." (y. Ta. 4:2, repr. Gilead, p. 20b) Comment: Levi's tradition continues by listing others' genealogies as well. Further traditions are supplied by Yannai. This is the first refer­ ence to the Davidic origins of Hillel. Since the patriarch claimed to descend from Hillel, and since he also claimed to descend from David, it was of course important to find such a scroll. The first evidences of the patriarchal claim to Davidic ancestry thus come with Judah the Patriarch at the end of the second century. They are important in his relationships with the exilarchs of the same period, who claimed Davidic descent from the male line; the best the patriarchate could do was through the female line. On the Davidic origin of Hillel, see my History I, pp. 190-1. Clearly, the tradition at the earliest comes in the third cen­ tury. Hillel's Davidic origins play no role in stories about his rise to power, nor does the theme occur elsewhere in Hillel-materials. It is a late allegation in response to the political-theological needs of the pa­ triarch. But its absence from other stories proves not that they are ear­ lier, merely different. IV.i.5.A. R. Jacob b. Idi in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: B. The story is told (M SH §) that elders entered the upper room of Gedya (GDYY*) in Jericho. An echo came forth and said to them, "There are among you two who are worthy of the Holy Spirit, and C

HILLEL — IV.ii.l

269

Hillel the Elder is one of them," and they set their eyes on Samuel the Small. C. Again the Elders entered the upper room in Yavneh, and an echo said [as above], and Samuel the Small is one of them, and they set their eyes on Rabbi Leazar.... (y. A.Z. 3:1, repr. Gilead, p. 18b = y. Hor. 3:5, repr. Gilead, p. 19b) Comment: See Tos. Sot. 13:3, y. Sot. 9:13, etc. The named tradents supply a terminus ante quern. For further comment, see synopses, below.

IV.ii.l.A. These two disciples were sitting before Hillel, one of them was R. Yohanan b. Zakkai—others state, before Rabbi [Judah the Patriarch], and one of them was R. Yohanan. B. One said, "Why do they vintage (BSR) [grapes] in cleanness,yet do not gather (M$Q) [olives] in cleanness?" The other said, " Why do they vintage in cleanness, yetgather in uncleanness ?" C. He said, " / am certain concerning this one that he will teach instruction (HWR>H) in Israel." And the days were not few (MW'TYM) [sic] before he taught instruction in Israel. (b. Pes. 3b) Comment: The italicized portions are in Hebrew, the rest in Aramaic. Thus the framework of the story is told in Aramaic, while the supposed direct discourse of the schools—the legal questions of the disciples and the teacher's comment—are in Hebrew. This would suggest the story­ teller took it for granted that the language of the schools' legal studies was Hebrew, while the ordinary language of story-telling (and other discourse) was Aramaic. A story about Rabbi and Yohanan or about Hillel and Yohanan b. Zakkai certainly comes from the third century, if not later. No accurate materials from Hillel's actual school could have persisted. The circle that told the story took for granted that Yohanan b. Zakkai was Hillel's outstanding student, presumably because the chain of M. Avot was by now well known. We do not have to suppose that mentioning Yohanan b. Zakkai was to stress that Yohanan, not Gamaliel, was the leading disciple. The reference to Yohanan b. Zakkai is routine and common­ place, not polemical. The context is stories and sayings about careful choice of words. The discussion begins with an analysis of the language of the Mishnah. Then follow various logia about using "clean language." Immediately pre­ ceding is a saying about two disciples before Rav, with much the same point as the Hillel-pericope. The following stories are on the same theme. No hint as to the redactor of the whole passage can be found. The pericope is to be classified as a biographical narrative.

270

HILLEL — IV.ii.2, 3

The legal materials recur in Shammai-Hillel stories, below, p. 319. Hillel asks the same question of Shammai. This story thus dramatizes the materials of legal pericopae, which are taken for granted as decided law, therefore are earlier. IV.ii.2. Resh Laqish said, "Lo I am the expiation (KPRH) of R. Hiyya and his sons. For in ancient times, when the Torah was for­ gotten from Israel, Ezra came up from Babylonia and established it. It was again forgotten. Hillel the Babylonian came up and established it. Yet again it was forgotten, and R. Hiyya and his sons came up and established it." (b. Suk. 20a, trans. I. W. Slotki, p. 86-7) Comment: Resh Laqish's saying, preserved only in the Babylonian Talmud though he was a Palestinian, provides the most striking and ex­ treme statement of the view that Hillel was fully educated when he came from Babylonia. He "restored the Torah" to Palestine! The saying is dated in the mid-third century, and links the three great Babylonians of pre-Amoraic times, Ezra, Hillel, and Hiyya. That it does not occur in the Palestinian Talmud is for obvious reasons. The point of Resh Laqish's reference to R. Hiyya and his sons is his quotation of a saying in their name about a Mishnaic dispute between R. Dosa and the sages about the reed-mats of Usha (in Palestine) and of Tiberias. The logion quoted above serves as an elaborate superscription for the legal saying attributed to Hiyya and his sons by Resh Laqish. Still, we have no grounds to suppose the superscription is conventional, a well-known tradition now used by Resh Laqish (or the redactor of his saying). With no parallel versions, the pericope is to be attributed to Resh Laqish.

IV.ii.3. A. [That which is crooked cannot be made straight and that which is wanting cannot be restored (Qoh. 1:15).J Ben He He said to Hillel, "Instead of to be restored /"/ ought to be to be filled! It must therefore refer to one of whose fellows reckoned him for the performance of a religious act, but he would not be reckoned with them...." B. Ben He He said to Hillel, "What is the meaning of the Scripture, Then shall you again discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serves God and him that does not (Mai. 3:18). The righteous is the same as he that served God, the wicked is the same as he that does not serve God" He answered him, "He that serves him and he that does not both refer to such as are perfectly righteous. But he that repeated his chapter a hundred times is not to be compared with him who repeated it a hundred and one times." Said he to him, "And because of one time is he called 'him that serves not? " 9

271

HILLEL — IV.ii.4, 5

He answered, "Yes, go and learn from the mule-drivers* market: Ten parasangs for one t^ut^, eleven for two" (b. Hag. 9b) Comment: In addition to Scriptures, the use of italics signifies Ara­ maic. Another quite unique pericope, part A has Hillel as auditor; he says nothing. This is curious. The form requires a reply; the pericope there­ fore looks to be faulty. In part B, Ben He He raises a standard exegetical problem, and Hillel "solves" it by ignoring the question, the context, and the sense of the Scripture, claiming that the Scripture speaks entirely of perfectiy right­ eous people, but among them the one who has studied even one more time is superior and will be discerned apart from the wicked. The exe­ gesis is incredible, and Ben He He says so. Hillel's reply is that small distinctions make a great difference. I do not know what to make of this strange pericope. While in form it is not unlike the three things exegeses (y. Pes. 6:1), that means little, since the exegetical device of contrasting parts of Scriptures or separate Scriptures and arriving at a harmonization of their supposed conflicts is commonplace. Indeed the pericope looks like a standard exegesis rou­ tinely assigned to Hillel, for reasons unknown to me. I have no notion who first told the story, or why, or what led to its inclusion and pre­ servation in the Hillel-tradition. The classification is an exegesis of con­ flicting elements of Scripture. No Amoraic masters are mentioned in context. In the following pericope, Elijah the prophet and Bar He He (or R. Eleazar b. Pedat) discuss the meaning of Is. 58:10. 5

C

IV.ii.4. A. ( MRW
IV.ii.5. When R. Dimi came, he said, "Hillel and Shebna were brothers. Hillel engaged in Torah and Shebna in business ('YSQ ). Eventually, he (Shebna*) said to him (Hillel), 'Let us become partners 5

5

272

HILLEL —IV.ii.6, 7

C

(N RWB) and divide.' An echo went out and said, If a man would give all the substance of his house (Song 8:7)." (b. Sot. 21a) Comment: The whole story is in Aramaic. The attribution to Dimi places the story in the late third century. When Dimi came is the standard introductory formula for his sayings in the Babylonian Talmud. The point is that the reward for studying Torah far exceeds worldly profit, and it therefore was an unfair deal. The antecedent materials deal with the merit for studying Torah and practicing the commandments. No reference is made to Hillel-Shebna\ Ulla refers to the story of Hillel and Shebna*, so the Palestinian venue of the story is definite; but in Palestine the standard, when Dimi came super­ scription would not have been used, and Ulla does not quote Dimi, merely refers to the story. Hence it may have antedated Dimi by some years. No other traditions on Hillel refer to a brother, or to Shebna by name. We have no way of knowing who first told the story; its homiletical appropriateness is clear, and it may well serve as an exegesis of Song 8:7 without a teaching in generalized form. We of course cannot be sure that this is our Hillel. c

c

5

IV.ii.6. [Mishnah: Hillel forbade.] R. Nahman in Samuel's name said, "The law follows Hillel's ruling." The law is nevertheless not in accordance with him. [Mishnah: And thus Hillel used to say.] Rav Judah in Samuel's name said, "This is Hillel's view." "But the sages maintained, One may borrow and repay uncondition­ ally." Rav Judah in Samuel's name said, "The members of a company who are particular with each other transgress [the prohibition of] measure, weight, number, borrowing, and repaying on the festival, and, according to Hillel, usury too." (b. B.M. 75a, trans. E. W. Kirzner, p. 433) Comment: Hillel's teaching in the Mishnah is discussed by Rav Judah and Samuel. IV.ii.7.A. Rabbi [Judah the Patriarch] said, "Three were humble, my father, the Bene Bathyra, and Jonathan b. Saul..." B. The Bene Bathyra, as a Master said, "They placed him at the head and appointed him nasi over them " C. But how does this prove it? Bene Bathyra... because they saw that Hillel was their superior [in learning, and not because they were humble]. (b. B.M. 85a)

HILLEL —

IV.ii.8,

273

V.i.l

Comment: The reference to Bene Bathyra on Rabbi Judah's part in­ dicates that an account of Hillel's rise which included their abdication (deposition) was known to him. This proves that the superscriptions and subscriptions in which Bathyrans are mentioned must have circu­ lated by his time. But the substance of the several accounts is not here to be dated one way or the other. The brief logion in part B is merely an allusion to the well-known "events." By itself it could have meant noth­ ing and did not circulate apart from the longer stories, if only because here we do not know who they and him are. It is striking that the first patriarch to refer to Hillel at all, let alone to call him "my forefather," is Judah the Patriarch. Gamaliel II and Simeon b. Gamaliel II never refer to Hillel or comment on Hillel-pericopae, nor do Gamaliel I or Simeon b. Gamaliel I. By contrast, both Yavneans and Ushans can be held responsible for comments on Hillel-sayings and stories, indeed for making up some of them to begin with. Gamaliel II does refer to the Shammaite rulings of his father, Simeon b. Gamaliel I, so one might also have expected references to Hillel, the alleged ances­ tor of the post-70 patriarchate, if anyone had actually claimed Hillel was that ancestor. It looks as if the Hillelite origins of the patriarchate derive from after Bar Kokhban times, but before Levi took for granted that Judah the Patriarch descended from Hillel and therefore alleged that Hillel came from David. This places the patriarchal claim to Hillel as a forefather sometime before, or early in, the patriarchate of Judah the Patriarch. IV.ii.8. Rava said, "One may deduce from the ordinance of Hillel that if a husband said to his wife, 'Here is thy bill of divorce..."' (b.
y

N E U S N E R , The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70, I

18

274

HILLEL — V.i.2, 3, 4

C. What did Hillel the Elder do with them? He brought them to a correct understanding. (ARN Chap. 12, trans. Goldin, p. 70) V.i.2. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai took over from Hillel and Shammai. Eighty disciples Hillel the Elder had. Thirty of them were worthy to have the Shekhinah rest upon them as upon Moses, our rabbi, but their generation was unworthy of it. Thirty of them were worthy to intercalate the year, and twenty were middling. The greatest of them all was Jonathan ben Uzziel. The least of them all was Rabban Yoha­ nan ben Zakkai. (ARN Chap. 14, trans. Goldin, p. 74) c

V.i.3. He used to say: "The more one eats, the more he eliminates. "The more flesh, the more worms and maggots. "But the more good works (the more) one brings peace to himself." (ARN Chap. 28, trans. Goldin, p. 117) V.i.4. Seven rules of interpretation Hillel the Elder expounded before the Bene Bathyra, to wit: A. fortiori, analogy, deduction from one verse, deduction from two verses, (inference) from general and particular, from particular and general, similarity elsewhere, deduction from context. These are the seven rules which Hillel the Elder expounded before the Bene Bathyra. (ARN Chap. 37, trans. Goldin, p. 154) Comment: V.i.l.A cites the Sukkot-szying, but outside of the context of the festival. V.i.l.B is a highly developed story. In earlier materials Hillel is never called stupid Babylonian, z stock-insult applied to late-second century Babylonian migrants to Palestine, and used afterward as well. To my knowledge it does not occur in reference to earlier migrants. Nathan the Babylonian is not so named, for example. But the story obviously is a narrative, highly developed gloss on Avot; according to the painstaking is the reward is surely late. The subscription likewise represents a common­ place theme in later stories about the patience of Hillel. It corrects the impression that Hillel might have injured the men. The story presum­ ably ended with ...my question. V.i.2 is the familiar pericope, see y. Ned. 5:6 etc., copied without significant alteration.

HILLEL — Vl.i.l, 2; Vl.iii.l, 2

275

V.i.3 is an augmentation of Avot 2:5-7, supplying still more con­ trasts built on the same generative formula. V.i.4 is copied from Tos. Sanh. 7:11 without much change. As we have seen {Development, pp. 159-187), late midrashic compila­ tions either copy earlier materials verbatim, or invent new ones with­ out a substantial basis in earlier traditions. V.i.l.A, 2 and 4 illustrate the former phenomenon, V.i.l.B the latter. Only V.i.3 diverges from the normal pattern; the divergence is not very considerable. Vl.i.l. UntilShiloh comes (Gen. 49:10). The rabbis debated, From whom was Hillel descended? R. Levi said, "A genealogical scroll was found in Jerusalem in which it was written, Hillel was descended from David, R. Hiyya the Elder from Shephatiah son of Abital, the house of Kalba Shavu'a from Kaleb, the house of Sisit Hakeset from Abner..." (Gen. R. 98:8) Comment: See y. Ta. 4:2 VI.i.2. ...Hillel the Elder came up from Babylonia, and he was forty years old; and served the sages forty years; and served Israel forty years... (Gen. R. 100:24, ed. Theodor-Albeck, III, p. 1295) Comment: See Sifr6 Deut. 357. The pericope also occurs in Midrash Tannaim to Deut. 34:7. No changes occur in this version. Hillel had to study after his migration, but the point is standard and conventional, not polemical. Vl.iii.l. So too did Hillel say, "My self-abasement is my exaltation, and my self-exaltation, my abasement." What is the proof (T M) ? He that raises himself is to sit down, he that abases himself is to be seen (Ps. 113:5). (Lev. R. 1:5) C

Comment: The saying is cited in late compilations, e.g. Ex. R. 45:5. The saying does not appear earlier. It is not so enigmatic as the Sukkotsayings, but means simply that it is hopeless to pursue honor. VI.iii.2.A. The merciful man does good to his own soul (Prov. 11:17). This applies to Hillel the Elder. Hillel the Elder, when he concluded his studies with his disciples, walked along. His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, Where are you going?" He answered them, "To do a misvah"

276

Hillel

HILLEL — VI.iii.2

I Tannaitic Midrashim

II.i Mishnah

1 . Hillel w o u l d fold together massah, b i t t e r h e r b s , etc.

M e k h . deR. Simeon b. Y o h a i p. 1 3 1.12

2. W h o e v e r t o u c h e s insect is unclean—even if in a ritual p o o l

Sifra S h e m i n i 9:5

3 . Itch w i t h i n itch: O n this a c c o u n t Hillel came up f r o m Babylonia

Sifra Tazri'a 9:16

4. Redeem prop­ e r t y at e n d o f y e a r

Sifra B e h a r 4 : 8

5. Stimulated students

Sifre Num. 1 2 3

6.

M. Shev. 1 0 : 3 ; Sifre Deut. 1 1 3 ; Mid. Tan., M . Git. 4 : 3 p. 80

Pro^hul

7. Lived onehundred-twenty years

Sifre Deut. 3 5 7 Midrash Tannaim to Deut. 34:2

8 . W h o uses t h e c r o w n shall p e r i s h

Midrash Tannaim p. 2 1 1

H I L L E L — VI.iii.2

Il.ii Tosefta

T o s . Pisha 2 : 2 2

IH.i Tannaitic Materials in Palestinian Gemara

IILii Tannaitic M a t e r i a l s in Babylonian Gemara

y . Hal. 1 : 1

b. Pes. 1 1 5 a

IV.i Amoraic M a t e r i a l s in Palestinian Gemara

IV.ii Amoraic Materials in Babylonian Gemara

V ARN

277

VI Later Compilations of Midrashim

b. Z e v . 79a

(Compare y. Pes. 6 : 1 )

Tos. Neg. 1 : 1 6

(Compare y. Pes. 6 : 1 )

M .
b. G i t . 7 4 b Tos. Ahilot 1 6 : 8 Tos. Parah 4 : 7 y. S h e v . 1 0 : 2

b. G i t . 3 6 a

G e n . R. 1 0 0 : 2 4

Avot 1:13 Avot 4:5

9. Forbade inter­ est in k i n d

M. B.M. 5:9

10. Apophthegms a n d sayings

M. Avot 1 : 1 2 -

Tos. B.M. 6 : 1 0

b. S h a b . 1 4 8 b

b. B . M . 75a

b. S u k . 5 3 a (skull)

14; 2:5-7

1 1 . Six moral sayings

Tos. Ber. 2 : 2 1 , 6:24

y. Ber. 9 : 5 (scatter/gather)

12. Bought horse and slave for p o o r man

Tos. P e ' a h 4 : 1 0

y. Pe'ah 8 : 7

1 3 . i & liability f o r tithes

Tos. Ma'aserot 3 : 2 - 4 = Tos. <Ed. 2 : 4

1 4 . Pesah o v e r ­ rides Sabbath

T o s . Pisha 4 : 1 3 ; Tos. Sanh. 7 : 1 1

y. S h a b . 1 9 : 1 y . Pes. 6 : 1

A R N Chap. 28 (the m o r e . . . t h e more...)

b. B e r . 6 3 a (scatter/gather) b. K e t . 6 7 b

b. P e s . 6 6 a - b

(b. B . M . 8 5 a )

A R N Chap. 37 = Tos. Sanh. 7 : 1 1

278

HILLEL — VI.iii.2

HILLEL —VI.iii.2

1 5 . If y o u will come to m y house

Tos. Suk. 4 : 3

16. Expounded Alexandrian Ketuvah

Tos. Ket. 4 : 9

y. Y e v . 1 5 : 3 y. K e t . 4 : 8

b. B . M . 1 0 4 a

1 7 . W a s worthy of the Holy Spirit

Tos. Sot. 1 3 : 3

y. S o t . 9 : 1 3

b. S a n h . 1 1 a b. S o t . 4 8 b

y. Ber. 9 : 3

b. B e r . 6 0 a

y. Ned. 5 : 6

b. S u k . 2 8 a b. B . B . 1 3 4 a

1 8 . D o n o t fear report 1 9 . Had eighty (pair) o f disciples

b. S u k . 5 3 a

1

b. P e s . 6 4 b

2 1 . S t u d i e d as a poor man

b. Y o m a 3 5 b

2 2 . Ten geneal­ o g i c a l classes ( ? )

b. Y e v . 3 7 a b. Q i d . 7 5 a

2 3 . N o one tres­ passed t h r o u g h burnt-offering

b. Ned. 9 b b. Pes. 6 6 b

25. For three things did Hillel migrate (nos. 2-3) 2 6 . Hillel f r o m David

A R N Chap. 1 2 i

20. Man crushed in Temple court i n d a y s o f Hillel

2 4 . These are m y g r a n d f a t h e r ' s tefillin

y. Suk. 5 : 4

y. A . Z . 3 : 1 = y. Hor. 3 : 5

b. Sot. 4 8 b

y . <Eruv. 1 0 : 1 [ = Shammai— M e k h . Pisha III 209-216] |y. Pes. 6 : 1

y. Ta. 4 . 2

G e n . R. 9 8 : 8

2 7 . T w o disciples b e f o r e Hillel

b. Pes. 3 b

2 8 . Ezra, Hillel, and Hiyya restored Torah

b. Suk. 20a

29. Ben He He

b. Hag. 9b

3 0 . Hillel a n d Shebna*

b. Sot. 2 1 a

31. How much w h e a t p e r se*ah

279

1 i

j A R N Chap. 1 2

3 2 . M y selfa b a s e m e n t is m y exaltation

L e v . R. 1 : 5

3 3 . T o w a s h is a religious duty

L e v . R. 3 4 : 3

280

HILLEL — VI.iii.2

They said to him, "What misyah does Hillel do?" He said to them, "To wash in the bath." They said to him, "And is this a misyah?* He replied, "Yes. If the statues of kings, erected in their theaters and circuses, are scoured and washed by the man who is appointed to look after them and who thereby obtains his maintenance through them— nay more, he is exalted in the company of the great of the kingdom— how much more so I, who have been created in the image and likeness, as it is written, For in the image of God made he man (Gen. 9:6)!" B. Another explanation [of Prov. 11:17]: This is Hillel the Elder. Hillel the Elder, when he had concluded his studies with his dis­ ciples, walked along. His disciples said to him, "Rabbi, Where are you bound?" He replied, "To bestow kindness upon a guest in the house." They asked, "Have you a guest every day?" He replied, "Is not the poor soul a guest in the body? Today it is here and tomorrow no longer." (Lev. R. 34:3, trans. J . J . Slotki, pp. 428-9; ed. Margoliot IV, pp. 776-7) Comment: The pericope is a singleton, with no roots in the earlier Hillel-tradition. Part A is in Hebrew, part B in Aramaic. Both pericopae begin with Scripture + This is Hillel the Elder. Then comes the story. The story serves as a narrative exegesis of the Scripture. Hillel is set into a colloquy with his students, but the comment on Scripture could have been stated in the third person, and without the dramatic situation. ii. SYNOPSES

1. Would Fold Together Mekhilta de R. Simeon b. Yohai p. 13 1. 12 1. Ex. 1 2 : 8

Tos. Pisha

2. I t is a mist ah 3 . Hillel t h e E l d e r would fold them together ( K W R K N 2 H B Z H ) a n d eat them 4.

2.

2:22

y.Hal.

1:1

1.

3« » 91 99 three of them 99

4.

99

99

2. 3 . [ O m i t s : to­ gether. .. and eat them]

4.

b. Pes.

115a

1. TNY> They said o f Hillel 2. 3 . that,, „ t h e m at once ( B B T >HT) a n d eat t h e m . 4 . As Num.

it is said 9:11

b. Zev.

1.

79a

=b.

Pes.

=b.

Pes.

2. 3.

4. M § W M = Pes.

The two Babylonian versions are identical, except that b. Zev. 79a adds because (MSWM), a minor change. The version of Mekhilta deR.

b.

HILLEL —

281

SYNOPSES

Simeon is briefest. Tos. Pisha adds the three of them, apparently to clarify what we are talking about. The omission of the Scriptural citation (Ex. 12:8/Num. 9:11) may have necessitated the more expli­ cit statement, y. Hal. 1:1 drops would eat them—perhaps because it was obvious. The Babylonian versions have entirely lost, or dropped, the exegetical framework of Ex. 12:8, so HillePs action is no longer an "illustration" or a narrative pertinent to that Scripture. Another Scrip­ ture, Num. 9:11, is cited now as justification for HillePs behavior, rather than as an independent exegesis. The Babylonian beraita-fotm comes last of all; the composite version of Mekhilta is the clearest version, since it preserves the relationship between the exegesis and the Hillel-story, lost in both Tos. and Palestinian versions. It is in­ teresting to see how the exegetical framework is later dropped, then changed and restored, and the story circulates as an independent bio­ graphical account. 2. For Three Things Did Hillel Come Up Sifra She mini 9:5 1. Lev. 1 1 : 2 4 2 . Hillel says, E v e n i f h e is i n t h e m i d s t o f t h e w a t e r (etc.) 2'.

3. 4.

5.

Sifra Tazri'a 9:16 1. Lev. 1 3 : 3 7 2 . Hillel s a y s , L> SNTQ N T Q BTWK NTQ 2'.

3. 4 . P r i e s t declares h i m clean. 5 . I f p r i e s t s say o f clean u n c l e a n , a n d vice versa, p e r h a p s h e is c l e a n ?

Tos. Neg.

1:16

y. Pes.

6:1

2.

2.

2'. F o r three things did Hillel c o m e u p from Babylonia 3. Lev. 1 3 : 3 7 4. = Sifra 9 : 1 6

2'.

3. 4 *• »

»

»

5* »

>»

»

j>

»

6. Scripture says, He is clean a n d priest makes him clean.

6» »

6.

7.

7. O n account of t h i s m a t t e r Hillel came up f r o m Babylonia

8.

8.

7 . A n d t h i s is one of the things o n ac­ count of which Hillel c a m e u p from Babylonia 8.

5. =

Sifra 9 : 1 6

6. =

Sifra 9 : 1 6

7.

Sifra 9 : 1 6

=

8. [Contrast and harmonization of Deut. 1 6 : 2 , Ex. 1 2 : 5 ; Deut. 1 6 : 8 , Ex. 1 2 : 1 5 ]

282 9.

HILLEL —

SYNOPSES

9.

9.

9. A n d he ex­ pounded and agreed and w e n t up and received law. c

Sifra Shemini has nothing to do with the other materials. Sifra Tazri a and Tos. Neg. nos. 4-7 are identical, except that in no. 7, Tos. makes the thing into one of the things, without listing others. The revision may reflect knowledge of a tradition about other "reasons" for Hillel's migration, part of the tendency that Hillel came up and restored the Torah to Palestine. Or, alternatively, the subscription is a stock-phrase, y. Pes. makes one of the things into three things, copies Sifra Tazri'a word for word, and then adds, for the other two things, the conven­ tional harmonizing exegeses (no. 8). At the end comes a new subscrip­ tion (no. 9). This phrase makes no sense at all outside of the context of the Bene Bathyra stories, to which the pericope is loosely attached in y. Pes. So y. Pes. no. 9 is a redactional device, external to the peri­ cope and linking it to the antecedent materials in context. Clearly the tradition on the thing/things/three things on account of which Hillel came up has been garbled. Some such list must have existed, perhaps centered on purity laws and/or Passover rules for the Temple. But in the versions that have reached us, we cannot find equivalents to the purity law materials (nos. 4-6), and the others were probably added later, with the awkward subscription supplied at the very end of the process to give some semblence of order to the Palestinian version and to tie it to the foregoing materials in y. Pes. about Hillel's rise to power. 3. Redeem Property at End of Year Sifra Behar 4:8 1. [Lev. 2 5 : 3 0 alluded t o : ] LSMYTWT

•2. T o i n c l u d e o n e who g i v e s a gift 3 . A t first h e w o u l d h i d e on the day o f the t w e l v e m o n t h s [ c o m p l e t i o n ] s o it w o u l d be permanently sold ( H L W T H ) to him.

M.
b. Git. 1.

2.

2.

[as a b o v e ]

3 ~'»

74b

3. T N N H T M „ „ „ 11

11

11

HILLEL —

4. Hillel the Elder ordained 5. t h a t h e s h o u l d a s s i g n his coins in the T e m p l e fund ( L Y S K H ) and he w o u l d break d o w n the d o o r and enter. 6. W h e n e v e r he wants, that o n e w i l l c o m e a n d t a k e his coins

283

SYNOPSES

4

4 ~*

ii

5» »» 5»

91

11

ii

ii

ii

ii

11

6. „ „ „[HLZof Sifra becomes H L H ; a d d s : and w h e n e v e r ] 6»

99

99

11

The minor change in no. 6 of b. Git., supplying and, clarifies the sub­ ject of the verb wants. Setting whenever apart from enter, we now are clear that it is the purchaser who can choose the time, not the redeemer of the property. But this was not unclear in the earlier versions, which had supplied that one (HLZ, HLH) to clarify the same issue. Once the Sifra version was fixed, it was cited with practically no modification. The only important changes are in no. 1; the Mishnah superscription conforms to the normal Mishnaic conventions, but the Hillel story is unaffected. 4. Stimulated Students See Development of a Legend, p. 199-201. 5. Pro^bul SifriDeut.

113

1. Deut. 1 5 : 3

Midrash

4 . Hillel o r d a i n e d t h e pro^bul. 5. O n account o f the order of the w o r l d . 6. That [for] he saw the people, that they held back f r o m lending to one another. 7. A n d they trans­ g r e s s e d a g a i n s t w h a t is w r i t t e n in t h e T o r a h . 8. He arose and o r ­ d a i n e d t h e pro^bul.

80

1 j

2. B u t not he w h o g i v e s his m o r t g a g e s t o the court. 3. F r o m here they said

Tannaim p.

"

ii

ii

ii

ii

ii

ii

2

M. Shev. 10:3-4 (cited b . G i t . 3 6 a ) 1 . Pro^bul is not re­ leased. This is one of the things that Hillel the Elder ordained. 2.

M.

Git.

4:3

1.

2.

3.

3.

4.

4 ••

ii

ii

ii

5.

5.

5»

99

11

11

6.

6.

3. „ said] 4

„ [ O m i t s : they

^*

ii

ii

ii

[ O m i t s : that]

When „

„

6.

„

7.

7 . a n d were trans­ gressing -}- Deut. 15:9

7.

8.

8. „ „ „ [Omits: arose and]

8.

284 9 . A n d t h i s is t h e f o r m u l a o f t h e pro^bul 1 0 . I give t o you, soand-so and so-and so, t h e j u d g e s t h a t a r e in such-and-such a place, every debt which I h a v e , that I m a y collect it w h e n e v e r I w a n t , a n d t h e j u d g e s seal below, o r the witnesses. 11.

HILLEL —

SYNOPSES

0

9.

'

10.

9. •

11

11

11

10.

10 A

1 1 . And thus expounded Hilleh D e u t . 1 5 : 3 — but n o t he w h o gives his m o r t g a g e s t o the court.

v /

*

11.

11

11

11

—

11.

1 1 . And thus expounded Hilleh D e u t . 1 5 : 3 — but n o t he w h o gives his m o r t g a g e s t o the court.

As we observed above, Sifre Deut. 113 combines two versions of the reason and basis for HillePs ordinance, an exegesis of Deut. 15:3 and the order of the world. Midrash Tannaim preserves the former, nos. 1-4, with practically no variations. M. Shev. preserves the latter, but now supplies Deut. 15:9 as a proof-text; the proof-text has already provided the outline of the historical "event" which Hillel had observed. M. Shev. 10:3-4 knows nothing of the exegesis of Deut. 15:3; the gemara in y. Shev. 10:2 raises the question of how Hillel could have ordained a law in contravention of the Torah. M. Git. 4:3 is a brief summary of nos. 4-5. Midrash Tannaim explicitly attributes to Hillel the anony­ mous exegesis cited in nos. 1-2. 6. Lived One Hundred-Twenty Years See Development of a Legend, p. 213-216. 7. Who Uses the Crown Shall Perish No changes occur in the versions of the lemma in Midrash Tannaim, p. 211, Avot. 1:13,4:5. 8. Forbade Interest in Kind M. B.M. 5:9 1 . M a n s h o u l d n o t say t o h i s f e l l o w , L e n d m e a kor o f w h e a t , a n d I s h a l l g i v e y o u at t h e h a r ­ v e s t , b u t h e says t o h i m , L e n d me until m y son will come, o r until I find the key.

Tos. B.M. 6:10 1 . A m a n says t o his f e l l o w , L e n d m e a keg of wine until my son comes, or until I open the cis­ tern. If he had a jar in the middle of the cistern and the cistern was opened and it fell and broke, even though he is liable, it is permitted.

b. Sbab.

2 . A n d Hillel p r o h i b i t s

9

2.

3 . A n d s o w o u l d Hillel s a y :

ii

3.

ii

ii

148b

3. D T N N „

„

„

HILLEL —

4. A w o m a n m a y n o t l e n d a l o a f t o h e r n e i g h b o r u n t i l she d e t e r m i n e s its v a l u e in m o n e y , lest w h e a t i n c r e a s e in p r i c e a n d they be f o u n d c o m i n g into the hands of usury.

285

SYNOPSES

4.

4. »

»

»

The Toseftan version preserves HiUd's prohibition (no. 2) but not the case to which no. 2 refers in the Mishnah, and drops nos. 3-4 entirely, b. Shab. 148b simply preserves part of the Mishnah, without significant variation. 9.

Scatter/Gather 6:24

y. Ber.

1 . H i l l e l t h e E l d e r says

Tos. Ber.

1. „

2 . W h e n (B$
2. „ „ „ (adds d to KNS), scatter (BDR) 3. „ „ „ (BDR)

9:5 „

„ would say

4 . And so Hillel would say, If y o u have seen „ „ „ (BDR) [Omits P r o v . 1 1 : 2 4 ] 5.

And

if not, gather

b. Ber. 63a 1 . T N Y > : Hillel t h e E l d e r says 2 . B$
The Babylonian berait a is based upon the Tos. version, and in some ways improves it. First, the duplicated verbs of Tos. Ber. no. 5 are made into a single, strong image; then the conclusion is imperative, rather than participial, so that the reversed condition of no. 4, which in y. Ber. is simply a brief allusion, is neatly spelled out in concise language. No. 4 adds generation. The possibility of the Torah's being forgotten is not raised in the Babylonian beraita. The Tosefta may contain an echo of the Hiyya-saying that when the Torah was forgotten in Israel, Ezra, Hillel, and Hiyya restored it, but here the message is that, if it is forgotten, one should not get involved. The transforma­ tion of the verbal participles of Tos. Ber. to substantive participles in b. Ber. may not be of consequence. The Palestinian version presents an abbreviated version of Tos. I assume all three versions are inter­ dependent. Since the interdependence is not merely thematic but ver-

286

HILLEL —

SYNOPSES

bal, b. Ber. 63a is almost certainly a careful revision of Tos. Ber.; but y. Ber. is more of a rough precis. As usual, the Babylonian beraita exhibits considerable stylistic improvements over earlier versions. 10. Bought Horse and Slave for Poor Man y

y. Pe ab

Tos. Pe'ah 4 : 1 0 1 . Sufficient for his need, what­ ever it may be ( D e u t . 1 5 : 8 ) — even a slave, even a horse. 2 . M<SH B Hillel t h e E l d e r §

that

2.

WHTNY

»

»

b. Ket. 67b 1. T N W R B N N : „ „ „ — e v e n a h o r s e to ride on a n d a s l a v e to run before him. 2 . T h e y said concerning Hillel t h e E l d e r (>MRW < L Y W
»

3

3. bought f o r one p o o r m a n , son o f g o o d [parents] 4. a horse that w a s w o r k i n g for him 5. a n d a slave serving him. 6.

8:7

11

11

u

11

*

99

99

91

( D r o p s : one) 4 . one h o r s e to ride on a n d a s l a v e to run before him. 5 . [See N o . 4 a b o v e . ]

4 . one h o r s e to work /Or

was

99

5. „

99

„ to serve him

6. One time he did not find a slave to run before him and he ran before him three miles.

6.

Tos. Pe'ah turns the exegesis of Deut. 15:8 into a story about Hillel, adding the glosses that was working... serving.... y. Pe^h preserves the story, dropping the exegesis, and turning the descriptive participial clauses of Tos. Pe'ah nos. 4-5 into purposive infinitives. The whole is introduced as a Tannaitic tradition, b. Ket. 67b not only preserves, but revises, the anonymous exegesis by adding to ride... to run before..., and then, in the Hillel-pericope, makes a separate story out of the revised exegesis in no. 6, preserving the Tos. -y. Pe'ah version in nos. 4-5, while in no. 1 making the same narrative alterations as had oc­ curred in the exegesis of Deut. 15:8. I suppose a still later version would have said Hillel could not find a horse, and so would have made Hillel carry the man on his back. The Babylonian superscription amru alav 'al ties the Hillel-story to the exegesis; here the Tos. equivalent is ma'aseh. y

c

11. Pesah Overrides Sabbath—Rise to Power Tos. Pisha

y. Pes. 6:1 1 . This law was hidden from the Elders of Batyra.

4 : 1 3

1. One time

ii

2. the fourteenth cided w i t h the

coin­

ii

y. Shab.

19:1

b. Pes. 66a-b 1. T N W R B N N . [ A s y . Pes.]

ii

2 . „ „ „ and they did not know whether the pesah over­ rides the Sabbath or not. •

2 .

2 ii

ii

ii

[ A s y . Pes.]

287

HILLEL — SYNOPSES

3 . T h e y a s k e d Hillel t h e Elder

3 . They said, There is here a certain Babylonian and his name is Hillel the Babylonian, who served Shema'iah and Abtalion, knows whether pesah overrides the Sabbath or not. Perhaps there will be profit from him. They sent and called him. They said to him, Have you ever heard when the four­ teenth coincides with the Sab­ bath whether it overrides the the Sabbath or not}

4 . Pesah—what is it t h a t it s h o u l d o v e r r i d e t h e Sabbath?

4. [As above]

5 . H e said t o t h e m ,

5 6«

6. D o we have one pesah i n t h e y e a r t h a t overrides the Sabbath? 7. Many more than t h r e e h u n d r e d pesahs d o w e h a v e in t h e y e a r a n d they override the Sab­ bath. 8. A l l the courtyard collected against him.

.

99

99

99

91

11

11

3.

3 . [ A s y . Pes. w i t h glosses, e.g. two great men of the generation, S + A etc. D r o p s perhaps-him.]

4.

4 . [ A s y . Pes.]

5. 6.

6. [ A s y. Pes.]

5. [As y. Pes.]

7 . D o n o t many „ „ S o m e teach, 1 0 0 , 2 0 0 , 3 0 0 , etc.

7.

7. M o r e hundred.

8 . They said, We have already said, If there is with you profit.

8.

8 . T h e y s a i d to him, How do you know [Here f o l l o w s heqqesh a n d qal vehomer] Forthwith they seated h i m at t h e head and appointed h i m nasi o v e r t h e m . He was expounding all d a y l o n g i n t h e l a w s o f t h e pesah. [After no. 27, fol­ l o w y . Pes. a r g u ­ ments against his proofs, in the f o r m A master said.]

9 . H e said t o them, Tamid is a c o m m u n i t y sacrifice a n d pesah is a c o m m u n i t y sacrifice. 1 0 . J u s t as t h e Tamid is a c o m m u n i t y sacrifice and overrides the Sab­ bath

9 . He began expounding to them from heqqesh, qal vehomer, and ge^erah shavah.

9.

1^*

ii

ii

ii

10.

[10. A s summarized above.]

1 1 . S o t h e pesah is a c o m m u n i t y sacrifice a n d overrides the Sabbath 12. A n o t h e r thing

11*

ii

ii

ii

11.

[11. A s summarized above.]

ii

ii

[9. A s

than

two

summarized

above.]

ii

1 2 . F r o m qal vehomer [See

12.

288

1 3 . C o n c e r n i n g Tamid, In its season is said 1 4 . a n d c o n c e r n i n g pe­ sah, In its season is said 1 5 . J u s t as Tamid, c o n ­ c e r n i n g w h i c h In its sea­ son is said, o v e r r i d e s t h e Sabbath. 1 6 . S o pesah, c o n c e r n ­ i n g w h i c h In its season is said, o v e r r i d e s t h e S a b ­ bath 17. A n d furthermore, qal vehomer 1 8 . Tamid, t h a t o n e is n o t l i a b l e f o r c u t t i n g off, overrides the Sabbath, pesah, t h a t o n e is l i a b l e f o r c u t t i n g off, is it n o t l o g i c a l t h a t it s h o u l d override the Sabbath?

19. A n d furthermore, I have received f r o m m y m a s t e r s t h a t pesah o v e r ­ rides the Sabbath

20. A n d not the first Pesah b u t t h e s e c o n d pesah a n d n o t t h e c o m ­ munity but the indi­ v i d u a l pesah. 20'. "

2 1 . T h e y said t o h i m , W h a t will be f o r the people w h o have not b r o u g h t k n i v e s a n d pesahs t o t h e s a n c t u a r y ? 2 2 . H e said t o t h e m , Let them alone. The h o ­ l y s p i r i t is u p o n t h e m . I f they are not prophets, they are sons of prophets.

HILLEL —

SYNOPSES

T o s . Pisha N o . 1 7 ] 1 3 . From ge^erah shavah

13.

>» » 14

14.

15

16. „

17.

[13. A s summarized above.] [14. A s summarized above.]

»

„

„

[See a b o v e , N o . 1 2 ]

» » » 18. „ „ „ They said to him, We have al­ ready said, If there is [ n o t ] profit from the Babylonian. [ H e r e y . Pes. s u p p l i e s a r g u ­ ments against the f o r e g o i n g p r o o f s , in direct address, e.g. Heqqesh, that you said, has a reply e t c . ] 1 9 . Even though he was sitting and expounding for them all day, they did not accept [proof] from him until he said to them, May [evil] come on me, Thus have I heard from Shemai*ah and Abtalion. 20.

2 0 ' . When they heard thus from him, they arose and ap­ pointed him nasi over them. He began to criticise them [for not having studied with S + A , and therefore he for­ g o t his l a w . ] 21

15.

[15. A s summarized above.]

16.

[16. A s summarized above.]

17.

[17. A s summarized above.]

18.

[18. A s summarized above.]

19.

[10. A s summarized above.]

20.

20.

20'.

20'.

2 1 . They asked Hillel * the Elder

21.

» 2 2 . / heard this law hut „ „ „

andforgot

»

»

22. [As Pes.]

y.

22.

[As y. Pes.]

HILLEL —

2 3 . W h a t d i d Israel d o in t h a t h o u r ? 2 4 . W h o e v e r h a d as h i s pesah a l a m b h i d it in its w o o l , a g o a t , t i e d it b e ­ t w e e n its h o r n s 25. A n d they brought k n i v e s a n d pesahs t o t h e sanctuary and slew their pesahs. 26. O n that v e r y day they appointed Hillel nasi a n d h e w o u l d t e a c h to them concerning the l a w s o f pesah. 27.

23. 24.

289

SYNOPSES

23. ,,

„

24.

,,

»

25

Forthwith »>

23.

The next day

24.

,,

„

„

99

99

»

,,

,,

„

»

25

25

[ O m i t s and—pesah s.\

26.

26.

[See 2 0 ' a b o v e . ]

2 7 . When he saw the deed, he remembered the law. He said, Thus have I heard from Shema'iab and Abtalion.

27.

26.

,,

„

„

27.

y. Shab. has taken nos. 21-2 and 24-7 and introduced the whole with they asked, y. Pes. is a considerable expansion of Tos. Pisha, which knows nothing of the Bene Bathyra, has heard not a word about HillePs studies with Shema'iah and Abtalion, and does not have Hillel forget the law, but rather introduces the little story about the people as prophets (or good deceivers) by supposing that Hillel had given a law today, but what can the people do to keep it tomorrow? The argu­ ments in the three versions are pretty much the same: qal vehomer, heq­ qesh, and ge^erah shavah. The important developments come between Tosefta and Palestinian Talmud. The Babylonian version in general follows the Palestinian, with various glosses indicating that it depends upon it; it occasionally improves the order. In dropping the refutations of Hillel and allowing Hillel to take office upon the conclusion of his successful arguments, the Babylonian version provides a more continuous narrative; but then HillePs own proofs, and not his citation of his masters, are made the cause of his elevation to power. The order is Tosefta, Palestinian Talmud, Babylonian Talmud. 12. Come to My House Tos. Suk. 4:3 1 . H i l l e l t h e E l d e r says

b. Suk. 53a 1. TNY> They said concerning Hillel the Elder: When he was rejoicing at the Rejoicing of the Place of Drawing, he said, If I am here, all are here [ a l t e r n a t i v e l y :

N E U S N E R , The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70, I

y. Suk. 5:4 1 . [In A r a m a i c ] Hillel the Elder, when he saw them acting with pride, he would say to them, If we are here who is here, and does he need our praise? 19

290

HILLEL —

SYNOPSES

T h e W h o l e is h e r e ] and if I am not here, who is here ? He used to say thus

2. T o the place w h i c h m y heart loves, there m y feet lead m e . 3. If you will come to m y h o u s e , I shall c o m e t o y o u r house. 4. If you will not come t o m y h o u s e , I shall n o t come to y o u r house 5 . A s it is s a i d E x . 2 0 : 2 4 6.

2 3 u

*

and is it not written D a n . 7 : 1 0 . When he saw them acting properly he would say, If we are not here, who is here, for [in H e b r e w ] even though there are before him many praises, beloved is the praise of Israel before him more than all. What is the reason? 11 S a m . 2 3 : 2 , Ps. 2 2 : 3 2.

3. 11

19

11

~*

ii

ii

ii

5.

ii

ii

ii

4

6 . Also he saw a skull that floated on the face of the water. He said to it, [in A r a m a i c ] Because you drowned, they drowned you, and those that drowned you will be drowned.

4.

5. 6.

Tos. Suk. is the simplest version, but is not tied to the celebration of the Festival, y. Suk., by contrast, invents a "historical" event: When Hillel saw the people misbehaving, he rebuked them, saying their pre­ sence means nothing. But when he saw them behaving properly, he praised them, saying their presence means everything. In b. Suk, this is turned from first person plural, and historical, into first person singular, and gnomic. The Scriptures are dropped, and the whole has, or is given, a theological-mystical echo. Indeed, without reference to y. Suk we should have imagined the original saying to be a mystical sentiment said by Hillel (in behalf of God), b. Suk. also preserves the saying attached to Ex. 20:24, and adds a still further saying. Thus b. Suk. has taken Tos. Suk. and introduced it with a double introductory formula (TNY>, 'MRW
HILLEL —

291

SYNOPSES

13. Expounded Ketuvah Tos. Ket. 4:9 1 . Hillel t h e E l d e r e x ­ pounded language of commonfolk (HDYWT). 2. W h e n the sons o f Alexandria w o u l d betrothe women

3 . O n e c a m e a n d seized her f r o m the market 4. A n d the deed came b e f o r e the sages. 5. They sought to make t h e i r s o n s mam^erin 6. Hillel t h e Elder said to them 7. Bring out to me the Ketuvah o f y o u r m o t h ­ ers 8. T h e y b r o u g h t t o h i m

9 . A n d w r i t t e n in it 1 0 . W h e n y o u enter m y house, y o u will be m y wife according to the l a w o f M o s e s a n d Israel 11.

y.

Yev. 1* >»

15:3 »

y. Ket.

4:8

1

»

*•

99

99

99

b. B.M. 104a 1 . would expound DTNY>

2 . They would write in Alexandria, for one of them w o u l d b e t r o t h e a woman.

2. [=> Yev.]

2 . The men o f A l e x ­ andria w o u l d betrothe their wives, and when they entered the canopy, o t h e r s c o m e a n d seize t h e m f r o m them.

3 . a n d h i s fellow

3. [ = Yev.] 4. [ = Yev.]

y.

3.

y.

4.

»»

»

»

4 . a n d when „

„

„

[See N o . 2 a b o v e ]

5. „ „ „ to make them „ „ „

5. [ = Yev.]

y.

5 . And the sages s o u g h t t o m a k e t h e i r s o n s mamZerim.

6«

6. [ = Yev.]

y.

6*

to

7. [ = Yev.]

y.

7. B r i n g to me the Ketuvah o f y o u r m o t h e r

8 . 99 99 99 the marriagecontract of their mothers

8. [ = Yev.]

y.

9 . they found w r i t t e n i n them 10. „ „ „ and the Jews

9. [ = y. Yev.] 10. [ = y. Yev.]

8. They b r o u g h t t o h i m the marriage-contract of their mother 9 . a n d he found t h a t it w a s w r i t t e n in them 1 0 . W h e n y o u e n t e r the canopy be my wife [ d r o p s according-Israel].

11.

11.

99

7. „ me]

99

99

„

„

[Drops

99

99

99

1 1 . And they did not make their sons marn^erim

The Babylonian beraita improves upon the former versions in every last detail. First, it has provided a new superscription, so the general­ ized reference to HillePs practice is followed by an example given the status of a Tannaitic tradition, DTNY\ Then the story is carefully narrated. The problem is not violence in the market, but under the marriage-canopy. The whole is made a singular event, so we are no longer dealing with a generalized situation, but with a one-time hap­ pening, as the story-teller has already indicated. In the earlier versions there is confusion on just this point, with a mixture of singular and plural nouns (mothers). Now the problem of no. 5 is not to declare the litigants, but rather their children, mam^erim. This further clarifies the situation, for in the Palestinian versions we are not sure which generation we are dealing with. The actual situation is corrected in

292

HILLEL —

SYNOPSES

no. 10 to conform to the narrative conditions specified earlier. Then no. 11 tells us the outcome of the case, which is omitted in all the earlier versions. Most important, therefore, the story is now made a single event, rather than the description of a generally prevailing situ­ ation to which a single court-case is awkwardly attached. But in this respect the improvement is not complete. The two Palestinian versions are identical, y. Ket. is presumably copied by y. Yev., or vice versa. But y. Yev. no. 2 is garbled, unlike Tos. no. 2. b. B.M. could well be based on Tos. Ket., without the intervening Palestinian versions, for no. 2 of b. B.M. omits reference to what the Alexandrians would write, and follows Tos. Ket. in this respect; the story of Tos. Ket. is much elaborated in b. B.M., to be sure. Tos. no. 5, their sons, is preserved in b. B.M., as we observed. 14. Worthy of the Holy Spirit Tos. Sot.

13:3

1. M ' S H §

2. T h e sages e n t e r e d t h e house o f G u r y o in J e r i ­ cho 3. A n d they heard an echo saying

y. Sot.

9:13

1

»

b. Sanh. 1.

2

GDY>

3 . A n e c h o went forth and said

6 . A n d t h e y placed t h e i r e y e s o n Hillel t h e E l d e r 7. A n d w h e n he died t h e y said a b o u t h i m 8. W o e f o r the meek man, w o e for the pious m a n , disciple o f E z r a . 9 . A g a i n t h e y w e r e sit­ ting in Y a v n e h and heard an echo saying, T h e r e is h e r e a m a n [etc. as n o . 4 - 5 ] 1 0 . a n d t h e y set t h e i r eyes o n Samuel the Small

4 . T h e r e is amongyou 99

99

99

5. „

„

6«

99

99

99

(KDYY)

99

99

99

7 1

b. Sot.

2. Once they w e r e r e c l i n i n g in t h e u p ­ per r o o m of „ „ 3 . A n e c h o placed on them from heaven 99

99

99

99

6 . sages „

8. „

„

„

' •

„

„

99

99

99

3.

[ = b. Sanh.]

4.

[ = b. Sanh.]

99

99

99

6*

99

99

99

7•

99

99

99

o °*

99

[ = b. Sanh.]

9. „ „ „ [With same changes as above]

9. „ „ „ [Same c h a n g e s as a b o v e ]

9.

10.

10. „

10. „

99

99

99

b. Sanh.]

( T h e y lamented h i m )

o °*

[=

5. R ' W Y

7 *

2.

99

4. „ „ that the Shekhinah should rest on him ^*

48b

1. [ T N W R B N N : When last prophets died, holy spirit ceased, but would use the echo,

» »

99

4 . T h e r e is h e r e a m a n w h o is w o r t h y ( R ' W Y ) o f the h o l y spirit 5 . B u t h i s g e n e r a t i o n is not righteous ( Z K ' Y ) f o r it ( L K K )

11a

„

„

99

„

99

„

HILLEL —

1 1 . A n d w h e n he died... disciple o f H i l l e l

11.

[With interven­

293

SYNOPSES

11* »

»

»

1 1 • >»

is called t h e »

»>

»

Small]

» y. Hor.

3:5

1. R. J a c o b b. 'Idi in the name o f R. J o s h u a b. L e v i

1.

[ = y. A . Z . ]

2. u p p e r r o o m o f G D Y Y *

2. 3. 4.

[ = y. A . Z . ] [ = y. A . Z . ] [ = y. A . Z . ]

3.

»

ing gloss o n w h y he

[ = y. Sot.]

4 . T h e r e a r e a m o n g y o u two w h o a r e w o r t h y o f t h e h o l y s p i r i t , a n d H i l l e l t h e E l d e r is o n e o f t h e m , a n d t h e y set their eyes o n Samuel the Small.

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. A g a i n the elders entered the u p p e r c h a m b e r in Y a v n e h a n d a h e a v e n l y e c h o c a m e f o r t h a n d said t o t h e m , There are a m o n g y o u t w o w o r t h y o f the h o l y spirit a n d S a m u e l t h e S m a l l is o n e o f t h e m , a n d t h e y set t h e i r e y e s on R. Leazar, and they w e r e rejoicing that their opinion had agreed w i t h the opinion o f the h o l y spirit.

8.

9 . [ = y . A . Z . + Eliezer b. Hyrcanus]

The Babylonian versions supply what may be Babylonian idioms, e.g. the holy spirit is replaced with Shekhinah. Otherwise, the changes are of no consequence, except for the placing of the story into a beraita. The interesting versions are y. A.Z. = y. Hor. Here we see a new state of affairs. The story is told by Joshua b. Levi. It derives from Eleazar's or Eliezer's school; or the Samuel the Small-version has been revised so as to make room for Eliezer. Hillel is taken for granted. Samuel the Small is moved to Jericho. But at the same time the upper chamber is moved to Yavneh, replacing the better known vineyard, probably because the story is an exact counterpart. Certainly y. A.Z. = y. Hor. depend upon the Tos. Sot.-y. Sot. versions and are not inde­ pendent, but still separate forms of the story. If so, this is an instance in which the Babylonian beraita evidently antedates a Palestinian Amoraic version of a story appearing in both places. b. Sanh. adds upper room; the echo comes specifically from heaven; "they" become the sages; and the holy spirit is dropped entirely. The Babylonian beraita depends upon the Palestinian-Toseftan version. The reformulation by Joshua b. Levi is anomalous. 15. Do Not Fear a Bad Report y. Ber. 9:3 1. If a man

was

coming

b. Ber. 60a 1 . T N W R B N N . The story is told of Hillel the Elder

294 f r o m the road, w h a t does he say? 2. I am confident that these a r e n o t in t h e m i d s t o f m y house 3 . H i l l e l t h e E l d e r says P s . 112:7

HILLEL —

SYNOPSES

that h e w a s c o m i n g o n t h e r o a d and heard the sound of an outcry in the city. He said, "I a m c o n f i d e n t t h a t this is n o t in t h e m i d s t o f m y h o u s e . 2. [As above]

3 . A n d concerning him, Scripture

says P s . 1 1 2 : 7 .

This is a standard example of the transformation of a Hillel-exegesis into a Hillel-narrative. Now it is a story told about Hillel. He (instead of a man) is coming along the way, hears the outcry referred to in the foregoing Mishnah, and says y. Ber. no. 2, but this replaces these. Then Scripture speaks concerning Hillel, rather than having Hillel cite Scrip­ ture. 16. Had Eighty Pair(s)

of Disciples

See Development of a Legend, pp. 216-218. 17. Hillel from David In y. Ta. 4:2 = Gen. R. 98:8, the Levi-saying is copied exactly, so far as Hillel is concerned. Other differences are of no interest here. in.

CONCLUSION

The immense corpus of Hillel-traditions exhibits one uniform quality: unlike Shammai-pericopae, which are rarely friendly to Sham­ mai, no story is overtly hostile to Hillel. None was shaped by circles intending an unfavorable account of the man and his teachings. The reason is that the traditions were shaped by Hillelite heirs, both those who claimed to be his disciples, e.g. Yohanan b. Zakkai, and those who claimed to be his descendents, e.g. if not Gamaliel I, Simeon b. Gamaliel, then at least Gamaliel II, Simeon b. Gamaliel II, the House of Hillel, and especially, Judah the Patriarch. Indeed, the whole corpus of Tannaitic literature was shaped by Hillelites. If Gamaliel I was HillePs successor, son, or grandson, we have no evidence of that fact in the Hillel-materials. Only a late beraita (b. Shab. 15a, cited below, p. 316) says that Hillel, and Simeon—Gamaliel, and Simeon were nasis a hundred years before the destruction of the Temple. But Simeon—Gamaliel and the others are not there called HillePs descendents. This is taken for granted by the commentaries. M. Avot records Gamaliel as HillePs successor. Even Avot does not

295

HILLEL — CONCLUSION

call him Hillel's son. If we depended only on the Hillel-materials, we should know about Hillel's brother, but nothing about a son. The Gamaliel I-materials likewise contain no hint of a relationship to Hillel. Let us now review according to their classifications and forms the pericopae in which Hillel appears by himself, without reference to Shammai. I. Legal Traditions A. Hillel's legal rulings in logion-form: 1. To lay [hands]—M. Hag. 2:2 (indirect discourse); 2. Ten genealogical classes—b. Yev. 37a, IILii. 10; b. Qid. 75a, IILii.15 (//this is our Hillel). B. Hillel's legal rulings not in logion-form: 1. Trading in futures prohibited—M. B.M. 5:9, II.ii.3; Tos. B.M. 6:10, ILii. 10 (different example); b. Shab. 148b, III.ii.3; b. B.M. 75a, IV.ii.6. 2. Tithing rule—R. Judah said Hillel would prohibit: Tos. Ma'aserot 3:2-4, II.ii.4; Tos. <Ed. 2:4, II.ii.12. 3. Expound language of common people, re Ketuvot—Tos. Ket. 4:9, II.ii.8; y. Yev. 15:3, III.i.8; y. Ket. 4:8, III.i.9; b. B.M. 104a, III.ii.16. 4. Pesah overrides Sabbath (below). 5. These are tefillin from grandfather—y. Eruv. 10:1, IV.i.l. ( = Shammai, I.ii.l). C. Hillel's legal exegeses (direct attribution): 1. Hillel as exegete— a. He who touches corpse in ritual bath is unclean, Lev. 11:24—Sifra Shemini 9:5, I.ii.l; b. Itch will be healed—because of this Hillel came up, Lev. 13:37—Sifra Tazri'a 9:16, I.ii.2; c. Tos. Nega'im 1:16, II.ii.14—because of this, etc.; d. Lev. 13:17a-17b, y. Pes. 6:1, IV.i.2; e. Deut. 13:2, Ex. 12:5, y. Pes. IV.i.2; f. Deut. 16:8, Ex. 12:15, y. Pes. 6:1, IV.i.2—because of this, etc. D. Legal exegeses through Hillel-narratives: 1. Redeem sold property—ordinance, Lev. 25:29-30—Sifra Behar 4:8, I.ii.3; b. Git. 74b, III.ii.14; b.
296

HILLEL — CONCLUSION

2. Prosbul—Deut. 15:3—Sifre Deut. 115, I.ii.5; Midrash Tan­ naim p. 80 1. 32ff., I.ii.7; M. Shev. 10:3, Il.i.l; M. Git. 36a, IILii.13; 3. Supply poor with normal needs—Deut. 15:8—Tos. Pe'ah 4:10, II.ii.3; y. Pe>ah 8:7, III.i.3; b. Ket. 67b, IV.ii.4. E. HillePs deeds as legal precedent: 1. Brief lemma: Hillel would fold them together and eat them Ex. 12:8—Mekh. de R. Simeon b. Yohai p. 13 1. 12, I.i.l; Tos. Pisha 2:22, II.ii.5; b. Pes. 115a, II.ii.6; b. Zev. 79a, III.ii.19. II. Biographical

Traditions

A. In HillePs Days (anonymous): 1. No one ever crushed in Temple court except one Passover in HillePs days—b. Pes. 64b, III.ii.4. 2. No man trespassed through burned offering, b. Ned. 9b, III.ii.11. B. Shema'iah and Abtalion: 1. Hillel and Bene Bathyra—Pesah and Sabbath: Tos. Pisha 4:13, II.ii.6 (S + A not mentioned); y. Shab. 19:1, III.i.6; y. Pes. 6:1, III.i.7; b. Pes. 66a-b, III.ii.5; b. B.M. 85a (Judah the Patriarch refers to event) IV.ii.7. a. Seven "things" + Bathyrans—Tos. Sanh. 7:11,ILii. 11; tied to Bene Bathyra: ARN Chap. 37, V.i.4. 2. Studied as a poor man—b. Yoma 35b, III.ii.7. C. Yohanan b. Zakkai: 1. Parah-ceremony—Sifre Num. 123,1.ii.4; Tos. Ahilot 16:8, II.ii.13; Tos. Par. 4:7, II.ii.15. D.
HILLEL — CONCLUSION

G. H. I.

J. K.

297

III.ii.18; y. A.Z. 3:1, IV.i.5; y. Hor. 3:5, IV.i.5 (cited by Jacob b. Idi—Joshua b. Levi). Judah the Patriarch—Yohanan b. Nappaha: 1. Hillel praised clean language, b. Pes. 3b, IV.ii.l. Levi: 1. Hillel from David—y. Ta. 4:2, IV.i.4; Gen. R. 98:8, IV.i.l Resh Laqish: 1. Ezra, Hillel, Hiyya came from Babylonia and reestablish­ ed Torah, which had been forgotten in Palestine—b. Suk. 20a, IV.ii.2. Dimi: 1. Hillel and Shebna, b. Sot. 21a, IV.ii.5. Hillel and Ben He He—b. Hag. 9b, IV.ii.3.

III. Moral and Theological Logia A. He who uses crown shall perish—Deut. 33:32, Midrash Tan­ naim, p. 211, 1. 26,1.ii.8; Avot 1:13. B. Be of disciples of Aaron—Avot 4:5, II.i.5; Avot 1:12. C. Name made great—Avot 1:13. D. Increase/decrease—Avot 1:13. E. Learning or death—Avot 1:13. F. If I am not for myself—Avot 1:14. G. Do not separate—Avot 2:5, II.i.4; Avot 4:5, II.i.5. H. Do not trust yourself—Avot 2:5. I. Other logia—Avot 2:5-7; including the more I the more—ARN Chap. 28, V.i.3. J . Because you drowned—Avot 2:5; b. Suk. 53a, III.ii.9. K. Do not be seen naked (clothed), Qoh. 3:4-5—Tos. Ber. 2:21, Il.ii.l, and L. Scattering/gathering, Prov. 11:24—Tos. Ber. 6:24, II.ii.2; y. Ber. 9:5, III.i.2 = Ps. 119:126; b. Ber. 63a, III.ii.2. M. If you come to my house: Ex. 20:24—Tos. Suk. 4:3, II.ii.7, b. Suk. 53a, III.ii.9. 1. If we are here—Dan. 7:10, II Sam. 23:2, Ps. 22:3—y. Suk. 5:4, IV.ii.3. N. Hear bad news, say Ps. 112:7—y. Ber. 9:3, III.i.1; b. Ber. 60a, III.ii.1. O. According to painstaking is the reward (story)—ARN Chap. 12, V.i.l. P. Self-abasement/exaltation—Lev. R. 1:5, Vl.iii.l. Q. Wash self—Prov. 11:17, Lev. R. 34:3, VI.iii.2.

298

HILLEL — CONCLUSION

The legal traditions come in five forms: first and (later on) conven­ tional, but least common, are legal rulings in logion-form. Yet, on examination, we observe that even these are still reports of Hillel's opinions, not direct attributions of logia to Hillel. Second, and most important, come legal rulings not in logion-form, but rather as nar­ ratives or stories unrelated either to legal logia or to legal exegeses. Third, we find legal exegeses related to uncleanness rules; a second sort of legal exegesis is the contrast of apparently conflicting Scrip­ tures on Passover rules, followed by Hillel's resolution of the conflict. A fourth form, much like the second, is the narration of Hillel-stories on legal Scriptures, but these turn out to be the revision of exegeses into Hillel-stories, unlike the second category. Finally, we find a report of a deed of Hillel as a legal precedent. The difference between this form and the second is the brevity of the tradition, a quite short lem­ ma, rather than an extensive narrative. We have no traditions from Hillel in the form which became stan­ dard in Tannaitic times. That does not mean that the traditions are "very old" and therefore likely to be authentic. It simply means that Hillel-materials, wherever and whenever redacted, were not subjected to the procedures normal in reference to sayings of masters of the later period. To be sure, some of the traditions, particularly in the form of brief lemmas, may be genuine reports of things Hillel actually did. By contrast stories in which Hillel acts out a previously anonymous exegesis of Scripture certainly are fabricated. Other sorts of narratives are more difficult to evaluate. Nor can we say much about the handful of legal logia. What is striking in the legal traditions is the range of subjects on which Hillel is cited as authority. No earlier figure covers so broad a range of legal themes and problems. Hillel stands at the beginning of a completely new phenomenon: Pharisaic legislation on a wide range of topics. His materials are more like what followed than what went before. The cultic laws no longer are central to his legal corpus, nor are they even preponderant. Hillel-materials form a new chapter in the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees before 70. The biographical traditions similarly represent a break with earlier materials. To be sure, HillePs days serves much as did in the days of Simeon b. Shetah, but this genre of material is an inconsequential part of the whole, rather than a substantial segment of it, as with Simeon. The story of Hillel's rise to power, which comes in several versions, replete with extensive exegetical and logical debates, is a composite of many parts. It reflects the view of. circles to whom the names of

HILLEL — CONCLUSION

299

Shema'iah-Abtalion were important. We cannot imagine these were actually disciples of S+A. All we know is that the names of S + A were supposed to work like magic. The Bathyrans later on are added as Hillel's opposition, but nowhere do they play any part in the stories. They come in superscriptions or subscriptions, to make all materials conform to the theory that Hillel had forced the Bathyrans from pow­ er. Since the Bathyrans do not figure in the chains of tradition and are not integral to the Hillel/S+A materials, we must regard the tradition on their role in the Temple and abdication to Hillel's favor as distinct, probably added after the story of Hillel's rise to power in consequence of his mastery of the traditions of S + A had become known in some version. Since the Bathyrans formed an opposition group at Yavneh in Yohanan b. Zakkai's time, it may be that stories of their earlier deposition became important at Yavneh as a means of countering their claim to continuing authority. Not only do they have no such claim now, but "long ago" they were thrown out of power because of their ignorance of the Torah of Shema'iah and Abtalion— and knowledge of the Torah was Yohanan's primary claim to author­ ity. But the Bathyran pericope need not have been added to already existing materials in their current form. To these, still later, were supplied the seven exegetical modes and other materials, not all of them friendly to begin with. We therefore see that Hillel-pericopae supply points of origin for many sorts of events, legal and literary phenomena. Stories about Hillel as a model for virtue—studying as a poor man—stand pretty much by themselves. Later Tannaitic and Amoraic masters made extensive use of the name of Hillel. The circle of Eliezer b. Hyrcanus produced a Yohanan b. Zakkai story, to which Hillel's name was added. The circle of 'Aqiba shaped traditions in which Hillel was com­ pared to Moses, as 'Aqiba was to Yohanan b. Zakkai. Mystics claiming Jonathan b. 'Uzziel as their authority made Jonathan Hillel's student, though Jonathan never quotes Hillel. The Samuel the Small-Judah b. Baba traditions explain why like Hillel their masters did not receive the holy spirit and preserve lamentations making Hillel the disciple of Ezra, and Samuel, of Hillel, traditions absent in Yohanan b. Zakkai materials. Judah the Patriarch is compared to Hillel in the circle of Yohanan b. Nappaha. Levi, of the circle around Judah the Patriarch, makes Hillel a descendent of David, without an intervening genealogy. Resh Laqish ties Hiyya to Hillel and Ezra as restorers of the Palestin­ ian Torah—all three like Moses. These are extraordinary facts. They

300

HILLEL — CONCLUSION

tell us that from the destruction of the Temple onward, the name of Hillel was everywhere claimed as the major authority—after Moses and Ezra—for the Oral Torah. Hillel could always be added to make stories more impressive. There was no limit to the claims made in his behalf as revealer of Torah and worthy of the holy spirit. The moral and theological logia likewise represent a considerable innovation in the formation of traditions on the Pharisees before 70. Here too we find the attribution to Hillel of dozens of apophthegms of all sorts, exegetical, moral, and theological. It is as if any paranaetic or apodictic saying would just as well be said in HillePs name as other­ wise. Some clearcut forms may be isolated, e.g. the more\the more, and other sorts of balanced sets of contrasting nouns and verbs. The contrast is likewise drawn in the moral regimen of the world: because you drowned... Despite the rich and impressive Hillel-tradition, however, we can hardly conclude that with Hillel the pre-70 Pharisees enter the pages of history. The traditions on Hillel do not lay a considerable claim to historical accuracy about the life and sayings of Hillel himself. They provide an accurate account of what later generations thought it im­ portant to say about, or in the name of, Hillel. In Tannaitic times, still more so later on, traditions on a man were shaped by his imme­ diate disciples and discussed by people who actually knew him. Re­ marks about these traditions, made out of context, in other settings entirely, and en passant, frequently provide important verification that a living tradition of what a master had said and done was shaped very soon after his death and even in his lifetime. They often give a terminus ante quern. That does not mean the master actually said and did what the disciples and later contemporaries claimed. But it does mean we stand close to the master. The reduction of the sayings and traditions to formal logia, even to written notes, and later on to published compilations (e.g. Mishnah-Tosefta) further contributes to the his­ torical interest of the later masters' traditions. Hillel's materials do not exhibit the marks of similar processes of editing and redaction, whether to oral form or to written documents. Hillel had neither masters nor disciples; he did not quote anyone, except in the context of a historical narrative, and then he does not say what they said to him, merely reports their law. No master of his time quotes him. He is supposed to be Jonathan's, Samuel's and Yohanan b. Zakkai's master. But none of these ever says, So have I received from Hillel, al­ though Yohanan does say he has .received traditions from Sinai.

301

HILLEL — CONCLUSION

Samuel the Small is called Hillel's disciple, but this must mean "some­ one who does things the way Hillel did." Gamaliel I makes no appear­ ance. On the face of it, therefore, both form and style of the Hillelcorpus differ from Tannaitic materials. If Hillel is the first Pharisee to emerge in the model of the later first-century Pharisees and later rab­ bis, that is because the rabbis adopted him and made him their own, not because in his day he managed effectively to transmit his sayings in the way in which later masters did. The rabbis adopted him because of the (presumably later) patriarchs* claim to descend from him. I do not for one minute suggest Hillel is a figment of the imagination of Gamaliel II or the later patriarchs. That probably is not the case. He was important, for one thing, to nonpatriarchal masters and circles, e.g. Yohanan b. Zakkai and Aqiba, and to Babylonians quite outside patriarchal influence, e.g. Samuel, Rav and Rav Judah, Abbaye, and so on. Various groups of later masters used HillePs name in various ways, not always simply to hang on to it existing logia. Further studies of these questions, however, must depend upon more careful consideration of the later history of Tannaitic circles and schools. For the moment all we can say with certainty is that successive groups found it important to shape Hillel-materials, and the conditions reflected in these materials often are not of actual historical realities (e.g. no Pharisee, even Hillel, ran the Temple), but rather the realities of life and fantasies of the shapers of the pericopae. The historical Hillel may stand behind some of the Hillel-materials before us. But it will take much study before we can suggest concrete hypotheses about him. My only firm conclusion is that Hillel was likely to have lived sometime before the destruction of the Temple and to have played an important part in the politics of the Pharisaic party. We may further hypothesize that traditions about his teachings on the festivals (Pas­ sover, Sukkot), on purity-laws, and on legal theory (the ordinances), may go back to him. But the materials before us are so highly develop­ ed and sophisticated that we cannot recover anything like the words he first spoke or even the form as first introduced into the process of normative tradition. By contrast we can reasonably hypothesize about the shape of the mnemonic traditions of the Houses; in general, I should suppose that the importance at Yavneh and afterward of the House of Hillel lent to the name of Hillel an importance the man himself may not have enjoyed in his lifetime. The House of HillePs materials are verified in c

302

HILLEL — CONCLUSION

early Yavneh, the Hillel-stories are first referred to chiefly at Usha. So it looks as though in the beginning were the House of Hillel-traditions and only later came the tendency to generate substantial Hillel-stories and to attribute much-admired sayings and apophthegms to Hillel himself.

CHAPTER TEN SHAMMAI AND

i.

HILLEL

TRADITIONS

Pericopae in which Shammai and Hillel either are juxtaposed in opposed legal, moral, exegetical, and theological teachings, or per­ sonify contrasting personal traits, do not occur in the Tannaitic Midrashim. The first such materials are in Mishnah-Tosefta. ILi.1.A. Shammai says, "[For] all women it is enough for them (DYYN) [that they be deemed unclean only from] their time (S'TN) [of suffering a flow]." Hillel says, "[A woman is deemed to have been unclean] from [the previous] examination (PQYDH) to [the present] examination, even [if the interval is of] many days." And the sages say, "It is not according to the opinion of either; but [she is deemed to have been unclean] during the preceding twentyfour hours (M'T L'T), if this is less than [the time] from [the previous] examination to [the present] examination (MPQYDH LPQYDH), or else from [the previous] examination to [the present] examination, if this is less than twenty-four hours." B. Shammai says, "[Dough made] from one qab [of meal is liable] to Dough-offering." And Hillel says, "Two qabs" And the sages say, "It is not according to the opinion of either. But one qab and a half [is] liable to Dough-offering." And when the weights were made greater, they said, "Five quarters of a qab are liable." R. Yosi says, "Five [quarters only] are exempt but five and aught over are liable." C. Hillel says, "One hin of drawn water renders the immersion-pool unfit. [We speak of hin only] because ('L ) a man must speak according to the language of his teacher." And Shammai says, "Nine qabs." And the sages say, "It is not according to the opinion of either." D. But when ( L D §) two weavers came from the Dung Gate in Jerusalem and testified in the name of Shema'iah and Abtalion that 5

>

> C

304

SHAMMAI AND

HILLEL — Il.i.l

three logs of drawn water render the Immersion-pool unfit, and the sages [MS Kaufmann omits sages] confirmed their words. E. And why do they record the opinions of Shammai and Hillel uselessly (LBTLN)? To teach the coming generations that a man should not persist in his opinion ( MD L DBR), for lo, the fathers of the world did not persist in their opinion. (M. 'Ed. 1:1,3,4,5, trans. Danby, p. 422) (

C

Comment: Part A concerns when the touch of a woman in her men­ strual period renders objects unclean by reason of her condition. Sham­ mai holds that it is from the time of the first appearance of menstrual blood, but not retroactively. Hillel holds that if a woman inspects her­ self and finds a trace of blood, she retroactively has rendered unclean all the clean things she has touched from the time of the earlier inspection when she was clean, for one takes into account the possibility that the period began some time between the last, clean inspection and the pres­ ent one. This possibility extends even for a number of days. The sages reject both opinions. They hold that if the time between the inspections is greater than the preceding twenty-four hours, the woman retroac­ tively renders unclean the objects she has touched during only the prec­ eding twenty-four hours. But if the preceding inspection was in the antecedent twenty-four hour period, then the inspection, not the twenty-four hour period, is the starting point of the time of her capacity to render objects unclean—the most lenient possible ruling, but formal­ ly a compromise. B. Shammai holds that a loaf made of a qab of flour is liable for the separation of the hallah, and Hillel holds that the smallest measure is two qabs. The sages take an intermediate position, one and half qabs. C-D-E. See above, p. The form in parts A-B is: Shammai—lenient position; Hillel —strict position; Sages

—compromise.

The opinions are phrased in a standard form: X says: Legal opinion. Y says: Legal opinion. Sages say: Decisive rule. After this come further perti­ nent details, e.g. part B, and when the weights were made greater. The language of the masters is not in the balance one expects in the Houses pericopae. Part A is as follows: Shammai: KL HN$YM DYYN S
SHAMMAI AND

305

HILLEL — Il.i.l

The sages comments provide a better datum: M
C

C

C

((

306

S H A M M A I A N D HILLEL — Il.i.l

that is, a quarter of a hin, or one and a third qabs, by far the most strin­ gent position of all. From the viewpoint of the formal requirements, part B therefore looks authentic; part A seems to be a dispute fabricated out of the dif­ ference of word choice; and part C is simple enough to be reduced to the anticipated brief lemmas, but presents an important difficulty in the order of authorities. The pericopae as a group, excluding parts D and E, which are tacked on, reflect respect for the opinions of both masters. Shammai is not subordinated to Hillel. Quite to the contrary, the opinion of each bears equal weight, but the sages impose a compromise. Since the bulk of Shammai-materials is of a quite different order and shows Shammai in an unfavorable light, it is significant that the S + H pericopae do not do so. That seems to me proof that Shammai-disciples were involved in the shaping of these traditions and therefore were able to secure parity for the father of their house. That a compromise-position is reached in two instances makes even more likely the authenticity of the opinions attributed to the two masters. All three legal opinions pertain to matters of interest to haverim in Temple times: ritual cleanness and agricultural offerings (here: hallah). The principal legal concerns of the havurah therefore are at issue (see my Fellowship in Judaism [London, 1963] pp. 22-30). I imagine the foregoing materials might have been shaped sometime after the death of the two masters, perhaps ca. 20-50 A.D. The rule concerning a ritual bath and a woman's uncleanness with respect to her menstrual period was of fundamental importance. For centuries drawn water must have ren­ dered immersion pools unfit, and women would have had their periods and thereby rendered objects unclean. Why then at "just this time" do the Pharisaic sages rule on such basic matters? The answer lies in when according to Pharisaic theory the uncleanness rules came to apply out­ side of the Temple. The ritual pool and the capacity of women to render objects unclean would have mattered to priests in the performance of their Temple duties. But most of the purity-laws did not pertain outside of the Temple, and therefore such details of the purity-laws would not have demanded much concern from ordinary folk. That is not to say women did not immerse themselves at the end of their period and carry out the other sexual taboos as the Mosaic law required. But it does mean that outside of the Temple, the capacity of a woman to render objects unclean was of no great consequence. When, however, Pharisaism held that one must eat his unconsecrated food (hullin) in a state of ritual pu­ rity, the various laws of ritual purity had to be applied to everyday situ­ ations, not merely to the Temple. Clearly, one of those situations was the capacity of menstrual women to render objects unclean. The evidence of the synoptic Gospels on Pharisaic concern for un­ cleanness and cleanness laws supplies a terminus ante quern for the matter —the years around the destruction of the Temple (assuming Mark at about 60). The Jesus-logia on the matter of Pharisaic cleanness laws need not be dated so late but may come from an earlier time. So we may

SHAMMAI AND

307

H I L L E L — II.i.2

take it for granted that Pharisaism did stress purity laws and careful tithing by the middle decades of the first century, if not before. Sham­ mai and Hillel represent important legislators on these matters. The fact that the issues were under debate and required compromise among conflicting Houses possibly suggests no antecedent traditions on the subject existed. These considerations again suggest that the pericopae before us are apt to be authentic. The two named masters probably issued teachings on the subject. These teachings were carefully preserved by the respec­ tive Houses, until they later put the two together and settled the mat­ ters with a compromise. But I do not know when the Mishnaic form was imposed on the materials, which must to begin with have been phrased and preserved not in antithetical lemmas but in different form. (According to Tos. Ed. 1:1 the form antedates Yavneh.) I further postulate that traditions in which Shammai is regarded with respect are likely to come from that same time—about the destruction of the Temple—since later on it was virtually impossible to say any­ thing about Shammai except as a foil to the superior Hillel. Hence the authentic Shammai-traditions were likely to have been introduced into the normative tradition (and because of its conservatism, never altered thereafter), when his House was strong and well represented; HillelShammai-fables would come later and have little to do with the histori­ cal Shammai. This view is consistent with my earlier observations on part C as neutral vis a vis Hillel, pp. 143-144. On part E, see Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 105: it follows Meir, Tos. Ed, 1:4; also p. 234,423,430. c

c

II.i.2. Any controversy that is for God's sake shall in the end be of lasting worth. But any that is not for God's sake shall not in the end be of lasting worth. Which controversy was for God's sake? Such was the controversy of Hillel and Shammai. And which was not for God's sake? Such was the controversy of Qorah and all his company. (M. Avot 5:17, trans. Danby, p. 457-8) In M. Avot 4:11 R. Yohanan the Sandler says the same of The glosses, parts B and C, present a favorable opinion of Shammai-Hillel. The disputes between the two men and their Houses would not have been repudiated later on without also repudiating the founder of the Hillelite patriarchate. We therefore do not have to sup­ pose the glosses are from Temple times or that part A is an apophthegm from even earlier days. We do not know who supplied the comment. It would have been a routine, standard remark, not of the same order as materials in which Shammai and Hillel are given parity. Hillel comes first, as in M. Avot 1:12. Comment:

any assembly.

308

SHAMMAI AND

H I L L E L — II.i.3, I l . i i . l

Compare Tos. Hag. 2:9 on the controversies between the Houses. Judah the Patriarch had good reason to prefer this version. II.i.3. Shammai says, "For all women it is enough for them [that they be deemed unclean only from] their time [of suffering a flow]." Hillel says, "[A woman is deemed to have been unclean] from [the previous] examination to [the present] examination, even if [the inter­ val is of] many days." But the sages say, "It is not according to the opinion of either; but [she is deemed to have been unclean] during the preceding twentyfour hours, if this is less than [the time] from [the previous] examina­ tion to [the present] examination; or else from [the previous] examina­ tion to [the present] examination, if this is less than twenty-four hours." If a woman has a fixed period (WW$T), it is enough for her [that she be deemed unclean only from] her time [of suffering a flow]. If she had connection and used the test-rags, this counts as an examina­ tion, and may lessen either the interval of twenty-four hours, or the interval from [the previous] examination to [the present] examination. (M. Nid. 1:1, trans. Danby, p. 754) Comment: See above, p. 303; Epstein, Mishnah, p. 484. Il.ii.l. ...When the disciples of Shammai and Hillel multiplied, who had not adequately served [as disciples, and fully learned the masters' Torah], disputes multiplied (HRBW) in Israel, and they be­ came two Torahs... (Tos. Hag. 2:9, ed. Lieberman, p. 384,1. 58-9) Comment: This clause is intruded into a long logion of R. Yosi [b. Halafta] on the origin of disputes in the Oral Tradition: At first there was no dispute in Israel. The court of seventy-one was in its chambers, and each town had its court of twenty-three, from which appeals would come to Jerusalem. The legal system was based upon knowledge of tra­ ditions ; but there were no confUctingtmdkions. If a court had knowledge, it said so, and if not, it referred the matter to the higher court. The formula is, "If they heard, they said to them..." In the end if necessary the highest court would take a vote. If those who declared unclean were the majority, they declared the object unclean, or vice versa, and the law would then be proclaimed in Israel. Then comes when the disci­ ples... Afterward, the long account of the judiciary is resumed, with the qualifications for a judgeship and how one was promoted to the higher courts. The pericope before us is an independent logion, picked up for the purposes of Yosi's account to explain and date the earliest disputes to

309

S H A M M A I A N D H I L L E L — II.ii.2

the Houses. The terminus ante quern must be ca. 150 A.D. Before that time an unfavorable account of the disputes of the Houses circulated, but we do not know who held it. It seems to me unlikely to have been the same circles that regarded the disputes of Hillel and Shammai as "for the sake of heaven." Judah the Patriarch, or the compiler of Avot, selected the version more favorable to his alleged ancestor: the famous old disputes were virtuous. He did not want the disputes of disciples to reflect ill on the masters, for if the disciples had not sufficiently served the masters, the masters had not adequately instructed the disciples. In any event the sayings must come after the Houses of Shammai and Hillel had come into existence, and their disputes had become well known. In this same context, we call to mind the saying (M. Ed. 1:3) about the care of Hillel to say teachings in the precise language of his masters, consistent with the polemic of the above lemma. But I do not see a direct connection between the two. Note Epstein, Mevd*ot, p. 422. c

II.ii.2.A. The story is told concerning (M<SH B) Hillel the Elder, who laid hands ($MK) on the whole-offering (<WLH) in the courtyard ( ZRH), and the disciples (TLMYDY) of Shammai collected (HBR) against him. B. He said to them, "Come and see that it is female, and I must make it [as] peace-offerings." He put them off (HPLYG) with words, and they went their way. C. Forthwith the hand of the House of Shammai was strengthened, and they sought to establish the law according to them. D. And there was there Baba b. Buta, who was of the disciples of the House of Shammai, and knowing that the law [was] according to the words of the House of Hillel in every place. He went and brought the whole flock of Qedar and set them up in the courtyard, and he said, "Whoever needs to bring whole-offerings and peace-offerings—let him come and take and lay on hands." They came and took the beast and offered up whole-offerings and laid hands on them. E. On that very day the law was established according to the words of the House of Hillel, and no one protested at the matter. F. A further story is told concerning a certain disciple of the dis­ ciples of the House of Hillel, who laid hands on the whole-offering. A certain disciple of the disciples of Shammai found him. He said to him, "What is this laying on [of hands] ?" He said to him, "What is this silence?" He silenced him with anger. (Tos. Hag. 2:11, ed. Lieberman, pp. 385-386, lines 81-90) C

310

SHAMMAI AND

H I L L E L — II.ii.2

Comment: Part A contains a reminiscence of the story of HillePs rise to power: Forthwith all the courtyard collected (HBR) against him. He said... (Tos. Pisha 4:13). But here instead of supplying arguments to support his viewpoint, he simply dissimulated, for Shammai's House agreed that//^/g^-peace-offerings do require laying on of hands. Consequent­ ly, the Shammaites assumed Hillel had accepted their teaching. The pericope is a supplement to M. Hag. 2:2: Shammai says, "He may not lay on his hands," and Hillel says, "He may." The first story ends with part B. Then comes a connecting clause, ty­ ing the foregoing incident to the effort to effect the law as the Shammai-House taught it. Baba b. Buta, a disciple of Shammai, but a good Hillelite one, thereupon foiled them. Superficially, the story seems to exhibit no integral literary relationship to parts A-B; it looks separate, joined to the whole because of the congruity of theme. Part E then supplies a happy ending, using the on that day formula and stressing that no one protested. Part F draws the necessary consequence from part E: since no one protested, the silence of the Shammaites is tantamount to agreement. But part F looks like a simple, anonymous version, out of which the foregoing could have been spun. Lieberman observes that flock of Qedar refers to Is. 60:7, All the flocks of Qedar shall be gathered to you. It means "the best flocks"; see Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (N.Y., 1950), p. 153, n. 5, "The reading of the Tosefta was perhaps influenced by Is. 60:7." On the legal issues under dispute, see especially Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshutah, ad loc, Hagigah, II, lines 68-9, p. 1300. The pericope as a whole is a fantasy, shaped within the theory that the Temple was in the hands of the Pharisees. Shammai's disciples could criticize Hillel's procedures in making the appropriate sacrifice, and vice versa. This is a Hillelite dramatization of the legal dispute on sacrifices be­ tween the two Houses, in two acts. The first, parts A-B, tells how Hillel conformed to Shammaite law, laying on hands as they said was proper, but otherwise not. Part C draws the consequence of that fact: it is an interlude, underlining that since Hillel had conformed to Shammaite law, therefore the decision was made to follow Shammai. Part D is then the second act, in which Baba b. Buta rescues the situation by forcing the issue. Large numbers of people thereupon followed the Hillelite view of law. Part E, balancing part C, provides the denouement. If on the face of it, therefore, the pericope is a composite, closer anal­ ysis suggests otherwise. The circulation of a separate story that Hillel had accepted and conformed to Shammai's law seems unlikely. In its present form it cannot derive from Shammaite circles, who probably would not have recorded that Hillel "put them off with words, and they went on their way." Part C certainly would contradict a Shammaite viewpoint: they sought—implying a negative outcome, they sought but could not do it (for the following reasons), diction we have already ob­ served in the Hillel-Alexandrian marriage-contract-pericopae, for one example. Part D means nothing apart from part A. And part E cannot

SHAMMAI AND

H I L L E L — II.ii.3

311

be judged an independent subscription, tacked on to a completed story, but rather the logical consequence drawn from, and integral to, the foregoing materials. So the pericope stands as a unity. Dating stories about Pharisaic control of the Temple has generally proved uncomplicated, which is surely a sign of dubious results. We have normally assumed that, since the Temple was not in Pharisaic hands, stories that told otherwise were likely to have been shaped later on, when the facts of the case either no longer mattered or had been forgotten. But the formulation of stories on the basis of fantasies is not unheard of, and we cannot regard the facts of the matter as decisive in suggesting dates for stories such as this one. What is more important is that it is taken for granted the Hillelites now are in control. Baba b. Buta "knew" what was only a fact much later on, when the House of Shammai had lost all control over the formation of new traditions (even though old ones continued to be preserved, as we have seen). Since this is self-evidently a Hillelite version of how Hillel in cahoots with a good Shammaite had taken control of Temple-law, I imagine it must come later than the period in which the House of Shammai proved an effec­ tive force within Pharisaism, therefore after the destruction of the Temple. Still, the possibility remains that this is how Hillelites even be­ fore hand told their stories, and the foregoing considerations are not decisive one way or the other. See Epstein, Mevd*ot, pp. 19, 48. II.ii.3. When the disciples of Shammai and Hillel multiplied, who had not served sufficiently, disputes multiplied (RBW) in Israel, and they became two Torahs. (Tos. Sot. 14:9, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 321, 1. 1-2) Comment: See above, Tos. Hag. 2:9, Il.ii.l. The context is different. Earlier, the phrase was inserted into a pericope of R. Yosi. Now it in­ dependently appears as a separate lemma, introduced by the stockphrase When increased, as in the corresponding Mishnaic chapter. The phrase about HillePs and Shammai's disciples is just as awkward here as above. Now it is, When those who were proud of heart (ZHWRY HLB) multiplied, disputes multiplied in Israel and they were made into two Torahs. When the disciples of Shammai and Hillel who had not... multiplied... The two Torahs clause is repeated, presumably borrowed from the S + H lemma for the antecedent one. But having accounted for disputes, one hardly has to make allusion to S + H at all. The lemma has been used in several contexts, but fits perfectly into none of them. Perhaps some story circulated about the unfitness of the two Houses, but it has been everywhere suppressed, and all that survives is an allusion to an un­ specified unfitness, parallel to the "reproach" that characterized Phari­ saism from the two Yosi's to Judah b. Baba. That DWPY is generally understood to mean the existence of disagreement, so it is not a far­ fetched suggestion.

312

SHAMMAI AND

H I L L E L — II.ii.4, 5 ; III.i.1, 2

11.11.4. They said, "Let us begin from Hillel and from Shammai." Shammai says, "From a qab, hallah" And Hillel says, "From two," and the sages say, "Not like either, but one and a half qabs is liable for (HYYB B) hallah, as it is said, The first of your kneading (Num. 15:20)." (Tos. Ed. 1:1, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 454, 1. 27-29) c

c

c

Comment: See above, M. Ed. 1:2, ILi.IB. Tos. Ed. preserves a theo­ ry of the historical context in which the materials were redacted: "When the sages entered the vineyard in Yavneh, they said, 'A time is coming in which a man will seek something from the Torah and will not find it... (Amos 8:11-12) They said, 'Let us begin...'" The Hillel-Sham­ mai traditions are therefore supposed to be older than Yavneh, in the form they now exhibit. As was normally the case, Judah the Patriarch excluded the exegetical basis of the law. Note Epstein, Mevo'ot, pp. 425, 428: "Let us begin" does not mean this is the beginning of editing the laws. 11.11.5. [On the amount of drawn water that impairs the ritual pool... ] (Tos. Ed. 1:3, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 454, 1. 31-3, p. 455, 1. 1-6) c

Comment: See above, p. 303. 111.1.1. Hillel and Shammai decreed concerning the cleanness of the hands. (y. Shab. 1:4, repr. Gilead, p. 11a) Comment: See above, p. 110. The saying here is in the name of R. Yosi. In the b. Shab. 14b version, it is an anonymous beraita, below, p. 315. 111.1.2. Hillel and Shammai decreed concerning the cleanness of hands. (y. Pes. 1:6, repr. Gilead, p. 6b) Comment: See above, p. 110; below, p. 315. III.i.3.A. At first there was no dispute in Israel except concerning laying on [of hands only]. B. And Shammai and Hillel arose and made them four. C. When the disciples of the House of Shammai and the disciples of the House of Hillel arose, and they did not serve their rabbis suf­ ficiently, disputes increased (RBW) in Israel, [and] they were divided (HLQ) into two parties (KTWT). •

S H A M M A I A N D H I L L E L — III.i.4

313

D. These declare unclean and those clean, and the matter is not again destined to return to its former condition (LMQWMH) until the son of David will come. (y. Hag. 2:2, repr. Gilead, p. 10b) Comment: See above, Tos. Hag. 2:9, Tos. Sot. 14:9. The Tos. version here has been corrected to take account of the dispute recorded in the present Mishnah. Now Hillel and Shammai make the two disputes four, which are 1. qab for the hallah; 2. impairing the ritual pool; 3. the retro­ active uncleanness of the menstruating woman; 4. laying on of hands. The three new ones are in M. Ed., so the pericope depends upon, and follows Mishnah-Tosefta. Part C preserves the language of Tos. Sot. The chief divisions are on purity laws, which presumably do reflect the contents of disputes between the Houses. The single, unified Torah now depends upon the coming of the Messiah. c

III.i.4.A. M'SH B: Hillel the Elder (S) brought his whole-offering ( LH) to the court and laid his hand on it. The disciples of the House of Shammai collected (HBR) against him. He began feeling (K$K§) its tail. He said to them, "See, it is female, and [for] peace-offerings." He put them off with words, and they went away. After some days the hand of the House of Shammai grew strong, and they sought to establish the law according to their words. B. There was there Baba b. Buta, of the disciples of the House of Shammai, and [he] knows that the law is according to the House of Hillel. C. And one time he entered the court and found it desolate. He said, "May the houses of those who made the House of our God desolate be made desolate." What did he do? He sent and brought three thousand sheep from the flock of Qedar and inspected them [to be sure they were free] from blemishes and set them up on the Temple Mount. He said to them, "Hear me, my brothers, House of Israel! Whoever wants, let him bring whole-offerings, let him bring and lay on hands, let him bring peace-offerings and lay on hands." At that time the law was established according to the House of Hillel and no one said a thing... D. The story is told of (M SH B) a certain disciple of the disciples of the House of Hillel who brought his whole-offering to the court and laid his hands on it, and one of the disciples of the House of C

C

314

SHAMMAI AND

H I L L E L — III.i.5, 6 ; III.ii.1

Shammai saw him. He said to them, "What is this laying on [of hands] ?" He said to him, "What is this silence?" And he silenced him with anger, and he went away. (y. Hag. 2:3, repr. Gilead, p. 12a) Comment: See above, Tos. Hag. 2:11, II.ii.2. The story about Baba is greatly expanded; the changes in the Hillel story and in that about the disciple of the House of Hillel are minor; see synopses. C

III.i.5.A. M SH B: Hillel the Elder brought his whole-offering ( LH) to the court and laid his hands on it, and the disciples of Sham­ mai collected against him. He began feeling its tail. He said to them, "See, it is female, and I brought her for peace-offer­ ings." He put them off with words, and they went away. B. After some days the hand of the House of Shammai grew strong, and they sought to establish the law according to their words. And there was there Baba b. Buti, one of the disciples of the House of Shammai, knowing that the law follows the House of Hillel. C One time he entered the court and found it desolate. He said, "Let the houses of those be desolate who have desolated the House of Our God." What did he do? He sent and brought three thousand flock from the flock of Qedar [etc.] (y. Bes. 2:4, repr. Gilead, pp. lla-b) C

Comment: See above, Tos. Hag. 2:11. III.i.6. Hillel and Shammai decreed concerning the cleanness of hands. (y. Ket. 8:11, repr. Gilead, p. 50b) Comment: See above, p. 110. III.ii.1. [Mishnah: (And) these are (some) of the laws which they stated in the upper chamber of Hananiah b. Hezeqiah b. Garon when they went up to visit him. They took a count, and the House of Sham­ mai outnumbered the House of Hillel, and on that day they enacted eighteen measures.] Gemara: What are these eighteen measures? For we learned: the following render Terumah unfit: ...one's hands...] (b. Shab. 13b) A. And the hands. Did then the disciples of Shammai and Hillel

S H A M M A I A N D H I L L E L — III.ii.1

315

decree this: [Surely] Shammai and Hillel [themselves] decreed it! B. For it was taught (DTNY>): Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem decreed uncleanness in respect of the land of the gentiles and glassware. Simeon b. Shetah ordained the woman's marriage settlement and decreed uncleanness upon metal utensils. Shammai and Hillel decreed uncleanness (TWM'H) for the hands. C. And should you answer, "[It means] Shammai and his band ($Y TH) and Hillel and his band," surely Rav Judah said in Samuel's name, "They enacted eighteen measures, and they differed on eighteen measures." But Hillel and Shammai differed only in three places. For R. Huna said, "In three places they differed"—and no more. And should you answer: They [Hillel and Shammai] came and decreed that it be suspended, while their disciples came and decreed that it be burned, surely Ufa said, "The original decree concerning hands was for burning." Rather, they [Hillel and Shammai] came and decreed it, yet they did not accept from them. Then their disciples came and decreed, and they did accept from them... D. [To revert to] the main text: R. Huna said, "In three places Shammai and Hillel differed." E. (1). Shammai says, "Hallah is [due] from a qab [of flour]." Hillel says, "From two qabs." But the sages ruled neither as the one nor as the other, but a qab and a half is liable to hallah. When the measures were enlarged, they said, "Five quarters of flour are liable to hallah." R. Yosi said, "[Exactly] five are exempt; just over five are liable." F. (2). And further: Hillel says, "A hin full of drawn water spoils a ritual pool." For a man must say (a dictum) in his teacher's language. Shammai says, "Nine qabs." And the sages say, "Not according to the words of this," etc. Until (T> §) two weavers came from the Dung Gate of Jerusalem and testified on the authority of Shema'iah and Abtalion that three logs of drawn water render a ritual pool unfit, and the sages ratified their words. G. (3). And further: Shammai says, "All women, their time (S'TN) suffices for them." C

316

SHAMMAI AND

H I L L E L — III.ii.1

Hillel says, "From examination to examination, and even for many days." But the sages say, "Not according to the words of this (etc.), but a full day is reduced by [the time] between examination and examination, and [the time] between examination and examination is reduced by a full day." H. And are there no more? But there is [this]: Hillel says, "To lay [hands]." And Shammai says, "Not to lay [hands]." R. Huna spoke only of those concerning which there is no dispute of their teachers in addition. I. (4). But there is also [this]: One vintages (BSR) [grapes] for the vat—Shammai says, "It is made fit (HWK$R) [to become un­ clean]." Hillel says, "It is not made fit." Except that one, for there Hillel silenced Shammai [sic]. J . Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan of Jerusalem decreed uncleanness in respect of the land of the gentiles and glass­ ware. But the rabbis of the eighty years decreed this—For R. Kahana said, "When R. Ishmael son of R. Yosi fell sick, they sent to him, 'Rabbi, Tell us the two or three things which you stated [formerly] on your father's authority.' "He sent back, 'Thus did my father say: One hundred and eighty years before the destruction of the Temple, the wicked State [Rome] spread (P$T) over Israel.' "'Eighty years before the destruction of the Temple, they decreed uncleanness for the land of gentiles and glassware.' "'Forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the Sanhedrin went into exile and took its seat in the Trade Halls.'" K. In respect to what law [is this stated] ? Said R. Isaac b. Abdimi, "To teach that they did not adjudicate in laws of fines." The laws of fines. Can you think so! But say: "They did not adjudicate in capital cases." And should you answer, They [Yosi b. Yo'ezer and Yosi b. Yo­ hanan] flourished during these eighty years too— L. Surely it was taught (TNY>): Hillel, and Simeon Gamaliel, and Simeon wielded their patriarchate (NHGW NSY'WTN) during one hundred years of the Temple's existence.

SHAMMAI AND

317

H I L L E L — III.ii.1

Whereas Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah and Yosi b. Yohanan were much earlier. (b. Shab. 14b-15b, trans. H. Freedman, pp. 5863) Comment: The issue is, Who decreed uncleanness for the hands with respect to rendering Terumah unclean by their touch? The list of the eighteen measures holds it was the disciples [= Houses] of Hillel and Shammai. The composite list of decrees from Yosi b. Yo'ezer to Hillel is cited. As we saw, this list is a variation on the chain of tradition, but in­ stead of supplying a predicate of moral sayings or Temple laws (= to lay on hands), it has uncleanness-dem?*.r issued by the Pharisaic sages. It clearly is an abbreviated list, as above; b. Shab. omits the second of the pairs, drops Shema'iah-Abtalion and Menahem, and has Shammai-Hillel in agreement I What is striking in b. Shab. is the assump­ tion that the decrees were issued unanimously or by single authorities, while M. Hag. has the pairs disagreeing. Following the discussion of Meir and Judah, we may suppose b. Shab. wishes to present the decrees in the names of the nasi of the generation. But if so, then the parity of Shammai with Hillel presents a difference in the two lists. We have al­ ready suggested that where Shammai is so treated, the likelihood is that the tradition was shaped while Shammai's followers retained consider­ able influence, hence sometime before, or shortly after, the destruction. The absence from both lists of Gamaliel, Simeon b. Gamaliel, and others in Avot, makes it probable that the lists were completed early. We need not imagine that Shammai-tradents are responsible for either list. M. Hag. in its present state obviously is not of Shammaitic origin, for it makes Hillel nasi. But b. Shab. need not be regarded as partisan. It may represent one version of the history of uncleanness decrees agreed upon by both Houses sometime after the death of the last-named masters, Hillel and Shammai. That Shammai precedes Hillel here is not inconse­ quential. The beraita which places the decree in the list of the eighteen measures need not be regarded as a contrary tradition. It has provided a more ac­ curate picture of events. The Houses made the decree, but then, in making up a list of the master's decrees, assigned it to Shammai-Hillel. The anonymous editor's conclusion, that the masters made the decree and the disciples managed to enforce it, seems to me reasonable. Parts D, E, F, and G cover Mishnaic materials of M. Ed. Part H necessarily alludes to the dispute of M. Hag. Part I is important, adding a fifth disagreement, unknown to y. Hag. 2:2.B according to our listing of the "four." But it is possible that M. Hag. is everywhere taken for granted, so the other decrees would be hallah, miqveh, niddah, and grapes. Part J introduces the beraita of part L, and tells us that the tradition on the hundred years before the destruction became important only in late Tannaitic and Amoraic times. The list cannot date before 70. But the inclusion of Simeon Gamaliel and Simeon, who until now have c

318

S H A M M A I A N D H I L L E L — III.ii.1, 2

made no appearance in any Hillel-traditions or in the chains of tradents, certainly is curious. The beraita s list of Hillelites cannot depend upon Avot, which includes Gamaliel and Simeon, for it has added an earlier Simeon, unknown to Avot. The list has no counterparts; it is not cited elsewhere; all we hear of the Simeon after Hillel is the mere mention of his name. On that basis we can come to no firm conclusions about the accuracy of the beraita'\r tradition. We observe that other Hillel-tradi­ tions know nothing of Simeon, or of Gamaliel and Simeon his son for that matter. The traditions including the latter two know nothing of the former. The list however does not say the later nasi's were Hillel's family. No source attested before Judah the Patriarch says so. The patriarchal pattern of names, Gamaliel I, Simeon I, Gamaliel II, Simeon II, has produced another Simeon before the first Gamaliel, per­ haps to match the second-century pattern. The pattern was broken, of course, with the naming of Judah, son of the second Simeon b. Gama­ liel, probably because of the unpopularity of Gamaliel II in Bar Kokhba's time. If, therefore, the pattern was important, it would have been shaped before the change in the patriarchal pattern in naming future pa­ triarchs. Significantly, Judah the Patriarch marks the beginning of the use of Hillel as a patriarchal name. Another possibility is that a century seemed long for only three names, so a fourth was added. But this would not have mattered much, for everyone knew Hillel lived a long time (one-hundred-twenty years), of which forty were spent as nasi, and that left thirty for each of the next }

two

nasis.

And a still third possibility rests on the absence of and after the first Simeon, which makes the list: 1. H i l l e l and 2. Simeon-Gamaliel 3. Simeon.

and

Thus Gamaliel is given the name Simeon. But who can make much of so small a matter as and} It is curious that Simeon-Gamaliel and Simeon play no role in the tra­ ditions of the Houses of Shammai and Hillel. The beraitas containing lists, parts B and I, are on the face of it com­ posites, but, for reasons stated above, seem to me late, unitary composi­ tions. The several traditions are legal-historical, except for parts E , F, G, and I, which are conventional legal pericopae. The dispute of part I conforms to our earlier observation about the subject-matter of Shammai-Hillel laws, concerning ritual-purity rules. I do not copy Freedman's translation, Hillel was silenced by Shammai. My text reads STYQ LYH HLL L$M'Y, which can only mean Hillel silenced Shammai. Freedman has apparently referred to the materials of b. Shab. 17a in making his translation here. III.ii.2.A. And another? One vintages (BSR) [grapes] for the vat— Shammai says, "It is made fit (HWK$R) [to become unclean]."

SHAMMAI AND

H I L L E L — III.ii.2

319

Hillel says, "It is not made fit." B. Said Hillel to Shammai, "Why do they vintage (BSR) [grapes] in purity, and not gather (M$Q) [olives] in purity?" C. "If you anger (QNT) me," he replied, "I will decree uncleanness also in the case of olive-gathering." D. A sword did they plant (N'S) in the school. They said, "He who enters, let him enter, but he who departs, let him not depart!" E. And on that day Hillel was submissive and sat before Shammai like one of the disciples. E. And it was as grievous to Israel as the day when the [golden] calf was made. F. Now, Shammai and Hillel decreed [this measure], but they did not accept from them; but their disciples came and decreed, and they did accept from them. (b. Shab. 17a) Comment: The context is the same as above, discussion of the eighteen decrees. The setting contains no named Tannaitic or Amoraic tradents. Part A, in standard Mishnaic legal form, certainly stands apart from the following fable and is complete in itself. As earlier, it seems reasonable that materials of part A, in which Shammai enjoys full parity with Hil­ lel, come early. The subject-matter is congruent to such an early venue. This early dating also accords with the general supposition that the eighteen decrees were made during the 60's of the first century. Parts B, C, D , E , and F are later augmentations of the tradition in part A. In parts B-C, Hillel appears as subordinate to Shammai. He points out an inconsistency in Shammai's argument, to which Shammai replies that the decree can easily be made consistent, and more stringent: I shall decree. Shammai is represented as able to issue such a decree, there­ upon to silence Hillel. Part D is curious. We are asked to believe someone set up a sword in the school house to keep everyone (= Shammai's majority) inside. Hillel was therefore forced to submit to Shammai's judgment. The al­ legation that Shammai's rulings were effected by force is egregious. In other materials it is alleged that the numbers of the House of Shammai exceeded those of the House of Hillel, resulting in the adoption of Shammaite rulings. But no where else do we hear of the use of weapons. If Shammai enjoyed a majority inside, why the sword? Would it not have sufficed to take a vote? Is this a Hillelite assertion that it was only force that kept the Shammaite majority in line? If so, it is consistent with the claim that all good Shammaites knew the law really followed Hillel anyhow. We do not know the Shammaites' view of matters, but we may take it for granted that parts D and E preserve the Hillelite theory. The stock-phrase in the subscription, part E , conforms to

320

S H A M M A I A N D H I L L E L — III.ii.2

the spirit of the foregoing narrative, though it is not integral to it. Part F then ignores the whole story. It alleges that both Shammai and Hillel were responsible for the measure, while the story makes it clear that it was done over HillePs opposition. Part F is drawn from the ear­ lier materials. But it makes sense here as much (or little) as earlier. The decree comes from Shammai-Hillel, and the disciples effected it; or the disciples attributed the decree to the masters. The law of part A is then discussed by R. Zei'ri in the name of R. Hanina and R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha. It presumab­ ly reached its current state before the mid-third century, even though it is not signified as Tannaitic. But all discussions of the law ignore the "historical" narratives of parts B-E. Part A could better use TM'/THR, instead of HWK$R +/— L\ Part B takes for granted the common usage: THRH. I have no idea when such stories would have been told. The authen­ ticity of the legal tradition seems to me highly probable. The credibility of the accompanying narrative, explaining on the part of Hillelites that the only way the Shammaite opinions prevailed was by force of arms, that Shammai silenced Hillel and his logic with an effective threat, that Hillel was outnumbered, that all those who would come would be likely to agree with the Shammaites, that Hillel was reduced to the status of a disciple—the credibility of these assertions, meant to explain in a most unflattering manner the fact that Shammai's opinion did prevail, is neg­ ligible. It is difficult to estimate when such assertions would have proved important. I can think of no point at which they would have become irrelevant or incredible. Presumably a later, rather than an earlier, date would be preferable, however, for after the Shammaite party had lost any substantive influence in the rabbinical movement, it would have been easier to explain their earlier preponderance as a matter of force rather than the logical appeal of their arguments. But this cannot be a decisive argument. The language of Hillel's question, part B, recurs in the following story: T w o disciples sat b e f o r e H i l l e l , o n e o f w h o m w a s R . Y o h a n a n b . Z a k k a i . ( O t h e r s state, b e f o r e R a b b i , a n d o n e w a s R . Y o h a n a n . ) O n e said, " W h y d o t h e y v i n t a g e [ g r a p e s ] i n p u r i t y a n d g a t h e r [ o l i v e s ] i n uncleanness ?" T h e o t h e r said, "Why do they vintage in cleanness, but not gather in cleanness" (b. P e s . 3 b )

The question here attributed to Hillel is a phrase around which other stories were shaped. It is difficult to suggest which of the two settings— the Shammai-dispute, or the disciple-before-the-master—comes first. It may be that the lemma has provoked two quite separate and unrelated stories. But the use of the same words in the two versions indicates that the lemma was a stock-phrase of the Hillel-tradition. Tos. Shev. 1:5 contains the same argument against Shammaite inconsistency and looks like the earliest version of all. Part A follows the conventional Houses-form: superscription stating

SHAMMAI AND

H I L L E L — III.ii.3

321

the problem, then Shammai says/Hillel says. The opinions of the masters are phrased in the same verb: HWK$R, and they differ, as I said, only as to the inclusion of the negative L\ This seems to me the likely mne­ monic fundament of the pericope. Part B copies the Houses-debateform, which sets the Hillelite argument first, so that it can be refuted at the end by the Shammaites, who normally are given the last word. But the form is violated by the contents of part C, which has Shammai re­ ply not by stating a logical argument, but rather by drawing on the substance of part D. The "reply" is a threat to use force, followed by an account of how force actually was brought to bear. Hence parts B-C cannot be regarded as the extension of the Houses-dispute into a debate, but rather, a very poor imitation of the debate-form, for narrative, not logical and legal, purposes. In fact part C serves as a connector between B and D, not as the conclusion of the debate initiated in B. So while part A looks authentic, the rest for formal reasons must be regarded as a very late, obvious fabrication. III.ii.3.A. Our rabbis taught (TNW RBNN): A man should always be gentle like Hillel, and not impatient like Shammai. B. It once happened (M'SH B) that two men made a wager (HMRW) with each other, saying, "He who goes and makes Hillel angry (QNT) shall receive four hundred ^#£." Said one, "I will anger him." That day was the Sabbath eve, and Hillel was washing (HPP) his head. He went, passed by the door of his house, and called out, "Is Hillel here? Is Hillel here?" Thereupon he robed and went out to him, saying, "My son, what do you seek?" "I have a question to ask," said he. "Ask, my son," he said to him. He asked, "Why are the heads of the Babylonians round?" "My son, you have asked a great question," he said. "Because they have no skillful midwives." He departed, tarried awhile, returned, and said, "Is Hillel here? Is Hillel here?" He robed and went out to him, saying, "My son, what do you seek?" "I have a question to ask," said he. "Ask, my son," he said. Heasked, "Why are the eyes of the Palmyrenes bleared (TRWTWT) ?" "My son, you have asked a great question," said he. "Because they live in sandy places." N E U S N E R , The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70, I

21

322

SHAMMAI AND

HILLEL —

III.ii.3

He departed, tarried a while, returned, and said, "Is Hillel here? Is Hillel here?" He robed and went out to him, saying, "My son, what do you seek?" "I have a question to ask," said he. "Ask, my son," he said. He asked, "Why are the feet of the Africans wide?" "My son, you have asked a great question," said he. "Because they live in watery marshes." "I have many questions to ask," said he, "but fear that you may become angry." Thereupon he robed, sat before him and said, "Ask all the questions you have to ask." "Are you the Hillel whom they call the Nasi of Israel?" "Yes," he said. "If that is you," he said, "may there not be many like you in Israel." "Why, my son?" said he. "Because I have lost four hundred f(ut^ through you," complained he. "Be careful of your moods," he answered. "Hillel is worth it that you should lose (KDY HW> HLL §T>BD...) four hundred f(u^ and yet another four hundred %u% through him, yet Hillel shall not lose his temper (YQPYD)." C. Our rabbis taught: A certain heathen once (M SH B) came before Shammai and asked him, "How many Torot have you?" "Two," he replied, "the Written Torah and the Oral Torah." "I believe you with respect to the Written, but not with respect to the Oral Torah. Make me a proselyte on condition that you teach me the Written Torah [only]." He scolded and repulsed him in anger. [When] he went before Hillel, he accepted him as a proselyte. On the first day he taught him, 'Alef, bet, gimmel, dalet; the following day he reversed [them] to him. "But yesterday you did not teach them to me thus" he said. "Mustyou not rely upon me? Then rely upon me with respect to the Oral [Torah] too." D. On another occasion it happened that ($WB M'SH B) a certain heathen came before Shammai and said to him, "Make me a proselyte, on condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot." C

323

S H A M M A I A N D H I L L E L — III.ii.3

Thereupon he repulsed him with the builder's cubit which was in his hand. [When] he went before Hillel, he converted him. He said to him, "What is hateful to you, do not to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah, while the rest is the commentary thereof; go and learn [it]." E. On another occasion it happened that ($WB M SH B) a certain heathen was passing behind a school and heard the voice of a scribe (SWPR) reciting, 'And these are the garments which they shall make: a breastplate, and an ephod.' Said he, "For whom are these?" "For the High Priest," they said. Then said that heathen to himself, "I will go and become a proselyte, that I may be appointed a High Priest." So he went before Shammai and said to him, "Make me a proselyte on condition that you appoint me a High Priest." But he repulsed him with the builder's cubit which was in his hand. He then went before Hillel. He made him a proselyte. Said he to him, "Can any man be made a king but he who knows the arts of government? Do you go and study the arts of government!" He went and read. When he came to And the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death, he asked him, "To whom does this verse apply?" "Even to David King of Israel," was the answer. Thereupon that proselyte reasoned within himself a fortiori: "If Israel, who are called sons of the Omnipresent, and whom in His love for them He designated Israel is my son, my first born (Ex. 4:22), yet it is written of them, And the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death— how much more so a mere proselyte, who comes with his staff and wallet!" Then he went before Shammai and said to him, "Am I then eligible to be a High Priest? Is it not written in the Torah, And the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death ?" He went before Hillel and said to him, "O gentle Hillel: blessings rest on your head for bringing me under the wings of the Shekhinah /" F. Some time later the three met in one place. Said they, "Shammai's impatience sought to drive us from the world, but Hillel's gentleness brought us under the wings of the Shekhinah." (b. Shab. 30b-31a, trans. H. Freedman, pp. 138141) C

Comment:

Italicized p o r t i o n s (and Scriptures) are in A r a m a i c , t h e rest

i n H e b r e w . T h e p e r i c o p e is u n r e l a t e d t o o t h e r m a t e r i a l s i n its

context

324

SHAMMAI AND

H I L L E L — III.ii.4

and is anonymous. We have four separate stories, united with a super­ scription (part A) and subscription (part E). The stories as a group are, with the noted exceptions, in graceful Hebrew style. They certainly could have been told separately, except for parts A and E, and they have been collected to make a single point, given at the end: Hillel was patient, Shammai querulous. The editor of the whole pericope has care­ fully supplied the moral of the stories. Part B ends with Hillel is worth, much like b. Yoma 35a, but here Hillel is worth four hundred %u%, there he was worth profaning the Sabbath. The original lemma begins, therefore, with KDY HW HLL, with whatever predicate one finds appropriate for the setting. The same idi­ om applies to the Temple. Part C could have ended with the final phrase, Hillel accepted him as a proselyte, repeated in part D and E (GYYRYH). The alphabet-story is a separate element, but relates closely to the foregoing: Just as you rely on me for the alphabet, so you have to rely on my Torah. Parts D and E seem to me likewise unitary accounts and from a single hand. Part F reverts to the superscription, now spelling out what the patience of Hillel had meant. The four stories of course reflect the Hillelite viewpoint, but we have no idea whatever which Hillelites—early or late, patriarchal or pre-patriarchal, Palestinian or Babylonian. I discern only a few stock-phrases, Hillel is worth plus parts A/E, be gentle like Hillel, not impatient like Sham­ mai. But extended, detailed, smooth stories such as these are not built upon such brief stock-phrases, but, I think, rather draw upon them at critical turning points or climaxes in the original narrative. Another such phrase is the Aramaic what is hateful... around which the second act of part D is built. }

III.ii.4.A. It was taught (TNY'): They said concerning (>MRW LYW
Comment: Here Shammai is called "the Elder," presumably by analo-

325

S H A M M A I A N D H I L L E L — III.ii.4, 5

gy to Hillel; there was no "younger." His virtue is turned into a criti­ cism. Part A certainly stood separately (pp. 185-187). By itself it is a story of how the virtuous Shammai kept the Sabbath, always setting aside the best things he could for that purpose. But with the addition of part B Hillel proves superior. His religiosity did not await the oc­ casion of the Sabbath. Every day did he "observe." Part C then gives us what must be the beginning of the matter, a dis­ pute between the Houses, which has been rendered into stories about the masters by the foregoing narratives. That seems to me important, for the House of Shammai's story about Shammai is creditable, no less so than the House of Hillel's story about Hillel. Having seen several instances in which an exegesis has been turned into a Hillel-story, we may take it for granted that the Hillel-clause of part C has had a similar history. The House of Shammai-clause similarly has been retold as a Shammai-story. The pericope is similar to the legal materials of M. Ed. The Houses are of equivalent power within Phari­ saism. The Shammaites therefore are able to shape, then introduce into the normative tradition, favorable materials about their master. These later on are set together with Hillel-materials. The pericope therefore is apt to be an authentic record of the mid-first-century encounter of the Houses, and I see no reason to doubt that the actual teachings of the masters likewise are accurately presented. If this is so, the literary history is not difficult to recover: I. Original teaching of the masters: 1. Shammai: Sabbath 2. Hillel: Always be grateful II. The Houses: 1. Shammai's House: Prepare for the Sabbath all week long. 2. Hillel's House: Be grateful every day. III. The stories: 1. Shammai: They said concerning Shammai the Elder 2. Hillel the Elder: All his works were for the sake of heaven. To this point, the traditions were independent of one another, and did not constitute an effort to contrast Hillel favorably against Shammai. Then: IV. The stories brought together: But Hillel the Elder had a different trait. At stage four, the contrast is drawn. The beraita at the end must repre­ sent the authentic literary record of stage two. The pericope's theme is vaguely similar to the foregoing materials, but there is no close relationship. c

III.ii.5. (TNW RBNN) (M<SH B) Our rabbis taught + It once happened that A. Hillel the Elder brought his whole-offering ( LH) into the [Temple] Court on a festival for the purpose of laying hands there­ on. C

326

S H A M M A I A N D H I L L E L — IILii.5; IV.i.l

The disciples of Shammai the Elder collected against him. They said to him, "What is the nature (TYBH) of this animal?" He said to them, "It is a female, and I brought it as a peace-offering." He felt (K$K§) its tail for them, and they went away. B. And that day the House of Shammai got the upper hand over the House of Hillel and sought to establish the law according to their ruling. C. And an old man of the disciples of Shammai the Elder was there, named Baba b. Buta, who knew (§HYH YWD ) that the law is as the House of Hillel, and he sent and brought all the sheep of Qedar that were in Jerusalem and put them into the [Temple] Court and said, "Whoever wishes to lay on hands, let him come and lay on hands." D. And on that day the House of Hillel got the upper hand and established the law according to their opinion, and there was no one there who disputed it. E. It happened again with (§WB M'SH B) a certain disciple of the disciples of the House of Hillel who brought his whole-offering into the [Temple] court for the purpose of laying hands thereon. A certain disciple of the disciples of the House of Shammai found him and said to him, "Why this laying on [of hands] ?" He replied, "Why this silence?" He silenced him with a rebuke, and he went away. F. Said Abbaye, "Therefore a young disciple to whom his colleague says anything should not answer back more than the former had spoken to him, for the one said to the other, "Why the laying on of hands?' And the other replied, 'Why silence?'" (b. Bes. 20a-b, trans. M. Ginsberg, pp. 104-5) (

Comment: See above, Tos. Hag. 2:11. The story is quoted in a discus­ sion of the views of the Houses on the comparison of obligatory peaceofferings, whole-offerings, and free-will offerings. The story is told after a discussion by R. Joseph of the laying on of hands dispute. Afterward comes a further discussion between the two Houses; no masters are mentioned in the discussion. Abbaye supplies merely one point at which the already-established materials were discussed. Part C seems to lack a clause telling precisely what happened.

IV.i.l. [Mishnah: And the sages say, Not according to the opinion of either.] Not like Shammai, who set no exact limit to his words; and not like Hillel, who spoke in indefinite measures. . (y. Nid. 1:1, repr. Gilead, p. l a )

S H A M M A I A N D HILLEL —

IV.ii.l,

2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ;

V.i.l

327

Comment: This is an anonymous gloss on M. Nid. 1:1. IV.ii. 1-2. When the disciples of Shammai and Hillel multiplied, who had not sufficiently served [discipleship], dissension increased (RBW) in Israel, and the Torah was made like (K) two Torahs. (b. Sot. 47b = b. Sanh. 88b) Comment: See Tos. Hag. 2:9. The context of Tos. Sot. is M$RBWsayings; no masters are cited. In b. Sanh. it is the R. Yosi-beraita> as in Tos. Hag. So two settings served the same lemma. IV.H.3-4.A. If one gleans (BSR) grapes for the wine-press— Shammai says, "They are susceptible to defilement (HWK$R) [by liquid]." And Hillel says, "They are not susceptible." B. And Hillel agreed (>WDY) with Shammai. (b. A.Z. 39b = b. Hul. 36b) Comment: See b. Shab. 15a, p. 315. The context in b. A.Z. is an anon­ ymous discussion of the law about grapeclusters' susceptibility to defile­ ment by a liquid. In b. Hul. the passage is cited by R. Zera, discussed afterward by Abbaye. Hillel's agreement is in accord with the story of b. Shab., but not with the subscription of that story. IV.ii.5. [Discussion of the reasons for Shammai's and Hillel's opin­ ions in M. Nid. 1:1.] (b. Nid. 2a-4b) Comment: The discussion is mostly anonymous, though Abbaye and Rava participate in some of its stages. IV.ii.6. Shammai ruled... (b. Nid. 15a) Comment: Citation of Shammai's ruling in M. Nid. 1:1, discussed anonymously. His opinion is compared to that of R. Judah b. R. Yo­ hanan b. Zakkai. V.i.l.A. Be not easily angered: What is that? This teaches that one should be patient like Hillel the Elder and not short-tempered like Shammai the Elder. B. What was this patience of Hillel the Elder? The story is told: Once two man decided to make a wager of four hundred with each other. They said, "Whoever can put Hillel into a rage gets the four hun­ dred One of them went (to attempt it). Now that day was a Sabbath eve, z z * z "

328

SHAMMAI AND

HILLEL — V.i.l

toward dusk, and Hillel was washing his head. The man came and knocked on his door. "Where's Hillel? Where's Hillel?" he cried. Hillel got into a cloak and came out to meet him. "My son," he said, "what is it?" The man replied, "I need to ask about a certain matter." "Ask," Hillel said. The man asked, "Why are the eyes of the Tadmorites [ = Palmyrenes] bleary?" "Because," said Hillel, "they make their homes on the desert sands which the winds come and blow into their eyes. That is why their eyes are bleary." The man went off, waited a while, and returned and knocked on his door. "Where's Hillel?" he cried, "where's Hillel?" Hillel got into a cloak and came out. "My son," he said, "what is it?" The man replied, "I need to ask about a certain matter." "Ask," Hillel said. The man asked, "Why are the Africans' feet flat?" "Because they dwell by watery marshes," said Hillel, "and all the time they walk in water. That is why their feet are flat." The man went off, waited a while, and returned and knocked on the door. "Where's Hillel?" he cried, "where's Hillel?" Hillel got into a cloak and came out. "What is it thou wishest to ask?" he inquired. "I need to ask about some matter," the man said. "Ask," Hillel said to him. In his cloak he sat down before him and said, "What is it?" Said the man, "Is this how princes reply! May there be no more like thee in Israel!" "God forbid!" Hillel said, "tame thy spirit! What dost thou wish?" The man asked, "Why are the heads of Babylonians long?" "My son," Hillel answered, "thou hast raised an important question. Since there are no skillful midwives there, when the infant is born, slaves and maidservants tend it on their laps. That is why the heads of Babylonians are long. Here, however, there are skillful midwives, and when the infant is born, it is taken care of in a cradle, and its head is rubbed. That is why the heads of Palestinians are round." "Thou has put me out of four hundred ^u^l" the man exclaimed. Said Hillel to him, "Better that thou lose four hundred because of Hillel, than that Hillel lose his temper."

SHAMMAI AND

HILLEL — V.i.l

329

C. What was this impatience of Shammai the Elder? The story is told: A certain man once stood before Shammai and said to him: "Master, how many Torahs have you?" "Two," Shammai replied, "one written and one oral." Said the man, "The written one I am prepared to accept, the oral one I am not prepared to accept." Shammai rebuked him and dismissed him in a huff. He came before Hillel and said to him, "Master, how many Torahs were given?" "Two," Hillel replied, "one written and one oral." Said the man, "The written one I am prepared to accept, the oral one I am not prepared to accept." "My son," Hillel said to him, "sit down." He write out the alphabet for him (and pointing to one of the letters) asked him, "What is this?" "It is alef" the man replied. Said Hillel, "This is not alef but bet. What is that?" he con­ tinued. The man answered, "It is bet." "This is not bet" said Hillel, "but gimmel." (In the end) Hillel said to him, "How dost thou know that this is alef and this bet and this gimmel? Only because so our ancestors of old handed it down to us that this is alef and this bet and this gimmel. Even as thou hast taken this in good faith, so take the other in good faith." E. A certain heathen once passed behind a synagogue and heard a child reciting, And these are the garments which they shall make: a breast­ plate, and an ephod, and a robe (Exod. 28:4). He came before Shammai and asked him, "Master, all this honor, whom is it for?" Shammai said to him, "For the High Priest, who stands and serves at the altar." Said the heathen, "Convert me on condition that thou appoint me High Priest, so I might serve at the altar." "Is there no priest in Israel," Shammai exclaimed, "and have we no High Priests to stand and serve in high priesthood at the altar, that a paltry proselyte who has come with naught but his staff and bag should go and serve in high priesthood!" He rebuked him and dis­ missed him in a huff. The heathen then came to Hillel and said to him, "Master, convert y

y

y

y

330

S H A M M A I A N D HILLEL —V.i.l

I Tannaitic Midrashim

Shammai and Hillel

ILi Mishnah

ILii Tosefta

S H A M M A I A N D H I L L E L — V.i.l

IILi Tannaitic Materials in Palestinian Gemara

IILii Tannaitic Materials in Babylonian Gemara

IV.i Amoraic Materials in Palestinian Gemara

IV.ii Amoraic M a t e r i a l s in Babylonian Gemara

b. S h a b . 1 5 a

y. Nid. 1 : 1

b. Nid. 2a-4b b. Nid. 15a

1. Retroactive uncleanness o f menstruant

M . <Ed. 1 : 1 M . Nid. 1 : 1

2. Liability of

M . 'Ed. 1 : 2

T o s . <Ed. 1 : 1

b. S h a b . 1 5 a

3 . D r a w n w a t e r in immersion-pool

M . <Ed. 1 : 3

T o s . <Ed. 1 : 3

b. S h a b . 1 5 a

4. Dispute for the sake o f heaven

M. Avot 1 5 : 1 7

loaf for

V ARN

331

VI Later Compilations of Midrashim

liallah

5. Source o f dis­ p u t e s is i n a d e q u a t e study with Sham­ mai-Hillel 6. Lay on hands; Hillel v s . S h a m ­ mai's students

M. liag. 2 : 2

7 . Hillel and Shammai decreed uncleanness o f hands

Tos. Hag. 2 : 9 Tos. Sot. 1 4 : 9 Tos. Sanh. 7 : 1

y. Hag. 2 : 1 2 y. Sanh. 1 : 4

Tos. Hag. 2 : 1 1

y. P a g . 2 : 3 y. Bes. 2 : 4

y. Shab. 1 : 4 y. Pes. 1 : 6 y. K e t . 8 : 1 1

b. S h a b . 1 4 b - 1 5 a

b. Sot. 4 7 b b. Sanh. 8 8 b

b. Bes. 2 0 a (b. Pes. 6 6 b ) (b. N e d . 9 b )

8. Uncleanness o f vintaging grapes for the vat

b. S h a b . 1 5 a b. S h a b . 1 7 a

9 . Hillel + S i m e o n Gamaliel + Simeon

b. S h a b . 1 5 a

1 0 . Gentle like Hillel, n o t impa­ tient like Shammai

b. S h a b . 3 0 b - 3 1 a

1 1 . Hillel, S h a m ­ mai, and the Sabbath

(Mekh. deR. Sim. b. Yohai p. 1 4 8 , lines 29-30)

(Mid. Psalms 17A)

b. Bes. 1 6 a

b. A . Z . 3 9 b b. IIul. 3 6 b

A R N Chap. 15

332

S H A M M A I A N D HILLEL — V.i.l

me on condition that thou appoint me High Priest, so that I might stand and serve at the altar." "Sit down," Hillel said to him, "and I will tell thee something. If one wishes to greet a king of flesh and blood, is it not right that he learn how to make his entrances and exits?" "Indeed," the heathen replied. "Thou wishest to greet the King of kings of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He: is it not all the more right that thou learn how to enter into the Holy of Holies, how to fix the lights, how to approach the alter, how to set the table, how to prepare the row of wood?" Said the heathen, "Do what seems best in thine eyes." First Hillel wrote out the alphabet for him and taught it to him. Then he taught him the book of Leviticus. And the heathen went on studying until he got to the verse, And the common man that draweth nigh shall be put to death (Num. 1:15). Forthwith, of his own accord, he reasoned by inference as follows: "If Israel, who were called children of God and of whom the Shekhinah said, And ye shall be unto Me a king­ dom of priests, and a holy nation (Exod. 19:6), were nevertheless warned by Scripture, And the common man that draweth nigh shall be put to death, all the more I, a paltry proselyte, come with naught but my bag!" Thereupon that proselyte was reconciled of his own accord. He came to Hillel the Elder and said to him, "May all the blessings of the Torah rest upon thy head! For hadst thou been like Shammai the Elder, I might never have entered the community of Israel. The impatience of Shammai the Elder well nigh caused me to perish in this world and the world to come. Thy patience has brought me to the life of this world and the one to come." F. It is said: To that proselyte were born two sons; one he named Hillel and the other he named Gamaliel; and they used to be called "proselytes of Hillel." (ARN Chap. 15, trans. Goldin, pp. 78-82) Comment: b. Shab. 30b-31a is generally expanded and improved upon. Only part D of b. Shab. is missing, about the whole Torah on one foot. The rest is told along pretty much the same lines; the dependence of ARN on b. Shab. may be taken for granted; the former, while copying the bulk of b. Shab., has added numerous minor details and glosses to embellish the simpler account of the latter. Part F of ARN supplies a new subscription, tied only to part E and omitting reference to the other materials. It takes for granted that Gamaliel is HillePs son, which is not surprising since ARN is a com­ mentary on Avot.

SHAMMAI AND

HILLEL —

333

SYNOPSES

II. SYNOPSES

1. Retroactive Uncleanness of Menstruant M. 'Ed.

1:1

M. Nid.

1. S h a m m a i s a y s , A l l t h e w o m e n

suffi­

cient f o r t h e m [is] t h e i r p e r i o d ( S ' T N ) 2. A n d H i l l e l s a y s , F r o m e x a m i n a t i o n t o examination

» »

»

»

b. Shab.

1*

2

(PQYDH).

w o r d s of this.

-**

15a

ii

ii

ii

ii

ii

ii

ii

ii

ii

2 ii

3

3 . A n d sages say, N o t a c c o r d i n g t o t h e w o r d s o f this, and not according t o the 4. B u t f r o m t i m e (*T) t o t i m e

1:1

»

3

ii

ii

ii

ii

ii

ii

u

*

[twenty-

four hours] diminishes ( M M ' T ) by means o f e x a m i n a t i o n t o e x a m i n a t i o n [and v i c e

4. ••

versa].

4.

(MM'TT)

The Mishnaic tradition is cited in nearly identical form throughout. 2. Liability of Loaf for Hallah M. 'Ed.

1:2

1. S h a m m a i s a y s , F r o m qab f o r hallah

2. A n d H i l l e l s a y s , t w o qabs

From

Tos. 'Ed. 1:11 1. ...They said, Let us begin from Hillel and Shammai. S h a m m a i s a y s , F r o m qab hallah [ O m i t s : For]. 2 ii

ii

„

b. Shab.

15a

1. S h a m m a i says, F r o m qab, hallah

2

ii

ii

3 . A n d sages s a y , N o t ac­ cording to the w o r d s of this, and n o t according to t h e w o r d s o f t h i s , b u t a qab and a half ( H Y Y B Y M ) are l i a b l e f o r hallah.

3. „

„ [HYYB

singu­

3.

4.

4. A s it is said N u m .

15:20

4.

[=

ii

ii

Tos.

l

Ed.]

lar]

Except for the narrative superscription and exegetical subscription, b. Shab. 15a follows Tos. Ed. 1:1 rather than M. <Ed. 1:2 wherever Tos. and M. Ed. differ. But the differences are not important. The Mishnah has dropped the Tosefta's exegetical traditions, as is nor­ mally the case. Otherwise the materials are pretty much identical in the several versions. c

c

3. Drawn Water in Immersion Pool c

c

Synopses of M. Ed. 1:3 = Tos. Ed. 1:3, b. Shab. 15a are given above, pp. 155-157.

S H A M M A I A N D HILLEL —

SYNOPSES

4. Source of Disputes Is Inadequate Study with Shammai-Hillel Tos. Hag. 2:9 = Tos. Sanh. 7:1 (Yosi-logion) 1. W h e n multi­ plied the disci­ ples o f S h a m m a i and Hillel that had n o t served sufficiently (KL SRKN)

Tos. Sot. 14:9 (MSRBW-form only)

!• »

»

»

y. Hag. 1:4

2:2

= y.

Sanh.

1 . At first there was no dispute in Israel except on laying on of hands only, And Shammai and Hillel arose and made them four. W h e n multiplied the disciples of the House o f S h a m m a i a n d t h e disci­ ples of the House o f H i l l e l and t h e y d i d n o t s e r v e t h e i r m a s t e r s sufficient-

b. Sot. 47b = b. Sanh. 88b ( M $ R B W - f o r m ) (Yosi-logion) 1 A

'

ii

ii

ii

ly 2. T h e y caused to multiply (HRBW) dis­ p u t e s in Israel 3. and they w e r e made t w o Torahs

2 . and the d i s p u t e ii

ii

[ = Tos. Sot.]

ii

3 . And they were divided into two parties, these de­ clare unclean and these de­ clare clean. And it is not destined again to return to its former place until the son of David will come.

2

2.

3 . A n d the Torah w a s m a d e t w o Torahs

y. Hag. depends upon, but greatly augments, Tos. Hag. The two Multiplied Babylonian reject the possibility that the Torah was really ( R B versions W ) [qal] divided, 3therefore add like two Torahs (even though they were really one). The preference for qal RBW rather than Tos. Hag.'s HRBW does not seem meaningful. So Tos. Hag., Tos. Sot., and the two Babylon­ ian versions differ from one another in no important ways, except for one. Tos. Hag. and b. Sanh. insert the lemma into R. Yosi's long say­ ing on the administration of justice, though it interrupts the rhythm and order of that logion, while Tos. Sot. and b. Sot. preserve the saying as an independent lemma in M§RBW-form. Clearly, the saying stood separately and was introduced into the Yosi-logion later on, which suggests the explanation for the division of the two Houses comes before the middle of the second century. However, there is always the possibility that the lemma has been inserted into the Yosimaterials by a later hand. This was done consistently, however, in both instances of the Yosi-saying, which can be explained by later scribal correction. Hence form-critical considerations are hardly decisive in proposing a credible date for the logion. In this instance, the Babylonian version is independent of the »

ii

ii

ii

ii

ii

like

SHAMMAI A N D HILLEL —

335

SYNOPSES

Palestinian one, and depends, rather, on the Tosefta's—a rare pheno­ menon in materials we have considered. 5. Lay on Hands: Hillel vs. Shammai's Students Tos. Hag.

2:11

1 . M<SH B

y. Hag. 1* »

2:3 »

= y. Bes.

2:4

b. Bes.

»

2 . Hillel t h e E l d e r w h o laid h a n d s o n t h e w h o l e o f f e r i n g (
2 . w h o brought his whole-of­ fering to the courtyard and l a i d h a n d s o n it.

3 . a n d t h e disciples o f Shammai collected against him.

3. „

4 . H e said t o them, C o m e a n d see t h a t s h e is female

4 . He began to feel ( K $ K § ) its tail. H e s a i d t o t h e m , S e e „ „ „ and peace-offerings.

5. and I need t o make h e r sacrifices o f p e a c e offerings. 6 . H e p u t t h e m off w i t h w o r d s and they went away.

5.

6* »

„ House of S h a m m a i

[Above]

»

20a-b

1.

TOW

»

»

RBNN+

»

2 . w h o brought his wholeoffering to the c o u r t y a r d to l a y h a n d s on it on the festival. 3. „ „ House of S h a m ­ m a i the Elder. They said to him, What is the nature of this beast 4 . H e said t o t h e m , I t is f e m a l e , and I brought it f o r p e a c e - o f f e r i n g s . He felt its tail for them. 5. [Above]

6. and they went away [ O m i t s he—words].

»

7. Forthwith the hand of the House of Sham­ mai g r e w strong, and t h e y s o u g h t t o establish law according to them.

7 . After some days „ „ a c c o r d i n g t o their words.

8. There was there Baba ben Buta, w h o w a s o f the disciples of the House of Shammai and k n e w t h a t l a w is a c c o r d ­ ing to the w o r d s o f the H o u s e o f Hillel i n e v e r y place

8. „ „ „ ( O m i t s : in every place). One time he entered the courtyard and found it desolate. He said, May the houses of those who have desolated the house of our God be made desolate. What did he do?

8. „ „ „ every place.]

9. He went and brought all t h e Qedar-sheep and set t h e m u p in t h e c o u r t ­ y a r d , a n d said

9 . H e sent a n d b r o u g h t three thousand goats from „ „ „ and inspected them from their faults „ „ „

9. „ „ Jerusalem

1 0 . W h o e v e r needs to bring whole-offerings a n d p e a c e - o f f e r i n g s , let him lay o n hands.

1 0 . - 1 1 . Hear me my brothers, House of Israel, W h o e v e r wants, let h i m b r i n g w h o l e o f f e r i n g s and lay on hands, peace-offerings and lay o n hands. [11. A s above]

1 0 . W h o e v e r w a n t s to lay on hands, let him come and lay on hands

1 1 . T h e y came and t o o k t h e beast a n d offered whole-offerings CWLWT) and laid hands on them.

„

7 . That day,,

11.

„

„

[Omits:

„ that

in

were in

336

S H A M M A I A N D HILLEL —

12. O n that v e r y day the l a w w a s established according to the w o r d s o f t h e H o u s e o f Hillel and n o one objected t o the matter.

12. „ „ „ and said anything.

no

SYNOPSES

one

1 2 . T h a t d a y the hand of the House of Hillel was stronger a n d t h e y e s t a b ­ lished the l a w like them a n d there was no man there w h o objected to t h e m a t t e r in any way (KLWM).

The progression from the earliest version, Tos. Hag., to the latest, b. Bes. 20a-b, is in general smooth and routine, except for the sub­ stantial intrusion of speeches in nos. 8 and 10 of y. Hag., unavailable to b. Bes. That is surprising, for the accounts in other respects are mutually interdependent, and the versions in both Talmuds clearly depend upon Tos. Hag. Therefore b. Bes. probably did not have ac­ cess to Baba's dramatic speeches. I cannot in any other way account for the omission. This also explains why b. Bes. no. 9 does not know how many goats were involved, and why the dramatic, second speech, y. Hag. no. 10, is omitted. So we have an example of what happens when the two Talmuds' versions depend upon the same anterior source, but not upon one another. The differences show that the Palestinians were quite as capable as the Babylonians of creating their own speeches and conversations, and that literary artifice was no monopoly of the Babylonian schools, despite the consistent stylistic excellence of Babylonian beraitas. Comparing Tos. Hag. with the two Talmuds' versions, we find that both later accounts make Hillel's opposition the House of Shammai adding House of to disciples of Both add the dramatic detail that Hillel lifted the sheep's tail to show its sex. However, in y. Hag., he simply supplies the information without being questioned, even hinting at it through his gesture, while in b. Bes. a dramatic colloquy as usual is introduced: the disciples ask before he says anything, then he says what it is, and then proves it by showing them the sexual parts. Both versions drop no. 5, having included the detail in no. 4. b. Bes. leaves out the first element of no. 6.1 cannot say why. All versions preserve, with minor variations, nos. 7 and 8. As noted, y. Hag. has greatly ex­ panded nos. 8-9. All b. Bes. adds to Qedar sheep is that were in Jerusalem, a normal expansion to add color. Tos. Hag. is similar to b. Bes. But why b. Bes. then omits the story of what the people actually did I cannot understand. There should be a clause, as in Tos. Hag., saying that the people really did accept Baba's invitation and did conform to Hillel's law. Otherwise no. 12 is unfounded. Hence I imagine the

337

S H A M M A I A N D HILLEL — SYNOPSES

parallel clause has been lost. The conclusion, no. 12, is everywhere the same, though b. Bes. has rendered it into the Babylonian beraita-idiom and drawn on no. 7 to supply a counterpart, the hand of Shammai was not stronger; now it is the hand of Hillel. 6. Hillel

and Shammai

Decreed

Uncleanness of

Hands

Synopses of y. Shab. 1:4 = y. Pes. 1:6, y. Ket. 8:11, and b. Shab. 14b-15a are given above, pp. 128-130. 7.

Uncleanness of VintaoinQ

Grapes

for the

Vat

b. Shab. 17a

h. Shab. 15a

b.

b. Hul.

A.Z.

39b 1. H e

who

gathers

grapes f o r t h e vintage 2. S h a m m a i says, R e a d y

1

(STYQ

yy

2

yy yy

yy

3

3 " * yy yy

yy

Um

4

L Y H HLL

L$M>Y)

W

»

J> 9

3 4.

36b yy yy

2

[to r e c e i v e u n c l e a n n e s s ] (HWK$R) 3. A n d Hillel says, N o t ready 4. E x c e p t f o r t h a t i n ­ stance, f o r there Hillel silenced Shammai

1 *•

J

yy yy yy ~* yy yy 4. And Hillel (<WDY) agreed with 5. Shammai 5.

5.

5 . Hillel said t o S h a m m a i , W h y d o they gather grapes i n cleanness a n d t h e y d o n o t cut olives in cleanness?

6.

6 . H e said t o h i m , I f y o u press m e , I shall decree u n ­ cleanness e v e n o n cutting olives.

6.

6.

7. A s w o r d w a s implanted in t h e school house. T h e y said, H e w h o e n t e r s w i l l enter, b u t he w h o goes o u t will n o t g o out. That day, Hillel w a s submissive a n d sat b e f o r e S h a m m a i l i k e o n e o f t h e disciples, a n d i t w a s h a r d f o r Israel like t h e d a y o n w h i c h t h e calf w a s made.

7.

7.

yy

Nos. 5-7 of b. Shab. 17a stand entirely alone. No. 4 in the other three versions surely alludes to b. Shab. 17a, nos. 5-7, but b. Shab. 15a = b. Hul. 36b has Hillel silencing Shammai, contrary to the extended version of b. Shab. 17a, while b. A.Z. 39b has Hillel agreeing with N E U S N E R , The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 7 0 , I

22

338

SHAMMAI AND

HILLEL — CONCLUSION

Shammai! Both certainly are invented on the basis of the subscriptions, Shammai and Hillel decreed, presumably unanimously. Perhaps b. Shab. 17a, nos. 5-7, represents a story told to account for that "unanimous" decree. In their present forms we cannot identify one version as earlier than another. All that seems certain is that the primary pericope consisted of nos. 1-3, and then was variously embellished to explain how the decree was attributed to both men when they had disagreed about it to begin with.

in.

CONCLUSION

Stories in which Hillel and Shammai are treated as legal authorities of equal importance include the following: 1. Retroactive uncleanness of objects touched by menstrual woman —M. <Ed. 1:1, M. Nid. 1:1, b. Shab. 15a; 2. Dough made from qab or two qabs liable to hallah—M. Ed. 1:2, Tos. <Ed. 1:1, b. Shab. 15a; 3. How much drawn water impairs ritual pool—M. Ed. 1:3, Tos. <Ed. 1:3, b. Shab. 15a; 4. Hillel and Shammai decreed concerning the uncleanness of the hands—y. Shab. 1:4, y. Pes. 1:6, y. Ket. 8:11, b. Shab. 13b; 5. When one vintages grapes for the vat, the grapes are made fit to become unclean—b. Shab. 15a, b. Shab. 17a (III.ii.2.A-B), b. A.Z. 39b, b. Hul. 36b. c

c

All legal sayings are redacted in standard Mishnaic forms and pertain to legal matters of cleanness and proper donation of agricultural taxes, the two matters of primary concern to the Pharisaic havurah. We may well doubt that Shammai would have been represented after 70 as an authority of equivalent importance to Hillel. Hence these materials are highly credible and may well be authentic traditions of the masters' or of Houses' rulings. Stories of a different sort, in which Shammai's vices serve as a foil to Hillel's virtues, include the following: 1. Shammai impatient, Hillel patient—b. Shab. 30b-31a, ARN Chap. 15; 2. Shammai impatient with converts, Hillel nice to them—b. Shab. 30b-31a, ARN Chap. 15; 3. Shammai kept good things for Sabbath, Hillel was grateful day by day—b. Bes. 16a. The narratives in b. Shab. are in highly sophisticated form and, all the more so, in ARN. They reflect a situation long after the masters

SHAMMAI AND

HILLEL — CONCLUSION

339

had died, when Shammai was no longer remembered as a living person, and when Hillel could be used as a paragon of virtue without much reference to his actual traits or teachings. In no way can they be compared to the legal materials juxtaposing the two masters. Stories explaining the temporary predominance of the Shammaites are as follows: 1. Hillel laid hands onfire-offering,but because Shammaites thronged about him, he said it was peace-offering (overcome by Baba b. Buta)—Tos. Hag. 2:11, y. Hag. 2:3, y. Bes. 2:4, b. Bes. 20a-b; 2. Shammai planted a sword in the school-house and forced his ma­ jority to remain within, and Hillel was humiliated—b. Shab. 17a. The third genre of stories about Shammai and Hillel thus provides the Hillelites' explanation for the temporary predominance of Sham­ maites. These stories take for granted the ultimate triumph of the Hillelite House, therefore come after 70. They explain that the Sham­ maites used force to impose their opinions; they either mobbed Hillel in the Temple, or used weapons of war in the school house, or merely threatened Hillel. In the former instance a good Shammaite repaired the damage and corrected the false impression left by Hillel's own dissimulation. In the latter Shammai's ruling about the uncleanness of grapes at the vat was entered by force of arms into the normative tradition. Other, later materials have it simply that Hillel agreed with Shammai. While, as we saw, the legal tradition seems authentic, the accompanying story is pure fantasy. Two contrasting views about the worth of the disputes of the Houses (disciples of Hillel and Shammai) persisted. One held the disputes were the result of faulty mastery of the traditions, so the Torah was thereby made into two Torahs. The other was that they were for the sake of heaven. A negative view of the disputes of Sham­ mai and Hillel and their Houses comes in the logion that when the disciples of Shammai and Hillel multiplied, who had not sufficiently served as disciples, the Torah became two Torahs—Tos. Hag. 2:9, Tos. Sot. 14:9, y. Hag. 2:2, b. Sot. 47b, b. Sanh. 88b. The affirmative view held the controversies were for the sake of heaven, only in M. Avot 5:17. The Shammai-Hillel materials therefore are to be divided into four completely different, unrelated kinds: first, possibly authentic records of legal and moral opinions of the two masters, transmitted through the Houses at a time that the Shammaites were able to preserve their master's teachings at parity with Hillel-materials; second, legendary

340

SHAMMAI AND

HILLEL — CONCLUSION

stories about the superiority of Hillel and everything he said and did. The two sorts of stories in no way compare to one another in form, literary traits, or content. A third group of materials explains why the Shammaites one time had been able to predominate in Pharisaism; and a fourth presents an evaluation of the disputes of the masters and their Houses. The latter three come long after the masters were dead and probably after the House of Shammai had ceased to be an impor­ tant force in the Pharisaic-rabbinic movement.

CHAPTER ELEVEN GAMALIEL

Locating the traditions of Gamaliel is complicated by the existence of traditions of Gamaliel II of Yavneh, by the absence of references to Gamaliel in accounts of the debates of the contemporary Houses of Shammai and Hillel, by the end of the system of listing pairs, and most of all, by the failure of the tradents everywhere to distinguish carefully among the Gamaliel's. To be sure, sometime after the rise of Gamaliel II of Yavneh, the earlier Gamaliel was sometimes dist­ inguished as the Elder, but the attribution is, of course, late—surely not before 80 A.D.—and not consistently and accurately supplied. Gamaliel was also given the title Rabban, by analogy to his grandson, I imagine (see Epstein, Mevo^ot, p. 31), so was the first of the pre-70 Pharisees to be given the title in later traditions. A measure of certainty derives from the content of traditions—but not a great measure. For instance, pericopae presupposing the exist­ ence of the Temple presumably relate to Gamaliel I. Forms linking a Gamaliel to Eliezer, Joshua, 'Aqiba, and others of Yavneh must mark traditions of Gamaliel II. Stories about Gamaliel and Onqelos pre­ sumably are about Gamaliel II, for Onqelos was a disciple of Eliezer and Joshua (b. Meg. 10a), and therefore such passages as Tos. Shab. 7:18 (Zuckermandel, p. 119 lines 2-3), b. A.Z. 11a, and b. M. Q. 27a contain stories probably about the second Gamaliel, not the first, despite the inaccurate, or improbable allusion to Gamaliel the Elder. On the other hand, old men of Yavneh, e.g. stories of Sadoq, refer to a Gamaliel, and it is possible that some of these references are to the first, not the second one. Here we can have practically no certainty at all. I have omitted all such reminiscences. Stories about Tabi, slave of Gamaliel, must be attributed to Gamaliel II. Our account of the traditions of Gamaliel I therefore can by no means be so comprehensive and reliable as those of earlier masters. I have eliminated all materials that did not seem surely to refer to Gamaliel I, at the risk of missing some stories that belong to him. The facts that one readily confuses Gamaliel I with Gamaliel II and that the sayings of the two are internally not clearly differentiated as to opinion, theme, or tendency suggest that the traditions are not

342

G A M A L I E L —I.ii.l, 2

satisfactory for historical research. One may readily distinguish many traditions of Hillel and his House, given anonymously, from tradi­ tions of Shammai and his House, given the same way, because the two sets of traditions in general were systematized and arranged around consistent principles (e.g., stringency vs. leniency). The confusion of the two Gamaliel's comes because the two were in the same party and their traditions were handed on by the same tradents, who differentiat­ ed the two, if at all, either through well-known historical facts (Yavneh or Jerusalem as the setting), or through the juxtaposition of wellknown personalities (Joshua, Eliezer, or Aqiba with Gamaliel II, and Yohanan b. Zakkai or a named disciple of the House of Shammai with Gamaliel I). c

i. T R A D I T I O N S

1.11.1. Agrippas the Elder (SB') asked Rabban Gamaliel, "Is he jealous only of others, as it is said, You will know this day and lay it on your heart that the Lord he is God (Deut. 4:39)." He said to him, "He is not jealous of one greater then himself or like himself, but less than himself, and so it says, For two evils my people has done, me have they abandoned, the source of living waters (Jer. 2:13). Had they abandoned me, the source of living waters, they would be wretched. How much the more so to dig for themselves wells, broken wells that will not hold water!" (Mekhilta deR. Simeon b. Yohai, Ex. 20:5, ed. Epstein-Melamed, p. 147, lines 24-5; p. 148, lines 1-3) Comment: This singleton bears no relationship to other early exegeses of Jer. 2:13 (in b. R.H. 5a-b, y. Suk. 5:5). The representation of Gama­ liel with Agrippa might involve Gamaliel the Elder, as in b. Pes. 88a (below). We have, however, no evidence that a genre of stories devel­ oped around the figure of Gamaliel the Elder discussing with gentiles, kings, or Roman authorities, Scriptural and other theological questions. Since several similar stories occur with Gamaliel II, it is virtually cer­ tain that Gamaliel II is meant here, despite the chronological appropri­ ateness of setting Agrippa the Elder with Gamaliel I. C

1.11.2. This testimony did Hezeqiah father of Q§ testify before Rabban Gamaliel the Elder... (Sifra Shemini, Parashah 7:4, ed. Weiss, p. 53b) Comment:

The testimony concerns cleanness rules pertaining to clay

G A M A L I E L — I.ii.3, 4 ; I l . i . l

343

vessels. No other testimonies in the name of Hezeqiah before Gamaliel the Elder survive; nor are Gamaliel-logia preserved in testimony-form. I.ii.3. [You shall surely destroy all the places where the nations whom you shall dispossess served their Gods... You shall not do so to the Lord your God (Deut. 12:2-4)]. Rabban Gamaliel says, "And would it enter your mind that Israel would destroy their [own] altars? God forbid! But you should not do [actions] like their deeds, that your evil deeds thereby cause the sanc­ tuary of our Temple to be destroyed." (Sifre Deut. 61, ed. Friedman, p. 87b; ed. Finkelstein, p. 127) Comment: Since Gamaliel's saying presupposes that the Temple has not been destroyed, it is apt to be attributed to Gamaliel the Elder. The sentiment is that Israel would not destroy the altars of gentiles, but should not emulate the deeds of gentiles and so cause their own altar to be destroyed—a sentiment congruent to that of Yohanan b. Zakkai in connection with the events of Yavneh in ca. 40 A.D. It seems to me that it may be an authentic tradition, for the setting, with the Temple still standing, and the sentiment, that Israel should not violently destroy pagan altars, both are congruent to the times and known opinions of leading Pharisees before 70. But these considerations can hardly be de­ cisive; we have no firm evidence on the matter. Furthermore, some versions read Ishmael. I.H.4.A. And your Torah to Israel (TWRTK) (Deut. 21:5)—teaches that two Torahs were given to Israel, one orally and one in writing. B. Agenitos the Hegemon asked Rabban Gamaliel. He said to him, "How many Torahs were given to Israel?" He said to him, "Two, one in writing and one orally." (Sifre Deut. 351, ed. Finkelstein, p. 408) Comment: The same story is told about Yohanan b. Zakkai and Agrippas the Hegemon, Midrash Tannaim, ed. Hoffmann, p. 215; see Development, p. 37. In both instances, the exegesis (part A) is turned into a story (B). Il.i.l.A. If a man sowed his field in one kind, even if he made up two threshing-floors, he need grant but one Pe*ah; if he had sown it in two kinds, even if he made up but one threshing-floor, he must grant two Pe*ahs. If he sowed his field in two kinds of wheat and made up one threshing-floor, he grants one Pe ah; but if two threshingfloors, he must grant two Pe ahs. B. It once happened that (M'SH §) R. Simeon of Mispah [thus] sowed [his field and came] before Rabban Gamaliel; and they went up y

y

344

G A M A L I E L — II.i.2

to the Chamber of Hewn Stone and inquired. C. Nahum the Scribe (LBLR) said, "I have received a tradition from R. Measha, who received it from his father, who received it from the pairs, who received it from the Prophets as zHalakhah given to Moses from Sinai, that if a man sowed his field in two kinds of wheat and made them up into one threshing-floor, he grants one Pe*ah; but if two threshing-floors, he must grant two Pe*ahs" (M. Pe'ah 2:5-6, trans. Danby, p. 12) C

Comment: The story (M SH §) involves Gamaliel only incidentally. Simeon asked him the law, and since he did not know, the two of them brought the question to a higher court. Nahum then reported his tradi­ tion. Strikingly, Gamaliel did not know what the pairs had said, though he was allegedly descended from Hillel, the last of them (and sup­ posedly his own father/grandfather), but Nahum did. Still, I do not see a polemic against Gamaliel; the saying is cited en passant and without polemical intent. Part C repeats as a story the generalized law of part A. The fact of the matter is that a tradition of the pairs unknown to Gamaliel is represented as known to someone else of his day. One may therefore wonder about the nature and extent of Gamaliel's discipleship with the antecedent masters. No saying is attributed to Gamaliel him­ self. He is merely a minor character. Even though he was supposedly nasi, he still had to repair to the high court; one might have assumed the nasi presided over that very court. The presumption that this is Gamaliel I is strong; the setting takes it for granted. The little story provides flimsy evidence indeed about the opinions or biography of Gamaliel I. II.i.2. Yo'ezer of the Birah was one of the disciples of the House of Shammai, and he said, "I asked Rabban Gamaliel the Elder [when he was] standing in the Eastern Gate, and he said, I t never renders the dough forbidden unless it sufficed [of itself] to leaven the dough.'" (M.
G A M A L I E L — II.i.3

345

House of Shammai conforms to our theory that the House of Shammai did flourish in Temple times. Mentioning quite tangentially the name of an inquirer of that House serves no obvious polemical purpose. If the intent were to say that the Shammaites subordinated themselves to Gamaliel, it would as well have sufficed to say "a disciple" or "the House of," rather than a particular, named disciple. The subject-matter of the inquiry is of special interest, for this is not specified as a matter subject to debate between the Houses. The fore­ going Mishnah reads: I f c o m m o n l e a v e n a n d H e a v e - o f f e r i n g l e a v e n fell i n t o d o u g h , a n d n e i t h e r o f t h e m sufficed t o l e a v e n t h e d o u g h , b u t i n c l u d e d t o g e t h e r t h e y l e a v e n e d it, R . E l i e z e r says, "I s h o u l d d e c i d e b y w h i c h o f t h e m fell in l a s t . " T h e sages say, " W h e t h e r t h e f o r b i d d e n s u b s t a n c e fell i n first o r last, it c a n n e v e r r e n d e r t h e d o u g h f o r b i d d e n unless it sufficed o f itself t o l e a v e n the dough."

Thus Gamaliel's opinion, in exactly his words, is preserved as the opin­ ion of the sages of Yavneh, in opposition to Eliezer b. Hyrcanus (a Shammaite). Yet Gamaliel's name is not mentioned—it is merely "the sages." This suggests that the opinion of Gamaliel has not been set into the normal forms of transmission of legal materials, but was kept only as a story. But if the story was known in Yavneh, and if it did influence not only the opinion, but the actual formulation, of the majority, then M. Orl. 2:11 is strangely silent about that fact. Why was Gamaliel not specified as the authority for the opinion, given the fact that both the substance and the formulation are supposedly his? The fact that not a single legal saying of Gamaliel was preserved in normal conventional form must supply the answer. All Gamaliel-materials in the Mishnah are in the form of stories or references, in indirect discourse, to his opinions and enactments. None supplies quotations of his words. All are in a form different from that imposed at Yavneh and afterward. On the face of it the Yo ezer story is an authentic account of what Gamaliel actually stated. Gamaliel served as authority for the Sham­ maites. We have no equivalent story of a Hillelite who asked Gamaliel for a ruling. See Epstein, Mishnah, p. 1199. c

c

II.i.3.A. He of the house (SLBYT) of Rabban Gamaliel used to go in (HYH NKNS) with his Sheqel between his fingers and throw it in front of him that took up Terumah, and he that took up Terumah in­ tends and thrusts it into the basket. B. He that took up Terumah never took it up without saying, "Shall I take up Terumah?" and they thrice answered, "Take up Terumah! Take up Terumah! Take up Terumah!" (M. Sheq. 3:3, trans. Danby, p. 155) Comment: The practice pertained to Temple times. The Gamalielite waited until the time that the money actually would be used for the

346

GAMALIEL—II.i.4, 5

purchase of sacrifices (Albeck, Mo'ed, p. 194). MS Kaufmann has the whole in the singular. According to the above, a "House of Gamaliel" existed alongside the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai. Alternatively, the reference is to Gamaliel's own household. Since we have no legal opinions attri­ buted to the House, only reports of the practices in connection with specific Temple rites, it is difficult to imagine a House of Gamaliel comparable to the other Houses. But that cannot be decisive. The Houses of Shammai and Hillel were small; only in Yavneh did they predominate in the formation of traditions. Perhaps "Houses" formed around other pre-70 masters, e.g. Gamaliel, Yohanan b. Zakkai, but being unrepresented in Yavneh, were either subsumed in the leading Houses there or obliterated. We cannot be certain. II.i.4. There were thirteen Shofar-chests, thirteen tables, and thir­ teen prostrations in the Temple. They of the House of Gamaliel and of the House of R. Hanina the Prefect of the Priests used to make fourteen prostrations. And where was the added one? Opposite the wood-store, for thus was the tradition among them from their forefathers, that there the Ark lay hidden. (M. Sheq. 6:1, trans. Danby, p. 158) Comment: Here again we have a story of the practice of two Houses in the Temple, now in the plural. The additional prostration was on ac­ count of their fathers' tradition that in the first Temple the ark was hid­ den in the present location of the wood-store; they paid respect to that place, while others did not. The reference to "their fathers" does not clarify matters, for fathers of the worldIncluded Hillel and Shammai, Shema'iah and Abtalion, so it is difficult to say whether their immediate parents or their masters are meant. At any rate, Hillel (or Simeon) curiously is not mentioned as the authority, and the fathers are generalized and anonymous. Hillel ap­ pears nowhere in the Gamaliel-traditions, apart from M. Avot and b. Shab. 15a, as noted above.

II.L5.A. (M'SH § ) : Once when they brought cooked food to Rab­ ban Yohanan b. Zakkai to taste the broth and two dates and a pail of water to Rabban Gamaliel, they said, "Bring them up to the Sukkah" B. And when (K§) they gave R. Sadoq less than an egg's bulk of food, he took it in a towel and ate it outside the Sukkah and did not say the Benediction after it. (M. Suk. 2:5, trans. Danby, p. 175) Comment:

See Development,

p.

43.

G A M A L I E L — II.i.6

347

II.i.6.A. There was a large courtyard in Jerusalem, and it was called Bet Ya'azoq, and to there all the witnesses would assemble. And there the court examined them. And they prepared large meals for them so that they might make it a habit to come. B. Beforetime they did not stir from there the whole day. Rabban Gamaliel the Elder ordained that they might walk within two thousand cubits in any direction. C. And not these only, but a midwife that comes to help a delivery, or any that comes to rescue from a burning house, or ravaging troops, or from a river-flood or a fallen house; they, too, are [deemed to be] like people of the city and may move two thousand cubits in any direction. (M. R.H. 2:5, trans. Danby, p. 190) Comment: The decree of Gamaliel is given in the Yavnean form: At first... When the Temple was destroyed, Rabban X decreed... The form here makes good sense, however, unlike its use in connection with Hillel's decrees, for it is entirely plausible that the witnesses earlier remained in the courtyard, once they had reached it on the Sabbath. But we have no information on the provocation for changing the law; in the Yavnean form it is invariably specified. Who took the sightings of the moon and thereupon decreed the cal­ endar? So long as the Temple stood, the Temple administration held full responsibility for the declaration of the sacred calendar, important in determining the proper Temple sacrifices for each day. It is hardly likely that the Pharisees would have told the priests when the festival and Atonement offerings were to be made. On the other hand, we have no evidence that the Pharisees maintained a calendar separate from that of the Temple authorities. Under what circumstances can we conceive Gamaliel's issuing such an "ordinance," or making such arrangements? Only if Gamaliel were a leading participant in the Temple councils is it conceivable that he could have issued such instructions. According to Acts 5:34 "a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, held in honor by all the people" participated in decisions of the administration of the Temple. Hence the ordinance conforms to the picture given by quite separate and unrelated evidence. But the congruity of the two sources cannot be probative, merely suggestive. Still, the contrast to the alleged ordinances of Hillel is striking. There we could imagine no circumstance in which Hillel could have decreed what the Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition attributed to him, while here it seems plau­ sible that Gamaliel I made the arrangements assigned to him. The pericope is in brief, unified, and conventional form. Part C is a gloss, not to be attributed to Gamaliel. Part A however is integral to the understanding of the circumstances in which Gamaliel's decree was is­ sued. No further reference to the decree occurs in later materials. The legal

348

G A M A L I E L — II.i.7

basis is not explored, so it is left as a novel innovation, based upon practical necessity. On BYT Y
II.i.7.A. R. Aqiba said, "When I went down to Nehardea to inter­ calate a leap-year, Nehemiah of Bet Deli found me and said to me, 'I have heard that in the land of Israel the sages, excepting R. Judah b. Baba, do not allow (MSY'YN) the woman to marry again on the evidence of one witness.' "I answered (NWMYTY) him, I t is so.' "He said to me, 'Go, tell them in my name (you know that this country is in confusion by reason of ravaging troops), and I have received a tradition (MQWBL'NY) from Rabban Gamaliel the Elder: They allow the woman to marry again on the evidence of one witness.'" "And when I came and recounted (HRSYTY) the matters before Rabban Gamaliel, he rejoiced at my words and said, 'We have found an associate (HBR) for R. Judah b. Baba.' " B. From the things (MTWK HDBRYM) Rabban Gamaliel remem­ bered that men were killed at Tel Arza>, and Rabban Gamaliel the Elder allowed their wives to marry on the evidence of one witness. C. And they were established (HWHZQW) to allow (LHYWT MSY'YN) a woman to marry again on the evidence of one witness [who testifies what he has heard] from [another] witness, or from a slave, or from a woman, or from a bondwoman. (M. Yev. 16:7, trans. Danby, pp. 244-5) Comment: The pericope is a composite of two separate traditions of Gamaliel's ruling. The first is 'Aqiba's report of the opinion of Nehe­ miah, to be dated ca. 100 A.D. The second, part B, is a separate tradi­ tion attributing to Gamaliel II the story of Gamaliel I's ruling in con­ nection with the massacre of Tel Arza, about which nothing else is known. Part A has Aqiba tell Gamaliel II what he has heard. Then Gamaliel is delighted because Judah b. Baba's ruling is now reaffirmed, a view surely derived from the Judah b. Baba-circle of'Aqiban disciples. There­ fore part A is the version of the story, ca. 100, from that circle, ca. 140150. Gamaliel II makes strikingly little of his grandfather's ruling, in preference to Judah's. Part A is joined to the second version by the phrase, from the midst of the things (MTWK HDBRYM) Rabban Gamaliel remembered that, trans­ lated by Danby whereupon. Now comes the second, and separate version of Gamaliel's ruling. The (earlier) form of the ruling of Gamaliel I comes—as we should have expected—in the context of a story. As to those slain at Tel Arza, Rabban Gamaliel the Elder permitted their c

G A M A L I E L — II.i.7

349

wives to remarry on the basis of the testimony of a single witness that their husbands had died. Afterwards comes the gloss, And the rule was established..., followed by the exact words earlier used to report Gama­ liel's ruling in connection with the massacre. What is further interesting is the opinions registered in the next peri­ cope: And the rule was established to permit a woman to remarry on the wit­ ness of a single witness, or of a woman, or a slave girl. R. Eliezer and R. Joshua say, "They do not permit the woman to re­ marry on the evidence of a single witness." R. 'Aqiba says, "Not on the evidence of a woman, nor on the evidence of a slave, nor on the evidence of a slavegirl, nor on the evidence of rela­ tives." Then is cited a case in which a woman's testimony is accepted, along with certain proofs of the accuracy of her statement. Gamaliel's view is rejected by the disciples of Yohanan b. Zakkai. Gamaliel II says nothing in this version of the law. He only (miraculously) remembers it, ac­ cording to part A, or has a precedent-setting case {not cited in opposi­ tion to Eliezer-Joshua), according to part B. The tradition of Gamaliel I thus persists in two separate forms. Nehemiah has a tradition in language to be attributed to Gamaliel I: One permits remarriage on the basis of the testimony of a single wit­ ness. Gamaliel I recalls a case in which exactly the same language occurs, now not as a general rule, rather as part of a narrative: Gamaliel permitted remarriage (of their wives) on the basis of the testimony of a single witness.

It comes down to the same thing: Gamaliel's ruling was in the form of a generalized tradition, which persisted both in that form and also as part of a story. Gamaliel II and Nehemiah may be presumed to have known what Gamaliel I said. This is the first important instance in which immediate disciples or contemporaries of a Pharisee provide us with verification for a saying, therefore give evidence as to how a tradition was handed on very soon after the lifetime of the master who originally gave it. I take it for granted that their tradition is valid, and that Gamaliel I did issue a ruling concerning the rights of women to remarry in difficult cir­ cumstances. That shows a widening of the range of Pharisaic rulings to an important, hitherto not much discussed, area of law. One recalls that to Simeon b. Shetah was attributed a clause in the marriage-contract, and a few other rulings pertinent to married life were issued, or at least referred to, in connection with earlier masters. However, Gamaliel I represents the first Pharisaic master to whom was attributed a substan­ tial ruling on that subject (see M. Git. below). We have no grounds on which to suppose ancient traditions were now attributed to an important authority, or to reject the authenticity of the tradition. On the contrary, the persistence of the tradition in two forms, but in identical language, seems important evidence that it orig­ inated in something Gamaliel had actually said and done, and that the

350

G A M A L I E L — II.i.8

incident or ruling (whichever it originally was) was very soon set into language which became fixed. The rejection of the tradition by Joshua-Eliezer is in this very same language, One does not permit the woman to marry on the evidence of a single witness—further evidence that the formula was fixed by the early years of Yavneh. That they held a con­ trary opinion is not surprising and says nothing about the authenticity of the attribution to Gamaliel I. What is more important is the language in which they rejected it. Aqiba further builds upon the language of their ruling, a third stage in the development of the argument. We may reliably attribute to Gamaliel-tradents the words: c

G a m a l i e l permitted to marry (HSY>) the woman on the testimony (*L P Y ) of one witness (HD)

On Nehemiah of Bet Deli, see my History of the Jews in Babylonia. I. The Parthian Period (Leiden, 1969 ), pp. 52-3. He occurs nowhere else. 2

II.L8.A. Admon gave seven [decisions]: If a man died and left sons and daughters, and the property was great, the sons inherit and the daughters receive maintenance; but if the property was small, the daughters receive maintenance and the sons go begging. Admon says, "[The son may say], 'Must I suffer loss because I am a male!"' Rabban Gamaliel said, "I approve (Lit.: See = RW'H) the words of Admon." B. If a man claimed from his fellow jars of oil, and the other ad­ mitted [his claim] to the [empty] jars, Admon says, "Since he admits the claim in part, he must take an oath [in denial of the rest]." But the sages say, "This is not an admission in like to the claim." Rabban Gamaliel said, "I approve the words of Admon." C. If a man undertook to give money to his [prospective] son-inlaw and then stretched out the leg [ = ran away], she may sit down [and remain unmarried] until her hair grows grey. Admon say, "She can say, 'Had I myself undertaken it, I would sit down until my hair grows grey; but since now it is my father that undertook it because of me, what can I do? Either marry me or set me free.'" Rabban.Gamaliel said, "I approve the words of Admon." (M. Ket. 13:3-5, trans. Danby, pp. 262-3) Comment: See Development, pp. 47-8. Admon and Hanan were two judges of civil law in Jerusalem. Among Admon's seven decisions, Yohanan b. Zakkai approved two, in disagreement with Dosa b. H a r kinas. Now we have a single stock-phrase for the opinion of Gamaliel

G A M A L I E L — II.i.8, 9

351

I, a form different from Yohanan's, which is Hanan said well. But the structure is otherwise the same: 1. Case/problem/rule of law 2. Opinion of Admon or Hanan 3. Pharisaic reaction: A. Dosa b. Harkinas said like their words. Yohanan b. Zakkai: Well spoke Hanan. or

B. Gamaliel: I see the words of Admon. Clearly, a Pharisaic pericope was shaped very near the destruction of the Temple on Pharisaic rulings with respect to the judgments of the civil judges (= Temple administration) of the city. In part A Admon rules contrary to the general rule given before his opinion, then comes Gamaliel's view. In parts B and C the sages' rule intervenes. We do not know who "the sages" are, but may take it for granted that they are Pharisees who do not agree with the court's ruling given in Admon's name. So in part A, the anonymous ruling comes from the court, then is rejected by Admon and Gamaliel; in part B the ruling comes from Admon, the sages disagree, but Gamaliel approves; and so in part C. Other decisions of Admon are preserved without Gamaliel's comment. In part A Admon's rule favors the male children in cases of a limited inheritance. In part B the ruling concerns conflicting claims in an ad­ versary judgment, an important rule to guide court-decisions. In part C the law concerns an abandoned woman. Before the wedding the groom flees. Now is the woman left unable to marry someone else? The rule is that she cannot marry. Admon rejects the rule on the legal technicality that the agreement was between the groom and the father, therefore not binding on the abandoned girl. Gamaliel shares the view of Admon, consistent with the spirit of his ruling that women may remarry on the testimony of a single witness to the death of the first husband. This looks like the composite record of a set of court rulings on which Pharisaic masters have issued comments, or glosses, for the pur­ poses of their own group. Gamaliel's original language may be before us. No one has taken the tradition and revised it into the language of a purely Pharisaic ruling or of Gamaliel himself, but the whole has merely been supplemented with Yohanan's and Gamaliel's opinions. They and the sages are the only authorities mentioned in context. II.i.9. When Rabban Gamaliel the Elder died, the glory of the Torah ceased, and purity and abstinence (PRY$WT) died. (M. Sot. 9:15, trans. Danby, p. 306) Comment: Gamaliel the Elder is part of the long list of the cessation of ancient virtues at the death of ancient worthies. Gamaliel comes be­ tween Yohanan b. Zakkai and "Rabbi" Ishmael b. Phiabi, then Rabbi

352

G A M A L I E L — II.i.10

[Judah the Patriarch] stands at the end of this part of the list, followed by Pinhas b. Ya'ir on the sad decline consequent on the destruction of the Temple. The list surely was shaped in the early part of the third century, composed at that time as a kind of litany. We have no reason to believe earlier logia about the virtues of the ancients have been trans­ formed into the form: when x died,y ended, and then turned into a com­ posite list. Why to Gamaliel should be attributed the glory (KBWD) of the Torah is clear, for when "Rabbi" Ishmael b. Phiabi died, the splendor (ZYW) of the priesthood—the counterpart—came to an end. But I do not know whether these were intentionally paired, for I see no other pairs in the pericope. The further gloss, death of purity and separateness, is appropriate, since with the end of the Temple, the purity-laws no longer applied to their obvious setting, the Temple, and the emphasis of Pharisaism turned from those laws ("separateness") to quite different problems. But this is a post-facto judgment. I doubt it was in anyone's mind. I do not know what has happened to Simeon b. Gamaliel the Elder. The Simeon b. Gamaliel on this list comes with Ben Azzai, Ben Zoma, Joshua, Eleazar b. Azariah, 'Aqiba—Yavneans—but he should have marked the destruction of the Temple, rather than Gamaliel 1.1 am not sure which Simeon is intended by the tradent. c

ILi.lO.A. At first a man used to set up a court [of three] elsewhere and annul it [the Get, before them]. Rabban Gamaliel the Elder ordained (HTQYN) that they should not do so, for (MPNY) the order (TYQWN) of the world. B. At first a man used to change his name and her name, and the name of his city and the name of her city. Rabban Gamaliel the Elder ordained that [in the bill of divorce] he should write, "Such-a-man, and all other names that he had," and "Such-a-woman, and all other names that she had," for the order of the world. C. A widow may not receive payment [of her Ketuvah'] from the property of the orphans except on oath. They refrained from making her swear on oath. Rabban Gamaliel the Elder (MS Kaufmann: Simeon b. Gamaliel) ordained that she should vow to the orphans whatsoever they would, and collect her Ketuvah. D. The witnesses sign the bill of divorce for the order of the world. E. Hillel ordained the pro^bol for the order of the world. (M. Git. 4:2-3, trans. Danby, pp. 310-11) Comment: We have three further ordinances of Gamaliel I, pertaining to the document of divorce, parts A and B, and the collection of the marriage-settlement, part C. .

GAMALIEL —

II.i.10

353

Part A is in Yzvnean-taqqanah form: At first... Gamaliel ordained..., with the stock-phrase subscription on account of the order of the world. The form, however, does not fit so well here as earlier. Once again we are asked to imagine that for centuries people were able to indulge in prac­ tices contrary to the public good; the possibility of issuing a divorce in one place and annulling it in another would have produced immeasur­ able difficulties for the divorced woman, her second husband, and all future children. It therefore seems unlikely that at first is more than a formal convention. We may take it for granted that the generally ac­ cepted procedures for issuing the get were what the at-first-phtzse al­ leges; but the common (non-Pharisaic and pre-Pharisaic) courts pre­ sumably had measures which prevented the sort of behavior now pro­ hibited by Gamaliel. We may assume that non-Pharisees divorced their wives as Scripture said, that is, with a document of divorce. So Gama­ liel's legislation was not likely to have been necessitated by difficulties extending back for a thousand years. If that is the case, and if the report is accurate, then what provoked Gamaliel? The Pharisaic group may now have begun to make its own arrangements for changes in marital (and other aspects of personal) status and therefore rejected the prevailing procedures in favor of a more efficient rule. Not having access to the means of administration, therefore to the coercion of police power, available to the Jewish gov­ ernment, the Pharisees had to accomplish by other means what must have been achieved by that government in a quite routine manner. The same reasoning applies to part B, also in the form: at first... Gamaliel ordained... on account of the order of the world. It is unthinkable that for centuries it was possible to issue a divorce in one name, then to make use of another, more common one, e.g. an old name of the vil­ lage, or an uncommon family one, so that the divorce-document could be confusing. Part C is in different form; the stock phrase, on account of the order of the world, is not tacked on at the end. It seems to me more accurate than the foregoing. The passage begins with a general rule, The widow may not collect her marriage-settlementfrom the property of the orphans except by means of an oath. Like the generalized, introductory clauses in M. Ket. 13:1-5, this would represent the general state of affairs, deriving from, and based upon, the common law of Palestinian Jewry, applying to everyone. Then comes a statement of the problem, much like the reports of Hillelordinances: They held back from administering the oath to her. The obvious result was that the woman was cheated of her marriage-settlement. Then comes Gamaliel ordained that she should vow to the orphans as much as they might demand, then collect her marriage-settlement. How have matters improved? In the case of an oath, Albeck explains {Seder Nashim, p. 282), the woman might claim that what she received constitutes salary for caring for the orphans, while the orphans might claim that that was part of her marriage-settlement. Therefore, Albeck says, a conflict of interpretation might produce a false oath; hence peo­ ple refrained from taking or administering the horrendous oath. HowN E U S N E R , The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 7 0 , I

23

354

G A M A L I E L — II.i.10

ever, by having the orphans specify whatever they liked, a common in­ terpretation of the situation would be achieved, e.g. Such and so fruit is prohibitedfor

me by vow if I have received any thing from

my

marriage-settlement,

so Albeck. I am not sure how this improves matters. The whole peri­ cope is composed of rulings issued for the order of the world, the stockphrase serving to unite the disparate materials. But the Gamaliel-col­ lection, like Admon's, certainly was put together apart from the rest and consisted of three rules: 1. N o t a n n u l d i v o r c e 2 . U s e all n a m e s o n d i v o r c e 3. C o l l e c t m a r r i a g e - s e t t l e m e n t by

vow

that is to say, two laws about divorce-documents, and one discrete rule. Since part C does not make use of the normal taqqanah-form, we may imagine that parts A and B stood as separate rules, and all three existed without the narrative historical explanation supplied routinely in mat­ ters of legislation. Gamaliel could have ruled simply that one must not annul a divorce except in the court that issued it; one must use all ap­ propriate names, to avoid confusion; collecting a marriage-settlement may be done by vow, not by oath. These simple formulations of the law (in whatever language seemed appropriate) would have stood outside of an at first I ordained formula and would not have relied on the consequent historical justification for the legislation. The historical explanation is hardly pertinent to the ac­ tual rule. Why add the historical "reason"? Pharisaism insisted one could legislate either through exegesis or through response to pressing needs, but otherwise, legislation was not done, merely application of law by the lower courts and interpretation or citation of tradition by the highest one (as in Yosi's explanation of the operation of the courtsystem noted above, p. 308). Since in this instance, Pharisaic legislation may have added to, or changed, the existing common law, and since Pharisaism insisted that the valid common law was indeed its own, re­ vealed by Moses at Sinai in the Torah—that is, anachronistically Pharisaizing the law just as it did the heroes of ancient times—the motive in adding a historical explanation seems clear. The at firstjordained form served the purpose of explaining Pharisaic legislation, when new, in terms of the corruption of old practices. The formula therefore is as out of place here as with reference to Hillel. It has been imposed, perhaps routinely, along with the stockphrase about the order of the world. Its usefulness in some of Gamaliel's ordinances, as in Yavnean ones, led to its imposition even where it does not belong. I take it that the formula was imposed at Yavneh and not before. The earlier form of the sayings cannot be recovered. It was possible to at­ tribute direct speech to Gamaliel, as in the Admon-collection (M. Ket. 13:3-5), or to preserve Gamaliel's rules as stories, as in the rule pre­ served by Nehemiah of Bet Deli. My guess is that originally direct ad­ dress in this instance would have been preferable, later on reduced to

G A M A L I E L — I l . i . l l ; Il.ii.l

355

indirect address merely for the purpose of supplying the predicate for the verb TQN demanded by the new form. This theory presupposes an early, possibly oral form of the Gamalielrulings. But the at first form has obscured it. In part A we have a sen­ tence about early practices, followed by the report that Gamaliel the Elder ordained that they should not do so—language that depends upon the foregoing description. Part B has Gamaliel ordain that one should write a certain formula, but the formula is not attributed to him as lan­ guage he himself has supplied. In both parts A and B it comes down to the same thing, that whatever brief lemma was earlier memorized has been revised into a report. In part C, the substance of the decree is pre­ served and not merely described: [TH>] NWDRT LYTWMYM KL MH SYRSW WGWBH KTBTH —hardly a brief, rhythmic formula such as one might have expected. Further, the verb, TIP NWDRT, has to be revised if it is to stand apart from the introductory lemma. So in no element of the composite peri­ cope are we able to discern what form Gamaliel's original instructions would have taken. Strikingly, the three parts are unrelated to one an­ other in word-choice and rhythm, therefore would not have constituted a single, unified mnemonic tradition, in which a brief list (three things) would have been arranged for easy memorization. The only mark of the requirement to memorize the pericope comes after its formation at Yavneh: the persistence of the at first form (in parts A and B), and the inclusion of the stock-subscription, on account of the order of the world. It therefore looks as if the alleged oral stage follows the written one in re­ shaping the Gamaliel-materials; that is, the Mishnah's redactor im­ posed it. See Epstein, Mishnah, p. 1201. I l . i . l l . If a man died and left sons and daughters, and the propertywas great, the sons inherit and the daughters receive maintenance; but if the property was small, the daughters receive maintenance and the sons go begging. Admon says, "[The son may say] 'Must I suffer loss because I am a male?'" Rabban Gamaliel said, "I approve the words of Admon." (M. B.B. 9:1, trans. Danby, p. 378) Comment: See M. Ket. 13:3, II.i.8.A. The context is now appropriate: disposition of inheritances. No masters are mentioned in context; the rest is anonymous.

Il.ii.l. R. Yosah said, "The story is told that (M<SH §) R. Halafta went to Rabban Gamaliel to Tiberias, and found him sitting by the table of Yohanan b. Nazif, and in his hand was the Targum of the Book of Job, and he was reading in it.

356

G A M A L I E L — II.ii.2, 3

"R. Halafta said to him, 'I remember Rabban Gamaliel the Elder, the father of your father, who was sitting on a step on the Temple Mountain, and they brought before him the Targum of the Book of Job, and he said to his sons (Alt.: the builder), 'Hide it under the rubble.'" (Tos. Shab. 13(14):2, ed. Lieberman p. 57, lines 4-9) Comment: The Gamaliel here is Gamaliel II, and his grandfather is Gamaliel I, as specified. Halafta lived in Sepphoris. The story illustrates the principle that Scriptures in Targum or in other languages may be saved from afirebut then must be hidden. Such a Targum was hidden because of the sages' decree. The testimony of Halafta via Yosah does not raise any significant difficulties. Various stories place Gamaliel on the Temple steps, a commonplace detail, introduced conventionally as a formula, as in Tos. Sanh. 2:6. The Pharisees took a dim view of making Targums, e.g. a heavenly voice told Jonathan b. 'Uzziel not to make a Targum of the Writings, including Job (b. Meg. 3a), the reason (supplied by a gloss) being that the date of the coming of the Messiah is therein contained. So Gama­ liel's rule is consistent with separate and unrelated traditions on the same subject. The saying of Halafta is unadorned, a unity; it is a biographical remi­ niscence, with the standard M SH § superscription. I see no reason to doubt either that Halafta had said what Yosi his son attributed to him, or that what he told about Gamaliel was accurate. See Epstein, Mishnah, p. 649. C

11.11.2. R. Yosah b. R. Judah said, "Admon and the sages did not dispute... Concerning what did they dispute? [Concerning the case in which] she herself arranged the sum. "Admon says, 'She can say, I thought father would give me, now that father does not give me, what can I do? Either marry [me] or free [me].' "Rabban Gamaliel said, 'I see the words of Admon.'" (Tos. Ket. 12(13) :4, ed. Lieberman, p. 98, lines 38-43 [ = b . Ket. 109a, y. Ket. 13:5]) Comment: See M. Ket. 13:5, II.i.8.C. The facts of the case are now different, but the opinions of Admon and Gamaliel are given in the same language as earlier. Yosah had the Mishnaic formulation and re­ jected it.

11.11.3. The story is told concerning (M'SH B) Rabban Gamaliel and [the] Elders, who were sitting on steps on the Temple Mountain, and Yohanan, that scribe, was before them. He said to him, "Write: To our brethren, men of Upper Galilee and

G A M A L I E L — II.ii.3

357

men of Lower Galilee, May your peace increase: We inform you that the time of the burning has come, to bring out the tithes from the vats of olives. "And to our brethren, men of the Upper South and men of the Lower South, May your peace increase: We inform you that the time of burning has come, to remove the tithes from the sheaves of wheat. "And to our brothers, men of the Exile of Babylonia and men of the Exile of Medea and the rest of all the Exiles of Israel, May your peace increase: We inform you that the pigeons are tender and the lambs are young, and the time of spring has not come, and it is good in my view and in the view of my colleagues, and we have added to this year thirty days." (Tos. Sanh. 2:6, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 416, lines 27-33, to p. 417, lines 1-2) Comment: The fixed form of the letters is preserved throughout: Ad­ dress, salutation, decree, all in Aramaic. The contents are certainly what one would expect: olives in Galilee, wheat in the south, news of the sacrifices and intercalated month to the Exilic communities. But we cannot confuse verisimilitude with authenticity. The reference to communities in Medea along with Babylonia is curi­ ous, for we have considerable evidence about the latter, but practically none about the former (except for Nahum the Mede). The equivalence of Babylonian and Medean communities certainly is dubious. It looks as if the biblical "Babylonia and Medea" has required the composition of a separate salutation, even though the communities were not equiva­ lent in size or importance. The omission of Alexandria, Asia Minor, and other communities we know existed is equally strange. It seems as if conventional usage, rather than the facts of the matter, has shaped the tradition. Second, and more seriously, to whom are the letters addressed? If to all the Jews in those regions, then we are asked to believe that Gamaliel and the Pharisees, rather than the Temple authorities, determined the calendar and issued instructions on other matters—most unlikely. In fact the Temple authorities determined the calendar, and therefore the rituals associated with it would have been directed by them, not by Pharisees. The picture is consistently drawn that the Pharisees told the priests what to do and otherwise directed Temple procedures, but that picture is false. It would be plausible to suggest that the Pharisees wrote to their brethren, as the letters specify, and that the concern of the party for proper tithing is herein reflected. This would account for the letters to the brothers of the north and the south. But there were no brothers known to us in Babylonia, all the more so in Medea; the only indepen­ dent evidence on Babylonian Pharisaism concerns Nahum the Mede and, in earlier times, Hillel. The former consists of the nickname, and

358

G A M A L I E L — II.ii.4

the latter evidence comes down to the fact that Hillel migrated from Babylonia, nothing more. Judah b. Bathyra, a Temple authority, lived in Nisibis, presumably in connection with the collection of Temple of­ ferings from that area. Later on, by contrast, the rabbinic authorities did issue such letters and determine the calendar, but at that time it would have proved of no interest to tell the Babylonians not to make the pilgrimage too early, since the Temple lay in ruins. Still, the intercala­ tion of the calendar remained important and was presumably announced in the established language. A formally similar, but substantively not identical, letter from Simeon b. Gamaliel and Yohanan b. Zakkai is preserved in Midrash Tannaim, ed. Hoffmann, pp. 175-6, set Development, p. 37 and below, p. 378; there the tradent is Joshua b. Hananiah. I see no basis on which to reject the authenticity of that letter, which refers to one like this one, "We have not begun to write to you, but our fathers used to write to your fathers." The practice of writing such letters further is alluded to in M. M.S. 5:8 by Judah b. Ilai, who says it ended in the time of Aqiba. I therefore imagine that the letters were in their present form before Aqiba's time, ca. 120. Since that leaves a relatively brief period—let us say, 4080 A.D.—between the time that Gamaliel's letter would have been written, and that Joshua told the story of Yohanan b. Zakkai's letter, the record is apt to be genuine. Gamaliel's letters were likely to have been preserved, and the instructions on tithing issued from the Jerusa­ lem Pharisees to the brethren in the provinces, and on the calendar to Exile of Medea and Babylonia. That letter follows the form of the others, and the contents are appropriate; but I do not know who would have received it. It is unlikely that Gamaliel's archives included both genuine letters—to Galilee and the South, and fabricated ones—to Babylonia and Medea, right alongside. The letters may suggest the ex­ istence of some sort of archive for the preservation and transmission of written materials of pre-70 Pharisaic masters. c

c

C

II.ii.4. The story is told concerning (M SH B) Rabban Gamaliel the Elder, who gave his daughter in marriage to Simeon b. Netanel the Priest, and agreed with him (P$Q M W ) on the condition that she should not prepare clean things (THRWT) with him ( L GBYW). (Tos. A.Z. 3:10, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 446, lines 6-7) c

C

Comment: No tradents appear in connection with the above pericope. Simeon is listed among the five Jerusalem-disciples of Yohanan b. Zakkai. It is curious that the marriage agreement included the condi­ tion that the daughter not prepare clean things at his direction or with him ( L GBYW), which means he was not observant of the cleannessrules. The context in which the story is told moreover reenforces this interpretation. A dispute between Meir and the sages precedes the peri­ cope. The sages' opinion is that one may marry his daughter off to an C


"and agrees with him on the condition that she should not

prepare

G A M A L I E L — II.ii.5

359

clean things with him"—the exact language of the Gamaliel-story. Gama­ liel then is cited as an example in support of the sages' view. The law may have produced the Gamaliel-story, based on the tradition of Si­ meon's non-Pharisaic background. Since Simeon here is presented as an example of an *am ha'ares, it is further curious both that Gamaliel gave his daughter to him, and that Simeon is represented as Yohanan b. Zakkai's disciple. One could imagine that at the outset he was nonobservant, but later on was won over to the party, but no stories tell about his conversion. He is mentioned only in M. Avot, y. Hag. 2:1 (a Merkavah-tt&dition), and here. I cannot account for the identity of language between the sages' opin­ ion and the Gamaliel-story. It looks as if the latter has been told or fabricated as precedent for the former's opinion, just as the redactor has represented matters, but that does not solve the difficulty of why Gamaliel accepted a non-Pharisee as son-in-law. The absence of further Simeon-materials makes it impossible to speculate on the question. Since he was represented as a good disciple, there is no reason to doubt he kept the laws as did others of Yohanan's circle. Nor can we suppose the allegation that he did not was meant to discredit Gamaliel I, for the point of the story is that Gamaliel took proper account of the son-inlaw's laxity. Perhaps he did not object to intermarrying with nonPharisees, as the sages said was the case, provided one arranged things properly. But Simeon was a Pharisee, following the Yohanan-list. Per­ haps the answer lies in the history of the lists of Yohanan-disciples. If the Gamaliel-story is genuine, then Simeon was not a Pharisee, there­ fore not at the outset a disciple of Yohanan's. But he was part of the family of an important Pharisaic authority and Yohanan's colleague for many years. In composing the list of Yohanan's Jerusalem-disciples, including Simeon as a disciple may have been meant to allege that even the old Nasi's son-in-law actually served Yohanan, rather than the Nasi himself (unlikely). In any event, after Gamaliel's death, Simeon would have gone over to Yohanan, and the facts of his earlier relationship would have been obscured by the new one. But in so speculating, we are not on firmer ground than those who argue Simeon learned the law after his marriage and kept it later on. II.ii.5. Simeon b. Gode'a gave testimony before the son of Rabban Gamaliel who said in the name of Rabban Gamaliel the Elder that it is permitted for drinking, but they did not agree with him. (Tos. A.Z. 4:9, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 466, lines 29-30) Comment: The reference is to a large barrel carried on wheels (Jastrow, s.v. DRDWR and RWQB>) or bottles made of leather, formerly used for wine of gentiles but now having Israelite wine in them. The rule is the wine may not be drunk, but may be sold. Simeon testifies in the name of Gamaliel that the wine may even be drunk. This is a singleton. In b. A.Z. 32a we find the following:

360

G A M A L I E L — III.i.1, 2, 3

W i n e k e p t in b a r r e l s o r l e a t h e r b o t t l e s b e l o n g i n g t o gentiles is f o r b i d d e n f o r d r i n k i n g b u t p e r m i t t e d f o r sale. S i m e o n b . G u d d a * testified in t h e p r e s e n c e o f R . G a m a l i e l ' s s o n t h a t R . G a m a l i e l d r a n k o f s u c h in A k k o , b u t t h i s w a s n o t a c c e p t e d .

The Babylonian tradition therefore omits Gamaliel I and pertains to Gamaliel II. The confusion as to which Gamaliel is involved is further discussed by later authorities, who resolve it by postulating the exis­ tence of two Simeons, one b. Gode a the other b. Gudda* (!). t

y

III.i.1.A. R. Judah said, The story concerns (M'SH B) Rabban Gamaliel and the Elders who were sitting on the steps of the entrance hall (>WLM) on the Temple Mount, and Yohanan the Priest, the certain (HLZ) scribe, was sitting before them. B. They said to him, "Go and write: To our brothers, men of Upper Galilee and Lower Galilee ('R'YT'), May your peace increase: We inform you that the time of burning has come. Take out the tithes from the olive vats. C. "To our brethen the men of the Upper South and the Men of the Lower South: We inform you that the time of burning has come. Take out the tithes of the sheaves of wheat. D. "To our brothers, the men of the Exile of Babylonia and the Men of the Exile of Medea and the men of the Exile of Greece and the rest of all the Exiles of Israel, May your peace increase: We inform you that the lambs are tender and the pigeons weak, and it is good in my view and in the view of my colleagues to add to this year thirty days." (y. M.S. 5:4, repr. Gilead, p. 31b) Comment: See above, Tos. Sanh. 2:6, II.ii.3. Part C lacks the greeting, an obvious error. C

111.1.2. The story is told concerning (M SH B) Rabban Gamaliel who was standing by ( L) the building on the Temple Mount, and they brought to him the Book of Job written as a Targum, and he said to the builders, "Let it be hidden (YGNZW) under the rubble." (y. Shab. 16:1, repr. Gilead, p. 79a) C

Comment:

See above, Tos. Shab. 13:2, Il.ii.l. No tradent appears in

context. 111.1.3. [Citation of M. Git. 4:2.] (y. B.B. 10:4, repr. Gilead, p. 32a) Comment:

No named authorities refer to Gamaliel's opinion.

G A M A L I E L — I I I . i . 4 ; III.ii.1

361

III.i.4. TNY: R. Yudan said, The story concerns (M<SH B) Rabban Gamaliel and Elders who were sitting on the step on the Temple Mount, and Yohanan that scribe (HLZ) was sitting before them. Rabban Gamaliel said to him, "Write: To our brothers, men of the Upper South, and our brothers, men of the Lower South, May your peace increase: We inform you that the time of burning has come, to remove the tithes from the sheaves of wheat. "And to our brothers, Men of the Upper Galilee and Men of the Lower Galilee, may your peace increase: We inform you that the time of burning has come. Remove the tithes from the olive vats. "To our brothers, Men of the Exile of Babylonia and Men of the Exile of Medea and men of the Exile of Greece and the rest of all the exiles of Israel, May your peace increase: We inform you that the lambs are tender and the pigeons weak, and the time of spring has not come, and the matter is good in my view and in the view of my col­ leagues to add to this year thirty days." (y. Sanh. 1:2, repr. Gilead, p. 5a) Comment: See above, Tos. Sanh. 2:6, II.ii.3. R. Yannai further cites the Babylonian letter verbatim.

III.ii.1. Our rabbis taught (TNW RBNN) M<SH § : The son of R. Gamaliel fell ill. He sent two disciples of sages to R. Hanina b. Dosa to seek mercy for him. When he saw them, he went up to an upper chamber and sought mercy for him. When he came down, he said to them, "Go, for the fever has left him." They said to him, "Are you a prophet?" He said to them, "I am neither a prophet nor the disciple of a pro­ phet, but I have learned this from experience: If my prayer is fluent in my mouth, I know that he is accepted, but if not, I know that he is rejected (MTWRP)." They sat down and wrote and tallied (KWN) the exact moment ($
When they came to R. Gamaliel, he said to them, "By the Temple service! You did not subtract or leave over, but so it happened, at that very moment fever left him, and he asked for water to drink." (b. Ber. 34b) Comment: See Development, pp. 88-9. Note also Matt. 15:21-8 and Mark 7:24-30; Matt. 8:13, Luke 7:10; John 4:50-3. The story, unre­ lated to its context, presumably originates in the circle of Hanina b. Dosa, which preserved memories of how Hanina had healed the sons

362

G A M A L I E L — III.ii.2, 3

of the two greatest men of his day. We do not know when or where the beraita was shaped. The story is a unity. It may pertain to Gamaliel II, but if this is an authentic story about Hanina, then the greater likelihood is that it refers to Gamaliel I. He is left without a name; Simeon is not mentioned, though he would be an obvious candidate, because the son's identity is unimportant. The story is a healing fable. 111.11.2. Once they brought to R. Yohanan b. Zakkai a dish to taste and to Rabban Gamaliel two dates and a bucket of water [etc.] (b. Yoma 79a) Comment:

See M. Suk. 2:5, II.i.5, and Development,

p. 43.

111.11.3. Our Mishnah refers to a king and a queen. And it was taught so (WHTNY>): They do not register for two Passover-offerings simultaneously (K'HD). A. And it once happened that (WM SH B) the king and queen instructed their servants, "Go forth and slaughter the Passover-offer­ ing on our behalf." And they went and killed two Passover-offerings for them. They went and asked the king [which one he desired]. He answered them, "Go and ask the queen." They went and asked the queen. She said to them, "Go and ask R. Gamaliel." They went and asked R. Gamaliel, who said to them, "The king and queen, who have no particular desires ( = who are light-headed— D
C

G A M A L I E L — III.ii.4

363

was dependent on R. Gamaliel. Hence the whole repast was dependent on R. Gamaliel. (b. Pes. 88b, trans. H. Freedman, p. 469) Comment: The beraita is composite; parts A and B obviously contain separate stories. It is cited anonymously; no masters are mentioned in context. We may take it for granted that a story about a Gamaliel and a king and queen must concern Gamaliel I, presumably Agrippa and his wife. We noted above (I.ii.l) a story involving a Gamaliel and Agrippas the Elder and made the same assumption. The stories before us follow the same narrative pattern: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Something They asked They asked They asked king/queen

happened t h e k i n g , w h o said a s k t h e q u e e n t h e q u e e n , w h o said ask R a b b a n G a m a l i e l R a b b a n G a m a l i e l , w h o m a d e it p o s s i b l e t o d o w h a t t h e w o u l d find m o s t c o n v e n i e n t .

Then comes the superscription, part C, serving both stories and making the point that the royal meals depended upon Gamaliel, either with re­ spect to Passover, or with respect to a lizard's ritual defilment. The assumption of part B is that the king and queen ate their meals in a state of ritual purity, just like Pharisees, and that they relied upon Pharisaic instructions. This story certainly conforms to the conditions of life of the Babylonian rabbinate. The exilarch kept the dietary laws (which did not include cleanness rules), but, rabbis said, was subservient to the rabbis in keeping them. (By contrast, the Palestinian patriarchate did not depend upon rabbis for rabbinical information.) The likelihood that the unnamed king and queen actually ate their unconsecrated food in a state of ritual purity and that Gamaliel was consulted about their kitchen and Passover observance is nil. The story conforms to the cir­ cumstances of Babylonian Judaism, but that is not decisive. We may however take it for granted that the beraita contains no information about the real Gamaliel I and his relationships to the later Herodians. III.ii.4. Our rabbis taught (TNW RBNN): A. From the days of Moses to Rabban Gamaliel, they studied Torah only standing. When Rabban Gamaliel died, sickness (HWLY) descended on the world, and they studied the Torah sitting, and so we have learned: B. From the time Rabban Gamaliel died, the honor of the Torah was annulled (BTL). (b. Meg. 21a) Comment: Part A draws the consequences, and is an expansion of part B, cited from M. Sot. 9 : 1 5 . No named tradents are associated with the composite beraita, which accounts for a well-known practice by refer­ ence to a suitable "ancient authority."

364

G A M A L I E L —III.ii.4

Gamaliel the Elder

I Tannaitic Midrashim

1 . ( ? ) Is G o d jeal­ ous of others

M e k h . deR. Simeon pp. 147-8

2 . H e z e q i a h testi­ fied b e f o r e G a m a ­ liel

Sifra Shemini 7:4

3. (?) D e s t r o y altars

Sifre Deut. 6 1

Il.i Mishnah

G A M A L I E L — III.ii.4

ILii Tosefta

IU.i Tannaitic M a t e r i a l s in Palestinian Gemara

IILii Tannaitic M a t e r i a l s in Babylonian Gemara

IV.i Amoraic M a t e r i a l s in Palestinian Gemara

IV.ii Amoraic M a t e r i a l s in Babylonian Gemara

b. B e k h . 3 8 a (in n a m e o f Gamaliel the Elder)

4. W o m a n re­ m a r r i e s o n testi­ m o n y of one wit­ ness

M. Yev. 1 6 : 7

5 . S i m e o n asks G a m a l i e l re Pe ah

M. Pe ah2:6

6 . Y o ' e z e r asks Gamaliel

M.
7 . ( ? ) A t e in S u k kah with Yohanan b. Zakkai

M . Suk. 2 : 5

8. H o w his house g a v e Terumah

M . Sheq. 3 : 3

9. H o w his house prostrated selves in T e m p l e

M . Sheq. 6 : 1

1 0 . O r d i n a n c e re witnesses

M . R.H. 2 : 5

11. Approved A d m o n ' s decisions

M. Ket. 13:3-5 M . B.B. 9 : 1 = M. Ket. 1 3 : 3

12. When Gama­ liel d i e d , g l o r y o f T o r a h ceased

M. Sot. 9 : 1 5

1 3 . O r d i n a n c e re annulling divorce

M. Git. 4:2a

b. Y e v . 1 1 5 a

,

y

(?) =

N o t indubitably Gamaliel I.

b. Y o m a 79a

Tos. Ket. 1 2 : 4 [ = M. Ket. 13:5]

y. K e t . 1 3 : 5

(b. M e g . 2 1 a )

y. B.B. 1 0 : 4

b. K e t . 1 0 9 a

V ARN

365 VI Later Compilations of Midrashim

366

G A M A L I E L — III.ii.4

1 4 . O r d i n a n c e re listing nicknames in d i v o r c e

M. Git. 4 : 2 b

1 5 . O r d i n a n c e re c o l l e c t i n g Ketuvah

M. Git. 4 : 3

G A M A L I E L — III.ii.4

16. Banned Targum of J o b

Tos. Shab. 1 3 : 2

y. Shab. 1 6 : 1

b. S h a b . 1 1 5 a

1 7 . L e t t e r s re leap-year

Tos. Sanh. 2 : 6

y. M . S . 5 : 4 y. Sanh. 1 : 2

b. S a n h . 1 1 a

18. Married daughter to S i m e o n b. Netanel

Tos. A . Z . 3 : 1 0

19. Permitted drinking from vessels used f o r gentile w i n e

Tos. A . Z . 4 : 9

2 0 . Hanina healed his son

b. B e r . 3 4 b

2 1 . ( ? ) Re b l e s s i n g oil, then myrtle

b. B e r . 4 3 b

22. Instructed k i n g a n d q u e e n re P e s a h etc.

b . Pes. 8 8 b

2 3 . After death, men studied T o r a h sitting d o w n

b. M e g . 2 1 a

2 4 . Hillel's p r o s e ­ lyte named one o f sons Gamaliel

A R N Chap. 15

25. F o u r kinds of disciples

A R N Chap. 40

2 6 . Blessed beautiful gentile

y. A . Z . 1 : 9

(b. A . Z . 2 0 a : Simeon b. Gamaliel)

367

368

G A M A L I E L — III.ii.5, 6, 7

III.ii.5. Rami b. Hana replied, "Come and hear: "R. Aqiba stated, 'When I went down to Nehardea to intercalate the year I met Nehemiah of Bet Deli'" etc. (b. Yev. 115a) c

Comment:

Rami cites M. Yev. 16:7.

III.ii.6.A. Come now and see the difference between the proud leaders of former days and their modest successors of later times. For it has been taught (DTNY>): B. M'SH B : Rabban Gamaliel was sitting on a step on the Temple mount, and that (HLZ) scribe, Yohanan, [was] standing before him with three cut sheets lying before him. "Take one sheet," he said, "and write: "To our brethren, Men of Upper Galilee and to our brethren, Men of Lower Galilee, May your peace increase: We inform you that the time of removal has arrived, to set aside the tithe from the olive-heaps. "Take another sheet, and write: To our brethren, Men of the South, May your peace increase: We inform you that that the time of removal has arrived, to set aside the tithe from the wheat sheaves. "And take the third and write: To our brethren, the Exiles in Babylonia and to those in Medea, and to all the other exiles of Israel, May your peace increase forever: We inform you that the doves are still tender, and the lambs young, and the spring has not yet come. It is good in my view and in the view of my colleagues, and I have added thirty days to this year." C. [Yet] it is possible [that the modesty shown by Rabban Gamaliel in this case belongs to the period] after he had been deposed [from the office of Nasi]. (b. Sanh. lla-b) Comment: See above, Tos. Sanh. 2:6, II.ii.3. The (anonymous) glos­ sator (C) supposes that it is Gamaliel II, not Gamaliel I. But it seems highly unlikely that Gamaliel II conducted his business on the steps of the Temple mount, and the issue at hand, not the facts of the matter, has provoked the erroneous attribution to Gamaliel II.

III.ii.7. It has been taught (DTNY>): This is the testimony which Hezeqiah father of Iqesh testified before Rabban Gamaliel in Yavneh, in the name of Rabban Gamaliel the Elder, "Wherever an earthen vessel has no inside, it is not regarded as having an independent c

G A M A L I E L — IV.ii.l, V.i.l, 2

369

back. If then the inside becomes unclean, the back becomes unclean, and if the back becomes unclean, the inside becomes unclean." (b. Bekh. 38a) Comment: See Sifra Shemini 7:4, I.ii.2. IV.ii.l. R. Yosi said, "The story concerns (M<SH B) Father ('B') Halafta [who] visited R. Gamaliel Berabbi at Tiberias and found him sitting at the table of Yohanan b. Nizuf with the Targum of the Book of Job in his hand, and he was reading in it. "He said to him, 'I remember that R. Gamaliel, your grandfather, was standing on a step on the Temple Mount, and they brought him the Book of Job in the Targum and he said to the builder, Tlaster ($Q<) it under the rubble.'" (b. Shab. 115a, trans. H. Freedman, pp. 563-4) Comment: Tos. Shab. 13:2, Il.ii.l. R. Judah the Patriarch and R. Yosi b. R. Judah comment on the story. V.i.l. [Hillel's proselyte named one of his sons Gamaliel.] (ARN Chap. 15) Comment: See above, p. 332. V.L2.A. On the subject of disciples Rabban Gamaliel the Elder spoke of four kinds: An unclean fish, a clean fish, a fish from the Jordan, a fish from the Great Sea. B. An unclean fish, who is that? A poor youth who studies Scripture and Mishnah, Halakhah and Aggadah, and is without understanding. A clean fish: Who is that? That's a rich youth who studied Scripture and Mishnah, Halakhah and Aggadah, and has understanding. A fish from the Jordan: Who is that? That's a scholar who studies Scripture and Mishnah, Midrash, Halakhah, and Aggadah, and is with­ out the talent for give and take. A fish from the Great Sea, who is that? That's a scholar who studies Scripture and Mishnah, Midrash, Halakhah and Aggadah, and has the talent for give and take. (ARN Chap. 40, trans. Goldin, p. 166) Comment: This singleton bears no relation to the foregoing Gamalieltradition, which does not even mention that Gamaliel had disciples. Part B richly glosses A.

370

GAMALIEL —

SYNOPSES

II. SYNOPSES

1. He^eqiah's

Testimony

The formula in which Gamaliel appears is unchanged in Sifra Shemini 7:4 and b. Bekh. 38a. 2. Woman Remarries M. Yev. 16:7 is substantially unchanged in b. Yev. 115a, where it is cited. 3. Ate in Sukkah M. Suk. 2:5 is accurately cited in b. Yoma 79a, with the following gloss: TNY LH: "Not because the law is so, but because they wished to be stringent with themselves," pertinent to the Mishnah; this comes between Gamaliel-Yohanan and the following clause, about Sadoq. C

9

4. Approved Admon s Decisions M. Ket. 13:5 1. H e w h o agrees o n a sum o f m o n e y w i t h his [future] s o n - i n - l a w , a n d h e fled—let h e r sit u n t i l h e r h e a d t u r n s white.

2 . A d m o n says, S h e c a n say, I f I h a d a g r e e d o n m y o w n , I s h o u l d sit u n t i l m y head turns white. N o w that father has agreed f o r me, w h a t can I d o ? Either m a r ­ ry o r free [me]. 3 . R a b b a n G a m a l i e l said, I see t h e w o r d s o f A d m o n .

Tos. Ket. 12:4 1 . R. Yosa b. R. Judah said, Admon and the sages did not differ where the father agreed for her, that she can say, Fa­ ther agreed for me, what can I do, etc. In what did they dis­ agree} Where she herself agreed. A d m o n says, She can say, I thought that father would give to me, now that fa­ ther does not give to me, what can I do, marry or free. 2.

y. Ket.

13:5

b. Ket.

109a

1. [ = Ket.]

Tos.

1. [ = Ket.]

Tos.

3. „

3

„

„ says

2.

2.

3 ii

ii

ii

y

~* a

ii

The logion of Gamaliel persists in both versions, M. and Tos. Clearly, the tradition was that he agreed with Admon, but there was disagree­ ment on just what was the opinion of Admon. This means that Gamaliel's opinion in the matter never registered, but was merely a fixed logion pertaining to his opinion of whatever Admon might say. Therefore in all four exempla no. 3 is a stock-phrase tacked on at the end for formal, not substantive, reasons.

ii

GAMALIEL —

371

SYNOPSES

5. Banned Tar gum of Job Tos. Shab. 13:2 1 . R . Y o s a said, 2. M ' S H § 3 . R . Halafta w e n t t o R . Gamaliel to Tiberias 4. and he f o u n d him that he w a s sitting b y the table o f Y o h a n a n b. Nazif 5 . a n d i n his h a n d w a s t h e B o o k o f J o b Tar gum a n d h e w a s r e a d i n g i n it. 6. R. Halafta said t o h i m , I remember Rabban Gama­ liel t h e E l d e r , f a t h e r o f y o u r f a t h e r , t h a t h e w a s sit­ ting 7 . o n (*L G B ) t h e s t e p o n the Temple M o u n t 8. and they b r o u g h t be­ fore him the B o o k of J o b Targum

y. Shab. 1. 2. „ 3.

16:1

115a

1. R. Y o s / „ B

2. „ „ B 3 . Abba l i a l a f t a „ »

»

„

»

4

4.

^* »> yy

yy

5» yy yy

yy

5.

6. — R a b b a n Gamaliel [ O m i t s : the Elder] w h o w a s s t a n d i n g at t h e b u i l ­ ding on the Temple mount

6 . H e said t o h i m , I r e m e m b e r [ O m i t s : the Elder] t h a t h e „ „ „

7

7.

' • yy yy 8 . „ „ to him the B o o k o f J o b written [in] Targum

9 . H e said t o h i s s o n s [sic] 1 0 . H i d e it ( G N Z ) u n d e r the rubble ( N D B K )

b. Shab.

8. „ „ reading it

>» „ and he was

9. „

„

„ t h e builder

9» yy yy yy [~ Y* Shab.] 1 0 . Plaster it (§Q<)

10* »

»

»

yy yy »

The Toseftan version has been taken over by the Babylonian beraita with only a few changes. R. Halafta becomes Abba. Gamaliel is stand­ ing, rather than sitting (in conformity to b. Meg. 21a); and the con­ cept of geni^ah is changed, for reasons I cannot tell. Butb. Shab. has dropped the whole situation in which the story is told. We are not informed that it is R. Yosi, Halafta's son, who reports the story as a criticism of Gamaliel BeRabbi in Tiberias. The story stands as an in­ dependent narrative. We are not told which Gamaliel is involved (though the same presumptions apply as elsewhere). His sons become the builder (Lieberman's preferred reading), so the detail about hiding the Targum under the rubble becomes comprehensible. Written is supplied as well. I see no grounds to doubt that y. Shab. is dependent on Tos. Shab., for where the version of y. Shab. does use materials of Tos. Shab. (nos. 2, 6, 8, 9, and 10), it has done so practically verbatim. Then why is the setting of the story so radically revised? Why no specification that it is Gamaliel the Elder} I cannot say, but it is clear that Tos. Shab. has combined two stories, one contained in nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, with the story of Gamaliel the Elder. The combination is smooth and straightforward, and we do not have to doubt that a single tradent

372

GAMALIEL —

SYNOPSES

is responsible for the whole pericope of Tos. Shab. The parts not appearing in y. Shab. seem to me to have been dropped, not absent to begin with. b. Shab. is somewhat influenced by y. Shab. in no. 6, specifically, but I doubt that b. Shab. has copied that single element from y. Shab.; perhaps the same reasons that caused the tradent of y. Shab. to make Gamaliel stand up and to drop the Elder motivated the Babylonian tradent, but I cannot imagine what those reasons might have been. 6. Letters re Leap Year Tos. Sanh.

2:6

1. M ' S H B

y. M.S. 5:4 1. Rabbi Y u d a said „

„

„

y. Sanh. 1:2 1. T N Y , Rabbi Y u d a n said »

2. Rabban Gamaliel and t h e E l d e r s w h o w e r e sitting o n (*L G B ) steps o n t h e Temple Mount 3 . and Y o h a n a n the certain scribe ( S W P R H L H ) before them.

>»

2. „ „ „ of the WLM on the Temple Mount

2. „

3

3.

b. Sanh.

11b

1.

DTNY>

»

»

»

» „

„ step

y

[=y.

M.S.]

2. [Omits Elders] „ „ step

„

3

4 . H e said t o h i m , W r i t e

4 . T h e y said t o h i m , Go and w r i t e

4 . Rabban Gamaliel said t o h i m , Write

( H L Z ) was stand­ ing b e f o r e him and three cut sheets w e r e l y i n g 4 . He said t o h i m Take one letter and write

5. T o o u r brothers, Men of' Upper Galilee, and to men of L o w e r (THT'H) Galilee 6 . M a y y o u r peace increase 7. I inform you (MHWD)

5. O u r brothers CHYNW)

5* >>

»

»>

5» »

6« >» 7

»

>j

8« »

»

5)

^* » >> » 7. W e inform you (MHWD'YN) 8. „ „ „ to separate t i t h e f r o m the olive vats ( L ' P R W S Y ) 9. A n d take one letter and W r i t e

8. That the time o f b u r n ­ ing has come, t o bring o u t ( L ' P W Q Y ) tithes f r o m t h e olive-vats 9. A n d to o u r brothers M e n of the Upper South and men of the L o w e r South 1 0 . M a y y o u r peace in­ crease 1 1 . W e i n f o r m y o u that t h e t i m e o f b u r n i n g has c o m e , t o b r i n g o u t tithes f r o m t h e sheaves of wheat. 12. A n d to our brothers, M e n o f the Exile o f Baby-

{HLZ) was sitting before „ „ „

» » 6» »

» »

»

»

»

„

„ Bring

7 '• »

8. „ out »

(TPQWN) »

»

9

9. „ „ „ [Reverses o r d e r : South, then Gali­ lee]

10. 11. „

„

„

12. „ „ „ and Men • of

the

»

»>

»

» » >» [ O m i t s : Lower South] 10. „ „ „

1^* »

»

1L

,,

,,

11. „ „ „ [As above, nos. 7-8]

12.

[=

y. M . S . ]

1 2 . Take one letter and write „ „ „

GAMALIEL —

Ionia a n d m e n o f t h e E x i l e o f M e d e a a n d t h e r e s t o f all t h e E x i l e s o f Israel 1 3 . M a y y o u r peace in­ crease 1 4 . W e inform y o u that the pigeons are tender and the lambs weak, and the time of s p r i n g has n o t c o m e . 1 5 . A n d it is w e l l in m y v i e w a n d in t h e v i e w o f m y colleagues 1 6 . and I h a v e added t o this year thirty days.

373

SYNOPSES

Exile of Greece and the rest „ „ „

[ O m i t s : Greece]

13

13. „ ever

„

„

14

14

14. „

„

„

15

1 5 . t h e matter is good „ „ „

15.

1 6 . to a d d

1 6 . «j

13. „

16* »

„

»

„

»

»

»»

[=

for-

y. Sanh.

1:2] »

>»

»

The texts of the letters are virtually identical; the changes are minor, involving a shift from infinitives to finite verbs, adding words here and there. The narrative superscriptions show important changes, b. Sanh. drops and the Elders, which completely misses the point of citing the story: Gamaliel was willing to consult his colleagues, while later patriarchs were not; the antecedent reference to colleagues in no. 15 is lost. The setting of no. 2, however, is standard: the Temple mount. But the steps become step and are moved here and there. Then b. Sanh. supplies some instructions to Yohanan, absent in the earlier accounts. This addition is certainly an improvement of, and based upon, the fore­ going versions. It is striking that while the normal changes made in earlier Palestinian versions by the editors of late heraitot do occur, these changes have scarcely touched the substance of the letter. i n . CONCLUSION

The Gamaliel referred to in Acts 5:34—a teacher of the law, held in honor by all the people, a member of the Temple council—is pre­ sumably identical with the Gamaliel the Elder of the foregoing peri­ copae. The testimony of Acts and of the rabbinic traditions is con­ sistent but not very substantial. The evidence that Gamaliel lived in Temple times occurs in all sorts of traditions. The following are the Gamaliel-sayings and stories that take place in Jerusalem or reflect the existence of the Temple, or both: Sifre Deut. 61, I.ii.3; M. Pe>ah 2:5-6, Il.i.l; M.
374

GAMALIEL — CONCLUSION

The traditions are, of course, not equally reliable. Some are stories that could have been made up at any time, not subject to the control effected by critical study in the schools and review by masters familiar with the matter. These include fables of Gamaliel (I? II?) with Agrippas, or with "the king and queen," the latter clearly built on a logion about Gamaliel: 1. Agrippas the Elder—Mekh. deR. Simeon, p. 147, I.ii.l; 2. King and queen—b. Pes. 88b, III.ii.3. Other elements in the tradition consist of stock-phrases about testi­ mony given before Gamaliel or questions brought to him, and referred by him elsewhere: 1. Testimony before Gamaliel I— a. Hezeqiah: Sifra Shemini 7:4, I.ii.2; III.ii.8. b. Simeon b. Gode'a: Tos. A.Z. 4:9, II.ii.5 = b. Bekh. 38a. 2. Questions brought to Gamaliel I—Re tithes, etc., M. Pe'ah 2:5-6, Il.i.l; M.
375

GAMALIEL — CONCLUSION

2. Prohibited Targum of Job—Tos. Shab. 13:2, Il.ii.l; y. Shab. 16:1, III.i.2; b. Shab. 115a, IV.ii.l; 3. Letters to Galilee, South, and Babylonia re calendar—Tos. Sanh. 2:6, II.ii.3 = y. M.S. 5:4, III.i.1; y. Sanh. 1:2, III.i.4; b. Sanh. l i b , III.ii.7; 4. Married his daughter to Simeon b. Netanel—Tos. A.Z. 3:10, II.ii.4; 5. Son healed by Hanina b. Dosa—b. Ber. 34b, III.ii.1; 6. With Yohanan'b. Zakkai—M. Suk. 2:5, II.i.5 = b. Yoma 79a, III.ii.2. We come, finally, to the legal materials, which seem reliable. These are in three forms, first, the ordinance (At first... Rabban Gamaliel ordained...), whether the formula fits or not; second, in an equally unconventional form, as a logion (stock-phrase) approving the ruling of another master (Admon); third, a story of a specific ruling ac­ companied by a generalized version of the same legal opinion (wives may remarry/Tel Arza). The rule that one may study seated is not of the same order of credibility; this looks like an attribution, to an ancient authority, of a change already well established. The ordinances and legal opinions are as follows: Ordinances— 1. M. R.H. 2:5, II.i.6—New Moon witnesses may move about on Sabbath. 2. M. Git. 4:2-3, II.i.10—re annulling Get only in court that issued it; using all aliases; and collecting Ketuvah with vow. Legal opinions and rulings of Gamaliel apart from ordinances— 1. Wives may remarry on testimony of one witness (logion and story)— M. Yev. 16:7, II.i.7. 2. Agrees with Admon re inheritance, rules of evidence, broken be­ trothal—M. Ket. 13:3-5, II.i.8, M. B.B. 9:1 - M. Ket. 13:3, Il.i.ll; Tos. Ket. 12:4 = M. Ket. 13:5, II.ii.2 (= b. Ket. 109a, y. Ket. 13:5). 3. May study seated—b. Meg. 21a. Gamaliel is not called nasi. The Gamaliel-corpus does not relate him to Hillel, either as son or successor (Epstein, Mevo ot, p. 31). Neither his legal opinions nor stories about him suggest Gamaliel I either studied with Hillel or was in the House of Hillel. This seems to me the most important result of our inquiry. Further, while we are told of a daughter, she is not named, nor when a son is mentioned is his name (Simeon ?) given. Gamaliel-traditions leave the man in a rather shadowy, vague state, by contrast to the stories told about Hillel. No one was interested in developing Gamaliel the Elder-materials into extensive narratives. This may suggest that the materials we do have, with the obvious exceptions, are likely to have been shaped sufficiently near y

376

GAMALIEL — CONCLUSION

his lifetime so that interest in the man and his teachings was still strong. On the whole, therefore, it looks to me as though some of the legal materials are apt to be authentic records of Gamaliel I. This fact therefore increases our puzzlement at the failure of the materials ever to pertain to, let alone mention, matters under debate between the Houses of Hillel and Shammai. If Gamaliel I was a mem­ ber of the House of Hillel, the traditions never reflected it. The re­ ferences to the members of the House of Gamaliel may mean he himself conducted his own "House." All we know for sure is that Gamalieltraditions are curiously silent on the House of Hillel, but both make Gamaliel an authority for a member of the opposition, and have him rule like the Shammaites (M. Bes. 2:6, below, p. 380). The legal issues of Gamaliel-pericopae center on issues other than the laws of table-fellowship, that is, purity rules and agricultural taboos. They pertain to matters of common, and not merely sectarian, concern, such as exchanges of property in connection with inherit­ ance, marriage and divorce, rules of evidence, witnesses in the Temple calendar process, and other public issues. The legal agenda of the Gamaliel-traditions conforms to that of a public official, rather than of a sectarian authority within Pharisaism. I therefore take it for granted that Gamaliel was both a Temple-council member, as Acts alleges, and leader within the Pharisiac sect, as the rabbinic traditions hold.

CHAPTER TWELVE SIMEON BEN

GAMALIEL

Locating the traditions of Simeon b. Gamaliel is even more difficult than finding those of Gamaliel I. He is not specified as the Elder. No legal traditions are given in his name. To be sure, like a Gamaliel, a Simeon b. Gamaliel comments on disputes between the Houses of Hillel and Shammai (e.g. M. 'Eruv 8:6; M. Pes. 4:5), but we do not know whether it is Simeon I or Simeon ben Gamaliel II, who flourish­ ed in the middle of the second century. Where a Simeon b. Gamaliel refers in the past tense to Yavneh (e.g. Tos. R.H. 4:5), or to Jerusalem and the Temple (e.g. Tos. Ber. 4:9, Jerusalem; Tos Arakh. 1:13, the Temple), we may assume that it is Simeon b. Gamaliel II, for the first Simeon lived in Temple times, and some stories about, and sayings attributed to, him indicate the Temple was still standing. For an example of the traditional approach to the problem, one may consult Tosafot in b. A.Z. 32a, s.v. BL. c

5

i. TRADITIONS

I.ii.l. The story is told that (M'SH §) a pair of doves (QYNYM) in Jerusalem stood at a golden denar. Rabbi Simeon b. Gamaliel said, "By this Temple! (M<WN) I shall not rest this night before they shall be at denars of silver." He went into the court and taught, "The woman who owes five certain birth sacrifices and five certain issues brings one sacrifice and eats of the sacrifices, and the rest [of the offering rests] on her as an obligation (HWBH)." And a pair of doves stood that day at a fourth [of the former cost]. (Sifra Tazri'a Pereq 3:7, ed. Weiss, pp. 59a-b) Comment: The story presupposes that sacrifices were made, hence must pertain to Simeon b. Gamaliel I. But it is hard to imagine that merely teaching a law in the court (BYT DYN) was sufficient in hours to affect the demand and therefore lower the price, unless the instruc­ tions of the Pharisaic court were everywhere heeded. The Temple priests made the sacrifices and certainly would not have given shares in them to anyone not clean according to their rule. Hence it is doubtful that such an event took place, and the story probably was fabricated on-

378

SIMEON BEN

G A M A L I E L — I.ii.2, 3

ly when it would have been credible, after the Temple lay in ruins for a long time. 1.11.2. Rabban Gamaliel said, "The house of father was accustomed to give one pe*ah for olives which they had in every direction, and as to carobs, all of which were in sight of one another." (Sifra Qedoshim Pereq 2:4, ed. Weiss p. 87b) Comment: I assume this is Gamaliel II, and hence the 'house of father' would mean Simeon b. Gamaliel I. The legal rule is not formulated. The private practice of the household is cited, but not as valid prece­ dent. 1.11.3. R. Joshua said, "...One time I went up to the Upper Market, to the Offal Gate which was in Jerusalem, and I found there Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel and Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai seated, with two scrolls unrolled before them. "Yohanan a certain (HLH) scribe was standing before them, pen and ink at the ready. "They said to him, 'Write: From Simeon ben Gamaliel and from Yohanan ben Zakkai to our brethren who are in the Upper and Lower South, and to Shahlil, and to the seven provinces of the South, Peace. Let it be known to you that the fourth year has come, and still the heavenly sanctities have not been burned. But ('L* §) hasten and bring five sheaves which are required (§HN M'KBYN) for the Confession. And we have not begun to write to you, but ('L') our fathers used to write to your fathers.' "They said to him, 'Write a second letter: From Simeon ben Gama­ liel and from Yohanan ben Zakkai, to our brethren who are in the Upper and Lower Galilee and to Simonia and to Oved Bet Hillel, Peace. Let it be known to you that the fourth year has come, and still the heavenly sanctities have not been burned. But ('L* §) hasten and bring olive heaps pBYTY] which are required for the Confession. And we have not begun to write to you, but our fathers used to write to your fathers.'" (Midrash Tannaim to Deut. 26:13, ed. Hoff­ mann, pp. 175-6) c

Comment: See Development p. 37. The whole is in Hebrew, by contrast to the Aramaic letters of Gamaliel. I do not know why. One does not translate the other's text. The story comes from Joshua b. Hananiah, Yohanan b. Zakkai's disciple. As in the letter attributed to Gamaliel I, the Pharisaic masters here issued instructions to the brethren in various parts of the country on the proper giving of tithes and on the intercala-

SIMEON BEN

G A M A L I E L — Il.i.l

379

tion of the year. The setting is similar for Gamaliel I—suspiciously so, for it is the same scribe. But many of the details are different, e.g. two letters, none to the ex­ iles; they are not sitting on the steps of the Temple Mount but else­ where; the brethren are in specified localities in the South (first), then in Galilee. That place names occur seems to me important, for once sup­ plied, they would not likely have been dropped in a copy, and therefore the absence of those names from the Gamaliel-letter should mean that that letter is earlier than this one, and while serving as a model, as the story readily admits, this letter is not merely a translation. Further, and decisively, the legal point does not pertain merely to the advent of tithing-time, but elaborates with the fourth year, Removal, the Confes­ sion, and so forth. So the letter above seems to me sufficiently different from Gamaliel's to establish a prima facie probability that before us is another, separate document, based on the former. While some details may depend upon b. Sanh. l i b , the substance seems apt to be authentic. If that is the case, it is important evidence that Simeon's position was no different from his father's. Yohanan's association is not easy to ex­ plain, since his role in the Pharisaic party before 70 would not have led us to expect his sharing important tasks with the Nasi Simeon. But if Simeon was a Shammaite, then Yohanan would have represented the House of Hillel—a very tentative conjecture. See Epstein, Mishnah, pp. 137, 1202. Il.i.l. Rabban Gamaliel said, "(M'SH B) A Sadducee lived with us in the same alley in Jerusalem. Father said to us, 'Hasten and put out all the vessels in the alley, before he brings out [his vessels] and so restricts you'." R. Judah says in other language, "Hasten and do your needs in the alley, before he brings out, and he restricts you." (M. <Eruv. 6:2) Comment: Gamaliel's recollection of his father's instructions contains an important legal principle, but that principle is nowhere both spelled out and attributed to Simeon b. Gamaliel. It is striking that Judah b. Ilai offers a different version of the father's instructions. Either he did not know Gamaliel's (actually Meir s, as we shall see) version, or he did not believe it, or he had a quite separate tradition, or both traditions were invented. If he had a separate tradition, then where would he have gotten it? Not from Gamaliel, for obvious reasons. If he made it up, because he could not conceive Simeon held an opinion other than the one he knew to be correct, then why did he supply the tradition as though Gamaliel and Simeon had said such a thing? The antecedent law (6:1) is that the presence of a gentile or a Jew who does not believe in the 'eruv prevents the construction of an *eruv for a given alleyway, so R. Meir. Eliezer b. Jacob insists only one Jew can prevent it for another. Then comes the story of Gamaliel. Sadducees, 9

380

SIMEON BEN

G A M A L I E L — II.i.2, 3

who did not accept the Pharisaic 'Oral Torah/ did not believe in the c

eruv.

Albeck explains Simeon's view: they should hasten to do all their necessities before the Sadducee brings out his utensils. From this story we learn the opinion of Simeon, that the Sadducee who does not be­ lieve in the ^eruv prevents carrying in the alley, but if he does not exer­ cise his right in the alley, it is permitted to carry there when an 'eruv is supplied. This is contrary, Albeck says, to Eliezer b. Jacob's position. Albeck further holds Gamaliel's formulation of the matter follows Meir's view and is attributed to Meir. Accordingly, Gamaliel never said anything at all, but his logion has been fabricated either by Meir, or, as is made explicit, by Judah (see synopses). Of importance here is the fact that a logion is made up and then at­ tributed to Simeon b. Gamaliel ("father"), at a time that Simeon b. Gamaliel II was nasi. Whatever reasons for the suppression of Simeon b. Gamaliel I's legal materials had long since been forgotten. That is why he could serve as a useful name on which to hang both a logion and a story. See Epstein, Mishnah, p. 1200. II.i.2.A. In three things Rabban Gamaliel gives the more stringent ruling, following the opinion of the House of Shammai: (1) They do not cover (TMN) hot food on a festival day for the Sabbath. (2) They do not put together (ZQP) a candlestick on a festival day. (3) They do not bake bread [into] large loaves (GRSYN/GRYSWT), but [only into] thin cakes (RQYQYN). B. Rabban Gamaliel said, "Never did my father's household bake bread into large loaves but only into thin cakes." They said to him, "What shall we do to your father's household, which applied the stringent ruling to themselves but the lenient ruling to Israel, so that they might bake bread in both large loaves and thick cakes." (M. Bes. 2:6, trans. Danby, p. 183) Comment: This is the closest we come to an open admission that Simeon b. Gamaliel was a Shammaite. Gamaliel ruled like the Sham­ maites, and then claimed that his precedent came from his father's house. This is dealt with like all Shammaitic teachings: they generally are made to apply to the authority himself, but the rule for the people is different. Part B is separate from A.3, a story turned into a general rule of law.

ILi.3.A. If a woman suffered five issues that were in doubt, or five miscarriages that were in doubt, she need bring but one offering, and

SIMEON BEN

G A M A L I E L — I l . i i . l ; III.i.1

381

she may then eat of the animal-offerings; and she is not bound to bring the other offerings. If she had suffered five miscarriages that were certain or five issues that were certain, she brings one offering, eats of the animal offerings, and she is bound to bring the other offerings. B. Once (M SH S) in Jerusalem a pair of doves stood at a golden denar. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said, "By this Temple! I will not let the night to pass by before they cost denars [of silver]." And he went into the court and taught, "If a woman suffered five miscarriages that were not in doubt or five issues that were not in doubt, she need bring but one offering, and she may then eat of the animal-offerings; and she is not bound to offer the other offerings." And the same day the price of a pair of doves stood at a quarterdenar each. (M. Ker. 1:7, trans. Danby, p. 564) C

Comment: See above, Sifra Tazri'a 3:7. It is striking that the pericope opens with the rule in fact verbatim as taught by Simeon, except for the obligation to bring the other offerings. Sifra has the obligation remain­ ing, thus identical to A. But the rule is not given in his name, and we only know it is supposed to be his because it comes in the story. It looks as if either the operative law of the story has been abstracted for part A, or the law has, like exegeses elsewhere, produced the story, more likely the latter.

Il.ii.l. The story is told of (M<SH B): A. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel (that he) would dance (RQD) with eight torches of fire, and none of them would touch the ground. B. When he prostrates himself, he places a finger on the floor, bends down (§WHH), and kisses, and forthwith straightens up. (Tos. Suk. 4:4, ed. Lieberman, p. 272, lines 11-13) Comment: The context is the Rejoicing at the Place of the Water Drawing in Temple times. Thus separate stories are joined, first the juggling (in the manner of Magi, see History of the Jews in Babylonia. II, pp. 147-150). The second describes Simeon's prostration (Oiddah). We need not doubt it is Simeon I. The verb-tenses are confused. This sort of extremely brief and undeveloped story could well have formed a mnemonic lemma for easy transmission. It would have con­ sisted of the name, an active verb, and the exceptional material of the predicate, glossed by none-ground. C

III.i.1. They said concerning (>MRW
382

SIMEON BEN

Simeon b. Gamaliel

G A M A L I E L — III.ii.1, 2

I Tannaitic Midrashim

3. H o w he g a v e pe'ab 4. Letters

5. Non-believer a n d eruv

ILii Tosefta

IILi Tannaitic Materials in Palestinian Gemara

IILii Tannaitic Materials in Babylonian Gemara

IV.i Amoraic M a t e r i a l s in Palestinian Gemara

IV.ii Amoraic Materials in Babylonian Gemara

V ARN

Sifra Tazri'a

383

VI Later Compilations of Midrashim

M. Avot 1 : 1 8

1 . S i l e n c e is g o o d 2. L o w e r e d price o f d o v e s b y legal ruling

ILi Mishnah

S I M E O N B E N G A M A L I E L — III.ii.3

L e v . R. 1 6 : 5

M. Ker. 1 : 7

3:7

Sifra

Qedoshim

2:4 Midrash Tannaim pp. 175-6 M . <Eruv. 6 : 2

b . <Eruv. 6 8 b

l

6.

Juggled

Tos. Suk. 4 : 4

y. Suk. 5 : 4

7. Blessed pretty gentile w o m a n

(y. A . Z . 1 : 9 — Gamaliel)

Gamaliel that he would dance with eight torches of gold, and they would not touch each other, and when he would kneel, he would push his thumb (GWDLW) in the ground and kneel and forthwith straigh­ ten up. (y. Suk. 5:4) Comment:

b. S u k . 5 3 a

See Tos. Suk. 4:4. No named tradents discuss the passage.

III.ii.1. [Hillel and Simeon Gamaliel and Simeon lived a century before the destruction.] (b. Shab. 15a) Comment: See above, pp. 316-318. III.ii.2.A, TNY' NMY HKY: ...It once happened that (M<SH B) a Sadducee lived (DR) with us in an alley in Jerusalem, and father said to us, "Hasten and carry out the vessels to the alley before he carries out and imposes restrictions on you." B. WM'SH B: A certain Sadducee who was living with Rabban Ga­ maliel in an alley in Jerusalem, and Rabban Gamaliel said to his sons,

b. A . Z . 2 0 a

"My sons, Hasten and carry out what you carry out and bring in what you bring in before this abomination brings out and imposes restrictions on you, for lo, he has annulled his right for you," the words of R. Meir. R. Judah says in another language, "Make haste and do your needs in the alley before it gets dark, and he imposes restrictions on you." (b. <Eruv. 68b) Comment: See synopses. C

IILii.3.A. TNY>: They said of (>MRW LYW
384

SIMEON BEN G A M A L I E L — IV.ii.l

Comment: See above, Tos. Suk. 4:4. The verb-tenses still have not been made entirely consistent. The setting includes Hillel's Sukkot-s&yings. IV.ii.l. The story is told that R. Simeon b. Gamaliel while standing on a step on the Temple Mount saw a gentile woman who was particularly beautiful and exclaimed, How great are thy works, O Lord (Ps. 104:24). (b. A.Z. 20a) Comment: In y. A.Z. 1:9 (repr. Gilead, p. 7b) it is Gamaliel I: T h e s t o r y is t o l d o f R a b b a n G a m a l i e l t h a t h e w a s w a l k i n g o n t h e T e m p l e M o u n t a n d s a w a g e n t i l e w o m a n a n d blessed c o n c e r n i n g h e r .

The Scripture is dropped. ii. SYNOPSES

1.

Lowered Cost of Sacrifice

The only important difference between Sifra Tazri'a 3:7 and M. Ker. 1:7 is in the question of whether the rest of the offerings must be brought later on. M. Ker. (B) says no, Sifra lacks the negative, follow­ ing M. Ker. (A). 2.

c

Non-Believer and Eruv

M. <Eruv. 6:2 1. Rabban Gamaliel said, 2 . M<SH B 3. O n e Sadducee w h o was living w i t h u s in an a l l e y in J e r u s a l e m 4. A n d f a t h e r said t o u s 5. M a k e h a s t e a n d b r i n g o u t all t h e v e s ­ sels t o t h e a l l e y 6. b e f o r e h e b r i n g s o u t a n d p r o h i b i t s [it] f o r y o u 7 . R . J u d a h says in a n o t h e r l a n g u a g e : 8. M a k e h a s t e a n d d o all y o u r n e e d s in t h e alley b e f o r e h e b r i n g s o u t a n d p r o ­ h i b i t s [it] f o r y o u . 9.

b. <Eruv. 68b

» » » 2 11

11

11

ii

ii

ii

• • ii

ii

3 mjm

4 5» » » 6« » »

ii ii

a

7. 8.

[No. 1 0 b e l o w ]

9. And the story is told concerning one Sadducee who was living with Rabban Ga­ maliel in an alley in Jerusalem, and Rabban Gamaliel said to his sons, My sons, Make haste and take out what you are taking out, and bring in what you are bringing in, before this abomination brings out and prohibits [it] for you, for lo, he has annulled his right for you, the words of R. Meir.

SIMEON BEN G A M A L I E L —

10.

[No. 8, a b o v e ]

SYNOPSES

385

1 0 . R. J u d a h says i n a different l a n ­ g u a g e : M a k e haste a n d d o y o u r n e e d s in t h e a l l e y before it gets dark a n d h e p r o ­ h i b i t s [it] f o r y o u .

The Mishnah has preserved the version of Meir in the story of Gamaliel (nos. 1-6), then supplied Judah's version in his own name. This is an excellent illustration of Judah the Patriarch's preference for Meir's traditions. It also illustrates that the Tannaitic authorities were quite well prepared to transmit legal materials in the form of fabricated stories, and, without the Babylonian beraita, in this case we should not have known that M. Eruv. no. 1-6 was in fact a saying of Meir. We should have supposed it was a logion of Gamaliel II himself. Hence we cannot conclude that words directly attributed to an early authority in a legal matter or a story pertaining to law must necessarily have been said by him. The contrary presumption is that the logion is framed to put into his mouth a saying in conformity with law later on accepted as authoritative. c

3. Juggled Tos. Suk.

4:4

y. Suk.

5:4

b. Suk. 53a 1. TNY> >MRW
1. M ' S H B

1.

2. Rabban Simeon b. G a ­ maliel w h o w o u l d dance w i t h e i g h t t o r c h e s o f fire

2 . Rabbi „ „ „ t o r c h e s o f gold

3. and one of them did not touch the ground 4. and when he would prostrate himself (MSTHWH), he would place h i s finger in t h e e a r t h of the floor

3. „ „ „ touch

4. „ „ „ ( K W R < ) he would push his thumb into the earth

4. „ „ „ h e places his thumbs i n t o t h e e a r t h and W ; ( S W H H ) a n d kisses t h e floor a n d s t r a i g h t e n s up

5 . b o w ( S W H H ) a n d kiss and forthwith straighten up (ZWQP) 6.

5. and b o w (KWR<) and forthwith would straighten u p ( N Z Q P ) 6.

5. [As a b o v e ]

}

M R W < L Y W
another

2. „ „ „ when he would rejoice at the Rejoicing of the Place of the Drawing w o u l d dance w i t h eight t o r c h e s o f fire and throw one and take one 3. [ = y. Suk.]

6 . And no one (else) can do so, and this is Qiddah

The Babylonian Talmud has reworked and improved earlier materials. First, it has supplied the usual double-superscription by adding TNY\ Of greater importance, it has added the occasion of the juggling, perhaps implicit in the context of both Tos. Suk. and y. Suk., but not spelled out in either place. Now the juggling is an example of how he would rejoice (lest anyone think that Simeon was like the

386

SIMEON BEN

GAMALIEL —

SYNOPSES

Magi, who would juggle for thaumaturgical purposes). No. 3 of b. Suk. follows y. Suk.; no. 4 of b. Suk. makes it both thumbs, instead of one; b. Suk. further improves on the duplicated earth]floor of Tos. Suk. no. 4—the thumb goes into the earth, and he kisses the floor, then straightens up. b. Suk. further explains that no one else can do such a trick, and a gloss at the end adds that this is the biblical Qiddah. The torches oigold of y. Suk. no. 2 must be a mistake, b. Suk. thus is a combination of important details of y. Suk. (as in no. 3) and the version of Tos. Suk., nos. 4-5, where the word-choices of Tos. SuL are selected in preference to y. Suk. b. Suk. borrows and develops de­ tails in both earlier versions, rather than standing in a single line after the Palestinian Talmudic one. That b. Suk. depends upon the language of both seems to me beyond reasonable doubt. This is not a common phenomenon.

i n . CONCLUSION

The corpus of Simeon b. Gamaliel-traditions is hardly substantial. Apart from the logion in M. Avot 1:18, we find only a few stories, no generalized laws. The stories concern his power to lower marketprices of doves, how he gave pe'ah, wrote pastoral letters with Yoha­ nan b. Zakkai, the eruv and the non-believer in his neighborhood, how he juggled, and his blessing of a pretty gentile in the Temple—an unimpressive lot (and the last was probably meant to denigrate him). The contrast to his predecessors, Hillel and Gamaliel I, is striking. The sorts of stories we have, however, do claim he was an important authority in Jerusalem (Sifra Tazri'a 3:7 = M. Ker. 1:7), a leading Pharisaic authority, typically interested in tithing and other agricul­ tural rules and rites (Sifra Qedoshim 2:4, Midrash Tannaim, pp. 175-6), who lived in a mixed society of Pharisees and Sadducees (M. Eruv. 6:2 = b. Eruv. 68b), and a wonder-worker (Tos. Suk. 4:4 etc.)—a coherent, credible picture. One cannot doubt that Simeon b. Gamaliel issued legal teachings, but we have no evidence of them except in the context of stories. This is striking, for some legal materials of Gamaliel I did survive in various other forms, and we should have expected the same of Simeon b. Gamaliel his son, who lived nearer to the destruction and presuma­ bly had every opportunity to formulate and hand on authoritative teachings. Earlier students of the problem have taken it for granted that c

c

c

SIMEON BEN

GAMALIEL — CONCLUSION

387

Simeon was subsumed under the House of Hillel, but, while the same applied to Gamaliel I, some important legal materials of Gamaliel I do survive, and none comes from Gamaliel's son and successor. The greater likelihood is that Simeon's legal sayings did not survive either because no one wanted them to (unlikely), or because someone suppressed them. Gamaliel, Simeon's son, certainly referred to his father's rulings and actions, so he had every motive to preserve other legal materials as well. Why then are we given only Gamaliel's stories, but not the laws in Simeon's name which such stories ought to have produced, as in the case of other masters? My guess is that Simeon's laws were not preserved because they came from a period in which the House of Shammai predominated; and Simeon himself ruled pret­ ty much like the Shammaites, because he was one of them. It was one thing to keep the House of Shammai's materials in the form given them before the Hillelites took power. It was quite another to admit that the later patriarchate at the head of the Hillelite rabbis had earlier included Shammaites as its chiefs. So Gamaliel II presum­ ably allowed whatever legal logia and other materials he had to be dropped and preserved only a few stories containing little hint of his father's embarassing legacy. This further suggests that Gamaliel II may have done so as part of the price securing the support of the Hillelite faction, headed by Yohanan b. Zakkai, and it moreover raises the possibility—though no more than that—that Gamaliel I was likewise involved in the House of Shammai, accounting for the strange form in which his opinions were preserved {Iagree with Admon), or which was imposed on them at Yavneh (Atfirst... Gamaliel ordain­ ed...), surely as inappropriate for Gamaliel's as it was for Hillel's "ordinances." Gamaliel II's own position is clear, for several stories show him as a Shammaite. Whatever legal materials of Gamaliel I and Simeon b. Gamaliel I were permitted to survive obviously were revised, or at least reviewed, in Yavneh. Clearly, none from Simeon b. Gamaliel I passed the test of acceptability to the Hillelites. In Life (190-194), Josephus refers to Simeon b. Gamaliel as of a very illustrious family, "and of the sect of the Pharisees, who have the reputation of being unrivalled experts in their country's laws." Josephus praises Simeon's intelligence and judgment, But, he admits, Simeon did not like Josephus and tried to call an assembly in Jerusalem to relieve him of his Galilean command. Simeon dealt with the high priest Ananus and Jesus b. Gamalas, but Ananus did not agree. Simeon thereupon bribed Ananus and his friends—so Josephus—and as the

388

SIMEON BEN

GAMALIEL — CONCLUSION

result of bribery Ananus went along. A delegation consisting of Pharisees was sent, two from the lower ranks, a Pharisee of priestly family, and a descendent of high priests. They would persuade the Galileans through Jerusalemite origin, their knowledge of the laws, and their priestly office, respectively. Josephus returns to the matter in Life (309) and War (4:158-9). The Simeon b. Gamaliel of Josephus in general conforms to the rabbinic portrait: he held high office and reigned over the Pharisaic party. But the two pictures in detail do not relate to one another. The Simeon of rabbinic memory is a legal authority, not a politician.

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

OTHER PHARISEES BEFORE 70 i. MENTIONED IN CONNECTION WITH SHAMMAI

Masters mentioned in connection with Shammai, as his disciples or followers, will be reconsidered in our studies of the Houses of Hillel and Shammai. Here we shall briefly review their traditions. 1. Dositheus of Kefar Yatmah c

He occurs only in M. Orlah 2:5. 2.

Baba b. Buta

Il.i.l. Baba b. Buta appears in b. Bes. 20a, above, p. 326, b. Git. 57a, Tos. Hag. 2:11, p. 309, y. Bes. 2:4, p. 314, y. Hag. 2:3, p. 314, and as follows: They told of (>MRW
IV.ii.l. A certain Babylonian migrated to the land of Israel and married. "Boil me two [cows] feet," he ordered, and she boiled him two lentils. He was angered at her. Next day he said, "Boil me a griva" so she boiled him a griwa*

390

B A B A BEN

B U T A — IV.ii.2

"Go and bring me two bosuni," so she went and brought him two cand­ les. "Go and break them on the head of baba [threshold]." Baba b. Buta was sitting on the threshold ('BB') engaged in judging a lawsuit. She went and broke them on his head. He said to her, "What is this that you have done?" She replied, "My husband ordered me" "You have performed your husband s will" he replied. "May the Al­ mighty bring forth from you two sons like Baba b. Buta" (b. Ned. 66b) }

Comment: The setting is a set of pericopae about wives and husbands, and how rabbis absolved vows between them. The italicized parts are in Hebrew, the rest in Aramaic. Clearly Baba is brought in because his name provides the opportunity to make a play on words. The conclu­ sion is an appropriate "blessing," though the blessing normally would be said not by the rabbinic victim, but by the outside party. This peri­ cope bears no intrinsic relationship to the Baba-tradition. IV.ii.2. [Herod killed all the rabbis.] He spared Baba b. Buta, that he might take counsel of him. He placed on his head a garland of hedgehog bristles and put out his eyes. One day he [Herod] came and sat before him and said, "See, sir, what this wicked slave [Herod] does." "What shall I do to him?" replied Baba b. Buta. He said, "Let the master curse him." He replied, "Even in thy thoughts thou shouldst not curse a king (Qoh. 10:20)." [Herod] said to him, "But this is no king." He replied, "Even though he is only a rich man, as it is written, And in thy bedchamber do not curse the rich (Qoh. 10:20), and be he no more than a prince, it is written, A prince among thy people thou shalt not curse (Ex. 22:27)." [Herod] said to him, "This applies only to one who acts as one of thy people, but this man does not act as one of thy people" He said, "I am afraid of him." "But there is no one who can go and tell him, since we two are quite alone," he said. He replied (Qoh. 10:20), "For a bird of the heaven shall carry the voice, and that which has wings shall tell the matter"

B A B A BEN B U T A — IV.ii.2

391

Herod said, "I am he. Had I know that the rabbis were so circum­ spect, I should not have killed them. Now tell me what amends I can make." He replied, "As you have extinguished the light of the world, as it is written (Prov. 6:23), For the commandment is a light and the Torah a lamp, go now and attend to the light of the world, as it is written, And all the nations become enlightened by it (Is. 2:2)".... (etc.) (b. B.B. 4a, trans. Maurice Simon, pp. 11-12) Comment: The story is in Aramaic, except the italicized passages. No tradents' names are attached to it. The story is a unity and is intended to give the "reason" Herod built the Temple. The narrator supposes it took a very short time, while in fact the building went on for decades. Hence it looks as if the story was shaped long after the facts of the mat­ ter were forgotten. The idea that, like Simeon b. Shetah, only Baba sur­ vived (also because of his Torah) is of course preposterous, another mark of a fable, the point of which here is rabbinic circumspection.

Baba-traditions divide into three parts. First are those relating Baba to Shammai. Though a disciple of Shammai, he ruled according to Hillel and moreover was able to save the day when Hillel was forced to follow Shammaite rulings. The second sort of traditions, consistent with the first, presents Baba as a pious man, here and M.Ker. 6:3. The third is the folkloristic account of a word-play in connection with the name Baba. It is difficult to assess the facts of Baba's career. On the one hand, Hillelites admitted he was a Shammaite, but put a good face on the matter. On the other, he does occur as a pious man (hasid) of old, without being called a Shammaite (M. Ker.). It is difficult to suggest which of the two sorts of traditions antedated the other. I take it for granted, however, that had Shammaite tradition not claimed Baba, the Hillelites would have been glad to make him their own, hence the tradi­ tion that he was Shammai's disciple was shaped in Temple times, when the Shammaites were in a position of predominance, and after­ ward the Hillelites revised matters to conform to their view. But none of the stories in our hands comes from Shammaite circles, and all conform to Hillelite tendencies. 3.

Yo'e^er *Ish HaBirah c

He appears only in M. Orlah2:12, in connection with Gamaliel the Elder; there he is called one of the disciples of the House of Shammai.

392 4.

SADOQ

Sadoq

While Sadoq, who lived in Temple times and afterward, is referred to as a disciple of Shammai, his traditions and his son's are preserved chiefly at Yavneh in the context of those of other masters of that period, and hence had best be considered in later studies. 5.

Yohanan the Hauronite

Likewise a Shammaite of Temple times, Yohanan taught Eleazar b. R. Sadoq (b. Yev. 15b), and occurs also in Tos. Suk. 2:3 = Tos. Ed. 2:2; and chiefly in connection with the House of Hillel and Shammai, in M . Suk. 2:7, y. Suk. 2:8. These materials are reviewed in part II. c

II. MENTIONED IN CONNECTION WITH HILLEL

1. Bene Bathyra Josephus refers to Herod's settlement of Babylonian Jews under Zamaris in Batanaea {Life 54, Antiquities 17:23-31); the settlers built the village of Bathyra. In Herod's time they were free of all taxes. A troop of the Babylonians served the descendents of Herod as body guards. Apart from the Hillel-stories, y. Pes., p. 246, b. Pes., p. 254, we have no references to Bathyrans before 70. Bathyrans later occur in connection with Yohanan b, Zakkai at Yavneh (see Development, pp. 93-94), and in the persons of Judah b. Bathyra (see History of the Jews in Babylonia, I. The Parthian Period, pp. 46-52), and of other Bathyrans after the destruction: Joshua b. Bathyra, Simon b. Bathyra, and Yoha­ nan b. Bathyra. None of these can have had any direct connection with the Bene Bathyrans of the Hillel-stories. On Bene Bathyra, see also G. Allon, Mehqarim beToledot Yisra el (Tel Aviv, 1957), I, pp. 263-267. 2

y

2.

Gedya The only references are in connection with Hillel-Samuel the Small.

3. Ben He He and Ben Bag Bag Ben H6 He occurs only in M . Avot 5:23. Ben Bag Bag is in Avot 5:22. In ARN these sayings are attributed to Hillel. In addition, we find Ben Bag Bag-sayings in Tos. B.Q. 10:38: A man

JONATHAN

393

BEN ' U Z Z I E L — IV.ii.l

should not take his own property from someone else's house, lest he appear like a thief; and in the following Talmudic texts: b. Eruv. 27b, exegesis of Deut. 14:26; b. Pes. 96a, exegesis of Num. 28:2; b. Qid. lOb-lla ( = Sifre Num. 117, y. Ket. 5:4), message of Yohanan b. Bag Bag to Judah b. Bathyra in Nisibis regarding whether a daughter of an Israelite betrothed to a priest may eat Terumah; b. B.Q. 27b-28a = Tos. B.Q. 10:38; b. Men. 49b = b. Pes. 96a; b. Bekh. 12a, exegesis of Ex. 13:13 and 12:5; y. M.S. 1:2, exegesis of Deut. 14:26; y. Pes. 9:5, exegesis of Ex. 12:5; y. Sanh. 8:3 = Tos. B.Q.; andy. Sanh. 11:2 = Tos. B.Q. In none of these pericopae does Hillel appear. The Tosafot, b. Hag. 9b, argue that he was a convert. c

4.

Shebna He appears only in b. Sot. 21 a, above, p. 271.

5. Jonathan b. '•Usgiel c

Jonathan b. Uzziel appears in b. Suk. 28b, above, p. 260, b. B.B. 133b, p. 198, y. Ned. 5:6, p. 199, and b. Meg. 3a as follows: IV.ii.l. R. Jeremiah, or some say, R. Hiyya b. Abba, said, "The Targum of the Pentateuch was composed by Onqelos the proselyte under the guidance of (MPY) R. Eliezer and R. Joshua." "The Targum of the prophets was composed by Jonathan b. 'Uzziel under the guidance of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, and the land of Israel quaked four hundred parasangs by four hundred parasangs, and an echo came forth and said, 'Who is it that has revealed my secrets to mankind?' "Jonathan b. Uzziel arose on his feet and said, 'It is I who have revealed your secrets to mankind. It is fully known to you that I have not done so for my own honor or for the honor of my father's house, but for your honor, so that dissension (MHLWQT) may not increase (YRBW) in Israel.' "He further sought to reveal the Targum of the Hagiography, but an echo went forth and said to him, 'Enough for you!' " What was the reason ? Because the end of the Messiah is foretold in it. (b. Meg. 3a, trans. M. Simon, p. 9) c

Comment:

T h e attribution to R. J e r e m i a h o r to Hiyya b. b.

Abba

places the s t o r y in late third-century Palestine. O n l y the c o m m e n t

at

394

H A N I N A BEN

DOSA

the end is in Aramaic. Later Palestinian Amoraim clearly had an interest in Jonathan, and some, e.g. y. Ned. 5:6, held him in poor repute, while Pumbeditans revised the materials (above, pp. 206-208) in his favor. The reasons for this phenomenon must be sought in later Amoraic history. He is dated at various times, in the late prophetic era or HillePs day. in. MENTIONED IN CONNECTION WITH GAMALIEL I

1.

Admon and Hanan

Admon occurs in M. Ket. 13:1, 3-9; the passage is cited, or referred to, in M. B.B. 9:1, M. Shev. 6:3, y. Ket. 13:1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, y. B.B. 9:1, y. Shev. 6:4, Tos. Ket. 12:1, and b. Yev. 37b, b. Ket. 104b105a, 108b, 109a-b, 110a, b. B.B. 30b, 139b, 140b, Shav. 38b, 40b. Hanan (b. Avishalom) appears in M. Ket. 13:1-2, which is further alluded to in y. Ket. 13:1, 2, y. Ned. 4:2, y. Shev. 7:7, b. Ket. 88b, 105a, 107a-b, 108a, 109a, Ned. 33b. 2.

Hanina b. Dosa c

A miracle-worker and disciple of Yohanan b. Zakkai in Arav (see Life of Yohanan b. Zakkai pp. 47-53), Hanina occurs in b. Ber. 34b, in connection with healing Gamaliel's and Yohanan's sons (p. 360); and M. Ber. 5:5: 2

They tell of R. Hanina b. Dosa that he used to pray over the sick and say, "This one wiil live" or "This one will die." They asked him, "How do you know?" He replied, "If my prayer is fluent in my mouth, I know he is ac­ cepted; if not, I know he is rejected." The healing-stories all are based on, and developments of, that story. In M. Sot. 9:15, Hanina's death marks the end of miracle-workers; M. Avot 3:10-11 has a saying on fear of sin and wisdom. Tos. Ber. 3:20 contains the following: They said of Hanina b. Dosa that he was standing and praying and a lizard ( RWD) bit him, and he did not stop. His disciples found it dead and said, "Woe is the man whom a lizard bites, woe is the lizard that bites Ben Dosa." C

Tos. Sot. 15:5 is the same as M. Sot. 9:15. He and his colleagues are referred to as men of truth in Mekhilta Amalek IV, 67, Lauterbach, II, p. 183. y. Ber. 4:1 refers to the fact that Hanina lived in Arav. y. Ber. 5:1 contains the story of Hanina's being bitten, together with the logion of Tos. Ber. 3:20; now it is a HBRBR-lizard that bit him. c

HANINA BEN

DOSA

395

y. Ber. 5:5 presents the story of the healing of Gamaliel's son, with some variations, y. Sot. 9:16 has a repetition of the reference to Hanina as the last of the deed-doers, b. Ber. 33a contains the story of the lizard, with the usual £mz//tf-embellishments. b. Ber. 61b has a saying of Rav, that the world was created only for R. Hanina b. Dosa, an allusion to b. Ta. 24b-25a. b. Shab. 112b includes a reference of R. Zera in the name of Raba b. Zimuna to the same story, b. Pes. 112b tells a story of a meeting between Igrat b. Mahalat and Hanina b. Dosa, parallel to, and modeled on, the same story of Abbaye and Igrat. He orders Igrat never to pass through settled territories, b. Yoma 53b has a story about the power of Hanina's prayer for rain, similar to Honi's. b. Ta. 24b-25a has the rain story, then a story of Rav Judah in the name of Rav about Hanina's receiving praise from an echo: "The whole world is sustained because of Hanina, and Hanina is sustained by a qab of carobs." There follow stories about Hanina and his wife and miracles done for them. Hanina is offered part of his reward in the world to come to improve his lot in this world but declines it. A miracle of Hanina's goats and other fables are included in this Hanina-tractate. b. Hag. 14a refers to b. Ta. 24b, about Hanina's merit sustaining the world, b. Yev. 121b tells the story of a miracle performed by Hanina, similar to b. Ber. 34a. He was able to predict that a girl who fell into a cistern would be saved, b. B.Q. 50a contains the story of b. Yev. 121b. b. B.M. 106a refers to the story of the miracle of Hanina's goats in b. Ta. 24b-25a; b. Hul. 86a contains the story of the heavenly echo about Hanina's merits. So the b. Ta. tractate is a composite of most Hanina -materials. The Hanina-tradition is strikingly consistent with Honi's. It con­ tains no legal materials, but a number of apophthegmatic miraclestories, built up around fixed paradoxical slogans ("The whole world is sustained by the merits..."; "Everyone depends on Hanina, who depends on a carob"; "Woe to people bitten by lizards, woe to the lizard that bites Hanina"), or, like the Pinhas b. Ya'ir stories, centered around his animals, daughter, and wife. The corpus attracted much interest in early Amoraic times, e.g. Rav Judah-Rav. Hanina was as­ sociated with Yohanan b. Zakkai and Gamaliel (I), which suggests that the later authorities could believe first-century Pharisees had associat­ ed with, and depended upon, a miracle -worker. We have no reason to doubt the accuracy of their view of matters. But if Hanina had ap­ peared in non-rabbinic sources, e.g. in Hellenistic Jewish writings or New Testament Apocryphal Gospels, we should not have called

396

J O S H U A BEN

GAMALA

him a Pharisee, and none of the stories about him is quintessential^ Pharisaic. 3.

Yohanan the Scribe

Yohanan the Scribe occurs only in the several reports of letters writ­ ten by Gamaliel I (b. Sanh., y. M.S. 5:3, y. Sanh. 1:2), and Simeon b. Gamaliel I-Yohanan b. Zakkai (Midrash Tannaim). iv. OTHERS

1.

Honi the Circler, Grandson of Honi the Circle (Abba Hilqiah)

He appears in the Honi-tractate, b. 23a-b, p. 176ff., and y. Ta. 3:9; Abba Hilqiah is the grandson, in b. Ta. 23b (above, p. 180) and b. Mak. 23a, where and works righteousness (Ps. 15) is referred to him in an exegesis of R. Hamnuna. The story in y. Ta. 3:9 concerns another rain-miracle. 2.

Joshua b. Gamala

He is found in M. Yev. 6:4, "It once happened that Joshua b. Ga­ mala betrothed Martha b. Boethus and consummated the union after the king had appointed him high priest." In Sifra Emor 2:6 the same story occurs without significant change. In b. Yoma 18a, Martha buys him the high priesthood: R. Assi said, "Two qabs of denars did Martha b. Boethus give to King Yannai to nominate Joshua b. Gamala as one of the high priests." We have, in addition, the tradition of R. Judah-Rav: Rav Judah in the name of Rav said, "The name of that man is to be blessed, and Joshua b. Gamala is his name, for, but for him, the Torah would have been forgotten from Israel. "At first if a child had a father, his father taught him, but if not, he did not learn at all. (What Scripture? And you shall teach them to your children [Deut. 11:19].) "They then ordained that teachers of children should be appointed in Jerusalem. (The Scripture? For from Zion Torah shall go forth [Is. 2:3].) "Even so, if a child had a father, the father would take him up to Jerusalem and have him taught there, and if not, he would not go up and learn there. They therefore ordained that teachers should be ap­ pointed in each district (PLK), and that boys should enter school at the age of sixteen of seventeen. But if the teacher punished them, they used to rebel and leave.

ISHMAEL BEN PHIABI A N D

E L E A Z A R BEN H A R S O M

397

"Finally Joshua b. Gamala came and ordained that teachers of young children should be appointed in each province and town, and that children should enter school at the age of six or seven." (b. B . B . 2 1 a )

The marriage to Martha thus becomes a nomination to the high priest­ hood on her say-so in b. Yoma 18a. The tradition of R. Judah-Rav is of quite a different order. Joshua plays no role in it until the end; any name would have served. Simeon b. Shetah is elsewhere given credit for the establishment of schools. Note also Ben Gamala, M. Yoma 3:9. The Jesus b. Gamaliel of Josephus, Ant. 20:211-215 is identified with Joshua b. Gamala by Derenbourg and others, who change Yannai to Agrippa II. This is in the spirit of Abbaye, who equates Yannai with Yohanan the High Priest. 3.

"Rabbi" Ishmael b. Phiabi and Eleazar b. Harsom

Ishmael b. Phiabi, a high priest, was "Pharisaized" by the rabbinic traditions. Josephus refers to his appointment as high priest. In Anti­ quities 3: 320 he tells that when the country was in the grip of a famine, Ishmael did not touch a crumb of the Temple offerings. The house of Phiabi's high priests included Jesus under Herod {Antiquities 15: 322), and Ishmael under Tiberius {Antiquities 18:34), but the "rabbi" comes close to the destruction. The one under Tiberius was appointed by Valerius Gratus {Antiquities 18:34). The Ishmael before us was made high priest {Antiquities 20:179) by Agrippa in 59 A.D., and serv­ ed as a delegate to Nero {Antiquities 20:194-6) in connection with a Roman guard-house built in the Temple. But Nero's wife Poppaea detained Ishmael and another member of the delegation; then Nero appointed Joseph b. Kabi b. Simon as high priest. Epstein has two high priests named I. b. P., Mevo'ot, p. 45. Rabbinic traditions on "Rabbi" Ishmael b. Phiabi occur in M. Sot. 9:15, "When Rabbi Ishmael b. Phiabi died, the splendor of the priest­ hood ceased"; and M. Par. 3:5, Ishmael b. Phiabi prepared one of the heifers (above, p. 25, with reference to Simeon the Just and Yohanan the High Priest). In Tos. Yom HaKippurim 1:21 we find the story (M SH B) that "the mother of Ishmael b. Phiabi made him a tunic of two myriads, and he stood and sacrificed at the altar [in i t ] . " Tos. Par. 3:6 contains a reference to the two heifer-sacrifices of Ishmael mentioned in the corresponding Mishnah. He followed the instructions of the rabbis in connection with that sacrifice; he prepared C

398

ISHMAEL BEN

PHIABI A N D

E L E A Z A R BEN

HARSOM

one, but since they did not agree with his view of the purity-laws pertaining to the sacrifice, he annulled the first and did it a second time, hence the two heifer sacrifices attributed to him. Further versions of the tunic-story are as follows: They said about R. Ishmael b. Phiabi that his mother made him a tunic worth one hundred minas, which he put on to officiate at a private service and then handed over to the community. (b. Yoma 35b) The story is told about Rabbi Ishmael b. Phiabi who put on a tunic worth a hundred maneh and went up and sacrificed at the altar. The story is told of Rabbi Eliezer b. Harsom that he put on tunics worth two myriads, and went up and offered at the altar, but his brothers, the priests, removed him, because he looked naked in it. What did he do? He filled it with water and circumambulated the altar seven times. (y. Yoma 3:6) A different picture of Ishmael occurs in the following: A. Abba Saul b. Botnit said in the name of Abba Joseph b. Hanan, "Woe is me because of the house of Boethus, woe is me because of their staves. "Woe is me because of the house of Hanan. Woe is me because of their whisperings. "Woe is me because of the house of Qatros, woe is me because of their pen. "Woe is me because of the house of Ishmael b. Phiabi, woe is me because of their fists. "For they are high priests, and their sons treasurers, and their sons-in-law are trustees, and their servants beat the people with staves..." B. Our rabbis taught: Four cries did the Temple court cry out... [The third]: Lift up jour heads, O ye gates, and let Ishmael b. Phiabi, disciple of Phineas, enter and serve in the high priesthood." (b. Pes. 57a [ = b. Ker. 28b]) The "cry of the Temple court" vitiates the force of the foregoing reference and presumably has been attached for that purpose. But the fact remains that the Ishmael b. Phiabi here is represented as no different from all the rest of the rapacious high priests and Temple authorities.

I S H M A E L BEN

PHIABI A N D

E L E A Z A R BEN

HARSOM

399

The traditions of Eleazar b. Harsom are as follows: They told about (>MRW
400

E L E A Z A R BEN

HARSOM

Mountain he owned one thousand of them. b. Qid. 49b has a saying "as wealthy as Eleazar b. Harsom." The two rabbinical high priests mentioned in b. Yoma 9b thus are presented as pious students of Torah—though neither one left a legal saying—subject to the authority of the rabbis, and men of great wealth. The stories about the tunic look suspicious, and in the back­ ground may be a single story of an extravagant garment of a high priest, which has now turned into a tunic given to the two men by their respective mothers. The Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition contains numerous references to the extravagance of the high priesthood, invol­ ving even Simeon the Just, as we saw above (p. 28). These stories are of the same sort. But telling them is not meant to discredit the priests. Ishmael b. Phiabi is mentioned as "the splendor of the priest­ hood;" his heifer-sacrifices are listed. So the traditions are consistently favorable, with one exception, the little ditty of Abba Joseph b. Hanan. The song tells us that Ishmael b. Phiabi's house behaved like high priests in general, beating the people up and intimidating them. That reference (excluding its gloss, for they are...) certainly stands apart from the other stories, and, on the face of it, looks like a genuine reminiscence. Stories about the lavishness of the high priest­ hood do not contradict it. But the ones about high priests who follow­ ed rabbinic rules certainly do, and they surely are shaped in later times. - The "cry of the Temple court" notwithstanding, Ishmael was a standard high priest, and the picture of Josephus must be regarded as accurate. The later rabbinic traditions revised the historical facts to suit their imagination. Making Eleazar b. Harsom a devoted student of Torah serves a similar purpose. The absence of legal traditions is striking. While the tradents were prepared to revise historical and biographical materials, they did not in this instance attribute to, or invent legal sayings for, high priests alleged to have been loyal Pharisees. 4.

Hananiah Prefect of the Priests

Unlike the two priests, Hananiah/Hanina (interchangeably) Prefect of the Priests (fegan hakohanirn) left behind not only stories but also legal sayings. All pertain to the Temple cult and follow the form of later rabbinic legal tradition on the same matters. I assume he lived in Temple times, first because he is referred to, along with the House of Gamaliel, in connection with a Temple rite (M. Sheq. 6:6), second, because his traditions mention Temple practices of his father's time.

H A N A N I A H — I.ii.l, 2 , 3 , 4

401

Unlike the high priests, the Hananiah-corpus is varied and substantial, indeed comparable in size to that of Gamaliel I, and more considerable than Simeon b. Gamaliel's. 1.11.1. Rabbi Hananiah Prefect of the Priest says, "Father would reject the maimed from the altar." (Sifra Sav 1:9, ed. Weiss, p. 29a) Comment: Immediately preceding is a saying of 'Aqiba. The recollec­ tion of Hananiah's father's procedure takes for granted that the father had authority in the Temple and carried it out in such a way as to sup­ ply Pharisaic law with a useful precedent. We do not have to assume this is a fantasy. The Pharisaic traditions on actual Temple procedures were not necessarily partisan but may accurately have portrayed what was really done in the Temple. What signifies a partisan law or opinion is the assertion that the Temple priests had done the wrong thing, e.g. as in the sacrifice of the red heifer; or that the priests had done as sages had told them. But a routine report, not otherwise contradicted, of what was actually done need not be rejected out of hand. The supposi­ tion is that Hananiah's father did supervise Temple procedures. Yet Hananiah associated himself with Pharisaism, or otherwise he would probably not have been accepted as an authority. Hananiah may have represented a priest of Pharisaic persuasion, or, alternatively, a priest later on "Pharisaized," as in the cases of the two high priests considered above. 1.11.2. Rabbi Hanina Prefect of the Priests says, "The appearances [colors] of leprosy-signs (negaHm) are sixteen." (Sifra Tazri'a Nega'im 2:6, ed. Weiss, p. 61a) Comment: In the same list follow Dosa b. Harkinas, who says thirtysix, and Aqavya b. Mehallel, who says seventy-two. Then come secondcentury discussions of why Aqiba reduced the whole to "two which are four." The juxtaposition of Dosa and Aqavyah with Hanina sug­ gests the three were of the same generation, before the destruction; but Dosa's place is primarily at Yavneh, and on 'Aqavyah we have no firm information at all. c

c

c

1.11.3. A. And give you peace (Num. 6:26). Rabbi Hananiah Prefect of the Priests says, "And give you peace—in your house." B. R. Nathan says, "This refers to the peace of the House of David..." (Sifre Num. 42, ed. Friedman, p. 12b)

1.11.4. Rabbi Hananiah Prefect of the Priests says, "Great is peace, for it is weighed against all the works of creation, as it is said, Lo y

402

HANANIAH —Il.i.l, 2

he who forms the mountains and creates the wind, making peace and creating evil (Amos 4:13, Is. 45:7)." (Sifre Num. 42, ed. Friedman, p. 13a) Comment: The setting is a collection of logia on peace. In the first in­ stance Hananiah is part of a long list of commentators on the Priestly Benediction. In the latter (I.ii.4) his saying is in the same form as the rest, Great is peace, for... The logia are independent of one another and are brought together to form a composite pericope of peace. Hana­ niah's saying is congruent with his logion in Avot. I see no chronologi­ cal principle in the arrangement of the masters listed in the two peri­ copae. 11.1.1. R. Hanina Prefect of the Priests says, "The priests never refrained from burning flesh that had become unclean from a derived uncleanness together with flesh that had become unclean from a pri­ mary uncleanness, although they thereby added uncleanness to its uncleanness." [M. Pes. 1:6, trans. Danby, p. 137 (y. Pes. 1:6)] c

Comment: Aqiba adds the example of lamp-oils; Meir and Yosi com­ ment on the legal principle involved, that at Passover one may burn clean Heave-offering together with the unclean. Aqiba's language is the same as Hanina's: MYMYHM SLKHNYM. In both instances Temple practice is reported, but we have no reason on the strength of this source alone to suppose that Hanina had information deriving from his own observation, any more than Aqiba did. The terminus ante quern must be middle-second century Usha, which does not help us to evaluate the Hanina-tradition. The corpus of Hanina-materials is composed chiefly of such Temple-sayings in standard legal form, prima facie evi­ dence of his special interest in the matter, also of his competence deriving from personal observation and participation. Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 332, links this pericope to the Houses-dispute in Tos. Pis. 1:6; see also Mishnah, p. 1134. That dispute must be based upon this ruling. c

c

11.1.2. What did they do with the surplus of the Terumah? Golden plating for bedecking the Holy of Holies. R. Ishmael says, "The surplus of the fruit was devoted..." R. Aqiba says, "The surplus of the Terumah was devoted..." R. Hanina Prefect of the Priests says, "The surplus of the drinkofferings was devoted to [offerings for] the altar for the summer (QYS) [such time as it lay idle], and the surplus of the Terumah was devoted to vessels of ministry." [M. Sheq. 4:4, trans. Danby, p. 156 (y. Sheq. 4:2, alsob. Ket. 106b)] c

H A N A N I A H — II.i.3, 4

403

Comment: Another Temple tradition of Hananiah in context of 'Aqiba, now with Ishmael as well, this pericope has Hananiah in disagreement with Aqiba and Ishmael. 'Aqiba says the surplus of Terumah was for the time the altar lay idle, and of the drink offerings, for ministering vessels, while Hananiah has the drink offering surplus for the time the altar lay idle, and the Terumah for vessels of ministry. Both differ with Ishmael. The form is identical for all three masters, and presumably has been shaped out of materials from the times of Aqiba-Ishmael. Hence the tradition is a reminiscence; Hananiah's information may have come from personal observation, but this pericope does not sug­ gest so. c

c

II.i.3. The House of R. Hanina Prefect of Priests would make four­ teen prostrations. (M. Sheq. 6:1) Comment: See above, p. 346. II.L4.A. R. Hanina Prefect of the Priests testified [concerning] four things: B. The priests never refrained from burning flesh that had become unclean from a derived uncleanness together with flesh that had be­ come unclean from a primary uncleanness, although they thereby add­ ed uncleanness. R.
404

H A N A N I A H — II.i.4, 5

standard legal saying, M. Zev. 12:4, from which the passage obviously is taken. The hide was given to the priests. 'Aqiba comments on the lemma. Then the sages reject Hananiah's testimony, saying we have not seen is no proof. The hide must be burned. This is striking, because Hananiah's testimony was about what he had seen, and the sages ruling, in flatly rejecting it, is, "It goes to the house of burning." They deny not the accuracy of Hananiah's recollection, but its serving as an author­ itative precedent. That Hananiah speaks in the past tense here as else­ where (M. Pes. 1:6) puts the Temple in historical time, and Hananiah in Yavneh. Aqiba is a firm terminus ante quern. The report about the village near Jerusalem and the practice of the village money-lender, by contrast, serves as basis on which to formulate a rule of law. So Hananiah's cases and stories could serve as reliable precedents, and, therefore, he was thought of as a Pharisaic authority. The fourth case returns to Temple matters, this time concerning clean­ ness rules. We do not know whether the needle was clean when the cow swallowed it. The knife and the hands remain clean, though they have touched the cow, since we suppose they have not touched the needle. Theflesh,of course, has been made unclean. But if the needle has passed through, we imagine that the flesh is clean and rule that the flesh and needle have not come into contact. The four testimonies pertain, therefore, chiefly to Temple matters. The report of the practice in the nearby village and the sages' ruling does not change matters much, since Hananiah may be presumed to have been aware of decisions of the "sages" of Pharisaic Jerusalem. But what brought the case to their court to begin with? The presupposition of the story is that the Pharisaic sages ruled on such matters. But if that was not the case, then what Hananiah knows about is what the court— presumably the normal civil judges of the city—ruled, and the later sages in preserving the story presumed that the judges were in fact Pharisees. None of these materials unequivocally places Hananiah in pre-70 Jerusalem, though Hananiah's frame of reference does center on Jerusalem. On the other hand, no evidence clearly suggests that Hananiah was not in Jerusalem before 70, although the juxtaposition of his opinions with 'Aqiba's and Ishmael's is puzzling. Normally such a form would mean he was among the authorities at Yavneh whose opinions were redacted together. In the balance, therefore, the evidence points toward, but does not decisively place Hananiah in, Jerusalem in Temple times. Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 84, 431, assigns the whole pericope to 'Aqiba's editing. c

II.i.5. R. Hanina Prefect of the Priests said, "Pray for the peace of the ruling power, since, but for fear of it, men would swallow each other up alive." (M. Avot 3:2, trans. Danby, p. 450)

HANANIAH —

II.i.6, 7,

8

405

Comment: Note also ARN, Chap. 20, trans. Goldin, pp. 94-5. Hana­ niah's opinion, presumably coming at the time of war against Rome, places him in the peace-party. ARN Chap. 20 preserves an exegesis of Deut. 28:46ff, much like Yohanan b. Zakkai's treatment of the same verse. The Avot saying therefore is appropriate to the time, and, ac­ cording to the Sifre Num. 42 logia, to the man as well. II.i.6. R. Hanina Prefect of the Priests says, "My father used to reject from the altar such as has a blemish." (M. Zev. 9:3, trans. Danby, p. 482) Comment: See above, Sifra Sav 1:9, p. 401. ILi.7.A. If aught befell any of the Hallowed Things to render them invalid before they were flayed, their hides do not belong to the priests; but if it befell after they were flayed, their hides belong to the priests. B. R. Hanina Prefect of the Priests said, "Never have I seen a hide taken out to the place of burning." C. R.
Comment: See above, M. Ed. 2:2, which is borrowed from here, so Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 84. c

II.L8.A. R. Ishmael says, "The omer was brought on the Sabbath from three se'ahs; and on a weekday, from five." But the sages say, "No matter whether it was a Sabbath or weekday, it came from three." B. R. Hanina Prefect of the Priests says, "On a Sabbath it was reaped by one man, with one sickle, into one basket, but on a week­ day it was reaped by three, into three baskets, with three sickles." But the sages say, "No matter whether it was a Sabbath or a week­ day, it was reaped by three, into three baskets, with three sickles." (M. Men. 10:1, trans. Danby, p. 505) Comment: Hananiah's rule once again is in the past tense, phrased not as a prescriptive law, but as a description of what was done aforetime. Hence we have a reminiscence of Temple rite on the sixteenth of Nisan. But Ishmael's language is no different, and the same considerations pertinent to M. Sheq. 4:4 apply here. Part B looks like a dispute about the mnemonic tradition in the hands of both sides—was it one] one j one-three f three j three or was a separate tradition on weekdays available to all? Hananiah maintains separate traditions on weekdays and Sabbaths were handed on, and he presurnN E U S N E R , The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70, I

26

406

H A N A N I A H — ILLS), 1 0

ably had learned such traditions. The sages had not. At early Yavneh, mnemonic traditions apparently came under discussion, a phenomenon much in evidence in the Houses-materials. See Epstein, Mishnah, p. 1013. II.i.9.A. R. Hanina Prefect of the Priests says, "The colors of leprosy-signs are sixteen." R. Dosa b. Harkinas says, "Thirty-six." 'Aqavyah b. Mehallel says, "Seventy-two." B. R. Hanina Prefect of the Priests says, "They do not inspect leprosy-signs for the first time the day after the Sabbath, since the [end of] that week will fall on the Sabbath; nor yet on the second day of the week, since the end of the second week will fall on the Sabbath; nor in houses on the third day of the week, since the end of the third week will fall on the Sabbath." R. Aqiba says, "They inspect them at any time, and if the time for inspection at the end of the seven days falls on a Sabbath, they leave it until after the Sabbath." (M. Neg. 1:4, trans. Danby, p. 676-7) c

Comment: M. Neg. 1:1 begins with the view of Meir, that the colors of the leprosy-signs are "two which are four," that is, Scripture speaks of two, but they are divided into four colors. After this matter is dis­ cussed at some length, the above pericope appears, with the traditions of Hananiah, then Dosa b. Harkinas, then 'Aqavyah. The commentaries explain that the issue is, How are the original colors referred to in Scrip­ tures to be subdivided? But the form of Meir's Mishnah is presupposed in the sayings attributed to the earlier masters, with this difference: in­ stead of "two that are four," we have only fixed numbers, sixteen, thirty-six, and seventy-two. The second saying (B) of Hanina again places him into juxtaposition with 'Aqiba, and one gains the impression that Hananiah is to be placed in Yavneh toward the end of the first century, along with Dosa and Aqavyah. c

II.i.10. Seven days before the burning of the heifer the priest that was to burn the heifer was taken apart from his house to a chamber... And throughout the seven days they sprinkled him [with water] from the [ashes of] all the sin-offerings that were there. R. Yosi says, "They sprinkled him only on the third and seventh days." R. Hanina Prefect of the Priests says, "They sprinkled the priest that was to burn the heifer on each of the seven days, but [the priest

H A N A N I A H — Il.ii.l, 2, 3

407

that was set apart] for the Day of Atonement they sprinkled only on the third and seventh days." (M. Par. 3:1, trans. Danby, p. 699) Comment: This is another Temple reminiscence. Since the probability is that the Pharisees had no accurate records of the heifer-ceremony, and they certainly did not supervise it, the tradition is either an accurate recollection of something Hanina himself saw, or a fabrication of some­ thing no one saw, but everyone assumed would have been done ac­ cording to Pharisaic law. Hanina's language makes little difference here, for the Yavnean rabbis phrased in the historical, past tense whatever laws about the Temple they chose to preserve or create, whether those laws derived from actual knowledge of historical realities or from the exegetical and legislative imagination of the Yavnean (and later) mas­ ters. So this consideration is hardly decisive. Strikingly, Yosi b. Halafta's language differs not at all from Hanina's, though Yosi comes about half-a-century later. The dispute is between Yosi and Hananiah! 11.11.1. R. Hananiah Prefect of the Priests says, "Terumah which has been impaired for human consumption, but the dog can eat it, retains the capacity to render unclean the uncleanness of foods, and they burn it in its place [forthwith, and do not need to wait until the time of burning the leaven on the eve of Passover]." (Tos. Ter. 9:10, ed. Lieberman, p. 158, lines 47-9) Comment: No other masters are mentioned in context. See also b. Pes. 45b, etc. The logion is in standard legal form. 11.11.2. R. Hanina Prefect of the Priests says, "Father would prevent maimed [offerings] from coming near the altar." (Tos. Zev. 9:5, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 493) Comment: See above, Sifra Sav 1:9. 11.11.3. R. Hananiah Prefect of the Priests says, "The appearances of negaHm are sixteen." R. Dosa b. Harkinas says, "Thirty six." 'Aqavyah b. Mehallel says, "Seventy-two." (Tos. Neg. 1:6, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 618, line 19) Comment: See above, M. Neg. 1:4, Sifra Tazri'a Neg. 2:6. The peri­ cope cannot be composite, for the opinions of the other masters would mean nothing without Hananiah's full statement of the problem. The antecedent master is Ishmael, who says they are twelve. Then comes

408 H A N A N I A H —II.ii.3 HANANIAH IILi Tannaitic M a t e r i a l s in Palestinian Gemara

ILii Tosefta

Hananiah, Prefect of the Priests

I Tannaitic Midrashim

ILi Mishnah

1. Father w o u l d

Sifra S a v 1 : 9

M. Zev. 9 : 3

Tos. Zev. 9 : 5

Sifra Tazri'a

M . Neg.

Tos. Neg.

IILii Tannaitic M a t e r i a l s in Babylonian Gemara

IV.i Amoraic Materials in Palestinian Gemara

IV.ii Amoraic M a t e r i a l s in Babylonian Gemara

— II.ii.3 V ARN

offerings f r o m the altar Leprosy-signs

a r e sixteen

Neg.

3 . P e a c e in y o u r

Sifre N u m . 4 2

1:4

1:6

2:6

house 4. Peace equivalent Sifre N u m .

42

t o creation 5. Priests n e v e r refrained

M . Pes. 1 : 6 M . <Ed. 2 : 1

6. Surplus of drink-offering

M . Sheq. 4 : 4

7. House of fjanina made fourteen prostra­ tions

M . Sheq. 6 : 1

8. I never saw hide taken t o be burned

M . <Ed. 2 : 2 M. Zev. 1 2 : 4

9. W o m a n may w r i t e o w n bill o f divorce

M. Ed. 2 : 3

1 0 . Needle in flesh o f offering

M . <Ed. 2 : 3

1 1 , Pray for the government

M. A v o t 3 : 2

1 2 . R e a p i n g *omer

M. Men. 1 0 : 1

1 3 . Inspection o f l e p r o s y signs

M . Neg.

14. Sprinkled priests

M . Par. 3 : 1

15. House of our G o d is w o r t h missing a bath

b. K e t . 1 0 6 b

c

1:4

b. A . Z . 4a

Tos. Neg.

1:6

y. Bes. 2 : 2

b. Ta. 1 3 a

409

Compilations of Midrashim

reject maimed

2.

VI Later

A R N Chap. 20

410

H A N A N I A H — III.i.1; III.ii.1, 2

16. Fire of w o o d 1 7 . Terumah unfit for human consumption 1 8 . W h y does prefect stand o n right ( = 19)

1

b. Y o m a 2 1 b Tos. Ter. 9 : 1 0

411

H A N A N I A H — III.ii.3, 4

1

I i

1

1 9 . W h y is p r e f e c t appointed ( = 1 8 )

Hananiah-Dosa-'Aqavyah in a single, unitary pericope. The italicized words serve all three, therefore are a superscription inserted into Hananiah's saying. In MS Kaufmann Neg. 1:4, they are assigned to Dosa, and Hananiah is dropped entirely.. III.i.1. R. Hananiah Prefect of the Priests said, "The House of Our God is worthy (KDYY) that the priests should lose for it one immer­ sion.'' (y. Bes. 2:2, repr. Gilead, p. 10b) Comment: The saying presumably comes after the destruction of the Temple. The law is that on the 9th of Av all those who require im­ mersion may do so. Then comes Hananiah's saying, using the formula applied to Hillel, "Hillel is worthy that..." Then R. Levi expounded the law according to this saying of Hananiah. The view that the priests are the only ones who immerse is curious, but accurate for Temple times. The saying in this form must have existed by the beginning of the third century. The Babylonian beraita properly (from the rabbinic perspective) corrects it by dropping the priests—now everyone immerses.

111.11.1. It has been taught (WHTNY>): "Five things were reported about the fire of the pile of wood. It [the fire] was lying like a lion..." But has it not been taught (WHTNY>): R. Hanina Prefect of the Priests said, "I myself have seen it, and it was lying (RBS) like a dog." (b. Yoma 21b)

1

b. Y o m a 3 9 a

! b. S o t . 4 2 a

order that, if an accident should happen to the high priest, the prefect enters and officiates in his stead." (b. Yoma 39a) Comment: Immediately following are stories about Simeon the Just (above, pp. 30-32). This beraita, in the form of a question and an answer attributed to Hanina, pertains to what the prefect of the priests did in the Temple, something Hanina was presumed to know from personal experience. But we have no way of knowing the facts of Hanina's participation in the cult, and it is noteworthy that he does not say he himself did so.

111.11.3. R. Hanina Prefect of the Priests said, "The House of our God merits (KDY) to lose an immersion once a year [on the ninth of A v ] . " (b. Ta. 13a) Comment: y. Bes. 2:2 has priests, in the plural. The fourth-century Amoraic discussion involves Abbaye and others.

111.11.4. R. Hanina Prefect of the Priests said, "For what is the prefect of the priests appointed? If any disqualification should occur to the high priest, he enters and officiates in his place." (b. Sot. 42a) In b. Yoma 39a the question is, Why is the prefect at the The answer is exactly the same. The answer must therefore have circulated independent of either question; it serves equally well for both. Comment:

Hanina's saying originally must not have been separated from thefive-things,for the antecedent of /"/ can only be the fire of the wood-pile. But it has not shaped thefive-things,for obvious reasons. It is a reminiscence of Temple times, coming after the destruction. Comment:

111.11.2. It was taught (TNY*): R. Hanina Prefect of the Priests says, "Why [does] the prefect of the priests [stand] at the right? In

right?

The corpus of Hananiah-traditions is congruent to what we should have expected of a priest who lived both before the destruction of the Temple and afterward. Hananiah's stories include numerous rulings

412

HANANIAH

on, and recollections of, Temple procedures, priestly rites and beha­ vior, purity rules, and similar matters: Rulings: 1. Leprosy-colors (Sifra Tazri a Nega im 2:6). 2. Leprosy-inspections on Sunday are prohibited (M. Neg. 1:4). 3. Capacity of spoiled Terumah to render unclean (Tos. Ter. 9:10). c

c

Recollections: 1. Father rejected maimed offerings (Sifra Sav 1:9). 2. The priests never refrained from burning flesh in various states of uncleanness (M. Pes. 1:6). 3. They used the surplus drink-offerings and Terumah for the altar and vessels (M. Sheq. 4:4). 4. The Houses of Hananiah and Gamaliel would prostrate (M. Sheq. 6:1). 5. Unfit hides were not burned (M. <Ed. 2:2). 6. Needle in thefleshdid not make knife and hands unclean in Temple (M. <Ed. 2:3). 7. Omer was cut differently on Sabbath from weekday (M. Men. 10: c

8. Priest who burned heifer sprinkled daily (M. Par. 3:1). 9. The fire of the wood pile lay like a dog (b. Yoma 21b). 10. The prefect stands next to the high priest so he can take his place if necessary (b. Yoma 39a), or was appointed for that same purpose (b. Sot. 42). In addition, we found logia in praise of peace (Sifre Num. 42, M. Avot 3:2) and about not bathing on the 9th of Av, applying to either priests or ordinary folk (y. Bes. 2:2; b. Ta. 13b). Nearly the whole of Hana­ niah's traditions concern the Temple in one way or the other, excluding only the peace-sayings and the story about the man who wrote his own bonds (M. Ed. 2:3). On the face of it, therefore, Hananiah did live both in Temple times and afterward. Many of the logia are transmitted in collections of Aqiba, Ishmael, Dosa b. Harkinas, and 'Aqavyah; the first two certainly flourished well after the Temple was destroyed; the third probably so; and the fourth is impossible to date definitively. This suggests not only that Hananiah was at Yavneh through a good part of its history, but also that his sayings were redacted there. Aqiba's comments on some make it certain a few of the sayings were fixed by 'Aqiba's time. The underlying supposition throughout, that the Pharisees ran the Temple, could also indicate that Hananiah was a creature of the Phari­ sees and played no role in the Temple such as was attributed to him. Or it may be that Hananiah himself was a Temple priest of the Pharic

c

c

HANANIAH, N A H U M THE

MEDE

413

saic persuasion and absorbed the viewpoint of the party, even against everyday facts of Temple governance that must have been known to him. In any case I cannot imagine Hananiah was a fictional character, or that, like "Rabbi" Ishmael b. Phiabi, probably also Eleazar b. Harsom, he was a Temple authority later on claimed by the rabbis as their own. The differences between Hananiah's traditions and theirs are substantial. The latter are stories and reminiscences, nearly all fantasies, while the former contain legal materials too carefully redacted to be compared to random fables. The evidence, however, is hardly sufficient decisively to settle the question. 5.

Nahum the Mede and Hanan the Egyptian

Nahum the Mede certainly lived at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, according to the story in M. Naz. 5:4, as follows: Il.i.l. A like error befell Nahum the Mede when Nazirites came up from the Exile and found the Temple destroyed. Nahum the Mede said to them, "Would you have vowed to be Nazirites had you known the Temple was destroyed?" They answered, "No." And Nahum the Mede released them from their vow. But when the matter came before the sages, they said to him, "If any man vowed to be a Nazirite before the Temple was destroyed, his Nazirite-vow remains binding. But if he vowed after the Temple was destroyed, his Nazirite-vow is not binding." [M. Naz. 5:4 (cited in y. Ned. 9:2, y. Naz. 5:3)] Nahum the Mede is, however, on a list of the judges of civil law along with Admon and Hanan: A. Three judges in cases of robbery were in Jerusalem: Admon b. Gadai, Hanan the Egyptian, and Hanan b. Avishalom... B. Three judges of civil law were in Jerusalem: Admon, Hanan, and Nahum... C. R. Papa replied, "Nahum's name was mentioned by R. Nathan for it was taught: "R. Nathan says, 'Nahum the Mede was also one of the judges of civil law in Jerusalem,' but the sages did not agree with him..." [b. Ket. 105a (y. Ket. 13:1)] Nathan, a Babylonian, was responsible for including Nahum the Mede on the list of the civil judges, along with Admon and Hanan b. Avis-

414

H A N A N THE

EGYPTIAN

halom (M. Ket, 13: Iff) considered above. No other traditions of Nahum can be definitively located in the setting of Jerusalem. Further traditions include the following: M. Shab. 2:1, Nahum the Mede says one may use melted tallow for the Sabbath lamp, and the sages prohibit it; M. B.B. 5:2, if a man sold an ass, he has not sold its trappings, but Nahum the Mede says he has sold the trappings; Tos. B.B. 9:1, R. Nathan says Nahum was one of the civil judges and held that one who writes over his property in the name of his fellow cannot be forced to retract; Tos. A.Z. 1:1 = y. A.Z.I : 1 , Nahum the Mede says one day before pagan festivals in the exile it is prohibited to do business with them. b. A.Z. 7b contains several other Tannaitic traditions of Nahum the Mede: One may sell to idolators a male or old horse in war time; the dill plant is subject to tithe whether as seeds or vegetables or pods; and one may ask for his own needs during the benediction who hears prayer. These are random, commonplace rulings, and give no hint as to where they come from. They do not follow the form of the M. Ket. 13: Iff rulings of Admon and Hanan. Hanan the Egyptian, the other name in the b. Ket. 105a discussions, occurs under that name only in the Babylonian Talmud. In b. Yoma 63b ( = b. Tern. 6b, b. Zev. 34b, 74a), a beraita of Hanan the Egyptian is cited by R. Joseph with reference to the he-goat-to-be-sent-away on the Day of Atonement.-Another reference is b. Sanh. 17b, as follows: c

// was discussed before the sages refers to Simeon b. Azzai, Simeon b. Zoma, Hanan the Egyptian, and Hananiah b. Hakhinai. R. Nahman b. Isaac taught that there are five, the three Simeons (adding Simeon the Temanite), Hanan, and Hananiah. These masters certainly do not come before the destruction, but are contemporaries of Aqiba. The inclusion of Hanan on such a list suggests either that Hanan the Egyptian is not the same as the civil court judge in Temple times, or that someone has erred in identifying the Egyptian Hanan with the Hanan of M. Ket. 13:1 (see Epstein, Mevcfot, p. 45). c

6.

Zekhariah b. Qevutal and Zekhariah b. HaQassav

Zekhariah b. Qevutal reports (M. Yoma 1:6) that many times did he read before the high priest before the Day of Atonement out of the Book of Daniel. Epstein (Mevo'ot, p. 37) assigns the whole of M. Yoma to Zekhariah b. Qevutal! The report is part of the picture of how the Pharisees used to instruct the high priest in piety and

ZEKHARIAH

415

law before the Atonement rite. His son is one of the rabbinical apostles sent to Babylonia ca. 130 A.D. in connection with the dispute with Hananiah nephew of R. Joshua b. Hananiah (b. Ber. 63a). Zekhariah b. HaQassav occurs in M. Ket. 2:9 ( = Tos. Ket. 3:2). He testified concerning his wife, that she had not been raped when the Romans took Jerusalem: "By this Temple, her hand stirred not out of mine from the time the gentiles entered Jerusalem until they left it." They said to him, "None may testify of himself." Nonetheless, a beraita adds, he treated her very honorably (b. Ket. 27b). Joshua b. Hananiah cites a teaching of his, M. Sot. 5:1, in con­ formity with an exegesis by R. Aqiba. A further story appears in M. <Ed. 8:2 (cited in b. Ket. 26b-27a, y. Ket. 2:9): c

R. Yosi the Priest [disciple of Yohanan b. Zakkai] and R. Zekhariah b. HaQassav testified of a young girl that was left as a pledge in Ashqelon, and the members of her family kept her far from them, al­ though she had witnesses that testified that she had not gone aside in secret and been defiled. The testimony did no good. The case-report presumably came to Yavneh. Eleazar b. R. Yosi cites him, Tos. B.B. 7:11 ( = b. B.B. 111a, y. B.B. 8:1) in a law about the division of a mother's legacy. Both Zekhariah's therefore lived in the last years of the Temple and afterward. Zekhariah b. Qevutal may have been important in the Temple administration. If his report is true, then he was one of those priests who after the destruction went over to the Pharisees, or was "Pharisaized" whatever he actually did. We do not have to dismiss the recollection out of hand. Presumably he did what he said, perhaps not as a "sage" informing the high priest what to do, but rather as a perfectly pious Temple authority in his own right. Zekhariah b. HaQassav survived the capture of Jerusalem, and a few of his tradi­ tions persisted at early Yavneh. 7. Measha, Nahum the Scribe, Simeon of Mispah, Judah b. Bathyra, 'Aqavyah b. Mehallel, Hananiah b. He^eqiahb. Gorion, Abba Yosi b. Hanan, and Yohanan b. Gudgada Measha (MY'S*) and Nahum the Scribe occur only in M. Pe'ah 2:6, cited above, p. 344. Simeon of Mispah also occurs in Tos. Yom Hakippurim 1:13 (Zucker­ mandel, p. 181, 1. 25, p. 182, 1.1) in juxtaposition with R. Yosi; and

416

H A N A N I A H BEN

HEZEQIAH

Tos. Zev 6:13 (Zuckermandel, p. 488, 1. 36) on the Tamid rite. Judah b. Bathyra: See my History of the Jews in Babylonia, I. The Parthian Period , pp. 46-52, 130-4. ^Aqavyah b. Mehallel is dated by some as early as the first century B.C. and by others as late as Yavneh in Gamaliel IFs time. The evidence is not decisive one way or the other. Hananiah b. Hezeqiah b. Gorion (Garon) occurs only in M. Shab. 1:4 (and parallels) as follows: 2

These are among the rulings which the sages enjoined while in the upper room of Hananiah b. Hezeqiah b. Gorion. When they went up to visit him they voted, and the House of Shammai outnumbered the House of Hillel, and eighteen things did they decree on that day. We have in addition references to Hananiah b. Hezeqiah, without b. Gorion, in Shab. 13b = b. Men. 45a = b. Hag. 13a, as follows: Our rabbis taught, Who wrote Megillat Ta'anit? They said, Hana­ niah b. Hezeqiah and his companions, who cherished their troubles... Rav Judah in Rav's name said, "Verily that man, Hananiah b. Hezeqiah is his name, is to be remembered for blessing, for, but for him, the Book of Ezekiel would have been hidden, for its words contradicted the Torah. What did he do? Three hundred barrels of oil were taken up to him, and he sat in an upper chamber and recon­ ciled them." (b. Shab. 13b = b. Men. 45a = b. Hag. 13a) Our rabbis taught: There was once a child who was reading at his teacher's house the Book of Ezekiel, and he apprehended what Hashmal was, whereupon a fire went forth from Hashmal and consum­ ed him. So they sought to suppress the Book of Ezekiel, but Hananiah b. Hezeqiah said to them, "If he was a sage, all are sages." (b. Hag. 13a) The saying of Rav Judah-Rav is in the context of the discussion of M. Shab. 1:4, which suggests that the editor assumed the two Hezeqiah b. Hananiah's were one and the same. But nothing in the traditions of H. b. H. without b. G. suggests a particular time or place or circle in which his traditions were redacted, so it is merely an assumption that they pertained to the same Hezeqiah. We also have a R. Eleazar b. Hananiah b. Hezeqiah b. Garon, in Sifre Deut. 294; and Mekh. Bahodesh 7:66:

Y O H A N A N BEN

417

G U D G A D A — Il.i.l, 2

Eleazar b. Hananiah b. Hezeqiah b. Garon says, "Remember the Sab­ bath day to keep it holy—Remember it from the first day in the week, so that if something good comes to you, you should order it (MTQNW) for the sake of the Sabbath." This is, in effect, Shammai's saying, b. Bes. 16a. On this basis Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 513, assigns Eleazar to the House of Shammai, and to the period before 70. If he was the son of Hananiah b. Hezeqiah, I should imagine that he would come after the destruction. Abba Yosi b. Hanan occurs in M. Mid. 2:6; he says that thirteen prostrations referred to in M. Sheq, 6:3 (M. Mid. 2:3) were made oppo­ site the thirteen gates; in b. Pes. 57a, the woe-sayings are attributed to Abba Joseph b. Hanan (above, p. 398). In b. Zev. 65a he has a saying about slaughtering the fowl; b. Sot. 20a, about the woman accused of adultery, along with Eliezer b. Jacob of Kefar Darom and Ishmael. Tos. Miq. 3:8, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 655, has a saying on combining quantities of water for purification purposes. Tos. Eruv. 11:24, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 154 = Tos. Hag, 1:9, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 233, has a saying pertinent to M. Hag. 1:8, on which basis Epstein, Mevcfot, p. 19, assigns Abba Yosi to the last decades before the destruc­ tion of the Temple. Tos. Suk. 4:15, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 199, has a saying on the priestly watches (mishmarot). c

The traditions of Yohanan b. Gudgada point toward a master who was a Temple Levite before the destruction of Jerusalem. They are as follows: Il.i.l. Yohanan b. Gudgada always ate hullin in accordance with the rules governing the cleanness of Hallowed Things, yet for them that occupied themselves with sin-offering water his apron counted as suffering ^/^/-uncleanness. (M. Hag. 2:7, trans. Danby, p. 214) II.L2.A. Yohanan b. Gudgada testified of a woman that was a deaf mute and that was given in marriage by her father [as a minor] that she could be put away by a bill of divorce. B. And that a minor that was an Israelite's daughter married to a priest could eat of heave-offering. C. And that if she died her husband could inherit from her. D. And that if a man built a stolen beam into a structure, he need only repay its value, on acount of the order (MPNY TYQWN) of the penitent. E. And that a sin offering that was stolen property, if this was not

418

Y O H A N A N B E N G U D G A D A — I l . i i . l , 2 ; III.ii.1; I V . i i . l

known to many, could effect atonement on account of the order of the altar. [M. Git. 5:5, trans. Danby, p. 313 (Part A is inM. Yev. 14:2;inM. Ed.7:9it is R. Nehunya b. Gudgada; compare M. Yev. 14:2)] c

11.11.1. R. Judah said, "The story is told of the sons of Rabbi Yohanan b. Gudgada that they were deaf and dumb, and all the purities of Jerusalem were done under their supervision ( L GBN)." (Tos. Ter. 1:1, ed. Lieberman, p. 107, lines 1-2) C

11.11.2. These are the appointees that were in the Sanctuary: Yohanan b. Gudgada (was) over the locking of the gates... (Tos. Sheq. 2:14, ed. Lieberman, p. 210, lines 63-4) III.ii.1. Our rabbis taught: If it was stripped of its hide, R. Meir declares it valid, but the rabbis declare it invalid. Long ago Eleazar the Scribe and Yohanan b. Gudgada testified that an animal stripped of its hide was invalid. (b. Hul. 55b) C

IV.ii.l. It happened that (M SH B) R. Joshua b. Hananiah went to assist R. Yohanan b. Gudgada in fastening the Temple doors, where­ upon he said to him, "My son, turn back, for you are of the singers, not of the door-keepers." [b.
Y O H A N A N BEN

GUDGADA

419

entirely clear that Yohanan b. Gudgada lived in Temple times, and his sons did also. But their supervisory role is dubious. Yohanan was in charge of the Temple gates, a Levitical assignment. Linking him with Joshua b. Hananiah, also a Levite who lived in Temple times, is by no means far-fetched. We are in no position to verify the Yoha­ nan b. Gudgada-traditions. They are internally consistent, (On M. Git. 5:5, see Epstein, Mishnah, pp. 657,954)

ADDENDUM p. 240, Il.ii.l 1: Compare Sifra Vayiqra 1:7, ed. Weiss, p. 3a.

THE RABBINIC TRADITIONS ABOUT THE

PHARISEES

BEFORE 70

P A R T

THE

II

HOUSES

THE RABBINIC TRADITIONS ABOUT THE PHARISEES BEFORE 70 P A R T II

THE HOUSES

BY

JACOB

NEUSNER

Professor o f Religious Studies B r o w n University

LEIDEN E. J . B R I L L 1971

Copyright

1971 by E. J. Brill, Leiden,

Netherlands

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche or any other means without written permission from the publisher

PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

For Wayne and Martha Meeks . . . aAY)0c5c.... ev & SoXoc, oux ecr&v

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface

xni PART ONE

THE MASTERS List o f A b b r e v i a t i o n s

xiv

Transliterations

xvi

I. II.

III.

VI.

V.

INTRODUCTION

I

THE CHAINS OF PHARISAIC TRADITION

1 1

i.

T o Lay o n Hands

1 1

ii.

Decrees

1 3

iii.

Moral Apophthegms

1 5

iv.

Conclusion

2 2

SIMEON THE JUST

2 4

i.

Traditions

2 4

ii. iii.

Synopses Conclusion

4 4 5 7

ANTIGONUS OF SOKHO. Y o s i B. YO'EZER AND YOSI B. YOHANAN

6 0

i.

6 0

Antigonus of Sokho

ii.

Traditions o f Y o s i b. Y o ' e z e r and Y o s i b. Y o h a n a n

6 1

iii.

Synopses

7 7

iv.

Conclusion

8 1

JOSHUA B. PERAHIAH AND NITTAI THE ARBELITE. JUDAH B. TABBAI AND S l M E O N B. SHETAH

VI.

VII.

VIII.

8 2

i.

J o s h u a b. Perahiah and Nittai the A r b e l i t e

8 2

ii.

Traditions o f J u d a h b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah

iii.

Synopses

1 2 2

iv.

Conclusion

1 3 7

.

.

.

.

8 6

SHEMA'IAH AND ABTALION

1 4 2

i. ii.

Traditions Synopses

1 4 2 1 5 5

iii.

Conclusion

.

1 5 8

YOHANAN THE HIGH PRIEST, HONI THE CIRCLER, AND OTHERS MENTIONED IN CONNECTION WITH PHARISAISM BEFORE HILLEL . . 1 6 0 i.

Y o h a n a n the High Priest

1 6 0

ii.

H o n i the Circler

1 7 6

iii.

Others

1 8 2

MENAHEM. SHAMMAI i.

Menahem

1 8 4

1 8 4

VIII

IX.

X.

XI.

XII.

XIII.

TABLE OF

CONTENTS

ii.

Traditions of Shammai

iii.

Synopses

204

iv.

Conclusion

208

HILLEL

185

2 1 2

i.

Traditions

212

ii. iii.

Synopses Conclusion

280 294

SHAMMAI AND HILLEL

303

i.

Traditions

303

ii.

Synopses

333

iii.

Conclusion

338

GAMALIEL

341

i.

Traditions

342

ii.

Synopses

370

iii.

Conclusion

373

SIMEON B. GAMALIEL

377

i.

Traditions

ii.

Synopses

384

iii.

Conclusion

386

OTHER PHARISEES BEFORE 7 0 i.

ii.

389

1.

Dositheus of Kefar Yatmah

389

2.

Baba b. Buta

389

3.

Y o ' e z e r 'Ish H a B i r a h

391

4.

Sadoq

392

5.

Y o h a n a n the Hauranite

392

M e n t i o n e d in C o n n e c t i o n w i t h Hillel

392

1.

Bene Bathyra

392

2.

Gedya Ben He He and Ben Bag Bag Shebna J o n a t h a n b. 'Uzziel

392

4. 5.

iv

389

M e n t i o n e d in C o n n e c t i o n w i t h S h a m m a i

3.

iii.

377

392

393 393

M e n t i o n e d in C o n n e c t i o n w i t h G a m a l i e l I

394

1.

394

A d m o n and Hanan

2.

Hanina b. D o s a

304

3.

Y o h a n a n the Scribe

396

Others 1.

Hilqiah) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

396

H o n i the Circler, G r a n d s o n of H o n i the Circler ( A b b a 396

J o s h u a b. G a m a l a 39 " R a b b i " Ishmael b. Phiabi and Eleazar b. H a r s o m . . . . 39 Hananiah Prefect o f the Priests 40 N a h u m the M e d e and Hanan the Egyptian 41 Zekhariah b. Q e v u t a l and Zekhariah b. HaQassav . . . . 4 1 Measha, N a h u m the Scribe, S i m e o n o f M i s p a h , J u d a h b. Bathyra, ' A q a v v a h b. Mehallel, Hananiah b. Hezeqiah b. G o r i o n , a n d Y o h a n a n b. G u d g a d a 4 1

6 7 0 3 4

5

TABLE OF

CONTENTS

PART

IX

TWO

THE HOUSES List of Abbreviations Transliterations

XIII xv

XIV.

INTRODUCTION

1

XV.

TANNAITIC MIDRASHIM

6

i. ii. iii. iv. v. XVI.

Mekhilta de R. Ishmael Mekhilta de R. Simeon b. Yohai Sifra Sifre Midrash Tannaim

6 9 11 30 39

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA AND SOME Beraitot

41

i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii. viii.

Zera'im Mo'ed Nashim Neziqin Qodashim Toharot Collections of Houses-Disputes in Mishnah-Tosefta Tables

PART

41 120 190 234 239 253 324 344

THREE

CONCLUSIONS List of Abbreviations

XVI

Transliterations XVII.

XVIII.

X I V

INTRODUCTION

1

INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF TRADITION : TYPES AND FORMS i.

Legal Traditions A. B. C.

Standard Legal F o r m Testimonies Debates

5

5 5 1 4 16

TABLE OF

X D.

Narratives 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

E.

ii.

XIX.

CONTENTS

H i s t o r i c a l I n f o r m a t i o n in S t a n d a r d L e g a l F o r m Epistles Ordinances Chains and Lists Precedents Contexts First-Person Accounts Illustrations and Proofs Histories o f L a w s

23 .

.

24 25 25 27 28 31 33 35 38

Legal Exegeses 1. Scriptural References

39 39

2. 3. 4.

40 42 42

Exegeses Proof-texts F r o m Exegesis to Chria

Aggadic Traditions

43

A.

Stories 1. Allusions to Stories 2. S h o r t Biographical References 3. Biographical and Historical Stories

43 43 45 47

B.

Sayings 1. "I"-Sayings 2. S a y i n g s N o t in a N a r r a t i v e S e t t i n g 3. Apophthegms 4. "Woe"-Sayings 5. Formulaic Sayings

55 56 56 59 61 61

C.

Aggadic Exegeses 1. Scriptural References 2. Exegeses

62 62 62

3. 4.

63 64

Proof-Texts F r o m Exegesis to Fable

iii.

S u m m a r y of Forms and Types

64

iv. v.

Some Comparisons History of Forms

68 89

SMALL UNITS OF TRADITION AND OTHER MNEMONIC PATTERNS 1 0 1 i.

Introduction

ii.

Pericopae w i t h o u t Formulae o r Patterns

106

iii.

Pericopae with Formulae o r Patterns

114

iv.

Small Units of Tradition 1.

Fixed Opposites a. Liable v s . Free b. Unclean v s . Clean c. Prohibit vs. Permit d. Unfit v s . Fit e. Midrasvs. Terne-Met f. I n s i d e v s . O u t s i d e ; Past v s . F u t u r e ; A b o v e vs. Below

101

1

1

9

H9 120 120 I I l ^ 2

2

2

2

2

2

l ^

TABLE OF CONTENTS

v.

XI

2.

Balance o f Meter

124

3.

Balance o f M e t e r and Change o f Letter

125

Syntactical and M o r p h o l o g i c a l Changes E q u i v a l e n t in F u n c ­ tion to Small Units o f Tradition

XX.

126

1.

Tense and N u m b e r

2.

D i s t i n c t i o n v s . N o D i s t i n c t i o n (And

126

3.

Reversal o f W o r d - O r d e r

128

4.

Statement o f L a w + / — N e g a t i v e

129

5.

Negative Statement + Permit

132

6.

*P i n S e c o n d L e m m a

134

vs. Or)

126

vi.

Differences i n W o r d - C h o i c e

134

vii.

Number-Sequences

136

viii.

Houses-Disputes N o t in Precise Balance

ix.

S u m m a r y o f Small Units o f Tradition and O t h e r

138

Patterns

140

x.

O r a l Transmission: Defining the Problem

143

xi.

Oral Traditions

163

Mnemonic

VERIFICATIONS i.

Introduction

ii.

P e r i c o p a e w i t h o u t V e r i f i c a t i o n s b e f o r e ca. 2 0 0 A . D . ( M i s h ­

iii.

180

nah-Tosefta)

185

Verifications of Y a v n e h

199

1.

Eliezer b. Hyrcanus

2.

Joshua b. Hananiah

200

3.

Eliezer + J o s h u a

201

4.

Eliezer + 'Aqiba

201

5.

A b b a Saul

202

6.

Gamaliel II

202

7.

Eleazar b. R. S a d o q

203

199

203

8.

Eleazar b. 'Azariah

9.

Eleazar b. 'Azariah and J o s h u a

204

10.

Eleazar b. 'Azariah and Ishmael

204

11.

Tarfon

204

12.

Tarfon + 'Aqiba

204

13. 14.

iv.

180

'Aqiba 4

A q i b a n Exegeses in Houses-Disputes

205 207

15.

Y o h a n a n b. Nuri

208

16.

J o n a t h a n b. Bathyra

208

17.

A b b a Y o s i b. Hanan

208

18.

Ilai

208

19.

D o s a b. Harkinas

208

20.

Ishmael

208

Verifications of Usha

209

1.

Usha in General

209

2.

Judah b. Baba

210

3.

Judah b. Bathyra

210

4.

Eliezer b. S h a m m u ' a

211

5.

Eliezer b. J a c o b

211

6.

Dosetai b. R. Y a n n a i

211

TABLE OF

XII

v.

7.

Y o s i b . Halafta

211

8. 9.

Y o s i b . H a l a f t a a n d J u d a h b . Ilai Yosi b. rlalafta and Meir

213 213

10.

Y o s i b . Halafta a n d S i m e o n b . Y o h a i

213

11.

Simeon b. Y o h a i

214

12.

Meir

215

13.

M e i r a n d J u d a h b . Ilai

215

14.

J u d a h b . Ilai

217

15.

Simeon b. Gamaliel

218

16.

Nathan

219

Verifications of the Circle of J u d a h the Patriarch 1.

XXI.

XXII.

CONTENTS

220

2.

S i m e o n b. Eleazar

220

3.

Others

222

vi.

T h e P r e - 7 0 P h a r i s e e s at Y a v n e h

223

vii.

T h e P r e - 7 0 P h a r i s e e s at U s h a

231

viii.

Conclusion

234

HISTORY OF THE TRADITIONS

239

i.

The Missing Traditions

ii.

The

iii.

The Matter o f Hillel

iv.

Gamaliel and Simeon. Y o h a n a n b. Zakkai

272

v.

The Yavnean Stratum

281

vi.

The Ushan Stratum

282

vii.

The Laws

286

Rabbinic History

239 of Pharisaism: The

INDICES

248 255

301 320 369

I.

Bible

II.

Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumranian Writings

III.

Josephus

IV.

Mishnah

VI.

Early Masters

SUMMARY: THE RABBINIC TRADITIONS ABOUT THE PHARISEES BEFORE 7 0

APPENDIX: BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFLECTIONS

V.

220

T h e C i r c l e o f J u d a h t h e P a t r i a r c h in G e n e r a l

Tosefta M e k h i l t a , S i f r a , Sifr£, M i d r a s h T a n n a i m

VII.

Palestinian T a l m u d

VIII.

Babylonian Talmud

IX.

Midrashim and Other Compilations

X.

General Index

LIST

OF

ABBREVIATIONS

Ah. 'Arak. ARN A.Z.

= = = =

Ahilot 'Arakhin A v o t deRabbi Natan 'AvodahZarah

b.

=

Bavli, Babylonian Tal­ mud

b. B.B. B.M. B.Q. Ber. Bes. Bik.

= = = = = = =

ben B a v a Batra Bava M e s i V Bava Qamma Berakhot Besah Bikkurim

Chron.

=

Chronicles

Dan. Dem. Deut. Development

= = = =

Daniel Demai Deuteronomy Development of a Legend : Studies on the Traditions Concerning Yohanan ben Zakkai ( L e i d e n , 1 9 7 0 )

'Ed. Epstein,

=

'Eduyyot

Mevcfot

— J . N . E p s t e i n , Mevo'ot le Sifrut HaTannaHm (Jerusalem, 1957)

Epstein, Mishnah

=

J . N . E p s t e i n , Mavo le Nusah HaMishnah (Jerusalem, 1 9 6 4 )

'Eruv. Ex. Ez.

= = =

'Eruvin Exodus Ezekiel

2

Finkelstein, Mavo — Mavo le Massekhet Avot veAvot deR. Natan (New York, 1950)

Halivni, Meqorot

=

Hor.

=

David Weiss Halivni, Meqorot uMesorot (Tel A v i v , 1968) Horayot

Hos. Hul.

= =

Hosea Hullin

Is.

=

Isaiah

JE Jer.

= =

Jewish Encyclopedia Jeremiah

Josh. Jud.

= =

Joshua Judges

Kel. Ker. Kil.

= = =

Kelim Keritot Kila'im

Lev.

=

Leviticus

M.

=

Mishnah

M.Q. M.S. M.T. MT Ma. Mak. Maksh. Mai. Meg. M e g . Ta. Mekh. Men. Mid. Miq.

== = = = = = = = = = = = = =

M o e d Qatan Ma^serSheni M i d r a s h Tanna*im Massoretic Text Ma'aserot Makkot Makshirin Malachi Megillah Megillat Ta anit Mekhilta Menahot Middot Miqva'ot

Naz. Ned. Neg. Nez. Nid. Num.

= = = = = =

Nazir Nedarim Nega im Nezirot Niddah Numbers

Gen. Git.

= =

Genesis Gittin

Oh. 'Orl.

= =

Hag. Hal.

= =

Hagigah Hallah

Par. Pes.

= =

l

4

4

4

Ohalot Orlah

Parah Pesahim

XIV

LIST OF

Prov. Ps.

= =

Proverbs Psalms

Qid.

=

Qiddushin

Qoh.

=

Qohelet

ABBREVIATIONS

Ta. Tern.

= =

Ta'anit Temurah

Ter.

=

Terumot

Toh.

=

Toharot

Tos. T-Y.

= =

Tosefta TevulYom

4

=

'Uqsin

y.

=

Y e r u s h a l m i , Palestinian

=

Talmud YomTov

R.

=

Rabbah

R.

=

Rabbi

R.H.

=

Rosh Hashanah

Sam.

=

Samuel

Sanh.

=

Sanhedrin

Y.T.

Shab.

=

Shabbat

Yad.

=

Yadaim

Shav.

=

Shavu'ot

Yev.

=

Yevamot

Sheq.

=

Sheqalim

Uqs.

Shev.

=

Shevi'it

Zab.

=

Zabim

Song

=

Song of Songs

Zech.

=

Zechariah

Sot.

=

Sotah

Zer.

=

Zera'im

Suk.

=

Sukkah

Zev.

=

Zevahim

TRANSLITERATIONS

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

INTRODUCTION The pericopae of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel constitute the largest corpus of materials attributed to pre-70 masters. Nearly all elements in that corpus exhibit common form and structure and uniform style. In the Houses' dispute-form we have a superscription which states the legal problem, followed by brief rulings attributed to the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel, in that order. The superscription sometimes is inserted in the Shammaite lemma, but this is readily discerned, and the primary pericope is easily restored. The Housesopinions are usually stated in brief balanced phrases, sometimes opposing numbers, e.g., one/two, three/nine, more often in syzygies, e.g., liable, not liable, with the Shammaites nearly always in the strin­ gent position. A second form is the debate, in which the Hillelites normally come first, the Shammaites have the last word and win the argument. Here the Houses-sayings generally are developed and not compressed into a few words, balanced against one another. The model used for the formation of the Houses-disputes seems to be the pattern of the pairs in M. Hag. 2:2, listing contrary opinions and systematically assigning them to the two authorities of a given genera­ tion: X Y

says says

T o lay N o t t o lay

The Houses-form differs primarily in the provision of substantial protases, statements of a legal issue or problem, or superscriptions; further, the Houses' opinions are phrased usually in direct discourse or in intensive verbs: House of say, unclean declare declare declare declare

Shammai unclean l i a b l e ; say, liable unfit ready to receive uncleanness

( ' W M R Y M , TM>) (MTM'YN) ( M H Y Y B Y N ; ' W M R Y M , H YB) (PWSLYN) (BKY YTN; MWKSRYN)

N E U S N E R , T h e Rabbinic T r a d i t i o n s about t h e P h a r i s e e s before 70, II

1

2

INTRODUCTION

House o f Hillel say, c l e a n d e c l a r e clean

('WMRYM,

THR)

(MTHRYN)

d e c l a r e free o f l i a b i l i t y ; say, f r e e o f l i a b i l i t y

(PWTRYN; 'WMRYM, PTWR)

d e c l a r e fit

(MKSYRYN)

declare n o t ready to receive uncleanness

(L> B K Y Y T N ;

>YNN

MWKSRYN)

and the like. The Houses begin just where the pairs leave off, after Shammai and Hillel; Shammai's House comes first, just as does Shammai in the original chain. Later on, when the law came always to conform to the Hillelites' ruling, the masters apparently found it con­ venient to preserve the traditions as they had received them, and even to shape new materials following the ancient pattern. In doing so, they relieved the student of the need of memorizing decisions, since what­ ever the Hillelites said would be regarded as law. The few exceptions were easy to remember. The Hillelites thus effected their revolution within the antecedent forms, by making the old forms serve new purposes. In Amoraic times masters observed the literary phenomena re­ presented by the fixed order and rigid forms of the Houses disputes: R. Abba in the name of Samuel said, "For three years there was a dispute between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel. "One said, 'The law is in agreement with us,' and the other said, 'The law is in agreement with us.' "Then an echo came forth and said, 'Both are the words of the living God, but the law follows the words of the House of Hillel.' " Since both are the words of the living God, what entitled the House of Hillel to have the law established in agreement with their words ? Because they were kindly and modest. They studied their own rulings and those of the House of Shammai. They were even so humble as to mention the words of the House of Shammai before their own. (b. <Eruv. 13b, trans. I. W. Slotki, pp. 85-6) On what account did the House of Hillel prove worthy that the law should be established according to their words ? R. Judah b. R. Pazzi said, "Because they placed the words of the House of Shammai ahead of their words. "And not only so, but they also saw [the point of] the words of the House of Shammai and retracted their own opinions." (y. Suk. 2:8) Clearly, it was regarded as preferable to come first. As we shall see,

3

INTRODUCTION

the "retractions" do not amount to much, and generally show a Hillelite bias. As in b. Eruv. 13b, which alludes to the several explanations, it also was held that an echo had pronounced the decision: c

TNY: An echo went forth and said, "These and these are the words of the living God, but the law is according to the words of the House of Hillel." Where did the echo go forth? R. Bibi in the name of R. Yohanan said, "In Yavneh the echo went forth." (y. Yev. 6:6, y. Sot. 3:4, y. Qid. 8:1) To be sure, Hillelites believed in echoes, and Shammaites did not (e.g., Tos. Nez. 1:1). As in the Shammai-Hillel pericopae, the Houses are at parity; but the Shammaites predominate in both forms, giving the first ruling, the final argument in a debate. We shall see that the forms were used for a long time after the destruction of the Temple, though most of the pericopae were redacted probably before or at Usha, ca. 140-180 A.D. Some of the pericopae provoke comments of early Yavneans, e.g. Tarfon and Aqiba, and may therefore have been redacted by ca. 100 A.D. The problem of dating pericopae thus is complicated by the fact that the Houses-form was pseudepigraphically employed over a period of roughly a century, from ca. 70 to ca. 170, somewhat less commonly thereafter. We do not know whether the form was used before 70 as well; none of the pericopae can be verified by reference to named masters before 70, who never comment directly on materials attributed to the Houses or even on legal issues addressed by the Houses. All we can hope to propose is a plausible date for the creation and first usage of the form itself: obviously not before the time of Shammai and Hillel—ca. 20 A.D.; and not after the time of Aqiba and Tarfon— ca. 90 A.D. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus and Joshua b. Hananiah also comment on Houses-pericopae, which pushes the terminus of the form back by about fifteen years. They sometimes are identified with, or regarded as equivalent to, the Houses of Shammai and Hillel. Perhaps the form itself came even before their time, right at the outset of Yavneh. Clearly, the Hillelites predominated at Yavneh, certainly after 100, and possibly after 70, for Yohanan b. Zakkai was alleged to have been HillePs disciple. By contrast, no Yavnean was assigned to Shammai as c

c

4

INTRODUCTION

a disciple. Eliezer is merely called a sympathizer. Since the Hillelites told stories both to account for Shammaite predominance in pre-70 Pharisaism ("sword in the school-house," "Shammaites one day out­ numbered Hillelites," "mob in the Temple"), and also to explain the later predominance of the Hillelites ("heavenly echo came to Yavneh"), it stands to reason that the Shammaites predominated before 70, the Hillelites shortly afterward. This is further suggested by the one-sided, if limited, evidence that Gamaliel II and Simeon b. Gamaliel I followed Shammaite rules. My guess, as I said, is that the Houses-forms were first worked out when the parties were nearly equal in influence, but when the Sham­ maites still enjoyed a measure of power, so that they could persist in taking precedence. Further necessary conditions are, first, the need to bring the parties together and determine normative law, and second, the presence of an authority of sufficient stature to impose the necessary compromises. These conditions can have been met only in one time and place, and that is, at Yavneh in the time of Yohanan b. Zakkai and Gamaliel II. The work of Yavneh required the conciliation of both parties to achieve the unification of Pharisaism for the purpose of assuming and exercising the new power and responsibility gained in the aftermath of the destruction. Yohanan b. Zakkai, leader of the Hillelite sector of Pharisaism, and Gamaliel II afterwards may have sought to conciliate the Shammaites in the redaction of existing legal materials. The generation of Gamaliel II, Eliezer, Joshua, Tarfon, and Aqiba is the first to refer to Houses-disputes in their present form. Yavneh's accomplishments thus would seem to include not only the formation of elements of the Siddur and perhaps the canonization of parts of Scripture, but also the redaction in Houses-form of parts of the Oral Torah of Pharisaism. This Oral Torah would have consisted primarily of Houses-pericopae, perhaps arranged in patterns to permit easy memorization. But it is the form, not the substance, of Houses-pericopae, which reached the final stage of development. Yohanan b. Zakkai, supposedly an important leader before 70, and all other named Pharisaic authorities are excluded from the essentials of the Houses-forms. We hear chiefly of the Houses, seldom of authorities within them. The Houses-form indeed leaves no room at all for named authorities. Aggadic and other theological materials are rare, for the purpose of the redactors apparently was to incorporate only the legal traditions, and the forms were shaped for that limited purpose, scarcely serving as vessels for other sorts of traditions. All c

INTRODUCTION

5

aggadic Houses-materials violate the basic form of both Housesdisputes and debates. The analyses that follow systematically raise two questions. First, what was the substance of the law attributed to the Houses? I have explained the laws according to the commentaries of H. Albeck and, especially, Saul Lieberman, on the Mishnah and Tosefta respectively. Lieberman's Tosefta Kifshutah and Tosefet Rishonim have been followed throughout. While for form-critical reasons I have offered a few alternate explanations, in the main the exposition of pericopae depends upon Lieberman. The second question is, What words are essential to the pericope, and what are glosses, interpolations, developments, or supplements? What are the mnemonic patterns? I have attempted to restore the pericopae to what seem to me essential mnemonic elements, to specify glosses, and to note elements added or changed on account of redactional considerations. I bear sole responsibility for the answers to the second set of questions. We shall survey the pericopae in the Tannaitic Midrashim (both Mekhilta's, Sifra, Sifre, and Midrash Tannaim) and Mishnah-Tosefta; to these I have added, at appropriate places, some of the more im­ portant beraitot of the Palestinian and Babylonian gemarot, but I have excluded nearly all Amoraic discussions of the Houses-materials. Israel Konovitz, Beth Shammai-Beth Hillel. Collected Sayings in Halakah and Aggadah in the Talmudic and Midrashic Literature (Jerusalem, 1965), provides an apparently complete compilation, in the original langu­ ages, of all Houses-materials, early and late, and arranges them according to theme. There is no need to duplicate that work.

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

TANNAITIC

MIDRASHIM

i. M E K H I L T A D E R.

ISHMAEL

I.i.l.A. Another Interpretation: From Year to Year (Ex. 13:10)— B. [This] tells that a man needs to examine the phylacteries once in twelve months. "Here it says From year to year, and below it says For a full year (YMYM) shall he have the right of redemption (Lev. 25:29). Just as year (YMYM) there means fully twelve months, so here it also means fully twelve months"—the words of the House of Hillel. C. The House of Shammai say, "He never needs to examine them." D. Shammai the Elder said, "These are the phylacteries of my mother's father." [Mekhilta de R. Ishmael, Pisha 17:209-216, ed. and trans. Lauterbach, I, p. 157 (M. <Ed. 4:10)] Comment-. See above, I, p. 188. Another interpretation (A) (DBR *HR) is the redactional formula. Then comes the exegesis attributed to the House of Hillel. We should have expected a contrary exegesis of year; the corresponding opinion of the Shammaites ought to have had something to do with Ex. 13:9-10 or Lev. 25:29. But it does not. This is suspicious, for the opening clause of the pericope, giving the Hillelite opinion, does correspond to the form of the Shammaite opinion given afterward: one should—should not—examine.

If we ignore the exegesis, we have this: One examines the

phylacteries—

O n c e in t w e l v e m o n t h s — t h e House o f Hillel. O n e n e v e r examines t h e m — t h e House o f Shammai

that is, approximately the expected form, but with the Houses in the wrong order. The Shammaites ignore the exegesis of Lev. 25:29 because it has no pertinence to phylacteries at all, probably also because it is a gloss. The Hillelites hold one can introduce Scriptural testimonies on the basis of common words—the heggesh—from year toy ear. The form here it saysj there it says occurs, one recalls, in Hillel-stories, e.g. the coincidence of the Sabbath and Passover, so the exegetical device attributed to Hillel is likewise attributed to his House. But that does not tell us when the

TANNAITIC MIDRASHIM

—Li.2

7

exegetical mode was accepted or came to be regarded as probative among Hillelites. It also is curious that the Hillel-House precede the Shammai one, for the contrary order is far more common, just as in the Shammai-Hillel pericopae, above, I, pp. 303-340. The pericope is a unity. One could not comprehend the Shammaite opinion outside of the context of the argument. Shammai the Elder is tacked on afterward, but the body of the argument presumably began with the opinions of the two Houses; to this Lev. 25:29 was added. The silence of the Shammaites on that attempted proof suggests, as I said, that they never saw it or did not accept it as probative so as to require a response. Therefore the Hillelites or their heirs are responsible for the final form of the pericope. Pericopae which have not been doctored by Hillelites normally contain an even balance of materials. Whatever point, argument, or proof is introduced by one party is dealt with by the other. The Sham­ maites come first. Hillelite exegetical rules are not introduced, since the Shammaites either do not know or do not accept them. The pericope before us has been augmented by a Hillelite or later hand, through both the introduction of Lev. 25:29, and the application to it of Hillelite exegetical principles. The inclusion of the precedent of Shammai himself (elsewhere, Hillel) is a late addition to the whole. According to this theory, the memorized fundament of the pericope would be something like this: Tefillin

BWDQYN/'YN BWDQYN And the Houses are given the opinions supposed appropriate, though, as I said, the attributions are the reverse of what one would expect and place the Shammaites in the lenient position. Then the first lemma is glossed with once in twelve months, a necessary addition, further requiring the simple Shammaite negative to be intensified to never. The Scriptures are a secondary interpolation. I.i.2.A. Whether he have not put his hand unto his neighbor's goods (Ex. 22:8). For his private use (LSRKW). You interpret it to mean for his private use. Perhaps it is not so, but means whether it be for his private use or not for his private use? But Scripture says, For every matter of trespass. B. For (§) the House of Shammai declare one liable for the inten­ tion (Lit.: thought of the heart) to "put his hand," since it is said, "For every thought of trespass." And the House of Hillel declare one liable only from the moment when he actually did put his hand.

8

TANNAITIC

M I D R A S H I M — I.i.2

C. Accordingly, it is said, Whether he have not put his hand unto his neighbor's goods, [it must mean] for his private use. [Mekhilta de R. Ishmael, Neziqin 15:49-55, ed. and trans. Lauterbach, III, p. 117 (M. B.M. 3:12)] Comment: The legal issue of part B is when liability begins. The House of Shammai hold that intention is tantamount to action, and the House of Hillel, that one is liable only for what he actually does. The setting is autonomous. No named masters appear in, or refer to, the passage. The connection between parts A + C with part B is less clear than it seems at the outset. The §, combining part B to part A, leads one to suppose that the second part bears some relationship to the content of the first, as an explanation or illustration. But the first part concerns disposition of the stolen goods, and the second, the point at which liability begins. What unites the two is a common Scripture, not theme. The §, translated by Lauterbach as for, therefore is a clumsy redactional device, in fact misleading the reader to suppose what follows explains the foregoing, or at least pertains to it. The § is a commonplace joiningelement and normally makes good sense in Houses-pericopae. Part C is tacked on with LKK, but repeats A and leaves the Hillelites without a Scriptural exegesis to support their position. The lemma about the House of Shammai does not cite verbatim the actual teaching of the House at the outset, (say, liable) but reports the opinion third-hand: (for) the House of Shammai declare liable. . . Then comes the exegesis supposedly shaped by the Shammaites to back up their opinion. Likewise with the House of Hillel, the language is not indirect, let alone direct discourse, but a report, followed by the irrelevant therefore it is said (LKK N'MR), not the antecedent for it is said (SN'MR), which ignores the Hillelites, as I said. The two opinions do correspond to one another: MHYYBYN +/— >YN. It is further puzzling that the Shammaite opinion depends on the exegesis of KL: For every matter, even intention—an Aqiban exegetical principle! The primary elements ought to have been c

Thought of the heart H o u s e o f S h a m m a i d e c l a r e liable ( H Y Y B ) House o f Hillel declare exempt ( P T R )

It is hardly necessary to develop the Hillelite lemma into not liable except when he actually put his hand—on which the Shammaites obviously agree. So the pericope looks post- Aqiban and is highly developed. The pericope certainly is not a unity, but an artificial construction in which part B is interpolated between parts A and C, because of the reference to Ex. 22:8. c

TANNAITIC

MIDRASHIM —I.ii.l, 2

ii. M E K H I L T A D E R.

9

S I M E O N B. Y O H A I

I.ii.l.A. Between the two evenings (Ex. 12:6). . . From the sixth hour and onwards B. For (§) the House of Shammai say, "Included in evening is only [the time] after the day has turned [ = after the noon hour]." (Mekhilta de R. Simeon b. Yohai to Ex. 12:6, ed. Epstein-Melamed, p. 12, lines 4-5) Comment: The corresponding passage in Mekhilta deR. Ishmael, Pisha 5:118-120, ed. Lauterbach, I, p. 42, has the following: R a b b i [ J u d a h the P a t r i a r c h ] s a y s , " B e h o l d it s a y s , There thou shalt sacrifice the Passover-offering in the evening. I m i g h t t a k e t h i s l i t e r a l l y , i.e. i n t h e e v e n i n g . B u t S c r i p t u r e g o e s o n t o say, At the time that thou earnest forth out of Egypt. W h e n d i d Israel g o f o r t h o u t o f E g y p t ? A f t e r t h e sixth h o u r [ = n o o n ] o f the day. . ."

Rabbi Judah the Patriarch thus presents exactly the same opinion as the Shammaites, but his choice of words and supporting exegesis are different. How would the opinion of the Shammaites originally have taken shape? It is difficult to imagine that the brief lemma before us could have circulated outside of the context of the law and Scripture to which it pertains. But we have no Shammaite Mekhilta or other document collecting their opinions, except for the Mishnaic Houses-collections (below, pp. 324-343). The lemma in its present form has been attached to a Scripture but presumably was meant as a general rule of inter­ pretation for all places in which between the evenings appears. Judah the Patriarch draws the same conclusion as do the Shammaites but does not refer to their exegetical proof in stating it. I cannot imagine why 'Aqibans should have preserved the Sham­ maite view. After ca. 100, no normative teachers known to us were Shammaites. So why should either party have done more than preserve either already redacted collections of materials, or stories and sayings reflecting a poor opinion of the Shammaites? This saying is neutral and presented as authoritative, normally signs of early redaction. Yet there is no indication that the lemma at an early date was given official and final form in a collection. Perhaps Shammaite exegetical rules and sayings were in fact redacted but suppressed, and only bits and pieces in pretty much their original form survived later on. See Epstein,

y

Mevo ot

9

pp. 328, 332, 336.

I.ii.2.A. Every male (Ex. 23:17)—to include (LRBWT) the children. B. This is that which the House of Hillel say, "Every child who can

10

TANNAITIC

MIDRASHIM —I.ii.3

hold his father's hand and go up from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount is liable for making an appearance (R'YH)." [Mekhilta de R. Simeon b. Yohai to Ex. 23:17, ed. Epstein-Melamed, p. 218, lines 28-9 (b. Hag. 4a, M. Hag. 1:1, y. Hag. 1:1)] Comment: The form is much the same as the foregoing: an exegesis followed by a lemma of one of the Houses, attached in the preceding by for the House. . . say, or, as here, This is that which. . . say—that is, redactional materials to link autonomous and pre-existing lemmas to the exegetical framework already established according to order of the Scriptural compilation. The Hillelite saying is independent, without the corresponding Shammaite ruling, just as in the foregoing, the Shammaite material stands by itself. The rule of B is a unity as it stands. It would have been comprehended quite outside the Scriptural framework and circulated in that form. Part A is 'Aqiban, for KL—to include is a standard exegetical tech­ nique associated with 'Aqibans and later masters. It cannot be attrib­ uted to the House of Hillel. Part B ignores the exegesis, presumably has nothing to do with it, and supplies an interpretation of the Scripture unrelated to the parts of the Scripture itself (KL). The exegesis depends, rather, upon the meaning, not the form—every male will include children who can make the trip. Still, it is hard to see how the Hillelite exegesis differs from part A, for both depend upon the meaning of every jail. The only distinction is that part A takes for granted the Aqiban formula: KL—to include; while part B, saying the same thing in substance, ig­ nores the exegetical formula. Part B is tacked on to part A because of the common theme and common reference to KL. Part B must come later than the Houses-dispute on the same subject and is borrowed from it. Compare Sifre Deut. 143, below, p. 35. c

I.ii.3. Six days shall you work and do all your labor (Ex. 20:9)— A. This is that which the House of Shammai say, "They do not soak ink, dyestuffs, and vetches, except so that ('L* KDY §) they may be [wholly] soaked while it is still day. B. "And they do not spread nets [for] beastfs] and birds, except so that they may be caught while it is still day. C. "And they do not lay down the olive press beams or the wine­ press rollers unless they [the juices] will flow while it is still day. D. "And they do not open a channel [to water] the gardens except so that it may be [wholly] filled while it is still day. E. "And they do not place meat, onion, and egg on the fire, and not a broth (TBSYL) into the oven except so that they may roast while it is still day."

TANNAITIC

11

MIDRASHIM —I.ii.4

F. And the House of Hillel permit in all of them. G. But that C^S) The House of Shammai say, "Six days will you work and do all your labor—that all your work should be finished by the Sabbath eve." And the House of Hillel say, " Six days shall you work [and do all your labor]—You labor all six days, and the rest of your work is done of itself on the Sabbath." (Mekhilta de R. Simeon b. Yohai to Ex. 20:9, ed. Epstein-Melamed, p. 149, lines 15-21) Comment: This is a late summary-repertoire of Shammai-rulings on a single problem summarized at the end, part G. They are presented in a different sort of collection in M. Shab. 1:4-ll, Tos. Shab. 1:21; see below, p. 127. All that is not drawn from M.-Tos. Shab. is the little exegesis in part G; the Houses' lemmas are not balanced opposites, unlike the M.-Tos. version. Note also Shammai in Midrash Tannaim, p. 123, Sifre Deut. 203, Tos. <Eruv. 3:7, b. Shab. 19a, y. Shab. 1:4. Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 278, notes that the House of Shammai was more stringent than Shammai, and the House of Hillel followed his view!

HI.

SIFRA

I.ii.4. A. [Or anything about which he has sworn falsely ; he shall restore it in full, and shall add a fifth to it, and give it to him to whom it belongs] on the day of his guilt offering(Lev. 6:5 [MT 5:24]). B. The House of Shammai say, "(YLQH BH$R WYTR) He suffers the disadvantages of loss or gain." [So Jastrow, II, p. 718, s.v. LQY; he must pay according to the original value of his bailment in case of depreciation, or according to the present value of the misappropriated bailment in case of a rise in value.] And the House of Hillel say, "According to the hour of removal [of the misappropriated bailment]." C. Rabbi 'Aqiba says, "According to the hour of the claim." (Sifra Vayiqra Parashah 13:13, ed. I. H. Weiss, p. 28b) Comment:

The whole passage occurs in M. B.M. 3:12: If

to his own use what had been left in his his

keeping—

The House of Shammai say, "He is at a disadvantage. . ."

a man

put

TANNAITIC MIDRASHIM —I.ii.4

And the House of Hillel say, "[He must restore the deposit at the same value] according to the hour of removal." R. 'Aqiba says, "At its value when claimed." The passage here is introduced by a Scripture, in the Mishnah by a generalized rule of law, but the substance otherwise is identical, in the standard form alluded to above. Then follow later materials (part C), augmenting, but not changing, the original matter. Such a passage must have reached itsfinalform before R. ^qiba's time and was never after altered. It appears in Sifra and Mishnah without alteration, except in editorial superscriptions, other opinions as supplements at the end, and (where needed) redactional material. The Shammaite-Hillelite dispute could have stood without the Aqiban subscription, and prob­ ably did. Part B is a unity, the pericope a composite. Since 'Aqiba supplies the terminus ante quern, the conventional legal form comes very early in the formation of the legal traditions after 70. But while the form is standard, the Houses-lemmas are not, for they do not exhibit the normal antonymic, balanced relationship, in which word-choices correspond to one another. On the contrary, the Hillelite and Aqiban sayings are what we should have expected for the Houses: c

c

KS
In the simplest oral form the difference would have been the single word at the end. The Shammaite saying then should be: K$
TANNAITIC

MIDRASHIM —I.ii.5

13

c

precisely convey the Shammaite opinion. Aqiba rejects both Houses' opinions, taking as the time for evaluating restitution the hour of the claim, whether higher or lower than the foregoing time. The Hillelites' position is not necessarily, but may be, more lenient. In this instance, the considerations of mnemonic transmission in carefully balanced lemmas must be weighed against the need for precise expression of the Shammaite opinion, which precludes K§ T.. . C

Note Epstein,

Mevd'ot,

p. 77.

I.ii.5.A. [But no sin offering shall be eaten from which any blood is brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the holy place; it shall be burned with fire.] All that is holy will be burned with fire (Lev. 6:30). B. From here they said: The flesh of the holy of holies which has been made unclean, whether with a primary source of uncleanness or with a secondary source of uncleanness, whether within or outside [the holy precinct]— C. "The House of Shammai say, 'All will be burned within [the courtyard.] "And the House of Hillel say, 'All will be burned outside [the court­ yard], except [that] which is made unclean with a secondary source of uncleanness—within,' "—the words of R. Meir. D. R. Judah says, "The House of Shammai say, 'All is burned in­ side, except that which is made unclean by a primary source of un­ cleanness—outside.' E. "And the House of Hillel say, 'All is burned outside, except that which is made unclean by a secondary source of uncleanness— within.' " (Sifra SavPereq 8:6, ed. I. H. Weiss, p. 33a) 4

Comment: Even though one does not bring unclean objects into the Temple court, not even something made unclean under any circum­ stances, Scripture has included in the rule of all that is holy will be burned within the courtyard the burning of holy objects that have been made un­ clean, so Meir's Shammaites. The House of Hillel say all should be burned outside, for it is indeed forbidden to bring unclean things into the Temple court, except something unclean in a minor degree. The rulings of the Houses, in fact formulated by R. Meir and R. Judah [b. Ilai], the terminus ante quern, ignore B, which alleges that the distinctions explicitly stated by the Houses do not matter at all! Afterward comes a second, and separate ruling on the same matter, deriving from R. Eliezer [b. Hyrcanus] and R.
14

TANNAITIC

MIDRASHIM —I.ii.6

in or out the court, is to be burned outside the courtyard, and what is made unclean by a secondary source of uncleanness, whether outside or inside the court, is burned inside. This too ignores the allegation of B. Then, also contrary to B, Aqiba holds that what is made unclean outside, whether by a primary or by a secondary source of uncleanness, is to be burned outside; what is made unclean inside the court, whether by a primary or by a secondary source of uncleanness, is to be burned inside. Thus the place where the uncleanness has taken place is decisive for Aqiba; the degree of the source of uncleanness is determinative for Eliezer. Part B comes at the end, for it explicitly alludes to disagreements on whether the source is primary or secondary, inside or outside. The original lemmas of the House ought to be simply: c

c

The flesh of the holy of holies which has been made unclean, all will be burned H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, Inside. H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, Outside.

No authority gives that picture. The Shammaite lemma of Meir con­ forms, but no part of Judah's does. But the whole may be heavily glossed. The glosses are readily discernible, for they are the exceptions. Judah's and Meir's exceptions for both Houses depend on whether the source of uncleanness is primary or secondary—all according to Eliezer. It therefore looks as if the Ushans have rephrased and develop­ ed Eliezer's opinion into a new Houses-dispute. Perhaps B is right: the Houses originally made no such distinctions as now are alleged by both the Yavneans and the Ushans. The Scripture is connected by an inappropriate joining-formula, from here they said. The exegetical materials are not pertinent at all; part B artificially and erroneously joins parts C-D-E to the established redactional framework. The pericope recurs in M. Sheq. 8:6. There it reflects the rule of Eliezer that one takes into account the distinction between primary and secondary sources of uncleanness. M. Sheq. 8:7 then presents the Eliezer-* Aqiba dispute. The same Houses-opinions are attached to a parallel dispute in M. M.S. 3:9 = Tos. M.S. 2:16, below, pp. 99-105. I.H.6.A. [The rite of circumcision of a] baby born circumcized does not override the Sabbath, for (§)— The House of Shammai say, "One must draw from him [a drop of] blood [as a sign of] the covenant." And the House of Hillel say, "One does not need [to do so]." B. R. Simeon b. Eleazar said, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not dispute concerning one born circumcized, that one does need to draw from him a drop of blood of the covenant, because it is a hidden foreskin ( RLH KBWSH). C

TANNAITIC

M I D R A S H I M — I.ii.6

15

"Concerning what did they dispute? Concerning a proselyte who converted when already circumcized, for— "The House of Shammai say, 'One needs to draw from him a drop of blood of the covenant.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'One does not need [to do so].' " [Sifra Tazri'a Pereq 1:5, ed. Weiss, p. 58b (Ber. R. 46:13; for B: Tos. Shab. 3:18)] Comment: The setting is whether various exceptional circumstances of the rite of circumcision override the Sabbath. The basic rule is given anonymously: If the child certainly has a foreskin, the circum­ cision overrides the Sabbath, but otherwise it does not. Then comes a ruling of Judah [b. Ilai] on the androgynous baby, followed by the ruling of the Houses. The pericope of the Houses, however, is already redacted, and is attached to the foregoing general rule with the usual S. Without the rule, the pericope is complete and follows the normal form, except that we do not know the antecedent of the House of Shammai's him, that is, the legal problem addressed by the Houses. Part B supplies an alternative theory on that question. The actual ruling does not explicitly pertain to the Sabbath at all, but to whether or not one draws a drop of blood. Only if we already know that the law follows the House of Hillel and that the consequence of the Hillelite ruling about not drawing blood is that one also need not set aside Sabbath regulations on account of such a bloodless rite, do we comprehend the redactor's use of the Houses-sayings. Part A therefore is somewhat more complex than it appears on the surface. Its intro­ ductory statement could not have been shaped in its present form dur­ ing the period that the law did not automatically follow the Hillelite House, that is, before 7 0 (when it probably followed the Shammaites) and presumably sometime thereafter. The presupposition of the re­ dactor suggests a relatively late redaction for part A. But the original language of the Houses has probably not been changed by the redactor of A or by Simeon, for, if either had made any changes at all, he would have had the Houses rule on the issue actually claimed to be under discussion—Sabbath or convert—rather than on drawing blood, a question peripheral to the issue at hand according to both. So Simeon has preserved the original formulation in his prologue, rejecting what must have been before him and substituting a new superscription. In what form would the sayings of the Houses have existed until his time? It had to have been as follows: A.s to circumcising one born circumcised: T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, N e e d t o d r a w b l o o d . T h e H o u s e o f Hillel say, N o need to d r a w blood.

Then the redactor of A would have augmented the introductory clause:

16

TANNAITIC

M I D R A S H I M — I.ii.7

A s t o c i r c u m c i z i n g o n e w h o w a s b o r n c i r c u m c i z e d , it does not override the Sabbath

That is to say, all that was added is // does not override. . . Nothing else need have been altered; adding the clause provided all necessary redactional material. I am impressed, therefore, with the faithful re­ production of the materials coming down from the Houses. Simeon has been just as faithful, in his way. See Tos. Shab. 15(16) :9 for the same dispute with regard to a cir­ cumcized convert. I.ii.7. [And when the days of her purifying are completed, whether for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the door of the tent of meeting a lamb a year old for a burnt offering. . . This is the law for her who bears a child, either male orfemale (Lev. 12:6-7).] A. For a son—to impose a liability for each son. For a daughter—to impose a liability for each daughter. B. And when it says, or for a daughter—[or is] to include (LHBY>) [in the liability for a sacrifice] one who brings forth an abortion on the eve of the eighty-first day [after the birth of a girl], that she should be liable for a sacrifice, according to the words of the House of Hillel. For (§) the House of Shammai exempt [her] from the sacrifice. [Note: After the birth of a girl, eighty days of cleanness have passed, during which the woman does not become unclean through discharge of blood. Now, on the eighty-first day, she is to sacrifice. If another birth takes place before the expiration of this period, no new offerings are required; but if on or after the eighty-first day, she is liable. The second birth (abortion) was on the eve of the eighty-first day. The night is generally considered part of the following day. But since the sacrifices are not offered until daytime on the eighty-first day, is the (new) abortion covered by these sacrifices or not?—So I. Porusch, trans., Kerithoth, p. 56, n. 8]. C.l. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, "Do you not agree with us concerning the eve [Lit.: one who sees light] of the eighty-first day that she is unclean?" 2. The House of Shammai said to them, "Do you not agree con­ cerning the woman who aborts on the eighty-first day that she is liable for a sacrifice?" D.l. The House of Hillel said to them, "What is the difference between the eve of the eighty-first day and the eighty-first day? If it is equivalent to it as regards uncleanness, will it not be equivalent to it as regards the sacrifice?"

TANNAITIC

MIDRASHIM —I.ii.7

17

2. The House of Shammai said to them, "No, if you say [so] con­ cerning the woman who aborts on the eighty-first day, when it occurs at a time fit to bring an offering, [can you maintain the same when she bears an abortion on the eve of the eighty-first day, seeing that it did not occur at a time fit to bring an offering—suppliedfrom M. Ker. 1:6]?" E.l. The House of Hillel said to them, "And behold, she who aborts on the eighty-first day that coincides with the Sabbath will prove the matter: the abortion took place at a time unfit to bring an offering, and yet she is liable to bring a [new] offering." 2. The House of Shammai said to them, "No, if you say [so] con­ cerning the abortion on the eighty-first day that coincides with the Sabbath, which is not fit for offerings of an individual but is at least fit for communal offerings, will you say so concerning the woman who aborts on the eve of the eighty-first, for lo, the nights are not the time for an individual offering and not for a public offering." F. "She who sees blood proves nothing, for she who aborts within the period of cleanness is clean, yet she is exempted from the offering." G. The House of Hillel said to them, "And when it says, or for the daughter, [it is] to include her who aborts on the eve of the eighty-first, that she should be liable for the sacrifice." [Sifra Tazri'a Pereq 3:1-2, ed. I. H. Weiss, p. 59a (b. Pes. 3a)] Comment: According to the words of. . . signifies a precis of the Hillelite opinion, but not the exact words of the Hillelites. They are not given here, but appear only in M. Ker. 1:6: The House of Hillel declare obligated. Sifra is a secondary development, as we shall see. Since the passage is nearly identical to M. Ker. 1:6, at the outset we had best consider the synopsis:

Sifra TavyrPa 3:1 1 . Or f o r t h e d a u g h t e r — t o i n c l u d e t h e o n e w h o a b o r t s o n t h e e v e o f t h e e i g h t y - f i r s t , t h a t she s h o u l d b e l i a b l e f o r t h e sacrifice, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e w o r d s o f t h e H o u s e o f Hillel.

M. Ker. 1:6 1. She w h o aborts o n the eve o f the eighty-first:

2 . F o r (§) t h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i d e c l a r e f r e e o f t h e l i a b i l i t y o f sacrifice

2.

T h e House o f Shammai declare f r e e o f t h e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e sacri­ fice, a n d the H o u s e o f H i l l e l d e c l a r e obligated. —

NEUSNER, The Rabbinic T r a d i t i o n s about t h e P h a r i s e e s before 70, II

2

18

TANNAITIC MIDRASHIM —I.ii.7

3 . T h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l said t o t h e H o u s e o f Shammai, D o y o u n o t agree w i t h us concerning t h e [one w h o sees] o n t h e e v e o f t h e e i g h t y - f i r s t t h a t she is u n c l e a n .

3.

4. T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i said t o t h e m , D o y o u n o t agree concerning her w h o aborts on the e i g h t y - f i r s t t h a t she is liable f o r t h e sacrifice.

4. —

5 . T h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l said t o t h e m , W h a t is t h e difference b e t w e e n t h e e v e o f t h e e i g h t y - f i r s t a n d t h e d a y o f t h e e i g h t y - f i r s t ? I f it is e q u i v a l e n t t o it as t o u n c l e a n n e s s , w i l l it n o t b e e q u i v a l e n t t o i t as t o sacrifice?

5* >> >» >>

6 . T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i said t o t h e m , N o , i f y o u say c o n c e r n i n g h e r w h o a b o r t s o n t h e e i g h t y - f i r s t , w h e r e it o c c u r r e d at a t i m e fit t o b r i n g an o f f e r i n g —

6. „ „ „ [ A d d s : ] will you say so concerning her who aborts on the eve of the eighty-first where it occurred at a time not fit to bring an offering?

7 . T h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l said t o t h e m , L o , t h e o n e w h o aborts o n the day o f the eighty-first w h i c h c o i n c i d e s w i t h t h e S a b b a t h w i l l p r o v e [it], f o r it d i d n o t o c c u r at a t i m e fit t o b r i n g a n o f f e r i n g , b u t she is l i a b l e t o b r i n g a n o f f e r i n g .

7

8 . T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i said t o t h e m , N o , i f y o u say [so] o f h e r w h o a b o r t s o n t h e d a y o f t h e eighty-first t h a t c o i n c i d e s w i t h t h e S a b b a t h , f o r e v e n t h o u g h it is n o t a p p r o p r i a t e f o r a p r i v a t e sacrifice, it is a p p r o p r i a t e f o r a p u b l i c sacrifice, w i l l y o u say s o c o n c e r n i n g h e r w h o a b o r t s o n the e v e o f t h e e i g h t y - f i r s t , f o r l o , t h e n i g h t s a r e appropriate for neither private nor public sacrifice.

8. „ „ „ [ M . K e r . has i n s t e a d o f nights]

9. S h e w h o sees b l o o d d o e s n o t p r o v e it, f o r she w h o aborts d u r i n g the period o f cleanness [ M L ' T ) — h e r b l o o d is clean, a n d she is f r e e o f the sacrifice.

' •

—

»

>>

iy

9 . T h e blood d o e s n o t

night,

prove,

f o r she w h o a b o r t s d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d s o f cleanness, h e r b o o d is clean [ M S K a u f m a n n :

Un­

clean], a n d she is f r e e o f

her

sacrifice. 1 0 . T h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l said t o t h e m , W h e n it says, or the daughter, it is t o i n c l u d e h e r w h o a b o r t s on the e v e o f the e i g h t y - f i r s t t h a t she s h o u l d b e iable t o b r i n g the sacrifice.

10.

—

The important changes c o m e in nos. 2, 3, 4, omitted by M . K e r . ; no. 5, f o r which M . K e r . supplies the necessary conclusion; and n o .

10,

TANNAITIC

M I D R A S H I M — I.ii.7

19

omitted by M. Ker. No. 2 of Sifra is contained in the Mishnah's opening statement. Sifra nos. 3-4 summarize the underlying criteria employed by each party, and the point is elaborated in no. 5. The Hillelites hold that since she is unclean, a new sacrifice is likewise re­ quired for the occasion of her new uncleanness. The Shammaites argue that since she is liable for the sacrifice for a new birth on the eighty-first day, there is no difference between the preceding evening and the day, and the same sacrifice covers both situations. Thus the two Houses begin by arguing from facts on which all parties agree and must then introduce distinctions in support of their respective decisions. The eve before the eighty-first represents a middle ground. Why M. Ker. should omit the formal introduction to the debate (nos. 3-4) is unclear to me. Everything else depends on it, for the effort to distinguish evening from the following day takes for granted that establishing such a distinction will be decisive. The exchange therefore ought not to have been dropped. The additional materials in M. Ker. no. 6 obviously are important, providing the reverse of the foregoing clause, therefore are essential, as noted in my translation, where I interpolated M. Ker. to complete the sentence. The changes in nos. 9-10 are striking; M. Ker. ought to have included the reply of the House of Hillel. Since the exegetical basis for their position is not given earlier in M. Ker., it is all the more striking that it is also omitted here. Sifra repeats no. 1 in no. 10. The pericope before us contains an extended debate on a legal pro­ blem, in which the opposing principles of interpretation are attached to the name of authorities, as in the Hillel-Bene Bathyra debate on the Passover offering on the Sabbath. What is striking is the even balance between the arguments. The two parties are given a fair hearing; the Shammai-House does not serve merely as a foil for the Hillel-House's ingenuity, but stands upon firm logical foundations. The normal form of the Houses-pericopae therefore has been extended from legal opinion to logical argument. We may account for this striking phenomenon in two ways. First, we may suppose that the two Houses constitute invented personnae, serving to dramatize a clash of legal principles ("They said to them," "Do you not agree with us that"). Everyone knew the Hillelites would win and the law would follow them, so it made no great difference to preserve good, if in the end rejected, arguments in the name of the House of Shammai. On the contrary, it was vital to supply the full re­ pertoire of counter-arguments, for it was inevitable that they would be raised by later masters. Showing that all logical issues were raised and settled at the outset made the debate more persuasive than otherwise. Everyone would recognize that the Hillelites had won through the force of their reason and logic, not merely because of circumstances or heavenly instructions ("echo"). It improved the picture of the House of Hillel to show they had strong and worthy opponents. The whole would be from a historical viewpoint fictitious, the creation of the later masters. This perspective on matters would explain the Mishnah's

TANNAITIC

M I D R A S H I M — I.ii.7

omission of no. 10, so leaving things with the Shammaites having the last word, the upper hand. Alternatively, the debate-elements of the pericope were shaped in much the same way as the legal opinions, that is, when both sides enjoyed relative parity with one another. The Shammaites therefore were able to secure the inclusion in the final pericope of a full account not only of their opinions but also of the reasons for them. We have ample evidence that such arguments were constructed at Yavneh, e.g., in 'Aqiban circles, and it is not far-fetched to suppose that the final re­ daction of the pericope was the product of a joint effort between the two Houses to secure an accurate picture of the differences between them about both principles and legal rulings. The difference between these alternative explanations for the balanced picture before us is not great. We cannot suppose that "one day" the two Houses assembled and spoke these arguments in unison ("They said to them"). The narrative details represent nothing more than a fictitious dramatization of the argument. The fact that the Hillelites in the end won did not prevent both the fabrication and the preservation of the balanced legal syzygies: Law. . . House of Shammai say. . . House of Hillel say. . . So here too, the debate part of the pericope need not to be attributed to Hillelite- Aqiban or even later masters, but perhaps to early Yavnean redactors, responsible to give an account of matters acceptable to both sides. As to the pericope itself, it is transparently composite. Part B of Sifra Tazri'a and its equivalent, M. Ker. 1:6 no. 1, were shaped first of all as a complete unit. M. Ker. conforms to the pattern normal for disputes between the Houses. Sifra Tazri a elements no. 1-2 differ be­ cause of the inclusion of the Hillelite exegesis, with the Shammaite opinion ("The House of Shammai exempt. . .") tacked on. The exegesis was shaped without reference to the Shammaites, and the Shammaite opinion—without an exegetical foundation—was added before part B was finished. Once it was finished, parts C, D, E, and F were worked out. Part G merely repeats the exegesis of Part B, therefore making it possible for the Hillelites to win the argument. The arguments are as follows: c

c

C. T h e w o m a n is unclean o n t h e e v e o f t h e e i g h t y - f i r s t T h e w o m a n is liable for an offering o n t h e e i g h t y - f i r s t d a y

—Hillel —Shammai

D . W h a t is difference b e t w e e n e v e o f e i g h t y - f i r s t a n d t h e eighty-first d a y ? O n t h e e i g h t y - f i r s t d a y she can b r i n g a n o f f e r i n g , b u t o n t h e

—Hillel

e v e she c a n n o t E . If e i g h t y - f i r s t d a y c o i n c i d e s w i t h t h e S a b b a t h , she is liable t o bring offering, e v e n t h o u g h the offering cannot be made that day B u t on the Sabbath there are public offerings, w h i l e o n the e v e o f the eighty-first day there are n o offerings, private o r public

—Shammai

—Hillel

—Shammai

T A N N A I T I C M I D R A S H I M — I.ii.7

21

Part F then breaks the pattern. Shammaites give a counter-argument, without the antecedent Hillelite argument. There should have been some Hillelite argument, based upon "she who sees blood. . ." This is refuted, but the refutation stands by itself. Part G remains quite outside of the pattern, as I said, for it allows the Hillelites to complete the argu­ ment by their (repeated) exegesis, to which the Shammaites make no reply at all. The form of the argument before us thus in fact differs in one important way from the normal Houses-form: it has the Hillel-opinion first, followed by the Shammaites, and then persists in placing Hillelites before Shammaites throughout, until at the end the Shammaites are dropped entirely. M. Ker. 1:6, by contrast, conforms to the Shammaite/ Hillelite pattern: Law House o f Shammai declare free House o f Hillel

declare obligated

In the arguments, nos, 5, 6, 7, and 8, we find the Hillelites preceding, as here, but with the final Hillelite argument dropped. If the Sifra-version has departed from the norm in its primary ele­ ment, part B, the reason is clear, namely, the redactional necessity of uniting a Houses-dispute with an exegesis attributed to Hillelites. It would have been impossible both to conform to the usual Shammaite/ Hillelite order and also to permit the exegesis to stand in the normal form and sequence. So redactional considerations required reversing the order, allowing the exegesis to be marked, "the words of the House of Hillel," and requiring the Shammaite opinion to come second. The addition of the Shammaite House's opinion is joined with the usual S, for, but the opinion is thereupon given in precisely the form one would expect. Indeed, we find in M. Ker. the proper language. No change there has been made in the substance of the opinion. The order of arguments, Hillel-then-Shammai, represents the signific­ ant characteristic of the debate-form. This is to the Shammaites' ad­ vantage, for it allows them step by step to refute the Hillelite arguments. Therefore the whole form consistently represents Shammaite pre­ ponderance. This reenforces my guess that the debate-form may constitute not a theoretical argument framed long after the Shammaites had passed from the scene, but rather the form of an argument among parties of about equal strength, with the Shammaites able to secure for themselves the preponderant, advantageous position, both in the order in which legal opinions are given and in the order of the unfolding of the arguments. Once the materials were redacted, they were not chang­ ed. Judah the Patriarch faithfully copied the materials as they had come down to him, with the Shammaites' winning the argument. The Mishnaic version has not bothered with the exegesis, for three reasons; first, because the Mishnah rarely gives the exegetical founda­ tions for laws; second, because in the early third century it was un-

22

TANNAITIC

M I D R A S H I M — I.ii.8

necessary to underline the predominance of Hillelite opinions in the formation of law, for everyone knew law followed Hillelite traditions; third, because the exegesis is spurious, and not Hillelite but Aqiban, as usual in Sifra. That exegetical principle is a ribbifi: or for a daughter— to include one who brings forth. . . The ribbu'i based on or (*W) is not on the list of Hillelite principles of exegesis, but belongs to Nahum of Gimzo-'Aqiba. Original to the Hillelite school, therefore, is merely the opinion. Before Aqiban times (if the pericope does date before ca. 100,) the Shammaites came last and won the argument. This seems to me definitive evidence that the pericope at the outset did not contain part G, therefore part A is likewise tacked on by 'Aqibans. The essential words of the Hillelites were as given in M. Ker. 1:6, in form just like those of the Shammaites. 1

c

I.ii.8.A. Her bloods (Lev. 12:7)—teaches that many bloods are un­ clean in her: red, and black, and bright crocus color (QRN KRKWM), and a color like earthy water and like mixed [water and wine]. B. The House of Shammai say, "Also like a water in which fenu­ greek had been soaked and a color like the juice that comes out of roast flesh." [So Danby, p. 747, for KMYMY TLTN and KMYMY BSR SLY]. C. The House of Hillel declare clean. (Sifra Tazri'a Pereq 3:6, ed. Weiss, p. 59a = Sifra Mesora* Parashah 4:3, Weiss, p. 78a) M. Nid. 2:6 has the following: Five bloods are unclean the House of Hillel. . . As usual, Judah the Patriarch has dropped the exegesis. The only other change is to link the Houses with and, & redactional alteration of no importance. The form is standard: a rule of law, followed by a dispute of the Houses. In this instance the dispute concerns materials added by Sham­ maites to the earlier list. The original list, however, has excluded them, thus in conformity to the Hillelite view. How would the Housespericope have appeared at the outset? I doubt that it originally would have conformed to the Hillelite view and then duplicated the Hillelite opinion in part C. We should rather have expected the complete list in the name of one of the Houses, followed by the contrary view of the other House, presumably Shammai, then Hillel, thus for the Mishnah: Comment:

in a woman.

. . and

[Seven] k i n d s o f b l o o d i n a w o m a n a r e unclean: r e d a n d b l a c k a n d b r i g h t crocus color and a color like earthy w a t e r and like mixed [water and wine] and a color like w a t e r in which fenugreek had been soaked and a color like t h e juice t h a t c o m e s o u t o f r o a s t flesh, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i . T h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, " A c o l o r l i k e w a t e r . . . a n d a c o l o r l i k e j u i c e . . . a r e clean."

TANNAITIC MIDRASHIM

—I.ii.9

23

In this highly developed form, the pericope would have been complete and autonomous, requiring no further explanatory matter. In its present form, by contrast, the primary list makes it superfluous to specify the bloods which the Hillelites regard as clean. The pericope before us depends upon the Hillelite revision, for otherwise it is not comprehensible; that is, "also like a water.. ." makes no sense apart from the earlier specification. What has been changed from the (theo­ retical) autonomous version of the dispute is two elements in the Shammaite lemma: seven (if originally present) becomes five; also is added; and, additionally, the Shammaite opinion is moved to the middle of the list. My guess is that the original form of the Houses-dispute is not be­ fore us, and I imagine it was the redactor who changed the materials, mainly to connect the whole to the context of a series of exegeses of Scripture. Had the setting been otherwise, it would have been possible to preserve the Houses-pericope in an autonomous framework, not dependent upon any information outside of the actual words attributed to the two Houses. The earlier pericope (I.ii.7) has already shown us an example of a still more drastic revision of a material to serve redactional needs. My hypothesis on the original form of the pericope before us requires the supposition of substantially fewer changes. For the Sifra version many bloods need not have been changed at all. The only change was moving the Shammaite opinion back two elements, and adding also. Note Epstein, Mevefot, p. 439. I.ii.9. A. [When you come into the land and plant all kinds of trees for food, then you shall count their fruit as forbidden ; three years it shall be forbidden to you, it must not be eaten. And in the fourth year all their fruit shall be holy, an offering ofpraise to the Lord (Lev. 19:23-24).] A. All their fruit will be—to include (LHBY>) grape-gleanings (PRT) and defective clusters [the grapes growing in small, separate bunches = <WLLWT], according to the words of (KDBRY) the House of Hillel. B. The House of Shammai say, "He has [the right to] the grapegleanings and the defective clusters (Y§ LW PRT WY§ LW <WLLWT). And the poor redeem [them] for themselves (WH'NYYM PWDYM L'SMM)." C. And the House of Hillel say, "It is all for the winepress (KWLW LGT)." (Sifra Qedoshim Parashah 3:7, ed. I. H. Weiss, p. 90a) c

Comment: M. Ed. 4:5b has the following:

TANNAITIC

M I D R A S H I M — I.ii.9

T h e House o f S h a m m a i say, " T h e laws o f grape-gleanings and o f the defective cluster apply ( Y S L W P R T W Y § L W < W L L W T ) , and the p o o r r e d e e m [the g r a p e s ] f o r t h e m s e l v e s ( W H ' N Y Y M P W D Y M L ' S M N ) . A n d the H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, " T h e w h o l e [yield g o e s ] t o t h e w i n e p r e s s ( K W L W LGT)." c

M. Ed. 4:5b (and parallels) preserves the classic form of the dispute, as we have already observed in similar instances: The House of Shammai say. . . The House of Hillel say. . . Part A is duplicated in part C. It serves the purpose of the redactor, linking the law to the exegetical framework already established. There­ fore the redactor has taken the Hillelite opinion and given it in the form of an exegesis—again in the style of the Aqiban exegetical rules (!). Then comes the original form, repeated without alteration in M. Ed., and parts B and C are integrally related to one another and stand in­ dependent of part A. The key is according to the words of in part A, noted above as well (I.ii.7). The redactor so indicates that he has given the Hillelite opinion, but not in the form in which he has it. Then the original follows. My guess is that parts B and C have been interpolated from the Mishnaic version, an example of the dependence of Sifra on Mishnah. In I.ii.7, by contrast, the exact words attributed to the House of Hillel are not given at all, but are preserved only in M. Ker. 1:6. We cannot ignore the redactor's care in specifying according to the words of in both instances (I.ii.7 and 9), which means that he was aware of the attribution of other, exact words to the Houses; since he did not present those words, he has used language to signify what he did give: a summary in exegetical form, Scripture, exegesis, then attribution to Hillelites. We may therefore specify both the primary form of the Housesdisputes and its secondary development in the exegetical compilations: c

c

Primary:

H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say. . . H o u s e o f H i l l e l say. . .

Secondary: Exegesis—[normally] according to the House o f Hillel-'Aqiba H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say. . . H o u s e o f H i l l e l say. . . [Sometimes:] Repetition o f the exegesis, according to. . .

This permits me to suggest that I.ii.7 is defective, while I.ii.9 shows what the form should have been. Originally Hillelite opinions were not accompanied by exegeses of Scripture. 'Aqibans invented what ought to have been the Hillelite-exegesis. One of the effects of the Aqiban exegetical revolution was to streng­ then the claim of the Hillelites to give the correct version of the law by providing a sound Scriptural basis for Hillelite opinions. The probable reason that the Shammaites generally were not supplied with equivalent c

TANNAITIC

25

M I D R A S H I M — I.ii.10

exegeses—which, we may take for granted, could have been fabricated —was that Shammaites no longer predominated at Yavneh. No one therefore took the trouble to back up their legal opinions with the new Aqiban exegesis. It is unthinkable that, had their opinions prevailed, no one could have done so. It is equally unthinkable that the Hillelite opinions prevailed only because the 'Aqibans (or others) were able to prove they were "right." c

The language of the pericope is analyzed below, M. Pe'ah 7:6, p. 59. c

I.ii.10.A. [On the fifteenth day of the seventh month (>K BHM$H S R YWM etc.) when you have gathered in the produce of the land, you shall keep the feast of the Lord seven days ; on the first day shall be a solemn rest, and on the eighth day shall be a solemn rest (Lev. 23:39)]. A. The House of Shammai says, "One might think (YKWL) a man may offer the pilgrim's festive sacrifice (YHWG DM—so Jastrow for HGG) on the festival day. "Scripture says, O/z/^^K), [meaning] only on the intervening week­ days [between the first and last days of the Festival] do you offer the pilgrim's festive sacrifice, but you do not offer the pilgrim's festive sacrifice (HWGG) on the festival day (BYWM TWB) [itself]." B. The House of Hillel says, "One might think a man should offer the pilgrim's festive sacrifice on the Sabbath—Scripture says, Only, (>K), [meaning] on the festival day (YWM TWB) one offers his pilgrim's festive sacrifice, but you do not offer the pilgrim's festive sacrifice on the Sabbath." }

(Sifra Emor Pereq 15:5, ed. I. H. Weiss, p. 102b) Comment: The dispute superficially follows the conventional form. But it cannot derive from the Houses at all, for at issue is the inter­ pretation of the particle >K; later Aqiban exegesis held that 'K served to exclude the Sabbath from the days on which the hagigah might be offered. The Shammaites are represented as arguing that 'K limited the hagigah-offeiing to the intervening days, excluding the opening and closing days of the festival itself. The Houses here have been used as names for the attribution of dis­ putes that in this form certainly could not have taken shape before the end of the first century, if then. Perhaps the Houses substitute for named authorities following Aqiba, for the attribution to the Houses of a dispute about the exegesis of the limiting-word >K is spurious. M. Hag. 1:6 presents the Hillelite view: c

c

26

TANNAITIC

M I D R A S H I M — I.ii.ll

H e w h o m a d e n o p i l g r i m ' s f e s t i v e sacrifice o n t h e first f e s t i v a l d a y o f t h e feast offers t h e m t h r o u g h o u t t h e c o u r s e o f t h e feast ( M Y § L ' H G B Y W M T W B H R ' S H W N S L H G H W G G >T K L H R G L ) — e v e n o n t h e last f e s t i v a l d a y o f t h e feast.

This is the opposite of the Shammaite view, for the House of Sham­ mai hold one may not offer on the festival day (YWM TWB) at all. The Hillelites' excluded day (>K) is the Sabbath, not the YWM TWB. Judah the Patriarch makes no reference to the dispute and presents the Mishnaic ruling anonymously. If the Houses actually did debate this point of festival law, the exeget­ ical basis for their respective rulings could not have been as represented here, nor as I said, could the form of the debate have focused upon the function of >K. Since the Houses-pericopae generally survive with 'Aqiban accretions to the original form, there is no reason that this one should not likewise have come down both in an earlier form, if any existed, and in the Aqiban development. We also observe that the singular verb says ( WMR) is used with the Houses, rather than the plural. I.ii.9 parts B and C use both says and say, and in M. Ed. 4:5b, Judah the Patriarch has consistently used say. Normally the collective nouns are given plural verbs. Note Judah b. Dortai's view above, I, p. 147. He stands against the Hillelite view. c

}

c

I.ii.ll. [But in the Seventh Year shall be a Sabbath of solemn rest for the land, a Sabbath to the Lord. . . What grows of itself in your harvest you shall not reap. . . it shall be a year of solemn rest for the land. The Sabbath of the land shallprovide foodforyou(Lev. 25-4-6)]. A. And the Sabbath of the Land shall provide food for you—from the Sabbath (§BWT) in the land you may eat, and you may not eat from that which is guarded (§MWR). From here (MYK'N) they said: B. A field which has been prepared(SNTYYBH)— The House of Shammai say, "They do not eat its fruits in the Seventh Year." And the House of Hillel say, "They eat." C. The House of Shammai say, "They do not eat produce of the Seventh Year [if it is] by favor." And the House of Hillel say, "By favor and not by favor." D. R. Judah says, "The matters are reversed. This is one of the lenient [rulings] of the House of Shammai and the stringent [rulings] of the House of Hillel." (Sifra Behar Pereq 1:5, ed. Weiss, p. 106a) c

The passage recurs in M. Shev. 4:2b (M. Ed. 5:1), with the following synopsis: Comment:

27

T A N N A I T I C M I D R A S H I M — I.ii.ll

Sifra

M. Shev. 4:2b

1. And the Sabbath of the Land shall be for you

1. —

2. F r o m t h e S a b b a t h i n t h e l a n d y o u m a y e a t , a n d y o u m a y n o t eat t h a t w h i c h is g u a r d e d . F r o m h e r e t h e y said 3. A field w h i c h SNTYYBH)

has been

2. —

prepared ( § D H

3

4. T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y , T h e y d o n o t eat

4. „ „ „ in the Seventh

Year

its f r u i t s 5. A n d t h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, T h e y e a t .

5« >> >> »

6. T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y , T h e y d o n o t eat the fruits o f the Seventh Y e a r b y f a v o r (BTWBH)

6« » >> >>

7. A n d t h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l s a y , B y f a v o r a n d not by favor

7. „ „ „ they eat „ „

8. R . J u d a h s a y s , T h e m a t t e r s a r e r e v e r s e d ( H Y L W P H D B R Y M ) . T h i s is o f t h e l e n i e n c i e s ( Q W L Y ) of the House of Shammai and o f the stringencies ( H W M R Y ) o f the House o f Hillel.

8. „ „ „

„

As usual the Mishnah drops the exegetical framework supplied in Sifra. From no. 3 onward, the passages are nearly identical. No. 7 of M. Shev. adds they eat, as a counterpart for the House of Shammai's they do not eat in no. 6, a stylistic improvement. M. Shev. supplies in no. 4 in the Seventh Year to clarify when the fruit may not be eaten. In Sifra this is clear from the exegetical framework. But in M. Shev. the antecedent law concerns the year following the Seventh Year, so it is necessary to specify the year in which the law under discussion in the subsequent segment of the pericope actually applies, namely in, not after, the Seventh Year. We may therefore reconstruct the original Housespericope as follows: A field which has been prepared H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y , T h e y d o n o t eat [its f r u i t s ] H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, T h e y eat.

Then another item in the M. Shev. collection is attached: H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y , [ T h e y d o n o t eat f r u i t s o f S e v e n t h Y e a r ] b y f a v o r H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, B y favor and not by favor.

On the last point, R. Judah reverses matters and says the Shammaite position is that one may eat it both by favor or not by favor, and that the Hillelite position is that one may not eat by favor. This subscription is developed and spelled out in M. Ed. 5:1: c

TANNAITIC

MIDRASHIM —I.ii.ll

R . J u d a h r e p o r t s six o p i n i o n s i n w h i c h t h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i f o l l o w the m o r e lenient, and the H o u s e of Hillel the m o r e stringent ruling. . . A c c o r d i n g t o t h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i , t h e y m a y eat S e v e n t h Y e a r p r o d u c e b y f a v o r o r n o t b y f a v o r . A n d t h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l s a y , " T h e y d o n o t eat it by favor."

Judah was one of several Tannaitic authorities who composed lists of leniencies and stringencies of the Houses. The editor of Sifra has intro­ duced his tradition as a reference to the Houses' opinions. In M. Ed. 5:1, the reference is turned into a fully articulated dispute. So in Sifra Judah states that matters are reversed. M. Ed. presents the language to be attributed to the two Houses, actually reversing the opinions. This re­ presents a secondary development of Judah's opinion. Once he held that the opinions should be reversed, they indeed were reversed. M. Shev. and Sifra Behar have preserved the primary version of Judah's logion, which in M. Ed. is articulated in language of direct discourse and attributed to the Houses. The pericope before us is in three main parts, first, the superscrip­ tion, part A, providing the exegetical basis for the ruling of one of the Houses. Then comes part B, a complete unit, with the rule of law and the opinions of the Houses given according to the conventional form. Part C is then attached to B, and part D to C. Parts B and C are joined because of a roughly common theme, namely, conditions in which Seventh Year produce may be eaten, even though the specific laws are unrelated in detail. Parts B-C certainly were shaped before the time of Judah b. Ilai, and afterward part D was added. What is the relationship between part A, the exegesis, and the sub­ sequent rulings of parts B-C? The field which has been guarded perhaps is in the category of the field which has been prepared (B); and the field in which one may not eat the produce by favor of the owner of the field certainly is a field which is guarded (C). Therefore the exegesis in the first instance seems to support, and in the second does indubitably support, the Shammaite position. The connection between A and B may be tenuous, but between A and C it is firm. Judah reverses things in both instances, so allowing the Hillelites to derive support from the Scriptural exegesis, but attributing to them the more stringent position. It is unlikely that the exegesis could serve both purposes of both Houses, and since it supports the Shammaite view in part C, we may assume the same of part B. The difficulty leading Judah to switch the positions of the Houses and to attribute to the Hillelites the unusual position of stringency had to do with the exegetical tradition on Lev. 25:6. He would have followed the 'Aqiban position that the Hillelites could normally support their positions through Aqiban (or other) exegesis, and the Shammaites could not. Since the dispute comes be­ fore the exegesis, we may take it for granted that the original dispute is as given in parts B-C, and that the exegesis (part A) provoked the re­ vision of Judah (part D). Professor Louis Finkelstein comments (personal letter, February 9, 1970): c

c

c

c

TANNAITIC

M I D R A S H I M — I.ii.ll

29

" T h e s i m p l e s t w a y o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e text is t o a s s u m e t h a t t h e e x e g e s i s o f L e v . 2 5 : 6 as g i v e n i n S i f r a f o l l o w s t h e v i e w o f the S h a m m a i t e s , as t r a n s m i t t e d b y t h e c o l l e a g u e s o f R. J u d a h , a c c o r d i n g t o w h o m the S h a m m a i t e s p r o h i b i t e d t h e use o f p r o d u c e w h i c h is shamur ( g u a r d e d ) ; a n d therefore forbade one to take any produce u n d e r conditions which required o n e t o b e o b l i g a t e d t o a n y o n e ; a n d t h e r e f o r e also f o r b a d e a n y o n e t o ask p e r m i s s i o n t o use s u c h p r o d u c e . I a m n o t s u r e w h e t h e r t h e first p a r t o f t h e M i s h n a h i l l u s t r a t e d t h e S h a m m a i t i c e x e g e s i s , f o r , after a l l , a field c o u l d be p l o u g h e d t w i c e in t h e S a b b a t i c a l y e a r , a n d still n o t be shamur. T h e M i s h n a h is p r o b a b l y cited t o s h o w h o w t h e exegesis a p p l i e d t o t h e s e c o n d c a s e ; t h e first b e i n g m e n t i o n e d i n passing. " T h e S h a m m a i t i c v i e w o f t h e exegesis p r e s e n t s n o difficulties. N o t e t h e facsimile ed. o f S i f r a , a c c o r d i n g t o V a t i c a n M s . 6 6 , w h i c h I p u b l i s h e d w i t h a n i n t r o d u c t i o n d i s c u s s i n g s o m e p r o b l e m s i n t h e text. I n t h a t i n t r o d u c t i o n , p p . 8 , 9 , 1 3 , 1 4 , 3 8 , 6 6 , I cite e x a m p l e s o f beraitot in S i f r a w h i c h , p r o p e r l y u n d e r s t o o d , derive f r o m the S c h o o l o f R. Eliezer. These m a y be multiplied m a n y t i m e s ; a n d o n o c c a s i o n R a b a d indicates this fact w i t h r e g a r d t o s o m e passages. I n his Sifre Zutta P r o f e s s o r S a u l L i e b e r m a n s h o w s t h a t t h e midrash b e a r i n g that n a m e c o n t a i n s m a n y passages d e r i v i n g f r o m R . E l i e z e r . I n t h e Assaf Jubilee Volume, I h a v e s h o w n t h a t t h e same is t r u e o f S i f r e D e u t . I n t h a t i n s t a n c e a g a i n , t h e e x a m p l e s I g a v e m a y be g r e a t l y m u l t i p l i e d . It t h u s a p p e a r s t h a t at least these t h r e e midrashim o f t h e S c h o o l o f R . ' A q i b a r e a l l y h a d t h e i r o r i g i n in t r a d i t i o n s w h i c h R . ' A q i b a r e c e i v e d f r o m his t e a c h e r , R. E l i e z e r , a n d w e r e a c t u a l l y S h a m m a i t i c . " T h i s fact sheds l i g h t o n R. ' A q i b a ' s m e t h o d . H e w a s q u i t e w i l l i n g t o let S c r i p t u r e b e taught i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e v i e w o f t h e S h a m m a i t e s , p r o v i d e d the Mishnah and Tosefta, w h i c h p r o v i d e d f o r the n o r m a t i v e guidance f o r t h e p e o p l e i n t h e i r l i v e s , f o l l o w e d t h e v i e w o f the H o u s e o f Hillel. H e t h u s e x p e c t e d t o h o l d t h e S h a m m a i t e s a n d t h e Hillelites t o g e t h e r , g i v i n g t h e first t h e f o r m , s o t o s p e a k , a n d t h e l a t t e r t h e s u b s t a n c e . " T h e fact that S i f r a f r e q u e n t l y f o l l o w s t h e v i e w o f t h e S h a m m a i t e s , w h i c h d i d n o t escape t h e R a b a d , o f c o u r s e d i d n o t escape m o d e r n s c h o l a r s e i t h e r . B u t t h e y s u p p o s e d t h a t t h e p e r v a s i v e influence o f R. E l i e z e r w a s d u e t o t h e fact t h a t R . J u d a h , w h o w a s e d i t o r o f S i f r a at o n e s t a g e ( b . S a n h e d r i n 8 6 a ) f r e q u e n t l y a d o p t e d t h e v i e w s o f R. E l i e z e r , w h i c h h e r e ­ c e i v e d t h r o u g h his f a t h e r , R. Ilai ( T o s e f t a Z e v a h i m 2 : 1 7 , p . 4 8 3 ; b . M e n a h o t 1 8 a ) . P o s s i b l y t h i s is a l s o h o w R a b a d e x p l a i n e d t h e v a r i o u s passages o f Sifra w h i c h he identified as d e r i v i n g f r o m R . Eliezer. " W h a t a p p a r e n t l y g a v e c o n c e r n t o R a b a d i n the passage b e f o r e u s is that M . S h e v . 4 : 2 is q u o t e d as f o l l o w i n g f r o m t h e exegesis. I n v i e w o f t h e fact t h a t R . J u d a h is d e s c r i b e d as t h e e d i t o r o f S i f r a , the e x e g e s i s w o u l d n a t u r a l l y be expected to f o l l o w his v i e w . Presumably, w h e n R. J u d a h transmitted S h a m m a i t i c v i e w s , w h i c h his f a t h e r h a d r e c e i v e d f r o m R . E l i e z e r , h e d i d s o because h e c o n s i d e r e d t h e m H i l l e l i t e ; a n d h e l d his c o l l e a g u e s m i s t a k e n in a s c r i b i n g t h e m t o t h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i . I n that e v e n t , M . S h e v . w a s an e x a m p l e o f a c o n t r o v e r s y b a s e d o n t h e fact t h a t R. J u d a h t r a n s m i t t e d R . E l i e z e r ' s v i e w s , w h i c h , r e a l l y S h a m m a i t i c , he c o n s i d e r e d Hillelite. B u t i n t h a t e v e n t he s u r e l y w o u l d c o n s i d e r t h e exegesis i n t h e passage u n d e r d i s c u s s i o n Hillelite. R a b a d t r i e d t o e x p l a i n in s e v e r a l different w a y s h o w this could be. "It is u n l i k e l y , h o w e v e r , t h a t M . S h e v . 4 : 2 h a d b e e n f o r m u l a t e d in R. J u d a h ' s t i m e , w i t h t h e a d d i t i o n o f t h e w o r d s , 'R. J u d a h says t h e o p p o s i t e . ' A p p a r e n t l y t h e o l d e s t f o r m o f S i f r a cited o n l y t h e v i e w o f R . J u d a h ' s

30

TANNAITIC

MIDRASHIM — I.ii.12,13

c o l l e a g u e s , a c c o r d i n g t o w h i c h t h e M i s h n a h s h o w s t h a t t h e exegesis is S h a m m a i t i c ; t h e exegesis d e r i v e d f r o m R. E l i e z e r , w h o a g r e e d w i t h t h e S h a m m a i t e s . It w a s t a k e n o v e r f r o m h i m b y R. ' A q i b a in his f o r m u l a t i o n o f S i f r a w i t h o u t c h a n g e , b u t w i t h the a d d i t i o n o f t h e M i s h n a i c n o r m , t o i n ­ dicate t h a t t h e exegesis w a s a c t u a l l y S h a m m a i t i c , a n d t h a t t h e H i l l e l i t e s disagreed. " P r o b a b l y , R. J u d a h imputed the m o r e r i g o r o u s v i e w to the Hillelites, b e c a u s e , as r e c o r d e d in y . S h e v . 4 : 2 , 3 5 b , R. T a r f o n t r i e d t o eat s o m e o f t h e f r u i t s o f his o w n o r c h a r d ( w h i c h w a s b e i n g g u a r d e d b y t h e a g e n t s o f t h e c o m m u n i t y f o r f u t u r e u s e , see L i e b e r m a n in Tosefta Kifshutah Shev., p . 5 8 3 ) . H o w e v e r , in accordance w i t h the v i e w o f the Shammaites, he w a s careful t o t a k e t h e p r o d u c e w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n ; f o r o n e m a y n o t t a k e it w i t h p e r ­ m i s s i o n . C o n s e q u e n t l y h e w a s s e v e r e l y b e a t e n , a n d finally h a d t o i d e n t i f y h i m s e l f as R. T a r f o n . T h e g u a r d s t h e n u n d e r s t o o d t h a t h e w a s f o l l o w i n g h i s o w n t e a c h i n g s . Yer. t h e r e e x p l a i n s t h a t R . T a r f o n i n t h i s i n s t a n c e f o l l o w e d t h e v i e w s o f t h e S h a m m a i t e s , as r e c o r d e d b y t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e l a t e r s c h o l a r s . H o w e v e r , a p p a r e n t l y , R. J u d a h , w h o h a d g r o w n u p i n R . T a r f o n ' s h o m e , a s s u m e d t h a t R. T a r f o n h a d f o l l o w e d t h e v i e w o f t h e H i l l e l i t e s ; a n d t h e r e f o r e R. J u d a h h e l d t h a t t h e v i e w s o f t h e Hillelites w e r e i n t h i s i n s t a n c e s e v e r e r t h a n t h o s e o f t h e S h a m m a i t e s ; a n d t h a t it w a s t h e H i l l e l i t e s w h o f o r b a d e o n e t o eat p r o d u c e o f a field, i f s o d o i n g p l a c e d o n e u n d e r a n y o b l i g a t i o n t o a n y o n e , o r o n e h a d t o seek p e r m i s s i o n f r o m a n y o n e t o d o s o . "

iv.

SIFRE

I.ii.l2.A. And they shall make for themselves sisit (Num. 15:38). . . .and already (KBR) did the elders of the House of Shammai and the Elders of the House of Hillel enter the upper chamber of Jonathan b. Bathyra, and they said, "There is no limit (§Y WR) to [the length of] sisit" Similarly, they said, "There is no limit to the [length of the] Lulav" B. And they shall make for themselves sisit [sing.] (Num. 15:38). I might think [Lit.: I hear] that he should make it of a single thread by itself. Scripture says, You shall make yourself GDYLYM [plural] (tassels) [on the four corners of your cloak (Deut. 22:12)]. From how many tassels doyou make [ them] ? "Not less than three," the words of the House of Shammai [Fried­ man: Hillel]. And the House of Hillel [Friedman: Shammai] say, "Three of wool and the fourth of blue." And the law is according to the House of Shammai. C

[Sifre Num. 115, ed. Friedman, p. 34a (b. Men. 40a-41b, b. Shab. 25a, b. Bekh. 39b; compare b. Yev. 46)] I.ii.13. A. Tassels (GDYLYM) you will make for yourself (Deut. 22:12).

TANNAITIC

31

M I D R A S H I M — I.ii.13

Why is [this] said? Because it is said, And they shall make for themselves sisit [sing.] (Num. 15:38). I might think [Lit.: I hear] he should make one strand by itself. Scripture says, GDYLYM. B. [Of] how many GDYLYM are they made? Not less than three strands, according to the words of the House of Hillel. The House of Shammai say, "From four strands of blue and four of white, of four strands of four-by-four fingers." [Friedman: And the House of Hillel say, "Three."] And the law follows the words of the House of Shammai. [Sifre Deut. 234, ed. Finkelstein, p. 266; ed. Friedman, p. 117a (Part B: b. Yev. 5b)] Comment:

A further pertinent tradition is as follows:

T N Y ' : A . H o w m a n y t h r e a d s d o e s h e p u t i n t o [the h o l e o f t h e c o r n e r for fringes] ? T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, " F o u r . " A n d t h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, " T h r e e . " B . A n d h o w f a r m u s t t h e t h r e a d s o f t h e s h o w f r i n g e s h a n g d o w n [ w h a t is the l e n g t h o f t h e t w i s t e d t h r e a d , i n d e p e n d e n t o f t h e s h o w - f r i n g e s ] ? T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, " F o u r f i n g e r - b r e a d t h s . " A n d t h e H o u s e o f Hillel say, " T h r e e finger-breadths." C. A n d t h e t h r e e finger-breadths m e n t i o n e d b y t h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l a r e each e q u a l t o o n e o f t h e f o u r finger-breadths o f a n y m a n ' s h a n d . (b. B e k h . 3 9 b - 4 0 a ) . . . and already ( K B R ) did the Elders of the House o f Shammai and the E l d e r s o f t h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l g o u p t o t h e c h a m b e r o f Yohanan b . B a t h y r a and d e c i d e t h a t t h e r e w a s n o p r e s c r i b e d l e n g t h f o r t h e sisit a n d n o l e n g t h f o r t h e Lulav. (b. M e n . 4 1 b ) For I.ii.l2.B., Friedman reverses the

words o f

t h e H o u s e o f Hillel.

of w o o l and the

fourth

order,

of blue. . . " This he has done t o

p a r a l l e l i n S i f r e D e u t . 2 3 4 ( I . i i . l 3 ) . T h e beraita, S h a m m a i ' s H o u s e s a y four,

three," the "Three c o n f o r m t o the

" N o less t h a n

A n d the H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say,

b. Bekh. 3 9 b - 4 0 a , has

H i l l e l ' s three, a s i n S i f r e D e u t .

I . i i . l 2 . A h a s t h e tradition o f b . B e k h . 3 9 b - 4 0 a story. In normal apodictic form, i t w o u l d h a v e b e e n

in the

form of

a

as f o l l o w s :

Length of Sisit— T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i a n d t h e H o u s e o f Hillel say ( a g r e e ) , T h e r e is n o limit.

The story i s supplied, I imagine, from t h e corpus o f traditions ex­ plaining h o w t h e l a w w a s ultimately d e c i d e d i n f a v o r of H i l l e l ' s H o u s e , in the (upper) chamber (of s o m e o n e ) a t Yavneh (or elsewhere). I . i i . l 2 . B mixes an exegesis of Num. 15:38/Deut. 2 2 : 1 2 with the normal legal form:

TANNAITIC

M I D R A S H I M — I.ii.13

From how many tassels do you make [them] ?

The House of Shammai: The House of Hillel:

Not less than three. Three of wool and the fourth of blue.

I.ii.l3 follows roughly similar form: Exegesis: Deut. 22:12/Num. 15:38 Of how many GD YL YM are they made?

The House of Hillel: GD YL is not less than three strands. House of Shammai: Four strands of blue and four of white of [four strands of] four by four fingers (House of Hillel: Three.) Unfortunately, we do not have the guidance of the Mishnah to help us sort out the several traditions. If we did, it would probably look something like this: How many threads does he put into the fringes?

House of Shammai: Four. House of Hillel: Three. That is, the beraita of b. Bekh. 39b-40a = b. Men. 41b seems the simplest and formally the most conventional statement. Friedman and Finkelstein cannot be faulted in favoring the reading of Sifre Deut. 234. I.ii.l2.B. (Friedman) has the Hillel-House first, generally rare, but quite common in the Tannaitic compilations of legal exegeses. The reason for the reversed order here as elsewhere is that the exegesis supports the opinion that there should be three strands: GDYLM is plural; the smallest simple plural is three. The Shammaites' opinion is not contradicted, but any Tannaitic exegete reading GDYLYM would surely have understood it as the Hillelites did, meaning three, a convention in Tannaitic exegesis of any simple plural. But b. Yev. 5b has: GDYL = two, GDYLYM = four! The order in I.ii.13 is no different. I.ii.13 then adds a second matter, four strands of four-by-four fingers, for the Shammaites' ruling, and then Friedman's text ends with the Hillelites' contrary view, consistent with their earlier opinion, thus Number of strands

Hillel — three Shammai — four Thickness of strands

Shammai — four Hillel — three The two lemmas appear separately and in proper order in b. Bekh. 39b-40a = b. Men. 41b, as we would expect: How far must—hang down : House of Shammai: Four \ House of Hillel: Three. This tradition is contra­ dicted by the story of b. Men. 41b. The anonymous editor of the Tal­ mud neatly harmonizes the two traditions by suggesting that the limit given in the beraita is a minimum, but, the story says, there is no max-

TANNAITIC

33

M I D R A S H I M — I.ii.13

limit. The beraita therefore preserves the tradition in what must be its essential, though not necessarily earliest, form. Both Sifre Num. and Sifre Deut. thus revise the order for redactional reasons. Sifre Num. drops the question of length entirely, because the foregoing story says there is no limit to the matter. Sifre Deut., which does not know the story of the unanimous agreement on length, preserves both laws. But it has had to divide the Hillelite ruling into two parts, so as to keep the Hillelites together with the supporting Scriptural exegesis; then come both Shammaite rulings, followed (in Friedman) by the separated Hillelite ruling on length. The beraita of b. Bekh. 39b shows what the whole looked like in one piece, and Sifre Deut. tells us what a redactor has done to the possibly original tradition so as to keep the Hillelites' opinion together with the exegesis supporting their view. We therefore see that two contradictory traditions on the positions of the Houses with regard to the length of the fringes were preserved. One has them differ in the same way as with the number of threads, four vs. three. The other has them agree—there is no limit at all! Each party renounces its opinion. Such a compromise comes after 2. tradition in which each party did hold an opinion contrary to that of the other. Once people held the Houses agreed, they could not likely have in­ vented a disagreement. It looks to me as if a simple lemma has been developed into several parts, pertaining to two different questions of law: imum

Sisit

House of Shammai: Four House of Hillel: Three This then served equally well for two questions: I.

Sisit:

How

many

threads?

House of Shammai: Four

— [Expanded to] fourth

House of Hillel: II.

Sisit:

How far

three

of wool

and

of blue

Three — [Expanded to]

not less than.

. .

must they hang down?

House of Shammai: Four — [Expanded to] House of Hillel: Three — [Expanded to]

finger-breadths finger-breadths

Then, as I said, comes the little fable about agreement on the length for the sisit, allowing the four I three formula to pertain only to the number of threads. The exegesis of sisit/GDYLYM supporting three was invented for the Hillelite position, and the whole was split up as in Sifre Deut. 234. The oral tradition could thus have consisted of /////-four-three, in the setting of Houses-sayings. The Shammaites would naturally be assigned the first and more stringent rule, and the rest follows. See Epstein, Mevo*ot, p. 104 re SDYN with regard to Sisit. NEUSNER, T h e Rabbinic T r a d i t i o n s about t h e P h a r i s e e s before 70, I I

3

34

TANNAITIC MIDRASHIM — I.ii.14,15

Lii.14. [R. Ishmael, sitting, and R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah, standing, were studying together. When the time of reciting the Shema came, each changed his position. R. Ishmael stood upright and R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah reclined. Eleazar asked Ishmael why he did so.] A. He replied, "You reclined according to the words of the House of Shammai, and I stood up according to the words of the House of Hillel." B. Another matter: That the matter not be established as an obliga­ tion (HWBH). C. For (S) the House of Shammai say, "In the evening every man should recline and recite, and in the morning, stand up [Friedman adds: as it is said, Whenyou lie down and whenyou rise up (Deut. 6:7)]." [And the House of Hillel say, "Every man reads according to his way, as it is said, And when you walk by the way. If so, why is it said, Whenyou lie down and whenyou rise up} But ('L') when men lie down and when men rise up."] [Sifre Deut. 34, ed. Friedman, p. 74b; ed. Finkelstein, pp. 62-3 (M. Ber. 1:3, Tos. Ber. l:4,b.Ber.lla,y.Ber.l:6)] c

Comment: The whole of part C, connected by §( for) cites M. Ber. 1:3 (b. Ber. lOb-lla), without change. What is important in the exchange between Eleazar and Ishmael is the evidence of a terminus ante quern. The opinion of the Houses had to have been established in pretty much the present form before the pericope of the two later masters, for the story takes for granted the Houses-pericope and alludes to its contents and language. In b. Ber. 11a, part B is developed into a part of the reply of Ishmael, "And, what is more, lest the disciples should see and fix the law so for future generations." So Ishmael favored the Shammaites! I.ii.l 5. A. And there shall no leavened bread be seen with you, neither shall there be leaven seen withyou (Ex. 13:7). This is a dispute (HYLWQ) between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel. B. For (§) the House of Shammai say, "Leaven is of the size of an olive and leavened bread is of the size of a date." And the House of Hillel say, "Both are of the size of the olive." [Sifre Deut. 131, ed. Friedman, p. 101a; ed., Finkelstein, p. 188(M..Bes. 1:1, M/Ed. 4:1, b. Yoma 79b, Tos. Yom Tov 1:4)]

TANNAITIC

35

M I D R A S H I M — I.ii.16

Comment: The beraita occurs in b. Bes. 7b, with no change. The primary form of the beraita begins at part B, linked to the foregoing Scripture by §(for). The Scripture is not expounded, merely cited, with the exegetical difference of the Houses given in standard form imme­ diately thereafter. The difference between them is based on the Script­ ure's use of leaven (S'WR) and leavened bread (HMS). The Sham­ maites hold the two words refer to different measurements for each; the Hillelites do not agree. See Epstein, Mishnah, p. 162.

I.ii.l 6. A. Three times in the year every one of your males will appear before the Lord your God (Deut. 16:16). Your male[s]—to exclude the women. Every one (KL) of your malefs]— to include the children. B. From here they said: "Who is a child? Whoever is unable to ride on his father's shoulder and to go up from Jerusalem to the Temple mount," the words of the House of Shammai, as it is said, Your male. And the House of Hillel say, "Whoever is unable to hold his father's hand and to go up from Jerusalem to the Temple mount," as it is said (Ex. 23:14), three festivals [feet (RGLYM)]. C. And he will not see the face of the Lord empty-handed. From charity-funds. And the sages set a limit: D. The House of Shammai say, "The re^iyyah [is] two silver [coins], and the rejoicing [offering—SMHH] a silver ma'ah (M H)." And the House of Hillel say, "The re iyyah [is] a silver ma ah, and the rejoicing [offering—SMHH] is two silver [coins]." C

y

c

[Sifre Deut. 143, ed. Friedman, p. 102b; ed. Finkelstein, p. 196 (y. Pe'ah 1:1, y. Hag. 1:2, M. Hag. 1:2)] Comment: In Mekh. deR. Simeon b. Yohai to Ex. 23:17, I.ii.2, the opinion of the Shammaites (B) is dropped, that of the Hillelites appears without the exegesis (RGLYM), and the whole is phrased affirmatively: "Every child who can hold. . . is liable for making an appearance." The exegetical supports (A) for the Houses' opinions are obviously later, Aqiban glosses, and not very good ones. The pericope of the Houses is attached to the foregoing by from here they said, rather than with the more common for (S). The meaning is not what we would have expected. In Mekhilta deR. Simeon b. Yohai we were told that the child was liable to go up if he could hold his father's hand, and here we find that a "child is one who cannot hold his father's c

36

T A N N A I T I C M I D R A S H I M — I.ii.17

hand" (etc.), and yet—Everyone of your males—to include the children. I should have supposed that children by the definitions of the Houses have been excluded, not included. This highlights still further the awkwardness of the joining words, from here they said, which leads to the expectation that the foregoing exegesis will have some bearing on the following legal opinions. The definitions of child cause the difficulty. If they were in the affir­ mative, then the whole would make sense. But in the negative they contradict the sense of the exegesis of Deut. 16:16: You should bring your child. These are children—and obviously one could not bring such as these, who either cannot ride on the father's shoulder or (all the more so) cannot make the trip by foot. If the text before us is sound, then the joining-materials are im­ possible, or, alternatively, the definitions should be phrased affir­ matively, as in Mekhilta deR. Simeon b. Yohai to Ex. 23:17. If that passage had occurred here, it would have produced a harmonious text: Children should be brought, and a child is one who can take his father's hand. For part C-D, see below, p. 183. Part D is tacked on. For a lucid account of the laws, see Epstein, Mevd*ot, pp. 373-4. He observes (p. 375) that Sifre equates SMHH and HGYGH, "which are in principle one." I.ii.l7. [And the first of the fleece of your sheep you shall give him (Deut. 18:4).] And how many sheep must he have so that he will be liable for the first of the fleece? The House of Shammai say, "Two ewes, as it is said In that day a man shall keep alive ayoung cow and two sheep (Is. 7:21)." And the House of Hillel say, "Five, as it is said And five sheep already dressed^ Sam. 25:18)." R. Aqiba says, "First fleece—two. Of your flock—four. You will give to him—lo, five." (Sifre Deut. 166, ed. Friedman, p. 106b; ed. Finkelstein, p. 216) c

Comment: We may take it for granted that the exegeses are glosses; in the Houses-pericopae it is rare to find an exegesis integral to the lemma of the Houses' opinions. The original pericope would have looked something like this: • How many sheep—-first of fleece: House of Shammai: Two House of Hillel: Five. c

'Aqiba's opinion provides a striking example of the Aqiban exegetical

TANNAITIC

37

M I D R A S H I M — I.ii.18

convention of parsing a verse and supplying numerical values to its elements. But what Aqiba does here openly is done for the Hillelites by anonymous glossators: they provide a later exegesis in support of the existing Hillelite ruling. Elsewhere when 'Aqibans do so, they attribute their exegesis to the Hillelites. Here, by contrast, a distinction between the opinion of the Hillel-House and the exegetical foundation for that opinion supplied by Aqiba is carefully preserved. But the reason for the preservation is that both Houses have already been given appropriate Scriptures. Had the pericope been presented without such exegeses, we might have found 'Aqiba's placed in the mouth of the House of Hillel. On the other hand, this would seem to me primarily a minor redactional consideration. I doubt that the Scriptures were assigned to the Houses so early as Aqiba's day. What Aqiba's exegesis certainly does provide is a terminus ante quern for the Houses' opinions. c

c

c

c

I.ii.18. [When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand. . . (Deut. 24:1).] From here— A. The House of Shammai would say, "A man should not divorce his wife unless he has found in her some indecency, as it is said, Because he hasfound some matter of indecency in her." And the House of Hillel say, "Even if she spoiled his soup, as it is said, Because he hasfound some matter of indecency in her." B. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, "If matter is said, why is indecency said? And if indecency is said, why is matter said? For if matter were said and indecency were not said, I might say, 'She who goes forth on account of a matter will be permitted to marry, and she who goes forth on account of indecency will not be permitted to re­ marry.' "And do not be surprised, for if she was prohibited from that which had been permitted to her [her husband], should she not be prohibited from that which had already been prohibited to her [any other man] ? Scripture says indecency, and she goes forth from his house, and she goes and marries another man. "And if indecency were said and matter were not said, I might say, 'On account of indecency she will go forth, on account of [any other] matter, she will not go forth.' Scripture says, Matter, and she goes forth from his house." C. R.
T A N N A I T I C M I D R A S H I M — I.ii.18

Comment:

The passage recurs in the following:

T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, " A m a n s h o u l d n o t d i v o r c e his w i f e u n l e s s h e has f o u n d i n h e r s o m e i n d e c e n c y , as it is said, Because he has found some matter of indecency in her." T h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, " E v e n if she s p o i l e d his s o u p , as it s a y s , Because he has found some matter of indecency in her." R . * A q i b a s a y s , " E v e n i f h e f o u n d a n o t h e r p r e t t i e r t h a n she, as it says, If she find no favor in his eyes ( D e u t . 2 4 : 1 ) . " (M. Git. 9:10)

The foregoing Mishnah is accompanied by the following

beraita:

It has b e e n t a u g h t : T h e H o u s e of H i l l e l said to t h e H o u s e of S h a m m a i , "Is it n o t a l r e a d y said matter V T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i said t o t h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l , "Is it n o t a l r e a d y said indecency>?" T h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l said t o t h e m , "If indecency w e r e said a n d matter w e r e n o t said, I m i g h t say, O n a c c o u n t o f indecency she s h o u l d g o f o r t h , b u t o n a c c o u n t o f [any o t h e r ] matter she s h o u l d n o t g o f o r t h . T h e r e f o r e matter is said. A n d if matter w e r e said a n d indecency w e r e n o t said, I m i g h t say, O n a c c o u n t o f [any o t h e r ] matter she m a y b e m a r r i e d t o a n o t h e r , b u t o n a c c o u n t o f indecency she m a y n o t b e m a r r i e d t o a n o t h e r . T h e r e f o r e indecency is s a i d . " A n d t h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i — W h a t do they do with this [ A r a m a i c ] ?' . . (b. G i t . 90a)

The Babylonian beraita preserves the argument of the House of Hillel, but suppresses the Shammaite exegesis. Sifre Deut. 269 part B likewise contains only the Hillelite view. We may take it for granted that the Shammaites' argument in both cases has been dropped, or no one has bothered to invent one. But its main outlines are evident in the primary pericope (part A) itself: the text specifies only adultery as a proper ground for divorce. The Hillelites' reinterpretation of the Scripture has to be spelled out to counter the obvious sense of the Scripture itself. But the failure of the tradents to supply the Shammaites with an ap­ propriate reply seems to me probative evidence that while part A is within the Shammai-Hillel-Houses-tradition, part B derives from Hillelite circles only, and probably from the 'Aqiban tradents active in other parts of this compilation. Judah the Patriarch has excluded part B from the Mishnah because he normally leaves out exegeses. But he has kept the Houses-pericope intact, also a common phenomenon. 'Aqiba seems to me to supply a terminus ante quern for part A, standing well within the Hillelite tradition, and extending the ruling to a more extreme case than is given to the Hillelites. .The language of the House of Hillel, Even if. . . certainly indicates dependence of the Hillelite lemma on the Shammaite one, for by itself the Hillelite saying would not be comprehensible. The Shammaites' opinion is spelled out in full: A man should not divorce—unless—as it is said. The Hillelites responds to the whole of the foregoing: Even if. . .

TANNAITIC

M I D R A S H I M — I.ii.18

39

This represents a different form from the one we have found common: Statement of law—House of Shammai—House of Hillel In such statements, dropping the opinion of the first of the Houses would not on the face of it render that of the second incomprehensible. Both Houses relate to a single antecedent statement of the legal issue or theme. Here, by con­ trast, the House of Hillel gives a kind of gloss to the House of Sham­ mai. This leads to the supposition that the Shammaite opinion was already framed in precisely the form and language selected by Sham­ maites—hence the inclusion of a strong exegetical foundation—and never thereafter changed. But the Hillelites did not merely gloss the foregoing. They have also supplied a complete response to the Sham­ maites, which does not permit the Shammaites a reply. The pericope as a whole shows us what Hillelites were prepared to do, and not do, with completed Shammaite traditions. They obviously have not falsified or doctored the Shammaite pericope, but preserved it whole. They have commented on the substance, and then added a fictitious colloquy. This dramatic encounter follows the form one would expect from similar materials clearly shaped in the encounter between the Houses: The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai .. But it does not bother to give the Shammaite reply, in the version of Sifre Deut. 269; or the reply is given in formalized terms, in the beraita in b. Git. 90a, merely so as to set the stage for the Hillelite argument, coming in any event. So the Hillelite tradents have followed the form, only so far as to lead to the expectation of the usual balanced version; but the whole of B is a Hillelite fabrication, interpolated into existing materials. We must therefore distinguish between a colloquy shaped by both Houses and one invented by Hillelites, but given a form fictitiously implying both sides have had equal opportunity to make a case; there the Shammaites' case is inadequate and the Hillelites must win. The Hillelite colloquy copies the form of the compromise version, therefore is presumably later. v. MIDRASH T A N N A I M

Three of the four pericopae of Midrash Tannaim occur in the fore­ going materials: 1. Midrash Tannaim to Deut. 6:8, ed. Hoffmann, p. 27: The story of Eleazar b. 'Azariah and Ishmael, without the citation of M. Ber. 1:3, above, p. 34. 2. Midrash Tannaim to Deut. 22:12, part B, ed. Hoffmann, p. 139: Sisit and GDYLH, above, p. 30. 3. Midrash Tannaim to Deut. 23:26, ed. Hoffmann, p. 154: Grounds for divorce, above, p. 37. The only new item is as follows:

40

TANNAITIC

M I D R A S H I M — I.ii.19

C

I.ii.l9.A. You shall not wear a mingled stuff (§ TNZ). . . You shall make yourself tassels (Deut. 22:11 -12). From here they said B. A linen cloak with woolen show-fringes ($DYN BSYSYT)— The House of Shammai declare free [of liability]. [Should read: House of Hillel declare liable.] C. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, "Will a ne­ gative commandment set aside a positive one?" The House of Shammai said to them, "We find with reference to all the commandments which are in the Torah that the positive com­ mandment takes precedence over the negative commandment, but here, the negative commandment will take precedence over the positive commandment [just as it does in Scripture]." [Midrash Tannaim to Deut. 22:12, ed. Hoff­ mann, pp. 138-9, part A (b. Shab. 25b)] Comment: Our House The The

The pericope has a parallel in the following:

r a b b i s t a u g h t : A l i n e n g a r m e n t is e x e m p t f r o m sisit, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e of Shammai. H o u s e o f H i l l e l d e c l a r e it liable. l a w f o l l o w s t h e H o u s e o f Hillel. (b. Men. 40a)

The subsequent argument in Midrash Tannaim follows the HillelShammai form, allowing the Shammaites the last word. The exegesis supports the Shammaite position, moreover, for the Scripture first specifies the negative commandment (mingled stuff), then the positive one (tassels). So from here they said accurately attributes to the Sham­ maites the supporting exegesis. We need not regard the developed ar­ gument (part B) as substantially later than the original formulation of the dispute, for reasons given earlier (p. 21). I do not understand why the Hillelite lemma (part B) has been lost.

CHAPTER SIXTEEN MISHNAH-TOSEFTA AND SOME

i.

BERAITOT

ZERA'IM

Il.i.l.A. The House of Shammai say, "In the evening every man should recline and recite (NTH, QR') [the Shema% but in the morning he should stand up, for it is written, And when thou /test down and when thou risest up (Deut. 6:7)." The House of Hillel say, "Every man recites it in his own way, for it is written, And when thou walkest by the way. If so, why is it said, And when thou liest down and when thou risest up} But ( L S) the time that men [usually] lie down and the time that men [usually] rise up." B. R. Tarfon said, "I was coming on the way, and I reclined (NTH) to recite (QR*) [the Shema'] in accordance with the words of the House of Shammai, and I put myself in jeopardy by reason of robbers." They said to him, "You were worthy to be liable for your own [punishment] (KDYY HYYT LHWB B'SMK) because you trans­ gressed the words of the House of Hillel." >

>

[M. Ber. 1:3, trans. Danby, p. 2 (b. Ber. 10b-l la, y. Shev. 4:2, Sifre Deut. 34, y. Ber. 1:3)] Comment: The Scriptural supports look like interpolated glosses. None is required for the House of Shammai, which as usual relies on the obvious meaning of the Scripture. But the House of Hillel differ from that meaning and therefore require the explanation of how their position squares with the plain sense of the Scriptural commandment. The story (part B) of R. Tarfon supplies a firm terminus ante quern for the foregoing materials, possibly in their present form, for the roots NTH, QR occur in both the legal lemma and the story. This suggests Tarfon or the person responsible for the story about him wished to underline knowledge of, or make reference to, the actual words of the House of Shammai. The point of the story is that anyone who follows the view of the House of Shammai deserves to be punished and die, a sure sign that the issue was vivid, and that many did agree with the House of Shammai. We do not know who "they" are, but it hardly matters. Tarfon says precisely what "they" do, he through his story about supernatural punishment for following Shammai, "they" through underlining, the J

42

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.2

lesson by generalizing on the consequences of transgressing the words of the House of Hillel. The pericope is clearly a composite, but part A is not; it is a unity, with glosses. The highly developed story yields no clear signs of what constituted a mnemonic version. Each element is fully articulated and glossed, and the whole depends on its editorial context. In accordance.. . Shammai may be interpolated, but They said. . . Hillel is integral to the story, so the former probably also is essential. II.i.2. A. If he said the Benediction over the wine before the meal, he need not say it over the wine after the meal. If he said the Benediction over the savory before the meal, he need not say it over the savory after the meal. B. If he said it over the bread, he need not say it over the savory. But if he said it over the savory, he is not exempt from saying it over the bread. C. The House of Shammai say, "Or over aught that was cooked in the pot." [M. Ber. 6:5, trans. Danby, p. 7 (y. Ber. 6:5, b. Ber. 42b, 43b)] Comment: The point of the Shammaite lemma is that if a man blessed the savory, he has not exempted from a blessing that which was cooked in the pot, but must bless that too. The saying is a gloss on the fore­ going. Obviously, Or over aught. . . out of context could have meant nothing. Further, to construct a pericope in which the lemma could have stood as an independent and immediately comprehensible saying is not so simple as one might think. At the outset we should have ex­ pected something like the following: I f h e said it o v e r t h e s a v o r y , h e is n o t e x e m p t f r o m s a y i n g it o v e r t h e bread o r o v e r aught that w a s c o o k e d in the pot, the w o r d s of the House o f Shammai.

Such a form demands: And the House of Hillel say. . . (contrary wise), y. Ber. 6:5 supplies: I f h e blessed t h e b r e a d , h e has e x e m p t e d t h e s a v o r y and what was cooked in the pot, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e w o r d s o f t h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l . T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y , " H e has n o t e x e m p t e d w h a t w a s c o o k e d i n the p o t . "

Now we have a Houses-dispute such as we should have expected, but with the wrong order. And the law is not the same. As it stands, the House of Shammai has supplied a gloss to an existing pericope on blessingjnot blessing. One must ask, When was the antecedent set of laws

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.3

43

redacted? They exhibit standard Mishnaic form. We may posit two possibilities. First, the pericope antedates the Houses or was shaped about the same time as they nourished. Second, the pericope comes after the Houses had ceased to play a role in Pharisaic-rabbinic circles, ca. 80-100. The opinion given in the name of Shammai's House has been provided by someone later than that House and separate from it. As to the former possibility, we have no literary evidence whatever that legal materials were redacted in standard form before the work of the Houses. The form of the disputes of the Houses is not replicated. It is difficult to imagine that this pericope was shaped at the same time that the Houses-materials were being worked out, assuming that the range of forms available to the Houses-redactors was what we now imagine it to be. As to the second possibility, the gloss in the name of the House of Shammai might belong to a Tanna associated with (or accused of associating with) that House. It represents the simplest alternative. But that is hardly decisive. The Palestinian version, which sets the whole into conventional Houses-form, complicates matters. If it comes before the Mishnaic version, then why does the Mishnah fail to attribute an opinion to the Hillelites ? Obviously, if it comes afterward, the existence of the Sham­ maite opinion has required invention of a Hillelite counterpart. Whether the lemma of the House of Shammai, which now appears as a gloss on the foregoing materials, represents an opinion actually held by the House is difficult to say. If the Shammaites had held such an opinion, to assure comprehensibility it would have had to be trans­ mitted in a quite different form. No oral fundament deriving from the House of Shammai can be readily discerned, y. Yer. 6:5 is another matter. There the Houses-lemmas come down to PTR +/— L\ For Simeon b. Shetah in this matter, above, I, p. 112. Note Epstein, Mishnah,

p.

1029.

II. i.3.A. These are the things wherein the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel differ [Lit.: which are between] in what concerns a meal (SBYN. . .BS<WDH). The House of Shammai say, "One says the Benediction (MBRK) over the day and afterwards [over] the wine." And the House of Hillel say, "One says the Benediction over the wine and afterwards over the day." B. The House of Shammai say, "They wash (NTL) the hands and then mix the cup." And the House of Hillel say, "They mix the cup and then wash the hands." C. The House of Shammai say, "One wipes his hands with a napkin and lays it on the table."

44

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.3

And the House of Hillel say, ["He lays it] on the cushion." D. The House of Shammai say, "They clean (KBD) the house and then wash the hands." And the House of Hillel say, "They wash the hands and then clean the house." E(l). The House of Shammai say, "[The order of saying the Bene­ dictions at the outgoing of the Sabbath is] lamp, and food, and spices, and Havdalah" And the House of Hillel say, "Lamp, and spices, and food, and Havdalahr (2). The House of Shammai say, "[The Benediction over the lamp is, 'Blessed art thou] who did create the light of fire.' " And the House of Hillel say, " '. . . who creates the lights of fire.' " (F. No Benediction may be said over the lamp or the spices of gentiles, or over a lamp or spices used for the dead, or over a lamp or spices used for idolatry. No Benediction may be said over a lamp until one enjoys its light.) G(l). If a man ate and forgot to say the Benediction, the House of Shammai say, "He must return to his place and say it." And the House of Hillel say, "He may say it in the place where he remembers." (2). Until what time may he say the Benediction? Until the food in his bowels is digested. H. If wine is brought after the food and there is but that one cup— The House of Shammai say, "One says the Benediction over the wine and then over the food." And the House of Hillel say, "One says the Benediction over the food and then over the wine." I. They may answer "Amen" after an Israelite who says a Benedic­ tion, but not after a Samaritan until they have heard the whole Bene­ diction. [M. Ber. 8:1-8, trans. Danby, pp. 8-9 (y. Ber. 8:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, b. Ber. 51b-53b, b. Pes. 103a, b. Suk. 56a, y. Naz. 7:1)] Comment:

In addition to the t w o conventional Houses-forms

i s o l a t e d , n a m e l y , t h e s t a n d a r d d i s p u t e : Rule of Law. mai.

. . House of Hillel.

to House of Shammai,

. . House

already of

. . a n d t h e d r a m a t i c d e b a t e s : House of Hillel

said

here w e have the third, and, for the Mishnah, the

m o s t s t r i k i n g : t h e collection o f H o u s e s - d i s p u t e s o n a s i n g l e t h e m e . f o r m is p e l l u c i d :

Sham-

The

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.3

These are the things which are between the House of Shammai and the House Hillel with regard to the meal.

45 f

o

Then Rabbi has assembled his list(s), in briefest possible language, without superscriptions, exegeses, debates, or other extraneous materials. He has omitted the general theme of the dispute, e.g. parts A, B, C. We have already noted the existence of other sorts of collections of Houses-materials attributed to Tannaitic masters, centered, e.g., on numbers (the six places of Shammaitic leniency). By focussing on a legal theme, rather than on extrinsic characteristics, Rabbi has made it possible to insert the whole smoothly into the pertinent portion of his Mishnah. Part A: After the superscription serving the whole composite pericope, the first dispute is introduced without an additional super­ scription setting forth the specific problem. Without it all we have in effect is dayjwine vs. winejday, with the same explanatory words in both opinions. From this we are supposed to know that the dispute concerns the order of Sanctification on Sabbaths and Festivals. The Shammaites hold one blesses the day, then the wine, because the day is the primary consideration, and the wine comes only on account of the Sanctification of the day. The Hillelites hold the contrary: the wine is the important thing, for without it one says no Sanctification at all. PartB: The same form applies: No general principle, law, or superscription, merely wash hands, mix cup vs. mix cup, wash hands. The consideration is that if he mixes the cup first, perhaps some of the liquid will spill on the sides of the cup, and when the man touches the liquid before washing his hands, he may render the whole cup unclean, so the Shammaites. The Hillelites hold that one must not separate the washing of the hands from the start of the meal. Part C: After the man washes his hands, where does he place the napkin ? The Shammaites hold he leaves it on the table, so that he may dry his hands during the meal. He does not put it on the pillow on which he is seated, lest the pillow be unclean and therefore render the napkin unclean on account of the liquid that may be diffused in it, which may then make his hands unclean. The Hillelites hold that even if the man's hands become unclean, the [ritual] uncleanness of hands is not serious. But the napkin should not be left on the table, lest the table be unclean and make the napkin unclean, and, thence, the food also be rendered unclean. The Shammaites do not take account of the possibility that the table may be unclean, since one may not make use of the table in any event. The Hillelite opinion is not a gloss on the foregoing, but rather has been abbreviated. In full form, it would read, He dries his hands on the napkin and leaves it on the cushion. The lemma is not to be compared to the Shammaite gloss of M. Ber. 6 : 5 . Part D: After the meal one sweeps the room to collect the food particles that may be scattered and then washes the hands before the concluding benediction, so that the food particles will not be spoiled

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.3

by the dropping of the water used for the final washing. The Hillelites hold one completes the washing (and the Grace), and afterward sweeps the room. Meanwhile (a beraita explains) the servant will collect all the food-particles of an olive's size before the washing—in effect what the Shammaites think important at the outset. But if we ignore the beraita, the plain-sense is that the Hillelites do not take seriously the possibility of rendering crumbs unclean. Part E. 1: The subject shifts to the order of blessings after the night meal at the end of the Sabbath. The Shammaites hold one blesses first the light one is (now) using, then the food one has (already) eaten, then the spices, finally says the havdalah. The Hillelites place the blessings of the light and the spices together, both being short (so Albeck, Seder Zera^im, p. 29), then the food, finally says the havdalah. This is Meir's version, Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 105. Part E. 2 has a related dispute, concerning the blessing for the light, whether it is past tense and singular, or present tense and plural. The supposed difference has to do with whether one blesses the crea­ tion of light at the creation of the world, or the continual creation of all sorts of lights every day. Part F pertains to the foregoing, therefore is included, as a gloss on the dispute of the Houses. The order—lamp, spices—is Hillelite. Part G introduces a still further dispute about the meal, unrelated to the foregoing. If a man forgot to say the blessing, the Shammaites send him back to the place where he ate, and the Hillelites say he may say the blessing wherever he remembers it. The opinions of the Houses are brief and matched. The concluding lemma serves, like part F, as a gloss on the foregoing problem, coming after the Houses. Part H is enigmatic. The introductory superscription, stating the problem, is unusual for the collection-form. Without that phrase, the dispute looks to be about whether, in the Grace after Meals, one blesses the wine and then the food, or the food and then the wine. The super­ scription changes matters: If wine comes to them after the meal and there is only that cup of wine. The meaning of the phrase, therefore the conditions to which it refers, is unclear on the face of it. The Talmuds supply various explanations, a sign that something is wrong. Albeck gives the following: If the man wants, he blesses the wine and drinks it, and says Grace without a further cup. Or, if the wine comes in the middle of the meal and he blessed it, or if another cup is there which he will drink after the meal and over which he will say the blessing for wine, then he does not need to say the blessing of wine for the cup of the Grace. But if he did not drink wine during the meal and says Grace over the cup, he also has to bless the cup with the blessing of the wine. The House of Shammai think that he first says the benediction of wine over the cup and afterward says Grace, and the House of Hillel the contrary. The disputes of the Houses normally are simple and straightforward. In the collection-form before us, the disputes are not preceded by superscriptions (e.g. Parts A-E). Parts G and F are separate items, there­ fore noteworthy both for the superscriptions and for the additional

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

47

— II.i.3

glosses or other materials at the end. ("Until what time. . .", "They may answer 'Amen\ . . " ) . If the Houses-sayings had come in the earlier list, obviously the superscription would have been left off; had it been left off, the meaning would have been clear on the face of it. We shall now review the collection's components: A. B. C. D.

Shammai Day/wine Hands/cup Table

Blessing Uncleanness Uncleanness Uncleanness Blessing

E2. G.

Sweep/wash F o o d , spices Did c r e a t e light F o r g o t : G o back

Blessing

H.

Food/wine

Blessing

El.

Hillel Wine/day Cup/hands Cushion Wash/sweep Spices, f o o d Does c r e a t e lights F o r g o t : I n the place w h e r e he recalled he f o r g o t Wine/food

The subject-matter (within "matters pertaining to the meal") is there­ fore arranged in an orderly and logical way: Before Sabbath-Festival Meals: A During Meals: B , C , D After Sabbath-Festival Meals: E After Meals (special case, p e r t a i n i n g t o all m e a l s ) :

G

and part H is an enigma. It looks, therefore, as if the collection consists of five separate, anterior elements or collections: parts B-C-D, uncleanness rules for meals, a neat and simple collection of logia, consisting of a few words attributed to each House; part A; part E (both segments); part G; and part H. Part H looks suspiciously like the reverse of par t A: A

H

Shammai: Day/Wine ( Y W M / Y Y N )

Wine/Food

(YYN/MZWN)

Hillel:

Food/Wine

(MZWN/YYN)

Wine/Day ( Y Y N / Y W M )

The superscription of part H thus brings more difficulties than we might have had in its absence. This sort of list can be readily reduced to brief and alliterative mnemonic elements: Part A: Part B: PartC: Part D: Part E:

YWM/YYN vs. YYN/YWM NTL/MZG vs. MZG/NTL SLHN VS. KST KBD/NTL vs. NTL/KBD NR/MZWN/BSMYM/HBDLH vs. NR/BSMYM/MZWN/ HBDLH Thus: MZWN/BSMYM vs. BSMYM/MZWN

48

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.3, I l . i i . l

The list therefore is constructed of transitive participles, generally given in third-person plural (B, D), though I see no principle that explains why one set should be plural, the next singular. Only part C is significantly glossed; there a simple superscription would have allowed the significant difference to be reduced to two substantives, as given above. Like parts A and H, parts B and D look suspiciously alike, and it may be that they began as a single lemma, only later on developed into two separate arguments. Parts A, B, D, and E all depend upon word-order, and I see no reason why part E should not have been preserved in fully articulated form right from the outset. In all, it would be difficult to invent a better model of a mnemonic list. Part G(l) is another sort of mnemonic, apparently built out of the same words and mostly the same radicals: HZR MQWM BRK vs. BRK MQWM ZKR Clearly the order is 1,2,3, vs. 3,2,1. Only the first word of the Sham­ maite and the last word of the Hillelite lemma is different, and there the difference is in a single letter, H vs. K. On the whole, therefore, we may suppose the mnemonic has been only lightly reworked with the addition of the dative particles (L, B), the personal endings, and the relative pronoun § demanded by the Hillelite lemma. Even in the fully articulated form before us, wefindobvious balances between the Houses' lemmas. They contain the same number of words throughout, e.g. Part A: MBRK
Il.ii.l. M SH B : R. Ishmael and R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah [who] were dwelling (SRWYYN) in one place, and R. Ishmael was reclining, and R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah standing up. The time of reciting the Shema came. R. Ishmael stood up and R. Eleazar b. Azariah lay down. R. Ishmael said to him, "What is this, Eleazar." He said to him, "Ishmael, my brother. . ." He said to him, "You lay down to carry out the words of the House of Hillel, and I stood up to carry out the words of the House of Shammai." 1

c

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.2

49

"Another matter, so that the disciples should not see and per­ manently establish the law according to your words." [Tos. Ber. 1:4, ed. Lieberman, p. 2, lines 18-25 (y. Ber. 1:3, b. Ber. 11a; Sifre Deut. 34, y. Sanh. 11:4)] Comment: See above, p. 41. This is the equivalent of M. Ber. 1:3, Tarfon-story. For our purposes, what is important is the further in­ dication of a firm terminus ante quern for the Houses-pericope on the subject. Judah the Patriarch preferred the more explicit Tarfon-subscription: If you follow the opinion of the House of Shammai, you deserve punishment.

II.ii.2.A. [As to a] Festival of the New Year that coincides with the Sabbath: The House of Shammai say, "One prays ten [benedictions]." And the House of Hillel say, "One prays nine [benedictions]." B. [As to a] Festival that coincides with the Sabbath: The House of Shammai say, "One prays eight [benedictions] and says [that] of the Sabbath by itself and of the festival by itself, and be­ gins with that of the Sabbath." And the House of Hillel say, "He prays seven [benedictions], and begins with that pertaining to the Sabbath and concludes with that pertaining to the Sabbath and says the Sanctification of the Day in the middle." [Tos. Ber. 3:13, ed. Lieberman, p. 15, lines 58-63 (b/Eruv. 40a-b, b. Bes. 17a; y. Shev. 1:5)] Comment: The pericope contains three disputes, the latter two combined into one: New

YearjSabbath

House of Shammai: House of Hillel:

Ten Nine

Festival I Sabbath H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : E i g h t — S a b b a t h b y s e l f / F e s t i v a l b y self House of Hillel: Seven—Sabbath-Sanctification-Sabbath

On the readings and the legal issues involved, see Lieberman, Tosefta for Zera^im, pp. 39-40. The whole is, mnemonically, simply a descending decade. See below, pp. 181-182. Kifshutah

NEUSNER, The Rabbinic T r a d i t i o n s about t h e P h a r i s e e s before 70, I I

4

50

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.3

II.ii.3.A. [The] things which are between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel as regards the meal: The House of Shammai say, "One blesses the day, and afterward one blesses the wine, for the day causes the wine to come, and he has already sanctified the day, but the wine has not yet come." And the House of Hillel say, "One blesses the wine, and afterward one blesses the day, for the wine causes the Sanctification of the day to be said. "Another matter: The blessing of the wine is continual, and the blessing of the day is not continual." And the law is according to the words of the House of Hillel. B. The House of Shammai say, "They wash the hands and after­ ward mix the cup, lest the liquids which are on the outer surfaces of the cup may be made unclean on account of the hands, and they may go back and make the cup unclean." The House of Hillel say, "The outer surfaces of the cup are perpetu­ ally unclean. "Another matter: The washing of the hands is only [done] near [at the outset of] the meal." They mix the cup and afterward wash the hands [ = House of Hillel]. C. The House of Shammai say, "He dries his hand on the napkin and leaves it on the table, lest the liquids which are in the napkin may be made unclean on account of the pillow, and they may go and make the hands unclean." The House of Hillel say, "Doubtful liquids so far as the hands are concerned are clean. "Another matter: Washing the hands does not pertain to unconsecrated food. But he dries his hands on the napkin and leaves it on the pillow, lest the liquids which are in the pillow may be made unclean on account of the table, and they may go and render the food unclean." D. The House of Shammai say, "They clean the house on account of the waste of food, and afterward they wash the hands." The House of Hillel say, "If the waiter was a disciple of a sage, he gathers the scraps which contain as much as an olive's bulk. "They wash the hands and afterward clean the house." E. The House of Shammai say, "He holds the cup of wine in his right hand and sweet oil in his left hand. "He blesses the wine and afterward blesses the oil." And the House of Hillel say, "He holds the sweet oil in his right hand and the cup of wine in his left hand.

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.ii.3

51

"He blesses the oil and smears (TH) it on the head of the waiter. If the waiter was a disciple of a sage, he smears it on the wall, because it is not praiseworthy that a disciple of the sage[s] should go forth per­ fumed." F. R. Judah said, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not dispute concerning the blessing of the food, that it is first, and concerning the havdalah, that it is at the end. Concerning what did they dispute? Concerning the light and the spices, for the House of Shammai say, 'Light and afterward spices/ and the House of Hillel say, 'Spices and afterward light.' " [Tos. Ber. 5(6):25-30, ed. Lieberman, p. 29, 1. 53-p. 31, 1.75 (b. Ber. 51b, 53b [ = part E], b. <Eruv. 13b, y. Ber. 8:1—5,7—8, y. Pes. 10:2; Pes. 114a, b. Suk. 56a)] G. In the house of study— The House of Shammai say, "One [person] blesses for all of them." And the House of Hillel say, "Each one blesses for himself." [Tos. Ber. 5:30, ed. Lieberman, p. 31, lines 80-1 (b. Ber. 53a)] Comment: The formal differences between Mishnah and Tosefta are fairly consistent. For each element the Tosefta supplies the reason for the position taken by each House, as well as "another matter" further supporting the Hillelite argument. The construction of the brief lemmas of M. Ber. 8:lff. is to be credited to Judah the Patriarch. He has stressed the simplest possible formulation. The Tosefta constitutes not another version, but a highly glossed copy of the original, with many interpolations. Thus, the Hillelite part of B supplies reasons for, and only then gives the equiva­ lent of, the Shammaites' primary lemma. In C, the Hillelites do not even have such an equivalent. In D the Hillelites' view is taken for granted, then explained. In E, the waiter-element has no Shammaite counterpart. So Tos. presupposes and depends upon knowledge of the Mishnah, and looks like a commentary on it, with glosses as needed. We shall see considerable evidence that Houses-forms were followed in entirely classical style as late as the period of the Ushan academy. The only hard evidence here is the appearance of Judah [b. Ilai]; he supplies excellent testimony that M. Bei. 8:5 (II.L3.E) was before him in a form other than that of the Mishnah. He alleges that no dispute per­ tained to the blessing of food and havdalah, and this normally means that such a dispute was before him verbatim, and that he differed and planned to correct it. Judah the Patriarch has not reproduced Judah b. Ilai's

52

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— III.ii.1

version, but rather preserved the whole list of four items, b. Ber. 52b (b. Pes. 103a) has the following: R a v a said, " T h e s e [the M i s h n a h ] a r e t h e w o r d s o f R. M e i r , b u t R. J u d a h said, ' T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i a n d t h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l a g r e e t h a t G r a c e c o m e s first a n d havdalah last. T h e y differ [ o n l y ] a b o u t l i g h t a n d spices.* "

Judah the Patriarch has taken Meir's version and dropped Judah's, and the Mishnah must be dated to Usha. On this basis we cannot determine which version is older. See Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 105-6. Parts E and G contain new materials. Part E has a dispute in the extremely succinct form of M. Ber., readily reduced to the simple mnemonic elements suggested above. But the Hillelite saying not only is out of balance, but also introduces an element otherwise lacking in the Shammaite one, about the waiter—that is, what to do with excess oil. I do not understand how the issue was raised in the Hillelite lemma at all. It belongs in D. Part G presents a problem which occurs in reference to b. Eruv., below, p. 138. The language of the Houses is identical, and what is changed is the superscription. The superscription comes after the Houses-sayings and is intended to provide a setting for their already redacted ruling. But we have no evidence as to when the superscrip­ tion was added or the original sayings redacted. c

III.ii.1. TNW RBNN: [If] they were sitting in the house of study, and they brought light before them— The House of Shammai say, "Each one blesses for himself." And the House of Hillel say, "One blesses for all of them, since it is said, In the multitude ofpeople is the kings glory (Prov. 14:28)." [The Shammaite reason is adduced: it is to avoid an interruption of study.] TNY* NMY HKY: [Those] of the House of Rabban Gamaliel did not say 'good health'[to one who sneezed] in the study house be­ cause of the interruption of study. (b. Ber. 53a) Comment: The Babylonian beraita has not only reversed the rulings of the Houses, but also augmented the superscription. The further beraita in the Babylonian pericope supplies the information that Gamaliel followed the Shammaite principle of not interrupting study. The rulings are matched opposites. The reversal of the assigned opinions is the problem, for the aug­ mentation of the superscription is commonplace and does little to change the meaning. I doubt that the Toseftan redactor has switched the Houses around in order to show the conformity of Gamaliel to the Hillelite ruling; Gamaliel is not mentioned in the context of Tos. Ber.

53

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — III.ii.2, 3

to begin with. Redactional considerations therefore do not seem im­ portant, and I cannot account for the change; but see Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshutah,

p.

97.

The mnemonic pattern is standard: Shammai: KL >HD W'HD MBRK L'SMW Hillel: >HD MBRK LKWLN Thus the pattern is KL >HD vs. >HD [L] KL [N] that is, 1,2,2,1. For further examples of the same pattern, see M. TVah 3:1, below, pp. 54-55. III.ii.2.A. [Our rabbis taught: He who enters a privy removes his tefillin at a distance of four amot and enters. . .] B. TNY >YDK (Another beraita): "He who enters a permanent privy removes his tefillin at a distance of four amot, leaves them on the window near the public way, and enters, and when he goes out, he goes away four amot and puts them on"—the words of the House of Shammai. And the House of Hillel say, "He holds themin his hand and enters." R. Aqiba says, "He holds them in his garment and enters." J

c

(b. Ber. 23a) Comment: This is a singleton, not following conventional form. The superscription is interpolated into the Shammaite lemma, as often happens. Aqiba supplies the terminus ante quern, if the whole is not pseudepigraphic. The Hillelites are balanced against Aqiba—hand vs. garment. The Shammaite lemma—without the elements serving all parties—must be leaves-window. Part A follows the Shammaite reasoning, against both the Hillelites and Aqiba. c

c

c

III.ii.3. TNW RBNN: [If] they brought before him oil and myrtle— The House of Shammai say, "He blesses the oil, and afterward he blesses the myrtle." And the House of Hillel say, "He blesses the myrtle, and afterward he blesses the oil." R. Gamaliel said, "I shall decide [in favor of the House of Shammai.] We have the benefit of (ZKH) oil both for its odor and for its anoint­ ing ; we have the benefit of myrtle for its smell but not for its anointl n g

*"

(b. Ber. 43b)

Comment: The items are brought after a meal, oil to clean the hands, and myrtle to smell.

54

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA —

II.i.4

The form is standard. What is interesting is the effort of Gamaliel, presumably Gamaliel II, to argue in favor of the Shammaite position, in the Toseftan style. He supplies a firm terminus ante quern for the dispute, before ca. 100. II.i.4.A. [If] between olives trees [there were] plots sown with grain (MLBNWT HTBW'H)— The House of Shammai say, "Pe'ah [must be granted] from every plot." And the House of Hillel say, "From one for all." B. But they agree that, if the ends of the rows [of grain] were con­ fused (JVPWRBYN), (that) he gives Pe'ah from one [plot] for all. [M. Pe'ah 3:1, trans. Danby, p. 12 (y. Pe'ah 3:1)] Comment: The problem is, When does a field become divided into two, so requiring that two pesahs be left over for the poor, each part of the field being obligated by itself? The issue before the Houses is whether each plot among the olive trees is regarded as separate, there­ fore liable. The House of Shammai take the affirmative, of Hillel, the negative. The Houses agree regarding the ends of the rows. The Shammaite position is strict with the farmer, therefore advantageous to the poor gleaners. The Shammaites often rule to the benefit of the poor. The form is conventional. What is new is the additional specifica­ tion of the limits of the dispute, "They agree. . ." We have not earlier seen such a careful limitation. Clearly, the problem of law. . . House of Shammai. . . House of Hillel. . . must come before But they agree (WMWDYM), language already familiar to us in the opening clause of the debate form (above, p. 16), The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, You agree with us. . . But here the agreement is a fact, rather than a debater's opening gambit. It is difficult to imagine that such an additional clause circulated separately—for obvious reasons. But was it imposed by one party on the other? The House of Shammai's posi­ tion is what is limited by the agreement, since the House of Hillel have already made the same point for a more extreme situation, where the plots are actually separate, and hence obviously would hold the same where the plots are not separated, but the rows confused. The "agree­ ment" furthermore repeats the Hillelite lemma verbatim. Hence we are left to wonder whether the Shammaite position has been accurately represented in the agreement-clause. Does it serve as a Hillelite subscription, or is the clause integral to the pericope as a whole? If they were able to enforce their view of the law, indeed able to impose their reading of the tradition on Shammai-Hillel-materials, the Hillelites could as well have suppressed the entire dispute as have

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.4, 5

55

altered an element in it. Hence one might argue that, had the Hillelites the power to fabricate such a new subscription, they would have done a more complete job of it. So the agreement-clause, claiming less for the Hillelites than one might expect had the Hillelites fabricated it, looks genuine. This argument is strengthened by the conservatism of the tradents. Clearly, what the Hillelites said about Shammaites and those who hold to their views of law is before us. Yet they did not tamper with the balanced traditions—ShammaijHillel, House of ShammaijHouse of Hillel, and House of Hillel said to House of Shammai—but preserved some of them as they must have been redacted while the two parties enjoyed parity, or while Shammaites were in control. The foundationstone of our inquiry is the observation that the Hillelites did not change Shammai/Hillel pericopae once in final form, even though it would have been to Hillelite advantage to do so. They invented new stories of all sorts, e.g. the sword in the school-house, petulant Shammai, and so forth. But part of what was already redacted, as occasionally evidenced by discussions of the earliest Yavnean masters, evidently was unchanged. The report of the agreement is apt to be genuine. The Shammaites' position here probably is accurately represented. The parties differed only in some aspects of the problem, agreed in others. In that case the observation that the Hillelites saw the reason of the opposition and accepted its position seems to apply also to the Shammaites, though it is not made explicit in terms of HZR/SNH, as in M. Yev. (below, pp. 200-202) and elsewhere. The lemmas of the Houses are beautifully balanced: House of Shammai say: Pe ah MKL >HD W'HD House of Hillel say M>HD HD. Further, the order is ascending-descending, as before: MKL >HD [W'HD]—M'HD [
II.i.5.A. The House of Shammai say, "[If produce is proclaimed] ownerless for the benefit of the poor [it is deemed] ownerless [and Tithe-free]."

56

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.5

And the House of Hillel say, "It is not [deemed] ownerless [and Tithe-free] until ( D S) it is proclaimed ownerless also (>P) for the [benefit of the] rich, as in the Year of Release." B. [If] all sheaves of a field [were] each of one qaVs [bulk] and one was of four qabs, and he forgot it— The House of Shammai say, "[It is] not [deemed a] Forgotten Sheaf." And the House of Hillel say, "[It is deemed a] Forgotten Sheaf." C. [If] a sheaf [lay] near the wall or the stack or the oxen or the implements, and he forgot it— The House of Shammai say, "[It is] not [deemed a] Forgotten Sheaf." And the House of Hillel say, "[It is deemed a] Forgotten Sheaf." D(l). [Whether any sheaf at] the ends of rows [may or may not be deemed a Forgotten Sheaf] is proved by a sheaf lying over against it. (2). [If the householder] laid hold of a sheaf to take it to the city and forgot it, they agree that this is not [deemed a] Forgotten Sheaf. E. Two sheaves [together may be deemed] Forgotten Sheaves; three [together may] not [be deemed] Forgotten Sheaves. Two heaps of olives or carobs [may be deemed] Forgotten Sheaves; three may not. Two stalks of flax [may be deemed] Forgotten Sheaves; three may not. Two grapes [may count] as grape-gleanings; three may not. Two ears of corn [may count as] gleanings; three may not. These [rulings] are according to the words of the House of Hillel. And of them all the House of Shammai say, "[Where there are] three [they belong] to the poor; [where there are] four [they belong] to the householder." [M. Pe'ah 6:1, 2, 3, 5, trans. Danby, pp. 16-17 (y. Pe'ah 1:5, 7:1 = M. 6 : 1 ; y. Pe'ah 6:1, 2, 3, 4; b. B.M. 30b, y. Ket. 8:1, b. Sanh. 88a)] C

c

Comment: See also M. Ed. 4:2-4. Parts A, B, and C constitute a compilation, not a collection, of Houses-disputes on the laws of the For­ gotten Sheaf. Part A concerns property declared ownerless only for the poor. Is it liable to tithes? The House of Shammai say it is not, the House of Hillel that it is. In this ruling, as above, the Hillelite position is more stringent, since it diminishes the return to the poor, who have either to compete with the rich or to pay tithes. This is made explicit in y. Ket. 8:1: "The House of Shammai say, 'Ownerless to the poor is lenient for the poor and stringent for the householder.' " The form is extremely terse:

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.5

57

House o f Shammai: [Ownerless] to the p o o r (only) [ownerless] House o f Hillel: Also t o t h e r i c h .

Like the Year of Release is a gloss. The whole formula requires three words—or merely to the poor—for the Shammaites, as given, and could suffice with two for the Hillelites. The explanatory words, / / can only be deemed ownerless if it is proclaimed ownerless fill out the sentence, but are not absolutely necessary for comprehending the position of the Hille­ lites. They represent a redactional supplement. Part B follows the more complete, articulated form: Problem of law, then the Houses. The Houses' opinions are equally terse: Not Forgotten Sheaf jForgotten Sheaf. Clearly, to understand these words, a fuller statement of the issue to which they pertain is required. The issue is, How do we regard the larger sheaf? The House of Shammai hold that the £oui-qab sheaf is regarded as if it were divided into four of one qab each; in part E, the House of Shammai make it explicit that where there are four, they belong to the householder. Part E looks like a secondary formulation, with more detail, of the brief lemma before us. The simplest formula­ tion of the whole would be simply: House of Shammai: Four House o f Hillel: Three.

Part C retains the same full formulation: Principle of law or problem, plus the Houses. Here the issue is: Is a sheaf lying near some recogniz­ able object or some specific location regarded as forgotten} The House of Shammai hold that since the sheaf is in some place that may be specified, it eventually will be remembered. The House of Hillel hold the contrary (see below, Tos. Pe'ah 3:2). Part D.2 then supplies a point of agreement. Here, however, it is the House of Hillel that come over to the position of the House of Shammai. In the cases of part D, there is evidence that the owner has not completely forgotten the sheaves. He has at the outset given some sign that he intends to dispose of them. Therefore the law of the For­ gotten Sheaf does not apply. Obviously, the Shammaite lemma is repeated. What is the difference between parts D and C? In the cases of part D some process has been undertaken, i.e. gathering the sheaves, or moving them, while in part C, nothing signifies, according to the Hillelites, the intention of doing something with the sheaf. It is merely lying in a place that can be specified, but no purpose in leaving the sheaf there can be discerned. Part E spells out the Hillelite position: Three (of anything) are not regarded as forgotten, but two (of anything) are; the Shammaites say, Four]three. The cases are a full catalogue: Sheaves Olives o r carobs

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.5

S t a l k s o f flax Grapes Ears o f corn

I see no reason that all the cases require specification. In any event the redactor has been careful to specify these are not formulations of the Houses, but rather follow their views: according to the words of the House of Hillel. The Shammaite opinion is tacked on with a connectorphrase : Concerning all of them. This too is not an attribution of direct discourse, but a summary of the position of the House of Shammai. But the content of the lemma represents what the House originally laid down: Three f o r t h e p o o r Four f o r t h e h o u s e h o l d e r

What we do not have is the equivalent formulation of the House of Hillel, which, quite obviously, was Two f o r t h e p o o r Three f o r t h e h o u s e h o l d e r .

The difference between these pericopae and the collection-form discussed above (pp. 4 4 f . ) is obvious. The collection form is introduced with a simple statement of the subject-matter: concerning the meal. No further superscriptions stating the topic or legal problem then inter­ vene. Here, by contrast, the collection-superscription is absent, though one might have looked for it in part A, and therefore we are given superscriptions in parts B and C. Part E is a separate pericope, in which the brief lemmas originally issued by the Houses are given in great detail for each possible type of produce, all in the Hillelite for­ mulation, with the Shammaite opinion tacked on at the end. We need not regard part E as a later development of Hillelites, for the Sham­ maite position is accurately represented. But it is a quite different way of stating matters, with the Houses in reverse order for redactional reasons. The lemmas of the Houses are extremely brief and always balanced opposites: Shammai

HBQR L'NYYM HBQR >YNW SKHH $L$H [L'NYYM] [W] >RB
Hillel

>YNW HBQR SKHH SNY [SKHH] SLSH [>YNN SKHH]

In effect, the Houses differ on whether or not the negative particle belongs, and on a numbers-sequence (two/three vs. three/four). In all other respects the sayings are either balanced or glossed; they are not developed, articulated, or expanded in significant detail, except as specified. Note Epstein, Mevo'ot, pp. 1 0 2 - 3 .

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

59

— II.i.6

II.i.6. A. As to the grapes of a Fourth-Year Vineyard The House of Shammai say, "The rules of the [Added] Fifth and of Removal do not apply to [the grapes of] a Fourth Year Vineyard (>YN LW HM§ W>YN LW B<WR)." And the House of Hillel say, "They do apply (Y§ LW)." B. The House of Shammai say, "The laws of grape-gleanings and of the defective cluster apply, and the poor redeem the grapes for them­ selves (Y§ LW PRT WY$ LW <WLLWT, WH'NYYM PWDYN L'SMM)." And the House of Hillel say, "The whole yield goes to the wine­ press (KWLW LGT)." [M. Pe'ah 7:6, trans. Danby, p. 18 (y. Pe'ah 7:5, b. Qid. 54b; M. M.S. 5:3, M. Ter. 3:9, Tos. Ter. 2:13, M. M.S. 5:10)] c

Comment: See above, Sifra Qedoshim 3:7, p. 23, and M. Ed. 4:5b. The issue before us is whether or not the rules of Second Tithe apply, to the Fourth-Year Vineyard grapes. The House of Shammai hold that grapes of the Fourth Year Vineyard are not like the Second Tithe in every respect. The form is a curious variation of the standard one. Here, the state­ ment of law is followed by two sets of Shammai/Hillel opinions: Grapes of the Fourth-Year

Vineyard:

A . H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : N o F i f t h a n d n o B u r n i n g [Unlike S e c o n d T i t h e ] House o f Hillel: Y e s [Like Second Tithe] B. House of Shammai: Grape-gleanings and Defective Cluster apply [Like S e c o n d T i t h e ] H o u s e o f Hillel: L a w s o f S e c o n d T i t h e a p p l y in all respects.

The Hillelite-opinion therefore is duplicated in the two segments of the pericope. What would an antecedent form have looked like? It seems to me the problem for the redactor is the complex Shammaite opinion. An ideal form would have been: Grapes of the Fourth- Year

Vineyard:

The House o f Shammai say: A r e like Second Tithe in some respects, and are n o t l i k e S e c o n d T i t h e i n s o m e r e s p e c t s : like S e c o n d T i t h e i n t h a t (a) g r a p e g l e a n i n g s (b) p o o r r e d e e m ; not l i k e S e c o n d T i t h e i n t h a t (a) n o F i f t h a n d (b) n o B u r n i n g . T h e H o u s e o f Hillel s a y : A r e l i k e S e c o n d T i t h e in all respects.

Such a full statement of the Shammaite position apparently was not possible within the range of formal or redactional alternatives available in early times. It therefore was necessary to split up the opinions into the clumsy form before us, thus to suggest two separate pericopae

60

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.6; II.ii.4

existed, when in fact the whole is a single problem and susceptible of formulation in a single, unitary framework. The language of the Mishnah compares with Sifra Qedoshim 3:7 as follows: Sifra Qedoshim 3:7

M. Pe'ah

1 . All

1 . Grapes of the Fourth-Year Vineyard: H o u s e o f S h a m m a i said, D o n o t h a v e Fifth a n d d o n o t h a v e Burning.

their fruit

will be—

t o include H P R T a n d H ' W L L W T , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e w o r d s o f t h e H o u s e o f Hillel.

7:6

H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, T h e y d o . 2 . T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, Y § L W P R T W Y $ L W <WLLWT 3. A n d the p o o r redeem f o r themselves.

2. „ „

4 . A n d t h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l s a y , It is all f o r t h e

4. „ „

„

3 . ,, ,, , , „

winepress

We see that in place of the exegesis, M. Pe'ah gives a topical superscrip­ tion. In y. Pe'ah 7:5, Judah the Patriarch limits the disagreement to the Seventh Year. Ideally, the mnemonic fundament would have consisted of the superscription + Shammaite rule followed by the Hillelite negative— pretty much as in M. Pe'ah 7:6. Note Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 103, who observes that elsewhere the dispute is on Fourth-year planting (NT*). II.ii.4. R. 'Ila'P said, "I asked R. Joshua, 'Concerning what sheaves (<WMRYN) did the House of Shammai dispute?' "He said to me, 'By this Torah! Concerning what sheaves? Those near a wall, a stack, oxen, or implements, and he forgot it.' "And when I came and asked R. Leazar, he said to me, 'They agree concerning these that Forgetting does not apply. " 'Concerning what did they dispute? Concerning the sheaf on which he took hold to bring to town, and he set it by the fence and forgot it. " 'For the House of Shammai say, ''Forgetting does not apply, be­ cause he has made acquisition of it.' And the House of Hillel say, 'Forgetting? "And when I came and I laid the matters out before R. Leazar b. 'Azariah, he said to me, 'By the Torah! These things were said from Sinai [Tos. Pe'ah 3:2, ed. Lieberman, p. 51, lines 13-19 (y. Pe^h 6:2, M. Ed. 4:4, y. Ket. 8:1)] 99

9 99

c

61

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.4

The Tosefta reenforces the estimate of the terminus ante for Houses-disputes; M. Pe'ah 6:2 ( = II.i.5.C) came by the time of Joshua b. Hananiah. Leazar has things contrarywise. They agreed on the sheaf by the wall, but differed about the sheaf to be brought to town. This means that two versions of the dispute existed. The version of Joshua and that of the M. Pe'ah 6:2 compare as follows Comment:

quern

M.Pe*ah6:2 1. T h e s h e a f w h i c h is n e a r t h e w a l l , stack, o x e n , o r i m p l e m e n t s , a n d h e f o r g o t it.

J o s h u a : Tos. Pe'ah 3:2 1. [These a r e t h e s h e a v e s ] n e a r the wall, stack, oxen, o r im­ p l e m e n t s , a n d h e f o r g o t it.

2. H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, Is n o t F o r g e t t i n g .

2.

3 . A n d H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, F o r g e t t i n g .

3 . ,, ,, „

„ „

„

In fact, except for the slight variation in the introductory clause, where, for obvious redactional reasons, M. Pe'ah omits these are of the collo­ quy (>YLW) and then puts the whole into the singular (H MWR in­ stead of H'WMRYN), the passages are identical, and M. Pe'ah looks like the tradition according to Joshua. Leazar says that Forgetting here does apply, therefore he has the Hillelites agree with the Shammaites. He claims they differ in another case entirely: (

M.Pe*ah6:2

Leazar:

1. T h e s h e a f w h i c h a m a n t o o k h o l d o f t o b r i n g t o t h e t o w n a n d f o r g o t it

1. [ C o n c e r n i n g ( L)] t h e s h e a f which a man took hold of to b r i n g t o t h e t o w n and he put it beside the fence a n d f o r g o t it

Tos. Pe"ah 3:2

2. T h e y a g r e e t h a t it is n o t Forgetting [the f o r gotten-sheaf-law does not apply].

2. [That] t h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, T h e l a w o f Forgetting does not apply because he m a d e a c q u i s i t i o n o f it. A n d t h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, T h e l a w o f Forgetting does apply.

l

M. Pe'ah differs with Leazar's version in several respects, but is strik­ ingly similar in others. In no. 1, a new detail is introduced into Leazar's version, in italics, perhaps a contamination from the antecedent case. As to no. 2, the House of Shammai has already received a gloss ("be­ cause he made acquisition"). Otherwise, however, nos. 2-3 of the Joshua version are repeated here without change. So what is confused is not the decisions of the Houses, but the case to which they pertain. Both masters have what must be the primary tradition, attributed to the Houses by all parties: 1. H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : N o Forgetting House o f Hillel: Forgetting. 2. A n d t h e y a g r e e .

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.4

The issue is, To what cases do these decisions and agreement pertain? Joshua assigns the disagreement to the sheaf by the wall (etc.), and the agreement to the sheaf to be brought to town. Leazar assigns the agreement to the sheaf by the wall, the disagreement to the sheaf to go to town, left by the wall, and then forgotten. R. Eleazar b. Azariah then agrees with Leazar's version of matters, but Judah the Patriarch apparently preferred Joshua's. Now since the Houses originally could not have said both opinions, and since the Tannaitic tradents were unclear on just what the Houses were talking about, we may assume the basis for the differences in the versions of Joshua and Leazar had to do with legal principles. What were these principles ? As to the sheaf by the wall, stack, oxen, and implements, the point at issue is (as pointed out above) whether the fact that the sheaf is found lying near an identifiable location means it eventually will be remembered ("Oh, what did I do with the sheaf I left by the implements ?"), while if it was left in the field, the owner will never afterward be able to call to mind that particular sheaf. Joshua holds the Houses differed on this principle. As to the sheaf set aside to be brought to town and then forgotten: Earlier, Hillelites held that Forgetting applied when the object was left by a specific location. However, in the second case, Forgetting does not apply, because in the latter situation there is clearcut evidence that the householder has not completely forgotten the sheaf but must eventually remember it, since he intended to do something with it ("bring it to town")—so Joshua. Leazar holds the House of Hillel says the law of Forgetting does apply, since the owner's actions reveal what was his real thought. He did not actually plan to take the sheaf to town at all, but merely to signify that, in leaving it, he did not intend that the law of Forgetting should apply. But the householder has no right to do so (following Lieberman, Tosefta, brief commentary, p. 51, n. to 1. 17; and Tosefta Kifshutah, pp. 162-5. [On the question of Joshua's relationship to M. Pe'ah, see p. 162-4, note to lines 14-5.1 have been careful not to state a view of that question, by saying that Joshua's opinion before us merely "looks like" the Mishnah.]) Note also Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 61, and compare M. Maksh. 1:3; also p. 102. What seems to have happened, therefore, is that the opinions of the Houses have come down, along with some generalized traditions on the legal matters to which the opinions pertained. The "finished" pericope before the several Yavnean Tannaitic authorities apparently consisted only of the opinions of the Houses, as specified above: forgetting] no for getting] and they agree, along with a generalized context to which the opinions pertained, or the Tannaim assumed the context on the basis of the gnomic opinions only. The Tannaitic authorities were able to differ as to the details. This strongly suggests that the form of the Housesdisputes at the outset consisted of completed opinions, perhaps or­ ganized according to legal topics. The next stage of editing supplied introductions or superscriptions to the disputes. This would account for the extreme brevity of the primary elements in the several pericopae c

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.7, 8

63

already considered, i.e. simple numbers, such as four/three, three/two, or affirmative-negative syzygies, e.g. forgetting/no forgetting, or reversals of order, i.e. winejdav vs. dayjwine, and so on. These very soon there­ after were amplified, as evidenced by the tendency to supply topical superscriptions or other appropriate augmentations. The third stage was the combination of the amplified pericopae into organized collec­ tions or lists, as in M. Ber. 8:1-8 and elsewhere, or their inclusion in other settings entirely. See Epstein, Mishnah, p. 5. II.i.7. Sweet oil— The House of Shammai declare liable. And the House of Hillel declare exempt. [M. Demai 1:3, trans. Danby, p. 21 (y. Demai 1:3)] Comment: The issue is whether sweet oil purchased from an outsider ('am ha*ares) is liable to the laws of ^^/-produce or not. If it is, it must be tithed. The Hillelites say that since the oil is not to be eaten, it is exempt from the rule. The form is conventional: Problem, House of Shammai, House of Hillel. The opinions of the Houses, as often, are expressed in single roots, HYB, PTR, in plural, intensive present participles. The pericope must be a unity, and no element is gloss. No later masters refer to the pericope, nor does it relate to its setting, ex­ cept in theme: exemption from the rules of ^?^/-produce. See Tos. Demai 1:26-7, below p. 65. II.i.8.A. Z)£/ffrf/-produce may be given to the poor and to billeted troops [or, guests] to eat. B. Rabban Gamaliel used to give dfe^z/-produce to his laborers to eat. C. [As to] Almoners (GB'YSDQH)— The House of Shammai say, "They give what has been tithed to them that do not give tithe and what is untithed to them that do give tithe; thus every man will eat of what is duly tithed (MTWQN)." But the sages say, "[Almoners] collect [food] and distribute [it] re­ gardless (§TM) [of the rules of demai-\>toz\xiz€\, and he who wants to tithe it [according to the rules of demai-\>too\\iz€[ will tithe it." [M. Demai 3:1, trans. Danby, p. 22 (b. Ber. 47a, y. Demai 3:1, b. Shab. 127b, b. <Eruv. 17b, 31b, b. Pes. 35b, b. Suk. 35b)] Comment: The pericope is a composite of three separate, but related elements: Demai and the poor/workersjtroops. Part A is not a super-

64

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.8, 9

scription for the rest, but an independent lemma, to which part B, a story about Gamaliel's practice, is attached. Part C is separate from the foregoing, as follows: As to collectors of charity T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y , " T h e y g i v e w h a t is t i t h e d t o h i m w h o d o e s n o t t i t h e [and t h e r e v e r s e ] . "

Then comes an obvious gloss: They

will b e

f o u n d [that] each m a n eats w h a t is in o r d e r ( M T W Q N ) .

And finally: A n d t h e sages say, " T h e y c o l l e c t r e g a r d l e s s ( § T M ) a n d d i s t r i b u t e r e g a r d l e s s ( § T M ) , a n d h e w h o w a n t s t o o r d e r [ p r o p e r l y ] ( T Q N ) [ = t i t h e ] , let h i m order."

The form exhibits the curious difference that in place of the Hillelites are the "sages." We do not know who those sages are. Clearly, the editor has followed the usual form; but, apparently not having a Hillelite attribution, he has inserted anonymous "sages." This might suggest that where Hillelite-materials were not available, they some­ times were not invented. We have no evidence as to the time of redac­ tion; we do not know which Gamaliel is involved. No other named sages appear in context. He would seem to stand closer to the Hillelite position. II.i.9.A. The House of Shammai say, "A man may sell his olives only to an Associate (HBR)." The House of Hillel say, "Even to one that [only] pays Tithes." B. And the more scrupulous (SNW'Y) of the House of Hillel used to behave according to the words of the House of Shammai. (M. Demai 6:6, trans. Danby, p. 25) Comment: The pericope is abbreviated, for we have no superscrip­ tion to supply the topic or principle of law. This is included in the opening lemma, attributed to the House of Shammai, because it comes first. A balanced pericope would have given approximately the same number of words to both Houses: As to selling olives : T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y , " O n l y t o a haver" T h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, "Also t o o n e w h o t i t h e s "

(but who cannot be relied upon to preserve the olives in a state of ritual cleanness). The pericope is therefore somewhat developed beyond what we should have anticipated as the primitive form.

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.5

65

The subscription that the scrupulous Hillelites followed the Sham­ maite rule looks like the gloss of a later authority who agreed with the Shammaite opinion, therefore approved those who followed it. Since by later times the law nearly everywhere followed the Hillelites, it was necessary to express disagreement by attributing to "the scrupulous" conformity to the more stringent view. The subscribed gloss does not necessarily derive from Shammaite tradents. Albeck explains (Seder Zera'im, p. 87) that the Hillelites hold one need not take for granted that the purchaser is going to prepare the olives to receive uncleanness. He may consume them while they are still dry and therefore unable to receive uncleanness. This is consistent with other Hillelite rulings which give the benefit of the doubt to normally unreliable people, e.g. M. Shev. 5:8. II.ii.5.A. A s t o s w e e t o i l ^ M N ' R B ) — The House of Shammai declare liable. And the House of Hillel declare free [of liability to the laws of demai], B. R. Nathan said, "The House of Hillel declare free of liability [of the laws of demai] only the oil of rose (PLYTWN)." C. Others say in the name of R. Nathan, "The House of Hillel declare free of liability the oil of rose and iris (WWYRYNWN). [Tos. Demai 1:26-7, ed. Lieberman, p. 67, lines 66-69 (y. Dem. 1:3)] Comment: See above, M. Demai 1:3. Judah the Patriarch has dropped the qualifying remarks attributed by Nathan to the House of Hillel. We do not know how Nathan knew such a tradition. Lieberman explains (ad loc.) that these are special cases. No principle of law is involved. This contradicts the version of M. Demai 1:3. According to Nathan the dispute concerned the particular oils specified by him: As to rose I iris oil H o u s e o f S h a m m a i d e c l a r e liable H o u s e o f H i l l e l d e c l a r e f r e e [of l i a b i l i t y ]

Judah the Patriarch has preferred a superscription of a far more en­ compassing sort: As to [all]

sweet oil

Clearly, the tradition of the Houses consisted only of House of Shammai j . . declare liablejnot liable. The later tradents then had to sort out the legal issues to which the tradition in abbreviated form was supposed to pertain. Another form for Nathan's opinion would be, They disputed only concerning, or even MWD YM—they agree + L MH NHLQW—con-

Hillel.

C

NEUSNER, T h e Rabbinic T r a d i t i o n s about t h e P h a r i s e e s before 70, I I

5

66

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.6, III.i.1, II.i.10

cerning what did they differ. But these formulae never occur in a Nathanlemma. II.ii.6. The excess (MWTR) of the 'omer, and the two breads, and the showbread, and the remnants of the meal offerings, and the supple­ ments (TW$PT) of the first fruits— R. Simeon b. Judah says in the name of R. Simeon, "The House of Shammai declare liable. "And the House of Hillel declare exempt." (Tos. Demai 1:28, ed. Lieberman, pp. 67-8, lines 69-71) Comment: Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshutah to Zera'im, pp. 206-7, refers to M. Zev. 9:5, 14:3: This is the 'omer that comes from grain whose processing was completed by an 'am hd'ares. The House of Shammai rule that things which are food are liable to the laws of demai, but edibles used for the Temple altar do not come under the laws of demai. R. Simeon holds that the House of Shammai disagreed on all matters listed in M. Demai 1:3. If the dispute is genuine, it means the Temple priests could not be trusted to keep the Pharisaic demai-tules even for the cultic table. II.ii.6*. Tos. Demai 2:12 is discussed below, III.ii.38, b. Bekh. 30b. III.i.1. WTNY: R. Simeon b. Judah says in the name of R. Simeon, "Hallah— "The House of Shammai declare liable. "And the House of Hillel declare exempt." [y. Demai 5:1, repr. Gilead, p. 19b (Tos. Demai 1:28, ed. Lieberman, p. 67)] Comment: The form is standard, and the pericope shows how readily later generations made use of it without necessarily having access to antecedent traditions. The issue is whether the law of demai applies to hallah. Earlier it is taught that the hallah of an 'am ha*ares is free of the obligation of demai. II.i.10. He who would lay out his field in plots (M§R) each bearing a different kind [of crop]— The House of Shammai say, "[Between each he must leave a space equal to] three furrows of ploughed land." And the House of Hillel say, "The width of a Sharon yoke."

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.10,11

67

And the opinion of the one is near the opinion of the other. [M. Kila'im 2:6, trans. Danby, p. 30 (y. Kil. 2:4)] Comment: The law concerns planting mixed seeds in a vineyard, so that the distance between the various varieties is such as not to violate the taboo against sowing mixed seeds. The case before us concerns laying out furrows bearing different species. The "dispute" concerns the choice of language of the Houses' respective rulings, for, as the gloss makes explicit, the actual differences are not considerable. Since there is distinguishable ground between the furrows, the law of Kila im does not apply. In M. Kila'im 2:9 we have a similar super­ scription, "He who wishes to lay out his field. . ." with no reference to the Houses. There Meir, the sages, and Eliezer b. Jacob participate. It is difficult to imagine the original dispute of the Houses, if the only considerable difference was in word-choice. Perhaps, as the glossator says, there was no substantial difference between them at all, but rather, the Houses handed on pretty much the same measurement in varying language, and later on the differences in the language were set into dispute form. This seems to occur fairly often, particularly where measurements are concerned. y

Il.i.l 1 .A. Vineyard patch (QRHT HKRM)— The House of Shammai say, "[At least] twenty-four cubits [square]." And the House of Hillel say: "Sixteen cubits." The outer space of a vineyard (MHWL HKRM)— The House of Shammai say, "[At least] sixteen cubits." And the House of Hillel say, "Twelve cubits." B. What is a 'vineyard patch'? [The part of] a vineyard that is bare of vines in its midst. If this is less than sixteen cubits [square], seed may not be sown there; but if it is [at least] sixteen cubits [square], they must allow the vines enough space for their tillage, and they may sow in what is left. [M. Kila'im 4:1, trans. Danby, p. 32 (y. Kil. 4:1, b. <Eruv. 3b, 93a)] Comment: The purpose is to signify a baldspot (QRHT) in the vineyard, where seeds may be sown without violating the taboo. What is striking is that the opinions of the Houses are kept in their primary form, then the gloss (part B) explains what the Houses are talking about. Thus Vineyard

patch

House of Shammai: twenty-four

68

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.12

House of Hillel:

Sixteen

Outer space of vineyard House of Shammai: Sixteen House of Hillel: Twelve Then comes What is a vineyard patch? And in M. Kela'im 4:2, the parallel, What is the outer space of the vineyard} The what is clauses serve as commentaries to the enigmatic language of the Houses. The glossator has followed the law according to the Hillelites (sixteen/twelve) when explaining the case and giving examples, which proves that the gloss is Hillelite and obviously comes later than the original Houses-pericope. In M. Kila'im 4:3, Judah b. Ilai disputes the glossator's definitions, but he does not touch on the opinions of the Houses one way or the other. Where Hillelites inserted glosses, definitions or supplements into completed Houses-pericopae, they did not change the existing mate­ rials, but they naturally did refer to their own ruling. The cited example, therefore, will give the correct impression that the Hillelite view is law. II.i.l2.A. He who plants a [single] row of five vines— The House of Shammai say, "[This counts as a] vineyard." And the House of Hillel say, "[It does] not [count as a] vineyard, unless there are there two rows." B. Therefore if he sows [within the] four cubits of the vineyard— The House of Shammai say, "He rendered forfeit [Lit.: sanctified, QD$] one row." And the House of Hillel say, "He rendered forfeit two rows." [M. Kila'im 4:5, trans. Danby, p. 33 (y. Kil. 4:2, 3, 6)] Comment: Part A is in standard form: vineyardjnot vineyard, but with an important gloss. If it is a vineyard, one must plant seed no nearer than four cubits. If not, one may plant within six tefahs. The issue is, Is the collection of five vines regarded as a vineyard or not? The House of Shammai say, Vineyard. The House of Hillel say, No vineyard. Then comes the gloss, "Unless there are there two rows." How many plants are in the two rows? That is the crux of the matter. Since the super­ scription specifies five plants to begin with, we might have imagined that the Hillelites are talking about two rows of ten plants, and the . difference between the Houses is fivejten. However, M. Kila'im 4:6, immediately following, takes for granted that three plants constitute one row for the purposes of defining a vineyard. Therefore the Hillelite view presumably is that six plants in two rows will constitute a vineyeard, but not five plants in one row. If so, the dispute ought to have read something like this:

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.13

69

He who plants a row of vines H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, Five [equal a v i n e y a r d ] H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, Six [in t w o r o w s e q u a l a v i n e y a r d ] .

The attribution to the Shammaites poses no problem in its present form. But the Hillelite lemma is ambiguous and awkward, Not vineyard unless. . . The simpler form has been broken and reconstructed so as to give the Shammaites the ruling, and to leave the Hillelites in the position of supplying an enigmatic saying, itself requiring a gloss. The joining-word of part B, LPYKK, is also difficult. One is left to wonder whether a later authority has drawn the implications of the earlier dispute, now phrasing the whole as a direct attribution to the Houses. The rule concerns one who sows within the four amot (cubits) he must have for the tending of the vineyard. How much land does he have to forfeit? The language is QD§ (as in Deut. 22:9); he has sancti­ fied one row, according to the Shammaites, and two according to the Hillelites. Normally one should not sow within four amot of the vine­ yards. If he does, he gives up the outermost row of the vineyard, nearest the seed, for the Shammaites hold one row is called vineyard; and the Hillelites require both the outermost and that next to it, since they hold that vineyard means no less than two rows. Surely it would have been possible to present the whole as a com­ posite pericope: He who plants a row of vines H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : F i v e [equal a v i n e y a r d ] House o f Hillel: Six He who sows within four amot H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : L o s e s ( Q D § ) one r o w (five plants) House of Hillel: L o s e s two r o w s (six p l a n t s )

It looks as if therefore is a joining word connecting two quite indep­ endent Houses-disputes. Alternatively, the Houses-disputes originally consisted only of the numbers five] six, one I two, and these have been broken down into two separate, but thematically related laws. Or perhaps in choosing LPYKK as the joining-word, the redactor wished to make it clear that it was he himself who drew the logical consequen­ ces of the former pericope, but no lemma attributing such opinions to the Houses themselves existed. C

II.i.l3.A. What is the 'trellised vine' ( RYS)? If a row of five vines was planted beside a fence ten handbreadths high or beside a ditch ten handbreadths deep and four wide, four cubits are allotted for its tillage. B. The House of Shammai say, "They measure the four cubits from the root of the vines toward the field [beyond the wall]."

70

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.13

And the House of Hillel say, "From the wall [itself] toward the field." C. R. Yohanan b. Nuri said, "All err that say so; but [the House of Hillel said that] if there was a space of four cubits from the root of the vines to the wall, space enough is allotted for its tillage, and seed may be sown over what is left." D. And how much is the space needful for the tillage of the vine? Six handbreadths in every direction. R.
The rest (The four cubits need be measured only) has been added, and since the House of Shammai comes first, its saying has necessarily been aug­ mented for the sake of completeness and clarity. The foregoing account presupposes the agreement of the Houses that, with reference to the trellised vine, even one row is judged like a vineyard. Yohanan b. Nuri (part C), however, revises the dispute. Even in connection with the trellised vine, one row is not regarded by the House of Hillel as a vineyard, and one does not concede to it four amot. If between the trellised vine and the wall are four cubits, one allows for its tillage six tefahs, just as for a row of single plants, and one may then sow the rest. But if there are not four amot between the wall and the plants, it is prohibited to sow between the wall and the plants, even though their law is not as that of the vineyard. Yohanan thus has completely ignored the Shammaite position, rejected the antecedent

71

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — I I . i . 1 4 , II.ii.7, 8

version of the dispute, and supplied his own. Albeck comments p. 366) that the tradition of Yohanan b. Nuri must have been, "As to the trellised vine, one separates from it four cubits and provides it with its tillage." Tos. Kil. 4:1 reads, "Rabban Gamaliel and his court ordained that one separates four cubits from the root of the vines to the wall." This follows Yohanan b. Nuri's tradition, that if there are not four cubits in the trellised vine, it is prohibited to sow there. (Seder Zercfim,

II.i.14. As for the weasel, R. Yosi says, "The House of Shammai say, 'An olive's bulk conveys uncleanness by carrying, and a lentil's bulk by contact'." ^ ^ ^ ^ [

M

p

( y

8:4)] Comment: R. Yosi presents the Shammaites' view, that the weasel is in the category of a "doubtful beast" since it may be a wild animal. The House of Shammai hold that one who carries as much as an olive's bulk of the weasel, as of the corpse of any wild beast, even though he does not touch it, is unclean; and because the weasel may be regarded as an insect, one who touches as much as a lentil's bulk is unclean, but the insect does not render unclean by carrying. So the stringencies of both categories apply. It is difficult to ascertain the source of Yosi b. Halafta's ruling for the Shammaites. No equivalent Hillelite opinion occurs.

11.11.7. [As to] the caper-bush (SLP)— The House of Shammai say, "[It constitutes] mixed seeds in the vineyard." And the House of Hillel say, "[It does] not [constitute] mixed seeds." And both (>YLW W'YLW) agree that it is subject to the law of [Tos. Kila'im 3:17, ed. Lieberman, p. 217, lines 60-1 (b. Ber. 36a, y. Ma'aserot 4:4, y. Kil. 5:8)] 11.11.8. "The young shoot that passes over a stone, even though there are only two fingers' [depth] of dirt on it—one may sow on it," the words of R. Meir. R. Yosa says, "Three fingers." Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, "The House of Shammai say, 'Ten tefahs? "And the House of Hillel say, 'Six tefahs.' " (Tos. Kila'im 4:11b, ed. Lieberman, p. 220, lines 41-4)

72

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.8, II.i.15, 1 6

Comment: II.ii.7 is a completely conventional pericope. In the vine­ yard serves both Houses' lemmas, y. Kil. 5:8 adds a second element on which the Houses agree: It is "not mixed seeds among seeds"(ZR'YM). Then, allagree. . . II.ii.8 is still another instance in which the generation of Usha and other, later Tannaim supply opinions in the name of the Houses. The issue between them is what measurement pertains to the vine below the ground. The House of Hillel, which earlier permitted six tefahs for the explosed plant (above, M. Kil. 6:1.C-D, following Yohanan b. Nuri), maintain (or, are given) the same position here. The House of Shammai hold that the law of the vine planted in the ground is the same as the law of the exposed vine, and a space of ten is required (Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshutah, adloc, p. 644, to lines 42-3). Once again we are left to wonder at Simeon b. Gamaliel's source for the dispute of the Houses. M. Kil. 7:1 holds that if there are not three tefahs of dirt on it, one may not plant seed there. Judah the Patriarch therefore has ig­ nored the alleged dispute of the Houses; but he must have known it. II.i.15. Until what time do they plough a tree-planted field in the year before ( RB) the Seventh Year? The House of Shammai say, "So long as this benefits the produce [of the sixth year]." The House of Hillel say, "Until Pentecost." And the opinion of the one is near the opinion of the other. C

[M. Shev. 1:1, trans. Danby, p. 39 (y. Shev. 1:1, b. M.Q. 3b)] Comment: The context is the additional Sabbatical months added to the year before the actual Sabbatical Year. Work must not be done then to benefit the produce of the Seventh Year. The Houses say much the same thing, but in different language. The principle is not disputed. The gloss again says no actual disagreement between the Houses existed; each phrased its opinion in its own way. Both preserved their own word-choices, later on combined in what apparently was the only form available for that purpose: the dispute. M. Shev. 1:2 then provides a necessary gloss, defining "a treeplanted field." No dispute between the Houses centers on that defini­ tion. It is difficult to assign responsibility for the gloss. It is neutral, but not necessarily early. See Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 228. II.i.l6.A. A field that has been cleared of thorns [in the Seventh Year] may be sown in the eighth year (MWS'Y SBY'YT). [But one]

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.16

73

that has been prepared, or used by cattle, may not be sown in the eighth year. B. A field that has been prepared— The House of Shammai say, "They do not eat its produce in the Seventh Year." But the House of Hillel say, "They eat." C. The House of Shammai say, "They do not eat produce of the Seventh Year if it is by favor [of the owner]." The House of Hillel say, "They eat it whether by favor or not by favor." D. R. Judah says, "The rule is to the contrary; this is one of the lenient rulings of the House of Shammai and the stringent rulings of the House of Hillel." E. He who thins out (HMDL) olive trees [in the Seventh Year]— The House of Shammai say, "He razes them to the roots (YGM)." The House of Hillel say, "He uproots them (YSRS)." F. But they agree concerning one who levels his field [that he may only] raze [the trees to the roots]. G. Who is he that 'thins out'? [He that removes but] one or two. And he that 'levels'? [He that removes at least] three [growing] side by side. This applies to what grows within a man's own domain; but within the domain of his fellow he that levels may also uproot. [M. Shev. 4:2, 4, trans. Danby, p. 43 (y. Shev. 4:2,4,9:6)] Comment: The issue is, What work is permitted in the Seventh Year? And what to do with the produce thereof? M. Shev. 4:2, given in parts A-D, is a composite. Part B concerns the disposition of the produce of a field which in the Seventh Year has been improved or used by cattle, therefore fertilized. The House of Shammai hold one may not consume the produce of such a field in the Seventh Year, even though it may have grown without the farmer's cultivation. The House of Hillel say it may be eaten. The form is standard: Fruit of a field that has been improved in the Seventh Year: H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : T h e y d o n o t eat H o u s e o f H i l l e l : T h e y eat.

The Shammaite-opinion has been augmented with an explanatory clause, itsfruit in the Seventh Year. The unglossed opinions of the Houses originally would have been noteatjeat.

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.16

PartC lacks a topic-sentence or superscription but is perfectly clear because of the conventional augmentation of the opening clause, the Shammaite saying. The issue is, Are the fruits of the field ownerless property? The Shammaites hold that the produce is regarded as owner­ less property; therefore if the owner's permission is needed or granted, then the produce may not be consumed. The Hillelites hold that the produce may be consumed whether by favor or otherwise. In part D Judah b. Ilai reverses matters, on the principle that this matter of law should have the Shammaites in the lenient position, therefore the Shammaites must be given the opinion that one may eat the fruit whether or not by the owner's favor, and the Hillelites, only if it is not with the owner's favor. See Sifra Behar, 1:5, and M. Ed. 5:1. Judah the Patriarch has ignored Judah b. Ilai's tradition. Obviously, Judah b. Ilai had, or would have fabricated, something like the following: c

As to fruits

of the seventh year

T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : [ T h e y eat t h e m ] b y f a v o r o r n o t b y f a v o r . The House o f Hillel: [ T h e y eat t h e m o n l y ] n o t b y f a v o r [ O r : t h e y d o n o t eat t h e m b y f a v o r ] .

The primary language before all authorities therefore was simply: By favor—not

by favor I not by favor.

Clearly, to keep matters straight, various sorts of mnemonic devices must have circulated, helping the tradent to assign the correct opinion to the correct House. This further implies that the original tradition left matters unclear, and consisted, as we have several times noticed, of a few gnomic words, later on spelled out, assigned to the Houses, and glossed (as in M. Shev. 1:2 above, for one instance, were the 'treeplanted field' of which the Houses spoke is carefully defined). M. Shev. 4:4, parts E, F, and G, above, contains in part G the same sort of extended gloss of the Houses' opinions. Part E concerns what work may be done in connection with thin­ ning out olive trees. The Shammaites hold one may cut down the trees to the roots, but may not pull up the roots, since that would appear to be improving the field. The Hillelites concede (part F) that in leveling the field—therefore not merely thinning out the trees—the farmer may not pull up the roots. Part G then supplies a definition for the foregoing rules: thinning out is removing one or two, but leveling is pulling up three together. Part G applies to both Houses, merely a philological gloss. The form of M. Shev. 4:4 is standard. The only variation is in the selection of different words for the opinions of the Houses, rather than using affirmative/negative versions of the same verbal root; the Sham­ maites say YGM, he may raze, the Hillelites, Y§R§, he may uproot, both in the affirmative. In fact, the difference between razing and up­ rooting is the point of the dispute. The form looks suspiciously like a difference merely in word-choices for saying pretty much the same

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

75

— ILi.17

thing (e.g. M. Shev. 1:1). It is possible that no dispute originally existed between the Houses, but rather different verbal traditions persisted. In this case both Houses held one may indeed thin out the olive trees. In preserving the two traditions in a single pericope, it became important not only to keep the language used by the Houses, but also to stress that a dispute, or difference, actually separated them. Here, unlike M. Shev. 1:1, a substantive difference could be attached to the words chosen by the Houses. But a different gloss, the opinion of one is near the opinion of the other, would have served almost as satis­ factorily. This is all the more evident in part F, where the range of disagreement is narrowed still further: two vs. three trees. y. Shev. 4:2 has Tarfon follow the House of Shammai, with the same result as M. Ber. 1:3B. If not with permission, as the House of Sham­ mai is not a later gloss, then Tarfon supplies both the terminus ante quern and the refutation of Judah b. Ilai, part D. See Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 94; Mishnah, p. 58. II.i.l7.A. After what time is it forbidden to cut down a tree in the Seventh Year? The House of Shammai say, "Any tree [may not be cut down] after it puts forth [leaves]." The House of Hillel say, "Carob trees—after their branches begin to droop; vines—after they produce berries; olive trees—after they blossom; and any other tree—after it puts forth [leaves]." B. Any tree that has reached the season, when it is liable to tithes, may be cut down. [M. Shev. 4:10, trans. Danby, p. 44 (b. Pes. 52b)] Comment: Produce in the Seventh Year may only be eaten, not destroyed, according to M. Shev. 8:2: T h e p r o d u c e o f t h e S e v e n t h Y e a r is f o r e a t i n g , d r i n k i n g , ( e t c . ) — a n d n o t for destruction.

The pericope before us presupposes and follows the general rule, though not necessarily in its present form. The Shammaite rule applies overall. The Hillelites supply definitions for various trees, ending with the definition of the Shammaites. Thus: After

what time is it forbidden to cut down trees?

H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : E v e r y tree—after in puts forth House o f Hillel: C a r o b s , v i n e s , o l i v e t r e e s etc. [And] it puts forth.

every

tree—after

The rule for carobs, vines, and olives differs from that for the re-

76

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.18, 19

mainder. It depends in these instances not on leaves but on other phenomena. At issue, therefore, is whether specific rules pertain to these three or not. Perhaps, once again, the real difference is in the style of formulating the Houses' respective opinions. The Shammaites may have advanced a general principle. The Hillelites obviously did not differ about the general principle, but provided a number of specific illustrative instances. It all comes down to the same thing. So the dispute-form required the specification of distinctions where no real differences separated the substance of the Houses' opinions. Il.i.l8. When arum (LWP) remains from the sixth year until the Seventh Year, so, too, with summer-onions and madder from good soil— The House of Shammai say, "They may only be dug up with wooden rakes." The House of Hillel say, "With metal spades." But they agree that madder from stony soil may be dug up with metal spades. ^ ^ ^ trans. Danby, p. 45 (y. Shev. 5:2)] Comment: The form is standard and poses no problems. The speci­ fied produce has ripened in the sixth year. Normally, one uproots them with spades, not merely pulls them up. The House of Shammai re­ quire a change in the normal procedure so that the process will not appear to be working the land in the Seventh Year. The Hillelites hold one may do so in the ordinary way. As to the agreement on madder, it is because one simply cannot do it any other way (so Albeck, Seder Zera'im, p. 152). The Houses' opinions are balanced, except they uproot them:

M'RWPWT $L<S QRDWMWT SLMTKT But here the issue is not mere word-choice, but a substantive difference. ILi. 19.A. The House of Shammai say, "He should not sell him a ploughing heifer in the Seventh Year." And the House of Hillel permit it, since he can slaughter it. B. One may sell him produce even in time of sowing; even if it is known that he has a threshing-floor, one may lend him a /^-measure; and one may give him small money in change even if it is known that he employs laborers. But if [it is known that these things are required] expressly [to transgress the Seventh Year law], they are forbidden. [M. Shev. 5:8, trans. Danby, p. 45 (y. Shev. 5:3, b. A.Z. 15b)]

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.20

77

Comment: The pericope supplies full, unbalanced statements to both Houses. This is unusual; especially unexpected is attaching the reason to the Hillelite ruling. Part B adds further examples of the Hillelite view, presumably from the same glossator, ending with the restrictive aspect of the Hillelite ruling. The pericope is apt to be a highly de­ veloped summary of a primary dispute that would have looked some­ thing like this: As

to selling a ploughing heiferi n the Seventh Year to one suspected of not observing

the

law:

House of Shammai:

Prohibit

House of Hillel:

Permit

Everything else is a Hillelite gloss. As in earlier instances the redactor has given a full account of the dispute in the Shammaite part of the pericope, then preserved the Hillelite part in its primary form: permit. The law in question concerns selling to someone who may not scrupulously observe the Sabbath-year. M. Shev. 5:7 supplies the antecedent of him: a gentile in Palestine and a Jew abroad. To the Hillelites is attributed the more lenient view. Since the heifer does not give milk, the Shammaites imagine it can only be used for ploughing, thus violating the law. The Hillelites take account of an unlikely possibility and so permit the sale. The context is laws concerning sales in the Seventh Year. Immediately preceding is a general rule: "Any implement is forbidden [for sale] whose sole use is one that transgresses [Seventh Year law]. But it is allowed if its use may be either one for­ bidden or one permissible" (M. Shev. 5:6). The general rule therefore is formulated on the basis of the Hillelite principle. The Shammaites would not have used sole, rather general, or something similar. The pericope before us ought to antedate the general rule. Tos. Shev. 4:5b has the same dispute in principle, this time about selling land; and Tos. Shev. 6:19 has a less exact parallel. II.i.20.A. Seventh Year produce may not be sold, whether by bulk, weight or number; even figs [may not be sold] by number or vegetables by weight. B. The House of Shammai say, "Nor even (>P) in bundles." And the House of Hillel say, "What is usually tied up in bundles in the house may be tied up in bundles in the market; like, for example, leeks and asphodel." „ ^ . . ^ (M. Shev. 8:3, trans. Danby, p. 48) 0 1

Comment:

n

o x

The general rule is given in M. Shev. 7:3:

. . . n o n e m a y d o business w i t h S e v e n t h Y e a r p r o d u c e , o r w i t h F i r s t l i n g s , o r w i t h H e a v e - o f f e r i n g , o r w i t h c a r r i o n , o r w i t h w h a t is terefah, o r w i t h f o r ­ b i d d e n beasts a n d c r e e p i n g t h i n g s . [In t h e S e v e n t h Y e a r ] a m a n m a y n o t g a t h e r w i l d v e g e t a b l e s and sell t h e m

78

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.9

in t h e m a r k e t ; y e t h e m a y c o l l e c t t h e m , a n d his s o n m a y sell t h e m f o r h i m i n t h e m a r k e t . If h e h a d g a t h e r e d t h e m f o r his o w n use a n d a n y t h i n g r e m a i n s , he m a y sell it.

The general rule in part A above amplifies the foregoing. One may not sell even what one is allowed to sell in the Seventh Year in such a way that it looks like doing business in the normal fashion. To this general rule, the House of Shammai now add a detail: One may not even make up bundles, as is normally done. The House of Hillel say one makes minor changes in the ordinary manner of doing things and may therefore bind up in the market rather than at home, with the gloss's supplying examples. It is difficult to imagine the brief pericope of which this is an amplification. Perhaps: [ G e n e r a l r u l e : O n e d o e s n o t sell b y b u l k , w e i g h t , n u m b e r ] As to making bundles House of Shammai: Prohibit House of Hillel:

Permit.

This, however, is manifestly unsatisfactory, for it fails to find a place for the exact opinion of the Hillelites, which one can hardly reduce to a simple one or two-word formula. If one added as usual at home, the Shammaites would be misrepresented, for they prohibit under all curcumstances. II.ii.9. One may water the plants until the New Year. R. Yosa b. Kifar says in the name of R. Leazar, "The House of Shammai say, 'One waters the foliage, and it drips on to the root.' "The House of Hillel say, '[One waters both] on the foliage and on the root.' "The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, 'If you permit him part, permit him all. If you do not permit him all, do not permit him part.

[Tos. Shev. 1:5, ed. Lieberman, p. 166, line 19—p. 167, line 23 (y. Shev. 2:4)]

Comment: M. Shev. 2:4 has the Shammaite opinion in the name of Eliezer b. Sadoq, "A man may even water the foliage in the Seventh Year itself, but not the roots." The Leazar here is, however, Eliezer b. Shamrm^a, so Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshutah, p. 488, to lines 19-20. I see no difficulty with the logia attributed to the Houses, though the • Shammaite one in primary form ought to have begun, "Foliage, not root," corresponding in form to the Hillelite one. The colloquy how­ ever is truncated; the expected Shammaite response is not given. This suggests that the colloquy's unanswered question is a Hillelite gloss, deriving from circles other than those responsible for the HilleliteShammaite exchanges seen earlier. The Hillelite tendency elsewhere is

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.10

79

to point up Shammaite inconsistences, e.g. in connection with picking olives and grapes, above, I, pp. 318-321. II.ii.10. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not differ concerning that which was complete, that it [is assigned to] the past [year], and concerning that which has not blossomed, that it [is assigned to] the coming one. "Concerning what did they differ? Concerning the pod (TWRML), "For the House of Shammai say, '[It is assigned] to the past [year].' "And the House of Hillel say, '[To the] coming [one].' " [Tos. Shev. 2:6, ed. Lieberman, p. 170, lines 21-25 (y. Shev. 2:8, Tos. Ma. 1:5)] Comment: The dispute relates to M. Shev. 2:7-8. M. Shev. 2:7 specifies that if various species, e.g. rice and sesame, have taken root before the New Year, they are tithed after the manner of the past year; i.e. if the past year was liable for First and Second Tithe, it is given; if for First and Poorman's Tithe, that is given. But if not, they are for­ bidden in the Seventh Year, and then are to be tithed after the manner of the coming year. As to Egyptian beans, Simeon of Shezur assigns to them the same rule if they are sown for seed. Simeon says, "If they are large beans." Eleazar says, "Large beans are treated in like manner only if they have formed pods before the New Year." As to shallots and Egyptian beans not watered within thirty days of the New Year, they are tithed after the manner of the past year and are permitted in the Seventh Year (M. Shev. 2:9). Otherwise they are forbidden in the Seventh Year and are tithed after the manner of the coming year. Simeon b. Gamaliel now introduces the issue of a dispute of the Houses, and holds it concerns whether pods have formed—a case be­ tween a completed growth-cycle and a growth-cycle not yet begun. In such an intermediate, ambiguous situation the Houses take the two possible positions. We do not know how Simeon b. Gamaliel knew the tradition on the Houses-dispute, which is absent in the corresponding Mishnahs, and for which we have no chain of tradition or earlier allusions. But a parallel problem is in Tos. Shev. 4:21. The simplest possible form is before us: The pod H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : T o the past [year] ( L S ' B R ) House of Hillel: T o the c o m i n g [one] ( L ' T Y D L B ' ) .

While, therefore, the form is simple and conventional, understanding its substance would have required considerable information. But this is generally the case and provides no criterion in evaluating the likely authenticity of the attribution to the original Houses. One may theorize that here the Houses serve as convenience-names, to which to attribute

80

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.ii.ll, 1 2

the two possible opinions on an intermediate or ambiguous stage of an issue. Simeon may on his own have fabricated the Houses-dispute, in conformity with a prevailing literary convention. Il.ii.l 1. [One may not sell produce of the Seventh Year to one suspected concerning the observance of the Seventh Year. . .] The House of Shammai say, "One may not sell him a field in the Seventh Year." And the House of Hillel permit [it]. [Tos. Shev. 4:5b, ed. Lieberman, p. 180, lines 10-13 (b. A.Z. 15b)] Comment: The same pattern was evident in M. Shev. 5:8. Here the dispute is extended to the sale of a field. The Hillelites depend on the unnatural assumption that the Seventh Year violator bought the field intending to plant it after the Seventh Year. The form follows that of M. Shev. 5:8: House of Shammai say, "One may not sell. . .," and House of Hillel permit. The difference is that here the superscription is not inserted into the Shammaite opinion as explanatory matter, because it does not pertain, but stands before, and independent of, the Sham­ maite lemma, as one would expect, since it speaks of produce, not a field. The superscription therefore has merely given an antecedent to him, such as is lacking in M. Shev. 5:8. The Hillelite position here lacks the gloss "since he may perchance. . ." Dropping the glosses, the whole pericope therefore follows M. Shev. without significant change of form. That means available Houses' opinions have been assigned to a new legal issue. But these opinions, consisting—in effect—of prohibit] permit, ate standard and not intrinsically related to the superscription to which they are assigned. C

ILii. 12. (M SH B) R.
Comment: The story is simple, the background complex. Lieberman explains: The first of Shevat pertains to the third or sixth year of the seven-year cycle. R. Aqiba agrees with R. Gamaliel (M. Bik. 2:6) that the etrog when it is picked is to be tithed. The House of Shammai (M. R.H. 1:1) hold that the first of Shevat is the New Year for trees, so it is c

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

81

— II.ii.13, II.i.21

already the third (or sixth) year of the cycle, and Poorman's Tithe must be given. The House of Hillel place the New Year on the fifteenth of the same month, so it is still the second or fifth year of the cycle, and the etrog is liable for Second Tithe. R. 'Aqiba has separated the Second Tithe and both redeemed it and given it to the poor, therefore satisfying the opinions of both Houses (Lieberman, Tosefta ZeraHm, p. 185, note to 1.71). For our purpose the story is valuable in indicating, first, a terminus ante quern for the rulings of M. R.H. 1:1 (below), second, an attitude of respect for the Shammaites one would not have expected on the basis of the Tarfon/Ishmael stories in connection with the Shema . 1

ILii. 13. The House of Shammai say, "They do not sell the produce of the Seventh year for coins, but for produce, so that he will not purchase for them [the coins] a spade." And the House of Hillel permit [it]. (Tos. Shev. 6:19, ed. Lieberman, p. 192, lines 33-5) Comment: The problem is that the man may buy something which is not for eating, as in M. Shev. 8:2, "Seventh Year produce is intended for use as food, drink, or unguent. . ." The positions are consistent with Tos. Shev. 4:5b. The remarks on the form of that pericope pertain here as well.

II.i.21 .A. Heave-offering may not be given from olives instead of from oil, or from grapes instead of from wine. B. If they gave Heave-offering— The House of Shammai say, "[It may still be deemed] Heave-offering of the olives or of the grapes themselves (TRWMT <SMN BHM)." And the House of Hillel say, "Their Heave-offering is not Heaveoffering."

[M. Ter. 1:4, trans. Danby, p. 52 (y. Ter. 1:2, 5; 4:4; M. <Ed. 5:2, b. Hul. 163a)]

Comment: The issue is set in part A, which necessarily comes before part B ; the Houses here differ only on secondary matters. The presump­ tion is that the law-code existed in its final form before the Houses discussed the problem before us, as is often the case. The rule is, One does not give Heave-offering from produce whose preparation is completed for produce whose preparation is incomplete (M. Ter. 1:10). The House of Shammai hold (Albeck, Seder ZeraHm, p. 179n) that the Heave-offering he is liable to separate from the olives and grapes themselves inheres in the olives and grapes which he has already separated, but what he has separated from them for the olive-oil NEUSNER, T h e Rabbinic T r a d i t i o n s about t h e P h a r i s e e s before 70, II

6

82

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.22

or wine is not Heave-offering. Therefore the law of the olives and grapes which he has separated is like the law of a mixture of Heaveoffering with unconsecrated food. If the unconsecrated food contains one hundred times more than the quantity of the Heave-offering, it is neutralized and does not have the status of a mixture (M. Ter. 4:7). If not, the mixture is to be sold to priests, who are allowed, of course, to use it. The House of Hillel say, "Since he intended to give Heave-offering also for the oil and the wine, Heave-offering is simply not present here at all." So the dispute concerns the legal force of intention. Albeck adds that since it was common to give Heave-offering from olives for olive oil and from grapes for wine, the House of Hillel ruled stringently: even though one has given the Heave-offering, in no way has he carried out his obligation in the matter. The form is standard: If they gave

Heave-offering:

H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : T h e i r o w n H e a v e - o f f e r i n g is i n t h e m <SMN B H M ) House o f Hillel: T h e i r H e a v e - o f f e r i n g is n o t H e a v e - o f f e r i n g CYN TRWMTN TRWMH)

(TRWMT

The sayings, though metrically balanced, are not quite syzygies. On the other hand, the choice before the House of Shammai did not include the ruling Their Heave-offering is Heave-offering,which. would have been the logical and formal opposite of the Hillelites' negative. The Shammaite ruling still is brief and simple in form, matching the Hillelites' in the number of syllables. See Epstein, Mevd*ot, p. 436; Mishnah, p. 399. II.i.22. The proper measure of Heave-offering, if a man is liberal, is one-fortieth part. The House of Shammai say, "One-thirtieth." If he is liberal in medium degree, one-fiftieth part; if he is mean, onesixtieth part. ^ ^ . [

M

4

D

a

n

b

y

j

p

5 6

( y

T

e

r

4

3 ) ]

Comment: The gloss containing the House of Shammai's opinion takes for granted the existence of the structure into which it is inserted. Otherwise, the Shammaite ruling would have to be that one gives onethirtieth under all circumstances, which is impossible. The Tosefta version must be introduced for comprehension of the Shammaite lemma: The proper measure of

Heave-offering:

T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y , " I f a m a n is l i b e r a l [ L i t . : g o o d e y e ] , [ O n e ] o f t h i r t y ; i f h e is l i b e r a l i n t h e m e d i u m d e g r e e [ L i t . : i n t e r m e d i a t e ] , [one] o f f o r t y ; a n d if h e is m e a n [ L i t . : e v i l ] , [one] o f f i f t y . "

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.23

83

T h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, " I f a m a n is l i b e r a l , o n e o f f o r t y ; i f h e is l i b e r a l i n t h e m e d i u m d e g r e e , o n e o f f i f t y ; a n d i f h e is m e a n , o n e o f s i x t y . " ( T o s . T e r . 5 : 3 , ed. L i e b e r m a n , p . 1 2 9 , l i n e s 9 - 1 2 )

The Mishnaic pericope therefore is identical with, and follows, the Hillelite position, but it is not so labeled. Rather, the Shammaite view is interpolated into the Hillelite position, which is presented anony­ mously. The fact that the Shammaites held a contrary, or different, view would not have been revealed without the gloss. Otherwise, the whole Houses-pericope would have been preserved, as is ordinarily the case. The primary form of the pericope clearly must have been the numbers: Measure of

Heave-offering:

House of Shammai: 30/40/50 House o f Hillel:

40/50/60

The meaning would have been readily apparent, and no difficulty could have inhered in assigning the tradition to a particular legal problem, or —given the principle that the Hillelites normally are more liberal—the right opinion to the right House. M. Ter. 4:3 therefore looks like a defective tradition, for either the Shammaites should have been dropped altogether, or the Hillelites should have been included by name. For formal reasons the Mishnah either is a secondary development and shows us that Shammaite opinions could have been (and, in who knows how many instances, were) suppressed, or it is garbled. We have other instances of the garbling of just this sequence, best, medium, worst, below, b. R.H. See Epstein, Mishnah, p. 1008. II.L23.A. [If] one se'ah of unclean Heave-offering fell into a hundred se ahs of clean Heave-offering— The House of Shammai forbid. And the House of Hillel permit [it]. B. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, "Since clean [Heave-offering] is forbidden to non-priests, and also (>P) unclean is forbidden to priests, if the clean can be neutralized, cannot the unclean be neutralized also?" The House of Shammai said to them, "No! If common produce (HLYN),to which leniency applies and which is permitted to nonpriests, neutralizes what is clean, should Heave-offering, to which stringency does apply and which is forbidden to non-priests, neutralize what is unclean!" C. After they hadagreed— R. Eliezer says, "It should be taken up and burned." y

84

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.23

But the Sages say, "It is lost through its scantness (*BDH BM'WTH)."

[M. Ter. 5:4, trans. Danby, p. 58 (y. Ter. 5:2)]

Comment: The issue is, Is the unclean Heave-offering neutralized in the clean? The Shammaites prohibit it, and the House of Hillel permit it. According to the Shammaites it must be left to rot; the priests cannot use it ("prohibit"). The argument of the Hillelites (part B) is this: Clean Heave-offering is prohibited to non-priests, and unclean is prohibited to priests. Since clean Heave-offering is capable of being neutralized when it falls into one hundred times its quantity of unconsecrated food, so the unclean should be neutralized in clean Heave-offering. The Shammaites reply that common produce can indeed serve to neutralize what is clean. But clean Heave-offering, to which more stringent rules apply, cannot serve to neutralize unclean. PartC begins with the agree ment-iotm, but does not specify who agreed with whom. Normally, part B would have ended the argument. The Shammaites would have the last word and win. Later masters assume that the House of Shammai agreed with the House of Hillel. As it stands, after they agreed serves as a joining-formula, to tie R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus's opinion—in the present tense!—to the antecedent ele­ ments. Part C is a separate pericope, awkwardly tied to the superscription of the whole: [ If]

one se^ah of unclean Heave-offering fell

into hundred se*ahs of clean Heave-

offering : R. E l i e z e r says, " I t s h o u l d b e t a k e n u p a n d b u r n e d . " T h e sages say, " I t is l o s t [ = n e u t r a l i z e d ] t h r o u g h its s c a n t i n e s s . "

The word-choices differ from the foregoing, but the positions are the same: Eliezer =. Sages =

H o u s e of S h a m m a i H o u s e of H i l l e l

That is, the man must take up a se'ah and give it to the priest, as in the case of clean Heave-offering that is neutralized, but the se*ah is not to be eaten, rather to be burned like unclean Heave-offering (M. Tern. 7:5). Hence Eliezer forbids the unclean Heave-offering to the priest, just as do the House of Shammai. The sages' position, that it is lost (= neutral­ ized) through its scantiness, is identical with the Hillelite position. There is no necessity to supply further Heave-offering. The whole is regarded as Heave-offering, and the priests consume it in a state of cleanness. The substance of part C, excluding the curious redactional formula, after they had agreed, is a separate and complete pericope, which duplic­ ates or is duplicated by part B. The differences are in word-choice, but the law is the same. Eliezer's position is consistent in the following rulings: in M. Ter.

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

85

— II.i.23

5:2, If one se ah of unclean Heave-offering fell into a hundred se ahs of common produce; M. Ter. 5:5, If one se ah of Heave-offering fell etc., and was lifted out and again fell; M. Ter. 5:6, If one se ah of Heaveoffering fell into less than a hundred. The whole constitutes a veritable repertoire of Eliezer rulings on pretty much the same legal issue, spelled out in closely related cases. The commentaries, which suppose that the Houses came to an agreement in conformity with the Hillelite position and that afterward Eliezer disagreed, take for granted the existence of a unitary text. They therefore hold that Eliezer's position remains consistent with the Shammaites' original one, and the issue therefore becomes this: Does the man have to take up a se ah as Heave-offering for the priest, as in the case of clean Heave-offering? He does—but then it is to be burned. This, I have argued, still is in effect the Shammaite position at the outset ("prohibit"), therefore no different in substance from before. The sages' enigmatic saying is that the whole is annulled, and the commentaries see the issue as whether Heave-offering now has to be taken up. The sages' view is that it does not have to be taken up because the whole has been made Heave-offering and the priests get to consume it in a state of ritual purity (etc.) as explained above. Seeing the pericope as a complex of two versions of the same dispute, with corresponding positions taken by the Houses and the later masters, we do not have to introduce the issue of whether Heave-offering is further to be taken up. Both versions stand in direct relationship to the opening problem as given in the superscription: y

y

y

y

y

3

A se ah of unclean Heave-offering that has fallen into hundred se*ahs of clean Heaveoffering.

Which version comes first? The word-choices of the Houses-opinions are curiously inappropriate to the argument:prohibit'\^permit. They have no direct bearing on the facts of the case. One has to know that "pro­ hibit" will mean that the unclean Heave-offering is not neutralized in the clean Heave-offering, therefore is "prohibited" for priestly use. By contrast, Eliezer's language is entirely appropriate: / / should be raised up and burned. This specification of the fate of the unclean Heaveoffering answers the problem set in the topic-sentence: A se ah of un­ y

clean Heave-offering

that fell

into a hundred

y

se ahs

of clean

Heave-offering.

Likewise the Hillelite language—permit—is generalized and irrelevant to the immediate context, while the sages' language, It is lost through its scantiness, completes the topic-sentence. On the face of it, therefore, the Houses-dispute looks like an interpolation in the Eliezer-sages peri­ cope; if one dropped the Houses, the whole would be lucid and tightlyorganized. Two separate versions have been awkwardly combined, the Houses' dispute and argument, and the Eliezer-sages' formally conventional ruling (Statement of the problem, Rabbi X rules, Sages [Rabbi Y] rule). Since the latter renders more precise and clear what the former

86

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.ii.14

leaves generalized and unclear, it seems to me likely that the latter improves upon, and comes later than, the former. But this is merely a suggestion. Yavneh surely supplies the terminus ante quern. Note Epstein, Mevo*ot, p. 61 n. 20; Mishnah. p. 708. II.ii.14. [If a man] had black and white figs in his house, and so two kinds of wheat, they give Heave-offering and Tithe from one for the other. R. Isaac says in the name of R. Eleazar, "The House of Shammai say, 'One does not give Heave-offering.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'One does give Heave-offering [in such a circumstance, from one for the other].' " [Tos. Ter. 2:5, ed. Lieberman, p. 112, lines 10-12 (y. Ter. 4:7 = Eliezer and Joshua; b. Hul. 136b)] Comment: The rule is that one may not tithe or give Heave-offering for differing species. But all kinds of wheat, nuts, pomegranates, and so forth are respectively regarded as single species. The issue before us therefore is the rule as to Heave-offering. The antecedent rule (Tos. Ter. 2:4) follows the Hillelite view that one gives both Heave-offering and Tithes from two kinds of wheat (presumably, also figs etc.). The named authorities are responsible for a version of the Houses-disputes. We should have expected As to two kinds of figsjwheat (etc.) House o f S h a m m a i : T h e y d o n o t give Heave-offering [from o n e f o r the other] H o u s e o f Hillel: They d o give Heave-offering [from one for the other].

We may therefore suppose that some other disputes following the conventional form such as given here would have been shaped by named Tannaitic authorities, and that the final versions, dropping re­ ference to the authorship of later authorities, would represent a later development. This is contrary to the normal procedure alleged to have been followed by Tannaim, that those responsible for pericopae are named, and the names are carefully preserved. Many Houses-pericopae are assigned to later authorities. Lieberman notes (Tosefta Kifshutah, p. 310, to p. 112 lines 11-12) that b. Hul. 136b gives R. Ilai. The change from 'Eleazar to 'Ele'a'y is in the last two letters only. b. Hul. 136b, whose reading Lieberman calls "certain", reverses matters: If he had two kinds of figs, black and white, and so two kinds of wheat, they do not give Heave-offering and tithefrom thisfor that.

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA — II.ii.15,16

87

R. Isaac says in the name of R. Ilai, "The House of Shammai say, 'One does not give Heave-offering.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'One gives Heave-offering.' " So the superscription in this version follows the Shammaite opinion. The substance of the Houses-opinions is the same. ILii. 15.A. When do they make it [the vat for winepressing] un­ clean? The House of Shammai say, "After the First Tithe is taken." The House of Hillel say, "After the Second Tithe is taken." B. R. Judah said, "The law is according to the words of the House of Shammai, but the majority (HRBYM) behave according to the words of the House of Hillel." C. And the sages say, "They remove the Heave-offering of the tithe and forthwith render the vat unclean." [Tos. Ter. 3:12, ed. Lieberman, pp. 118-9, lines 43-47 (y. Ter. 3:2, Tos. Toh. 11:4)] II.ii.l6.A. They may not give Heave-offering of oil for crushed olives, and not of wine for trodden grapes, and if he gave Heaveoffering, it is Heave-offering, but he goes and gives Heave-offering again. . . B. R. Yosa says, "The House of Shammai say, 'They give Heaveoffering.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'They do not give Heave-offering.' "They agree that if he gave Heave-offering, he needs [y. Ter. 1:5: not] to give Heave-offering a second time." [Tos. Ter. 3:14, ed. Lieberman, p. 119, lines 50-54 (y. Ter. 1:5,8; M. <Ed. 5:2)] Comment: According to Tos. Ter. 3:12 the householder sets aside a place for the tithe and takes out the Heave-offering of the tithe, but he does not have also to take out the tithe, for it does not matter that he gives unclean tithe to the Levite, //the Heave-offering of the tithe has already been removed from the tithe. Lieberman explains (Tosefta Kifshutah, p. 329, to lines 44f.) that it was customary intentionally to render the vat unclean so that there would be no doubt of the matter. If it is rendered unclean, people will be more careful not to allow clean things to touch it (as in M. Ter. 3:4). The Palestinian version reverses the opinions of the Houses. Lieberman observes that this is not listed among the lenient rulings of the Shammaites (M. Ed. 5:1-2). The form of the Houses-dispute poses no difficulty. c

88

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.17

As to ILii. 16, the issue is whether the crushed olives are regarded as olives or as olive-oil. Clearly, it would be more logical to regard them as olives. The superscription is Hillelite: one does not give Heaveoffering. R. Yosa's version has the Hillelites prohibit the matter, lest, from the case of crushed olives, people assume that olive-oil is likewise given for olives, which is contrary to the law. The Hillelites are again in the more stringent position. The parallel is M. Ter. 1:4, above, p. 81. For further discussion, see Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshutah, pp. 331-2. Epstein, Mevo*ot p. 436, notes that it is Meir who is the authority for the contrary view, that the Shammaites are in the stringent position, y. Ter. 1:5. See also Epstein, Mishnah, p. 399. II.ii.l7.A. He who gives Heave-offering of grapes for the market [ = eating] but eventually makes them raisins; figs, but eventually makes them dried figs; pomegranates, but eventually makes them into split and dried (PRD) pomegranates—it is Heave-offering [even though this is produce whose preparation has been completed eventu­ ally, serving as Heave-offering for produce whose preparation has not been completed], and he does not have to give Heave-offering a second time. B. R. Eliezer says, "The House of Shammai say, 'He does not have to give Heave-offering a second time.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'He has to give Heave-offering a second time.' C. "The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, 'Lo, it is said (Num. 18:27) [ And jour offering shall be reckoned to you as though it were the grain of the threshing floor and] as the fulness of the wine press. This one has not given Heave-offering from the winepress.' "The House of Shammai said to them, 'Lo, it says (Lev. 27:30) All the tithe [ of the land, whether of the seed of the land or of the fruit of the trees is the Lord's; it is holy to the Lord]. If you say that he needs to give Heaveoffering a second time, this one has not carried out also // is holy to the Lord: " (Tos. Ter. 3:16, ed. Lieberman, p. 120-1, lines 61-7) Comment: What is striking is the attribution to R. Eliezer of the entire Houses-dispute, including the conventional debate. Since, as we have observed, Eliezer's opinions and those of the Shammaites some­ times coincide, so that he was called the Shammaite, it is of interest to find pericopae attributing the Houses-form to the authority of Eliezer. On that basis, we obviously cannot attribute all of the Houses-materials following what we have called conventional form to Eliezer, but we do

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.ii.18,19

89

have prima facie evidence that the conventional form of disputes does derive from early Yavneh. Clearly, it later on was copied. Part A anonymously presents verbatim the Shammaite rule. The pericope supplements and explains M. Ter. 1:9-10 (trans. Danby, p. 53) (and see M. Ter. 1:4, above, p. 81): Heave-offering may be given f r o m oil instead o f f r o m olives that are t o be p r e s e r v e d , o r f r o m w i n e instead o f f r o m grapes that are to be m a d e into raisins. If a m a n gave Heave-offering f r o m oil instead o f f r o m olives intended for eating, o r f r o m [other] olives instead o f f r o m olives intended f o r eating, o r f r o m w i n e instead o f f r o m g r a p e s i n t e n d e d f o r e a t i n g , o r f r o m [ o t h e r ] grapes instead o f f r o m grapes intended for eating, and he afterward deter­ mined t o press them, he need n o t g i v e Heave-offering afresh. H e a v e - o f f e r i n g m a y n o t b e g i v e n f r o m p r o d u c e w h o s e p r e p a r a t i o n is finished i n s t e a d o f f r o m p r o d u c e w h o s e p r e p a r a t i o n is u n f i n i s h e d , o r f r o m p r o d u c e w h o s e p r e p a r a t i o n is u n f i n i s h e d i n s t e a d o f f r o m p r o d u c e w h o s e p r e p a r a t i o n is finished, o r f r o m p r o d u c e w h o s e p r e p a r a t i o n is u n f i n i s h e d instead o f f r o m [ o t h e r ] p r o d u c e w h o s e p r e p a r a t i o n is u n f i n i s h e d . B u t i f t h i s is d o n e , t h e H e a v e - o f f e r i n g is v a l i d .

R. Eliezer here contributes the dispute of the Houses. If he has trodden the grapes (or carried out the other procedures listed), then retroactively it becomes clear that he has not given Heave-offering. The Shammaite argument is that when he gave the Heave-offering, since he had not yet given thought to treading the grapes, he already has sanctified the Heave-offering and has already carried out holy to the Lord: "If you say that he has to give Heave-offering a second time, you annul what is already holy unto the Lord" It is noteworthy that Eliezer's version follows the simplest mnemonic style; the Houses-opinions differ only as to the inclusion of the ne­ gative, but otherwise are identical. It is clear that the mnemonic marks do not in themselves prove a pericope is "very old." What it does suggest is that Yavnean materials in many instances were shaped so as to facilitate memorization. The Houses-debate of part C is another matter, but, reduced to the Scriptural citations and brief exegesis of them, the debate would not greatly alter the form for easy memoriza­ tion. ILii.18. Tos Ter. 5:3, see above, p. 83. Il.ii.l9.A. [If] A se*ah of unclean Heave-offering (that) fell into a hundred se*ahs of clean Heave-offering— The House of Shammai prohibit. And the House of Hillel permit. B. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, "Clean [Heave-offering] is prohibited to outsiders (ZRYM) [non-priests], and

90

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.19

unclean [Heave-offering] is prohibited to priests. If clean [Heaveoffering] can be neutralized, so the unclean also can be neutralized." The House of Shammai said to them, "No! If you say so concerning clean [Heave-offering], which is neutralized by [a sufficient quantity of] unconsecrated food so as to be given to priests to eat, will you say so of unclean [Heave offering], which is not neutralized [in a sufficient quantity of] unconsecrated food so as to be given to priests to eat [but is burned, M. Ter. 5:2]?" C. The House of Hillel said to them, "Lo, unclean [Heave-offering] which fell into the unconsecrated [food] will prove [the point], for it does not become neutralized by the unconsecrated food so as to be given to outsiders to eat, yet it is neutralized." The House of Shammai said to them, "No, if you say so concerning unconsecrated food, whose permissibility is considerable [for outsiders eat it], will you say so of Heave-offering, whose permissibility is not considerable [for it is limited to priests] ? " D. The House of Hillel said to them, "And concerning which is the Torah more stringent? For outsiders or priests who eat Heave-offering? "[And] concerning outsiders who eat Heave-offering: a clean person who ate clean [Heave-offering], and a clean person who ate unclean, an unclean person who ate clean, and an unclean person who ate un­ clean—all of them are punished by death. "But as to priests who eat Heave-offering: the clean [priest] who ate clean*[Heave-offering] did as he was commanded [to do]. The clean [priest] who ate unclean [Heave-offering transgresses] a positive commandment. And the unclean [priest] who ate clean [Heave-offer­ ing] and the unclean priest who ate unclean [Heave-offering all trans­ gress] a negative commandment. "And is it not an argument qal vehomer: Now in a situation in which the Torah dealt stringently, namely with outsiders who ate Heaveoffering, lo, it is neutralized by unconsecrated food so as to be eaten by outsider—in a situation in which the Torah dealt leniently, namely with priests who eat Heave-offering, is it not logical that the un­ consecrated food should neutralize it so as to be eaten by priests?" E. After they had agreed [that the unclean is neutralized and not for­ bidden], R. Eliezer says [sic], "It should be taken up and allowed to rot." And the sages say, "It is lost through its scantiness." [Tos. Ter. 6:4, ed. Lieberman, pp. 137-8, lines 14-31 (y. Ter. 5:4, y. Suk. 2:8, y. Bik. 2:1, Tos. Zev. 12:17, Tos. Ker. 1:5)]

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

91

— II.ii.19

Comment: Let us first compare the two versions: M. Ter.

5:4

Tos. Ter.

1 . A se'ab o f u n c l e a n H e a v e - o f f e r i n g

6:4

that fell

i n t o a h u n d r e d se'abs o f clean H e a v e - o f f e r i n g

! •

yy

»

yy

2. The House o f Shammai prohibit 9

3 . A n d t h e H o u s e o f Hillel p e r m i t

yy

yy

yy

yy

yy

yy

3 y

* '

4 . T h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l said t o t h e H o u s e Shammai

of

4 ••

yy

yy

yy

5 . S i n c e clean is p r o h i b i t e d t o s t r a n g e r s a n d u n c l e a n is p r o h i b i t e d t o p r i e s t s , j u s t as c l e a n is neutralized [Lit.: comes up ( / L H ) ] , so unclean should be neutralized.

5 . C l e a n is p r o h i b i t e d t o s t r a n ­ g e r s a n d u n c l e a n is p r o h i b i t e d t o p r i e s t s . J u s t as c l e a n is n e u ­ tralized [Lit.: w i l l come u p ] , so unclean should be neutralized.

6. T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i said t o t h e m , N o , i f the light, u n c o n s e c r a t e d f o o d ( H L Y N QLYN), w h i c h is p e r m i t t e d t o s t r a n g e r s , n e u t r a l i z e d t h e clean, s h o u l d h e a v y H e a v e - o f f e r i n g ( T R W M H H H M W R H ) , w h i c h is p r o h i b i t e d t o s t r a n g e r s , neutralize the unclean?

6 . T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i said t o t h e m , N o , i f y o u say s o c o n ­ c e r n i n g t h e c l e a n , w h i c h is neutralized in the unconsecrated t o be eaten b y priests

< W

[Part C—no equivalent in M i s h n a h t o Hillelite argu­ ment. Lieberman says the S h a m m a i t e a n s w e r re " p e r ­ m i s s i b i l i t y is c o n s i d e r a b l e " c o r ­ r e s p o n d s t o M . T e r . n o . 6, permitted to strangers.] 7.

—

8. A f t e r t h e y a g r e e d 9. Rabbi Eliezer says, ( T R W M ) and burned.

Let

it

be

raised

7. o

[PartD]

°«

yy

yy

yy

up 9 . , , „ „ a n d allowed to rot

1 0 . A n d t h e sages s a y , It is l o s t i n its m i n u t e n e s s CBDH BM'WTH). 10* ,, ,, ,, W e s e e t h a t t h e a r g u m e n t o f t h e H i l l e l i t e s i n n o . 5 r e c u r s n e a r l y ver­ batim,

w i t h t h e m e r e a d d i t i o n o f since i n M . T e r . M . T e r . n o . 6 i s c o n ­

siderably m o r e complex than Tos. Ter. n o . 6, and has added an allusion to the argument in Part C of Tos. Ter. (following Lieberman).

Tos.

p a r t s C a n d D h a v e n o close e q u i v a l e n t , p a r t D n o n e at all, in M . T e r . T o s . T e r . thus supplies three Hillelite and t w o S h a m m a i t e a r g u m e n t s :

I. Hillel:

C l e a n H e a v e - o f f e r i n g is p r o h i b i t e d t o o u t s i d e r s b u t can b e n e u ­ t r a l i z e d ; u n c l e a n , w h i c h is p r o h i b i t e d t o p r i e s t s , a l s o s h o u l d b e neutralized.

92

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.ii.19, III.ii.4

S h a m m a i : No. Unclean Heave-offering cannot be neutralized b y unconse­ c r a t e d f o o d s o t h a t p r i e s t s can ever eat it [ t h e r e f o r e t h e a r g u m e n t a forteriori is b a s e d o n false p r e m i s e s a b o u t w h i c h is t h e lesser (lighter) category]. II. Hillel:

U n c l e a n w h i c h fell i n t o u n c l e a n d o e s n o t b e c o m e n e u t r a l i z e d b y t h e u n c o n s e c r a t e d f o o d s o as t o b e g i v e n t o o u t s i d e r s t o eat, y e t it is n e u t r a l i z e d .

S h a m m a i : N o , u n c o n s e c r a t e d f o o d can b e eaten b y o u t s i d e r s , b u t H e a v e offering c a n b e e a t e n o n l y b y p r i e s t s . III. Hillel: T o r a h is m o r e s t r i n g e n t o n o u t s i d e r s w h o eat H e a v e - o f f e r i n g . It is a n a r g u m e n t a forteriori: In a situation in w h i c h the T o r a h dealt s t r i n g e n t l y — o u t s i d e r s w h o eat h e a v e - o f f e r i n g — i t is n e u t r a l i z e d b y u n c o n s e c r a t e d f o o d s o as t o b e eaten b y o u t s i d e r . I n a s i t u a t i o n i n w h i c h t h e T o r a h dealt l e n i e n t l y — p r i e s t s w h o eat H e a v e - o f f e r i n g — is it n o t l o g i c a l t h a t u n c o n s e c r a t e d f o o d should n e u t r a l i z e it s o as t o b e eaten b y priests ?

Argument III looks like an elaborated version of argument I. I do not see why the Shammaite response in argument I could not have served as well, perhaps in more pretentious form, in argument III. Clearly, the dispute-form is preserved in part A. Parts B and C follow the form normal for debates: Hillel-Shammai, with Shammai's House getting the last word and winning the argument. It is part D that breaks the form, clearly a Hillelite (or later) supplement to the whole. I take it for granted that the earlier argumetns were already shaped and could well have reached something like their final form before the crucial Hillelite argument of part D was added. This then leaves no ambiguity. The Shammaites now are represented as agreeing with the Hillelites, and Eliezer's opinion follows, naturally, along Hillelite lines. But then the substance of his opinion requires a different explanation from the one offered earlier. For an account of the position of Eliezer in the presumption of a unitary text, see Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshutah, ad loc, pp. 382-3, to line 30. Lieberman demonstrates that "the House of Shammai did agree with the House of Hillel," and it seems to me that that is how the passage was understood in Amoraic times. Epstein, Mishnah, p. 708, has the same view. III.ii.4. TNY*: A cask of Heave-offering wine which was made unclean— The House of Shammai say, "It must be poured out forthwith. And the House of Hillel say, "It may be used for sprinkling." (b. Pes. 20b = b. B.Q. 115b-116a) Comment: R. Ishmael b. R. Yosi comments on the pericope, there­ fore supplying a terminus ante quern: ca. 200, the generation of Judah the Patriarch.

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

93

— III.i.2, II.i.24

III.i.2. TNY: R. Judah said, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree concerning clean Heave-offering, that it is prohibited to burn it, and concerning unclean Heave-offering, that it is permitted to burn it. "Concerning what did they dispute? "Concerning the doubtful [Heave-offering], for "The House of Shammai say, 'They do not burn.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'They burn.' "The House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel, 'Do you not say concerning the clean that it is not to be burned? But I say, perhaps a priest may spend the Sabbath within the limit, and he may come and eat it on the Sabbath. So also the doubtful should not be burned, for I say, perhaps Elijah may spend the Sabbath on Mount Carmel, and he may come and testify concerning it on the Sabbath that it is clean.' "The House of Hillel said to them, 'We are positive that Elijah comes neither on Sabbaths nor on the festivals.' " , ^ (y. Pes. 3:6) Comment: The disagreement may be genuine, but the little debate cannot be. The issue is discussed frivolously, and leaves the Sham­ maites in a silly position. That the form is unconventional is the least problem. Epstein, Mevo ot, p. 61, shows that Judah's Houses are in fact the Eliezer and Joshua of b. Pes. 13a. 0

y

II.i.24. A basket of fruit intended for the Sabbath— The House of Shammai declare exempt [from Tithes]. But the House of Hillel declare it liable. [M. Ma'aserot 4:2, trans. Danby, p. 71 (y. Ma'aserot 4:2)] Comment: The issue is, Is the produce picked for the Sabbath liable to tithes if eaten before the Sabbath? The House of Shammai say that it is permitted to eat of the fruit at random before the Sabbath, since random-nibbling does not render the fruit intended for the Sabbath to be liable to the various tithes. The House of Hillel require tithing, since, while set aside for the Sabbath, the fruit forthwith was liable for the tithes, and it is prohibited to eat it at random before the Sabbath with­ out tithing (Albeck, Seder Zercfim, p. 234). The form is simple and the opinions of the Houses are phrased in standard language: Fruit

of the Sabbath

House of Shammai: Declare exempt House of Hillel: D e c l a r e liable

94

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.20, 2 1 , 2 2

Here too it looks as if the House of Shammai has taken the more lenient position. Hillel's rulings in Tos. Ma. 3:3-4, above, I, p. 229-231, are consistent. 11.11.20. Tos. Ma'aserot 1:5, ed. Lieberman, p. 228,'lines 15-17. Comment: See above, Tos. Shev. 2:6, p. 79. The only change here is that the dispute concerns not the pod but hyssop (>YBWN/YYBWN), so Lieberman).

11.11.21. R. Simeon b. Leazar said, "The Houses of Shammai and Hillel did not differ concerning one who sifts (BRR) on the ground, that he is free [of liability]; or concerning one who sifts with a vessel, that he is liable. "Concerning what did they differ? Concerning one who sifts by hand for (S) "The House of Shammai declare liable. "And the House of Hillel declare exempt." c

[Tos. Ma aserot 3:10, ed. Lieberman, pp. 239240, lines 29-32 (M. Bes. 1:8)] 11.11.22. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said, "The Houses of Shammai and Hillel agree that a man should sell [large quantities, e.g.] a stack of grain, a basket of grapes, and a vat of olives only to a fellow (HBR) and to one who works in cleanness. [Tos. Ma'aserot 3:13, ed. Lieberman, p. 240, lines 40-42 (y. Demai 6:7, Tos. Ma. 5:4)] Comment: The issue of Tos. Ma'aserot 3:10 is whether the man is liable for tithes if he sifts or selects by hand. The Shammaite position is consistent with their ruling in M. Bes. 1:8. The Houses-pericope is attached to the foregoing with §. Tos. Ma aserot 3:13 appears in y. Demai 6:7 without the attribution to Simeon b. Gamaliel. M. Ma'aserot 5:4 has a similar law: c

A m a n m a y n o t sell h i s s t r a w o r o l i v e - p e a t o r g r a p e - r e s i d u e t o t h e o n e t h a t is n o t t r u s t w o r t h y i n w h a t c o n c e r n s t i t h e s f o r h i m t o e x t r a c t t h e juices therefrom. . .

Here, the converse, concerning cleanness, is stated in the affirmative. The issue is, May one sell to him who is reliable for tithes but not for preserving the cleanness of the food? M. Demai 6:6 (above, p. 64) has the following:

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.ii.22, II.i.25

95

T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, " A m a n m a y sell his o l i v e s o n l y t o a f e l l o w (HBR)." A n d t h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, " E v e n t o o n e t h a t [ o n l y ] p a y s t i t h e s . "

The Hillelites permit the sale only of olives, since the unreliable pur­ chaser may eat them whole and not crush them; the olives therefore are not yet susceptible to receive uncleanness. But if the man states he plans to crush them for the oil, even the Hillelites forbid the sale to him. Simeon b. Gamaliel here adds that all agree that one may not sell to one who is not a fellow (HBR) large quantities of wheat, grapes, and olives, for he will certainly make them liable to receive uncleanness, therefore they will become unclean, so Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshutah, p. 705. The form is standard, which shows that once it was available, later authorities (Simeon) made use of it for their own glosses of earlier materials. The position of the Hillelites is at issue; the Shammaites had already prohibited such a sale. Simeon b. Gamaliel presumably could not state on his own authority a position apparently contrary to that of the Hillelites, but he could have the Hillelites "agree" with the Sham­ maites, therefore come out in favor of the law he wanted to advance. Still later, the superscription attributing the whole to Simeon was dropped, leaving the Houses-dispute in the form one would have imagined to be primary. Once again, therefore, we observe that Housesmaterials at the outset were shaped by later masters, and not only in the setting of pre-destruction Jerusalem or early Yavneh. The forms apparently were so widely known and conventional that they would be used even for what amounted to new material. The attestations that Yavnean masters knew Houses-disputes therefore become all the more important in helping us to separate possibly authentic from certainly fabricated materials attributed to the Houses.

II.i.25.A. Second Tithe of fenugreek may be consumed only in its green condition. As for Heave-offering [of fenugreek]— The House of Shammai say, "Whatsoever concerns it [is done] in cleanness, save combing [the head] therewith." And the House of Hillel say, "Whatsoever concerns it [is done] in uncleanness, save the soaking of it." B. Second Tithe vetches may be consumed only in their green con­ dition and may be brought up to Jerusalem and taken out again. If they have contracted uncleanness, R. Tarfon says, "They should be divided among lumps of dough." But the sages say, "They should be redeemed. C. As for Heave-offering [vetches]—

96

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.26

The House of Shammai say, "They soak and rub in cleanness, but they give as food in uncleanness." And the House of Hillel say, "They soak in cleanness, but they rub and give as food in uncleanness." Shammai says, "They must be eaten dry." R. 'Aqiba says, "Whatsoever concerns them [may be done] in un­ cleanness." ILL26.A. The House of Shammai say, "A man may not change his s'elas for golden denars" And the House of Hillel permit [it]. B. R. Aqiba said, "I changed silver for golden denars for Rabban Gamaliel and R. Joshua." C. If a man changes a s'ela s worth of Second Tithe money [outside of Jerusalem]— The House of Shammai say, "He may change it for a whole s'ela" And the House of Hillel say, "A sheqeFs worth of silver and a sheqeVs worth in copper coins." D. R. Meir says, "They may not change silver and produce [together] into [other] silver." But the sages permit it. E. If a man would change a s'ela of Second Tithe money in Jeru­ salem— The House of Shammai say, "He must change the whole s'ela into copper coins (M WT)." And the House of Hillel say, "He may take one sheqeVs worth of silver and one sheqeFs worth in copper coin." They that made argument before the sages say, "Three denars' worth of silver and from the fourth [denar] a quarter in copper coin." R. Tarfon says, "Four aspers in silver." Shammai says, "Let him deposit it in a shop and [gradually] consume its value (WY'KL KNGDH)." c

9

C

[M. M.S. 2:3,4,7,8,9, trans. Danby, p. 75-6 (y. M.S. 2:2,3,4; y. Ter. 3:3; b. B.M. 44b-45a)] Comment: Before us are discrete pericopae, not a collection. (M. M.S. 2:3) exhibits standard form: [Fenugreek] heave-offering H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y , A l l its w o r k s ( M ' S Y H ) combing (HVYPTH)

in

IIJ.25.A

cleanness, e x c e p t

its

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

H o u s e o f H i l l e l say,

A l l its w o r k s (SRYYTH)

97

— II.i.26

in

uncleanness,

except

its

soaking

The sayings are thus evenly matched in all respects and the rhythm is identical. Only word-order changes. The House of Shammai say it is prohibited to make Heave-offering unclean. One must therefore preserve ritual purity in dealing with Heave-offering of fenugreek, for it may serve as food. When small and properly cooked, it can be eaten; when full-grown and hardened, it is not eaten, but used as a comb. It would therefore not be subject to the laws of Second Tithe, but Heave-offering still would be given from it. It represents the sort of intermediate situation on which the Houses are apt to dispute—the sort of pattern to suggest that the Houses here serve as (imaginary) authorities to which conveniently to assign the two theoretically possible, diametrically opposed positions. The Shammaite position is that only when the fenugreek is used for combing is it no longer going to be eaten; therefore it need not then be preserved in a state of ritual purity. The House of Hillel regard it as not in the category of food except when soaked in preparation for eating. The dispute is clear: Is fenugreek to be treated as food, except when it clearly is not suitable for eating? Or is it to be treated not as food, except when it clearly is suitable for eating? There are no other possible positions. See Tos. M.S. 2:1, below, p. 108. 11.1.25 part B-C (M. M.S. 2:4) is a similar dispute (see above, I, p. 189); here the issue again concerns Heave-offering, this time of vetches. The form is identical: [Vetches]

Heave-offering

H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y : S o a k e d a n d r u b b e d in cleanness, a n d g i v e n as f o o d in uncleanness H o u s e o f H i l l e l s a y : S o a k e d i n c l e a n n e s s , a n d r u b b e d a n d g i v e n as f o o d in uncleanness.

Vetches may be eaten when soft, but once fully grown, they are fed to cattle. One does not feed Second Tithe to cattle, but Heave-offering may be so used. The Houses once again take the two possible, opposing positions. Since the vetches are notyet given to cattle to eat, the Sham­ maites hold they must be preserved in a state of ritual purity, like other food. Only when given to cattle may they be unclean. The Hillelites rule that only the first stage is in cleanness, the rest in uncleanness. The sayings match in every detail except word-order; the position of in cleanness is the sole formal difference. 11.1.26 parts A-B (M. M.S. 2:7) concern changing Second Tithe into coins for the journey to Jerusalem. The Shammaites hold one may not change them for golden denars. The Hillelites say the opposite. The form is somewhat complex, for the opinions not only are not matched, but also are not readily reconstructed as a syzygy: [ A s t o c h a n g i n g ] selas [of S e c o n d T i t h e ] to denars of gold: House of Shammai: Prohibit House o f Hillel: Permit NEUSNER, T h e Rabbinic T r a d i t i o n s about t h e P h a r i s e e s before 70, II

7

98

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.26

But the transition from the language now attributed to the Shammaites to the above is not simple. Normally it is easy to extract the general rule from the first House's opinion [Shammaites] and to restore it as a superscription. But here one must drop a man may not change, which is part of the substance of the Shammaite position, and it is difficult to imagine the rest without it. Part B, the testimony of 'Aqiba, tells us that the early Yavneans followed Hillelite practice. Is Shammaite practice so widespread that the deeds of the early authorities supply important contrary evidence? Unlikely, since no one made the pilgrimage any more. Does Aqiba intend to make it clear that the early Yavneans followed Hillelite practice? But who suspected the contrary? Everyone "knew" that the law follows the Hillelites. Perhaps the chronological order of the pericope's elements therefore ought to be reversed. Possibly, opinions of the Houses survived, but no one was quite sure which opinion was to be attributed to which House. 'Aqiba's testimony made it clear that the dominant—Hillelite—opinion was that one may change silver for golden denars. Then comes the formulation of the dispute. The record of part B was preserved, owing to the conservatism of the tradents, along with part A, which must, therefore, postdate Aqiba. It is also possible that no opinions of the Houses derived from pre-'Aqiban times, but that those holding the opposite opinion from his were re­ legated to the position of the House of Shammai, in a redaction of the matter in the form of a (fictitious) Houses-dispute. The former alter­ native seems to me somewhat more likely. Parts C-D (M. M.S. 2:8) is a related, but separate, pericope. The ex­ change is copper coins of Second Tithe for a sela of silver for the jour­ ney, to Jerusalem. If the man has copper coins worth a whole sela, he is permitted to make the exchange, according to the House of Shammai. But if he has copper coins for only half a sela, and for the other half he has a sheqel, that is, half a sela, of silver of Second Tithe, he may not ex­ change them all together for a whole sela of silver, for one may not ex­ change the silver of Second Tithe for silver (Albeck, Seder Zera'im, pp. 252-3). The House of Hillel say one may indeed exchange a sheqel of silver and a sheqel of copper coins for a sela of silver; since he is giving copper coins for half, it is permitted to change the silver as part of the transaction. The dispute of Meir and the sages is along the same lines, only now it is silver and produce for a sela; the Hillelite ruling applied only to copper coins and silver, not to produce and silver. The sages extend the Hillelite leniency even further. Part E (M. M.S. 2:9) brings the repertoire to a conclusion. Now the man is in Jerusalem with his large coin, and requires small change again. The House of Shammai say he must change the whole thing to copper coins, since one may exchange in Jerusalem only silver for copper, but not copper for silver, and not silver for silver. The House of Hillel say that since he is changing silver for copper, he may also change silver for silver as part of the transaction. The other positions are of no interest c

c

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— ILi.26, 27

99

here. Parts C and E (M. M.S. 2:8 and 9) follow the same form: If a man changes a coin's worth of Second Tithe money H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y : A l l t h e s'ela—coins House o f Hillel say: A sheqel o f s i l v e r , a n d a sheqel o f c o i n s . If a man would change a sela of Second Tithe in ferusalem H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y : A l l the sela—coins H o u s e o f Hillel say: A sheqel o f s i l v e r a n d a sheqel o f c o i n s .

Thus in both instances, the Houses are given the same opinions, phrased in exactly the same words. If the Houses' opinions are accur­ ately represented, they then are placed into the context of two different disputes. It again seems that the tradents had difficulty not only in attributing the right opinion to the right House, but also in figuring out to what legal problem the opinions actually pertained. Part D is added to part C. The later opinions of part E are all tacked on as well. That does not mean that the several authorities (including Shammai, above, I, p. 190) came later than the Houses, knew their opinions, and disregarded them. On the contrary, it would suggest that the Houses' opinions had not yet been redacted and may not have ex­ isted. One can hardly fix the rule that where later masters differ from Houses' rulings, it was because they did not know those rulings, and therefore the rulings presumably did not exist, but were formulated afterward and attributed to the Houses. This would, however, seem likely when, as in this instance, the masters not only make no reference to the Houses' opinions, but also use quite different language for their own. It further conforms to my suggestion about the formulation of the Houses' opinions after 'Aqiba. If so, one must wonder why the laws about bringing Second Tithe money to Jerusalem were under debate when Jews could not make the pilgrimage to the Temple in Jerusalem. Was there no earlier tradition on the subject? Why formulate the law now that it was no longer a serious consideration? As to the former, it looks either as if the earlier common law was unknown to the rabbis (highly unlikely), or as if there was no law on the subject at all. As to the latter, the rabbis cer­ tainly expected Jerusalem to be rebuilt and the rite of pilgrimage with Second Tithe money to be restored, so they legislated for that time, which, they fully expected, could not be long postponed. It was part of their broader effort to ensure through proper observance of the whole Torah that the future Temple would not suffer the fate of the last one, when, manifestly, the whole Torah had not been observed. On M. M.S. 2:8-9, Epstein, Mevo'ot, pp. 76-77, 216; on M. M.S. 2:4, p. 273: p. 73: Aqiba's Hillelites of Tos. M.S. 2:1 are in M. M.S. 2:4 as the anonymous authority. See also Epstein, Mishnah, p. 487. c

ILi.27.A. Produce that was fully harvested and passed through Jerusalem, the Second Tithe thereof must be brought back again and consumed in Jerusalem.

100

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.27, 2 8 , 2 9

B. If it was not yet fully harvested, [such as] grapes [that are carried] in baskets to the winepress, or figs in baskets to the drying-place)— The House of Shammai say, "The Second Tithe thereof must come back and be consumed in Jerusalem." (MS Kaufmann: YHZWR WYTRWM M<SR §NY §LHM WY'KL. . . = He should return and raise up their Second Tithe etc.). And the House of Hillel say, "It may be redeemed and eaten any­ where." C. R. Simeon b. Judah in the name of R. Yosi says, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not dispute about produce that was not fully harvested, whose Second Tithe can be redeemed and eaten anywhere. But about what did they dispute? "About produce that was fully harvested— "For (S) the House of Shammai say, 'The Second Tithe thereof must come back and be consumed in Jerusalem [ = part A].' "And the House of Hillel say, 'It may be redeemed and eaten any­ where.' " And demai-[iptodxLce] may be brought in and taken out again and may be redeemed. D. [If] a tree stands within [the wall of Jerusalem] and [its boughs] stretch outside, or stands outside and [its boughs] stretch within, [the part of the foliage] directly above the wall and inwards is deemed within [Jerusalem], and the part directly above the wall and outwards is deemed outside. E. [If] the entrances to olive-presses [in the city wall] were within [Jerusalem] and their contained space (HLLN) outside, or their ent­ rances outside and their contained space within [Jerusalem]— The House of Shammai say, "The whole [is deemed] as within [Jerusalem]." And the House of Hillel say, "The part directly above the wall and inwards [is deemed] as within and the part directly above the wall and outwards [is deemed] as outside." II.i.28. If Second Tithe was brought into Jerusalem and contracted uncleanness, whether from a Father of Uncleanness or from an Off­ spring of Uncleanness, whether within or without [the wall of Jeru­ salem]— The House of Shammai say, "All should be redeemed and consumed within [the walls], excepting only what was rendered unclean by a Father of Uncleanness—without [the walls]."

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.27, 28, 29

101

And the House of Hillel say, "All should be redeemed and consumed outside [the walls], excepting only what was rendered unclean by an Offspring of Uncleanness—within [the walls]." II.i.29. The House of Shammai say, "[If he would give Heave-off­ ering from one on behalf of all after he has sealed them up], he opens [the jars] and empties [them] into the winepress." And the House of Hillel say, "He opens [them], but he need not empty them." [M. M.S. 3:6,7,9,13, trans. Danby, pp. 77-8 (y. Ma'aserot 3:4; y. M.S. 3:3,4,5,6; b. Mak. 20a)] Comment: II.i.27: Parts A, B, C, (M. M.S. 3:6), concern bringing back to Jerusalem for consumption in the city Second Tithe which once has passed through. The produce now cannot be redeemed for coins. The first version of the Houses' dispute concerns produce which was not fully harvested and passed through Jerusalem, for instance, grapes brought to the vat and olives to the press. The House of Shammai say that the Second Tithe must be brought back and eaten in Jerusalem, and the House of Hillel say that the Second Tithe may be redeemed for coins and consumed anywhere, and (of course) the coins must be brought back to the city. The dispute therefore places the Houses at the two possible, opposing poles. What is the rule for produce whose harvest procedures are still in progress ? It is either like produce whose procedures have been completed (Shammaites), or like produce whose harvest procedures have not been undertaken, so far as the trip through Jerusalem is concerned (Hillelites). The form poses no difficulties: Produce not fully harvested:

The Second Tithe in it

H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : Returns a n d e a t e n i n House o f Hillel: Is redeemed a n d e a t e n

ferusalem. anywhere.

The rulings can be restored to the form of balanced opposites, in the conventional form (1) HZR (2) 'KL (3) BYRWSLM VS. (1) PDH (2) 'KL (3) BKL MQWM. Thus (1) is a matched opposite, also (3); in both instances we find the same number of syllables. (2) is the same in both parts. (MS Kaufmann adds YTRWM to the Shammaite ruling, but this does not recur in its version of Yosi's Shammaites.) In part C, R. Yosi, as before, supplies a quite different version of the dispute. Both Houses agree that the produce is treated like ordinary fruit outside of the city—that is, they agree on the Hillelite position. They differ as follows: Produce that has b e e n fully harvested: The Second Tithe in it— H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : Returns a n d is eaten in ferusalem House o f Hillel: Is redeemed a n d eaten anywhere.

102

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.27, 2 8 , 2 9

So Yosi has repeated the same rulings, but attached them to a diff­ erent superscription. Yosi's superscription now serves for the whole pericope, according to the antecedent (anonymous) tradent, as part A. Following him, the parties agree on the position attributed by Yosi to the Shammaites; he thus has made the Hillelites into Yosi's Shammaites. The difference between Yosi and the anonymous tradent concerns whether the word not occurs in the superscription of the Housesdispute. Otherwise—excluding the gloss about grapes and olives—the two versions are identical, both in superscriptions and in the body of the Houses-dispute. Yosi's tradition obviously did not include the Houses did not dispute—that is his own. It consisted, as I said, of a slightly different superscription, but of identical opinions. The anonymous tradition (parts A-B) comes before Yosi. Whether he himself then revised it for reasons of his own, or whether he actually had a tradition such as we have reconstructed, of course no one can say (see Tos. M.S. 2:11). Middle-second-century masters were quite well prepared to revise Houses-materials according to their own understanding of either the law or of "history," probably the former, and to present as authentic Houses' disputes what in fact were their own fabrications. I Li.29: Parts D and E (M. M.S. 3:7) present legal issues that could not have affected many people even while Jerusalem flourished. They are the kind of legal theorizing about intermediate, ambiguous cate­ gories, of which the sages seemed so fond. The rule of part A is clearcut and decisive; all parties agree. The tree is regarded as entirely within Jerusalem; therefore one must eat the produce in Jerusalem and may not redeem it for coins. The Houses-dispute then introduces a more difficult matter, namely, olive presses in a similar state. The practical difference is whether the olive-oil must be consumed in the city or may be redeemed for coins. The theoretical problem obviously is going to be more interesting. It concerns a crop, work on which is completed (therefore making it liable to tithes) partly in Jerusalem and partly outside the city—the third possible state already introduced in II.i.25, parts A-B: A . F u l l y h a r v e s t e d a n d passed t h r o u g h J e r u s a l e m B . N o t y e t f u l l y h a r v e s t e d a n d passed t h r o u g h J e r u s a l e m C. N o t y e t f u l l y h a r v e s t e d a n d n o t f u l l y t h r o u g h / i n J e r u s a l e m w h e n t h e w o r k is c o m p l e t e d .

—that is, the most ambiguous situation of all. The Shammaite ruling (following the formulation of parts A-B) is that the whole is regarded as having been done in Jerusalem; therefore the laws of Jerusalem apply. This remains their position throughout. .The Hillelites rule that one must determine which part of the crop will be subjected to which law. The language of the House of Hillel is identical with the tree-ruling of part D. Had a ruling been preserved, the House of Shammai would have ruled that the tree should be seen as unambiguously within Jerusalem, because part of it was there. M. M.S. 3:8 thus stands within the Hillelite tradition.

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

103

— II.i.27, 2 8 , 29

The whole complex looks suspicious. To be sure, the historical Houses may indeed have debated such theoretical legal problems. But the reappearance of the same words in opinions on quite different matters, the fabrication by later authorities of revised versions of the entire dispute, and the absence of a Houses-dispute on part D, where the appearance of the Hillelite opinion of part E verbatim would suggest the Shammaite contrary opinion, also verbatim, ought to have been given—all suggest that what we have is a fabrication in the Houses' names (and not fully worked out) of a later, theoretical dispute. This further points to the persistence of the Houses-form after the Houses ceased to exist. II.i.28, M. M.S. 3 : 9 , continues the theme of Second Tithe in Jerusalem. The tithe has come to the city but has been made unclean. The dispute now is complicated by two different degrees of unclean­ ness. The Father of Uncleanness is an insect or a corpse. An Offspring of Uncleanness is something made unclean by touching a Father of Un­ cleanness, therefore itself of lesser uncleanness. As in Sifra the super­ scription is impossible, since it announces that the Houses will not make such distinctions, and these distinctions then constitute the heart of their disagreement. The distinction on where the uncleanness took place—en route to Jerusalem or in the city—does not figure in the Houses' dispute, so that element of the superscription is accurate. But not entirely so, since the superscription begins, . . .enteredJerusalem and made unclean and then adds the qualification, whether within or without. It looks to me as if the superscription has been doctored. Let us present what might have been the earliest version of the dispute: Second Tithe that entered Jerusalem

and was made unclean (in

Jerusalem)

H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : [ A l l is r e d e e m e d , a n d c o n s u m e d ] inside [the c i t y ] House o f Hillel:

[ A l l is r e d e e m e d a n d c o n s u m e d ] outside [the c i t y ] .

The Houses-dispute therefore resolves itself into the words inside/ Nothing more is required. The place and source of the unclean­ ness play no role whatever. The whether-cl&uses are an accurate gloss on the foregoing. The Houses-rulings are simple and unambiguous, no matter the circumstances. Our earlier discomfort at the contradiction of the whether inside] outside, whether Father/Offspring, however, was not without cause, for inside I outside is either redundant of the simple was made unclean, or con­ tradicts it. The whether-cl&uses therefore must be glosses supplied after the revision of the Houses-sayings themselves, to represent the dispute as it originally had taken place, contrary to the intrusions of the later glossator; so comes the second stage: outside.

Second Tithe that enteredJerusalem and was made unclean H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : A l l r e d e e m e d a n d e a t e n inside + (except t h a t w h i c h w a s m a d e u n c l e a n b y a F a t h e r o f U n c l e a n n e s s [ w h i c h is eaten] o u t s i d e )

104

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.27, 2 8 , 2 9

House o f Hillel: A l l r e d e e m e d a n d e a t e n outside - f (except t h a t w h i c h w a s m a d e u n c l e a n b y a n O f f s p r i n g o f U n c l e a n n e s s [ w h i c h is eaten] inside).

The issue has not only been made more complex, but new problems have been introduced. The Houses-positions preserve fixed differences throughout. As to the position of the Shammaites, Second Tithe which has been made unclean is redeemed even in Jerusalem. It nonetheless is prohib­ ited to bring in the food which has been redeemed outside of the city. But food made unclean by a major source of uncleanness and which has entered Jerusalem may be taken out again and eaten outside (so Albeck, Seder Zera^im, p. 257). So the intrusion of Father/Offspring has necessarily required the introduction of unclean + insidejoutside. The Hillelite position is that the whole is redeemed and taken outside, except what is made unclean by an Offspring of Uncleanness in Jerusalem —thus introducing in the city to go along with Offspring. And the rest follows: he eats in Jerusalem and may not take it out. Thus the distinction of Father/Offspring brings in its wake the distinc­ tion about where the uncleanness happened. The contradictory super­ scription is then completed and added to the whole, denying that the Houses had made such distinctions! Presumably the authority who glossed the superscription would also have dropped the exc^/-clauses. Some sort of compromise or misunderstanding preserved both the gloss and the excep/-clauses. And that is how it comes down to us. Did the Houses originally rule on the matter? Or was the whole the creation of the later legal theorists? Tos. M.S. 2:16 definitively answers the question: Judah b. Ilai is the source. The brevity of the Houses' language and the ease with which we could recognize the original dispute do not constitute probative evidence of an authentic attribu­ tion to the Houses themselves, since, as we have seen several times, the later tradents were quite capable of making disciplined use of the form for their own fabrications. II.i.29 (M. M.S. 3:13) has Houses-opinions but no explanatory matter. This is supplied by Danby, in brackets added to the Shammaite opinion. The antecedent case, in which the Houses do not appear, is taken for granted: If [and one. they

w i n e w a s d e s i g n a t e d H e a v e - o f f e r i n g b e f o r e t h e jars w e r e sealed u p they w e r e confused w i t h others], they are neutralized in a h u n d r e d and B u t i f t h e y w e r e l a t e r sealed u p , t h e y r e n d e r h o l y [ o t h e r s w i t h w h i c h are confused] in any quantity w h a t s o e v e r .

U n t i l h e has sealed t h e m u p , h e m a y g i v e H e a v e - o f f e r i n g f r o m o n e o n * b e h a l f o f a l l ; b u t a f t e r h e has sealed t h e m u p , h e m u s t g i v e H e a v e - o f f e r i n g f r o m each s i n g l y . (M. M . S . 3 : 1 2 b , trans. D a n b y , p. 78)

Now the Houses-dispute appears. If the man has sealed them and then wants to give Heave-offering, how does he give Heave-offering from

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.30

105

each? The House of Shammai say he has to open the jars and empty them all back into the winepress. The House of Hillel say he must open them but need not empty them. The Houses' language is as follows: House of Shammai: Open and empty into vat House of Hillel: O p e n b u t does n o t need t o e m p t y

The language seems to me to conform to convention; it is abbreviated and preserves the difference between the Houses in a brief clause. Perhaps the Hillelite form might be simplified: Open, but does not empty; and the Shammaites' language might be simplified by dropping into vat. But these little glosses (need, into vat) do not make much differ­ ence. What is difficult is the reconstruction of an appropriate superscrip­ tion. The issue is not set by the foregoing, which concerns a mixture of Heave-offering with otherjars. Perhaps the final clause of M. M.S. 3:12 would serve: After

he has sealed them, he gives Heave-offering from each one [ w i t h how does he

do so b e i n g u n d e r s t o o d ] : House o f S h a m m a i : He opens and empties [them] (into the v a t ) . House o f Hillel:

H e o p e n s a n d d o e s n o t n e e d t o e m p t y [or, h e

opens

a n d does not empty, d r o p p i n g S R Y K )

If so, the editors (or scribes) have erred in splitting the Houses-dispute from the foregoing paragraph. II.i.30.A. If a man set aside one issar [as Second Tithe redemptionmoney] and in virtue of this consumed half its value and then went elsewhere where it was worth a pondion, he can still consume another issar*s worth. If he set aside one pondion and in virtue of this consumed half its value and then went elsewhere where it was worth [only] one issar, he may consume only another h&li-issar's worth. If he set aside one issar as Second Tithe redemption money, he may in virtue of this consume up to one-eleventh of an issar's worth [if it was demai-iptodncc\ and one-hundredth of an issar's worth [if it was produce certainly untithed]. B. The House of Shammai say, "In either case one-tenth (HKL <SRH)." And the House of Hillel say, "One eleventh [if it was produce] certainly untithed, and one-tenth if it was ^^/-produce (BWD'Y >HD SR, WBDM'Y <SRH)." C

[M. M.S. 4:8, trans. Danby, p. 79 (y. M.S. 4:5)]

106

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.31, 32, 33

Comment: Albeck {Seder Zercfim, p. 261) explains that the variation in the value of the coin imposes the necessity of adding when consum­ ing the food. The House of Shammai say there is no need to add. The House of Hillel say, as in the anonymous rule, one adds one-eleventh or one-tenth, depending on the state of the produce. So part A anony­ mously presents the Hillelite view, which then, in part B, occurs in dispute-form.

II.i.31.A. The House of Shammai say, "The rules of the [Added] Fifth and of Removal do not apply to [the grapes of] a Fourth Year Vineyard." And the House of Hillel say, "They do apply." B. The House of Shammai say, "The laws of grape-gleanings and of the defective cluster apply, and the poor redeem the grapes for themselves." And the House of Hillel say, "The whole [yield goes] to the wine­ press." 11.1.32. [On the eve of the first Festival-day of Passover in the fourth and seventh years the duty of Removal was fulfilled. Thus Heave-offering and Heave-offering of Tithe were given to whom they were due, and the First Tithe was given to whom it was due, and the Second Tithe and the First-fruits everywhere were removed. R. Simeon says, "The First-fruits like the Heave-offering were given to the priests."] Cooked food— The House of Shammai say, "One must remove it." And the House of Hillel say, "It is accounted a thing removed [already]" (SRYK LB KMBHD §HN KSP W>HD $HN PRWT)." [M. M.S. 5:3,6,7, trans. Danby, p. 80-1 (y. M.S. 5:2,3)] Comment: II.i.32,

II.i.31', M. M.S. 5:3—see above, p. 59. M. M.S. 5:6, adds a Houses-dispute to a minor detail in con-

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.31, 32, 33

107

nection with the duty of Removal. The form is nearly perfect, state­ ment of law, Houses opinions: As to cookedfood [of Second Tithe] H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, H e n e e d s t o r e m o v e H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, L o , it is as if it w e r e r e m o v e d .

Actually, we should have expected the Hillelite language to be a counterpart to the Shammaite: House of Hillel: He does not need to remove. This is the language of y. M.S. 5:3 (ed. Gilead, p. 62). The lemma before us thus takes for granted that ruling and explains it, therefore is a secondary development: He does not need to remove it because it is as if it were removed: the fruits are no longer before us in their original form. II.i.33, M. M.S. 5:7, follows the same form, and the language is similarly not quite balanced. After the Temple was destroyed, SecondTithe produce could no longer be brought to, and eaten in, Jerusalem. What to do with it at the time of removal? The House of Shammai rule that one has to exchange it for coins. But this does not solve the matter, for the coins will remain in his hand. The House of Hillel rule that whether they are coins or produce, the Second Tithe is under the same law: The man does not need to exchange the produce for money, but he removes the fruit from the house and leaves it until it rots. This is the same ruling as M. M.S. 1:5, "If no sanctuary, they are left to rot," a ruling given for produce that for any reason cannot be brought to Jerusalem. The classic form is followed, but the traditions of the Houses do not compare to one another: He who has produce in this time and the hour or removal has come— T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, H e n e e d s t o p r o f a n e t h e m b y m o n e y T h e H o u s e o f Hillel say, It is all t h e s a m e [ L i t . : O n e t h a t t h e y a r e ] f o r money and produce.

The opinions therefore are not matched, and the problem of what to do is not solved. The Houses in their pre-Destruction form presumably did not persist for long at Yavneh. But this issue ought to have come up at once. On the other hand, Yohanan b. Zakkai ignores the problem. Simeon b. Eleazar alleged that Yohanan b. Zakkai annulled the practice of setting aside a quarter-coin for the proselyte's offering, on the basis of M.M.S. 5:2: "One does not declare holy, or to be evaluated, or declare herem, or raise up Heave-offering and Tithes. . ." M. Yad. 4:3 raised the question of the tithes to be given by Ammon and Moab in the Seventh Year. The participants are Tarfon, Eleazar b. Azariah and Ishmael. The vote is taken that the countries should give Poor man's Tithe in the Seventh Year, rather than Second Tithe. Then Eliezer b. Hyrcanus announces that Yohanan b. Zakkai taught him a tradition, deriving from Sinai, with the money

c

108

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.23

that Ammon and Moab give Poorman's Tithe in the Seventh Year. It is quite clear, therefore, that the later Yavneans supposed tithes would continue to be separated, not only in Palestine, and that Yohanan b. Zakkai similarly supposed the destruction had made no difference. This seems to me decisive evidence that the dispute of the Houses follows a period in which it was unanimously assumed tithes would continue to be given. The Shammaites of II.i.30-31, who assume the law continues to apply, represent the earliest view of the Yavneans. The Hillelites, who regard the various laws of tithing as annulled, take a position that became dominant only later on, and is now represented by M. M.S. 5:2. So the dispute must formulate in the names of the Houses opinions which only afterward were accepted. Why should Yavneans and Ushans have continued to make use of the dispute-form? Perhaps in the very earliest period no other seemed appropriate. Contrasting opinions of living masters, rather than of the old Houses, required the recognition both that the new masters had the authority to differ on their own, not merely pseudepigraphically in the names of the ancient authorities; and that the authority of the Shammaites would no longer be recognized, so anyone who hoped to be taken seriously had better not attribute his opinion to the Sham­ maite House at all. At the outset the masters persisted in using the forms they knew from Jerusalem, but later on abandoned sole reliance on them, as either outdated or inappropriate, and alongside the old forms developed new ones. The necessity to attribute opinions to established Houses or parties diminished, and the practice of giving opinions to named authorities began. The facts that as late as the middle of the second century new Housesdisputes were still being fabricated and that the form was still in use suggest that, despite the predominance of Hillelites, the old forms, re­ flecting a quite different state of affairs, continued to serve the purposes of tradents. On M. M.S. 5:3, see Epstein, Mevd*ot p. 103, and compare M. Ter. 3:9, Tos. Ter. 2:13—Vineyard becomes planting. y

II.ii.23. A. [Fenugreek] of Heave-offering— "The House of Shammai say, 'Whatsoever concerns it must be done in cleanness.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'Whatsoever concerns it may be done in uncleanness, except for combing [the head] therewith' "— the words of R. Meir. B. R. Judah says, "The House of Shammai say, 'Whatsoever con­ cerns it must be done in cleanness, except for combing [the head] with it.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'Whatsoever concerns it must be done in uncleanness, except for soaking it.' " C. [Vetches] of Heave-offering—

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

109

— II.ii.23

"The House of Shammai say, 'They are soaked in cleanness, and rubbed and given as food in uncleanness.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'They must be soaked and rubbed in cleanness, and given as food in uncleanness' "— the words of R. Judah. D. R. Meir says, "The House of Shammai say, 'They must be soaked and rubbed in cleanness, and given as food in uncleanness.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'Whatsoever concerns them must be done in uncleanness.' " E. R. Yosi said, "This is the Mishnah of R. Aqiba. Therefore he says, 'They are to be given to any priest [even an unobservant one].' "And the sages did not agree with him." c

[Tos. M.S. 2:1, ed. Lieberman, pp. 248-9, lines 3-10 (y. M.S. 2:2)] Comment: See above, M. M.S. 2:3-4, II.i.23A-C. Judah the Patriarch evidently had the versions supplied by Judah and Meir, and chose Judah's for M. M.S. 2:3, but the version of neither for part B. Judah gives the opinion of the House of Hillel as that of Shammai's House in Part C, and the opinion of Shammai's House as that of the House of Hillel. Meir in part D gives the opinion of Shammai as Judah the Patriarch does in M. M.S. 2:4, but then Meir's view of the Hillelite position is rejected by Judah the Patriarch: M. MS.

2:3

Judah the

Patriarch

Shammai: A l l

in

Tos. MS. Meir clean­

Tos. MS. 2:1 Judah h. Ilai

2:1

A l l i n cleanness combing

A l l i n cleanness

ness except c o m b i n g ex­

except

A l l in uncleanness cept soaking

ex­

Hillel: A l l in unclean­ ness e x c e p t s o a k i n g

A l l in uncleanness, cept c o m b i n g

M. MS. 2:4 Shammai: Soaked and r u b b e d in cleanness, and fed in uncleanness

Soaked and rubbed in cleanness, and fed in uncleanness

Soaked in cleanness, rubbed and fed in un­ cleanness

Hillel: Soaked in cleanness, and r u b b e d and fed in uncleanness

W h a t s o e v e r c o n c e r n s it must be d o n e in u n ­ cleanness

Soaked and r u b b e d in cleanness, fed i n u n ­ cleanness.

So, as I said, in M. M.S. 2:3 Judah the Patriarch has given the version of Judah b. Ilai. In M. M.S. 2:4, he has given Meir's version of Sham­ mai's opinion and Judah's view of Shammai's opinion as HilleVs ruling! Judah and Meir have diametrically opposite views of the opinions of the Houses on the heave-offering of vetches.

110

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.ii.24, 2 5

The foregoing proves that the Houses' disputes in this connection are based upon dubious traditions, if any. What seems likely is that no one knew precisely what the Houses had said. Each party formulated the extremes as he saw them and attributed them to the Houses. That no authorities had accurate traditions on the matter is probably because the Houses never produced any. See Epstein, Mevo*ot, pp. 73, 90, 303. II.ii.24.A. R. Simeon b. Judah said in the name of R. Yosah, "Thus the House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, 'Do you not agree about produce that was not fully harvested, that, if the Second Tithe is redeemed, it should not be eaten in any place [but only in Jerusa­ lem] ? Also produce whose harvest has been completed is like it (Lit.: them).' " B. "The House of Shammai said to them, 'No, if you say so con­ cerning produce whose harvest has not been completed, [it is] because he can declare them ownerless property to remove them [entirely] from the [obligations for] Heave-offering and Tithes [since they are not yet liable], [y. M.S. 3:3:] Will you say so of produce whose harvest has been completed, which he cannot declare ownerless and so free from Tithes?' C. "The House of Hillel said to them, 'Also produce whose harvest has been completed—he can make it [them] Heave-Offering and Tithes for [produce in] another place.' [y. M.S. 3:3: He can declare them ownerless and free them from Tithes.] D. " 'Another matter: They are not liable for Heave-Offering and Tithes until they have been lifted up.' " [That is, until the Tithes have been removed, the owner has no liability whatsoever and can burn the crop if he wants, and therefore the walls of Jerusalem have not affected the Tithes inhering therein one way or the other, there being no present obligation for such Tithes.] [y. M.S. 3:3: The House of Shammai said to them, "No, if you say so concerning produce whose harvest has not been completed, for which he can bring out Second (Tithe) from another place, will you say so of produce whose harvest has been completed, for which he cannot (etc.)?"] ^ 52-3, lines 55-62 (y. M.S. 3:3,6)] M

§

e

d

L i e b e r m a r i )

p

p

2

II.ii.25.A. Olive presses whose doors open inward [in the city] and their contained space outside, or whose doors open outward and contained space inward—

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.ii.24, 2 5

111

B. The House of Shammai say, "They do not redeem in them Second Tithe, as if they were within, and they do not eat in them lesser sanctities, as if they were outside." And the House of Hillel say, "The part directly above the wall and inwards is deemed within, and the part directly above the wall and outwards is deemed outside." C. R. Yosah said, "This is the Mishnah of R. Aqiba. "The first Mishnah: "The House of Shammai say, 'They do not redeem in them Second Tithe as if they were within, and they do not eat in them lesser sanctities, as if they were outside.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'Lo, they are like the [Temple] chambers. That whose door opens inward is deemed inside, and that whose door opens outward is deemed outside.' " c

[Tos. M.S. 2:12, ed. Lieberman, pp. 253-4, lines 65-72 (Tos. Arakh. 5:15)] c

Comment: II.i.24, Tos. M.S. 2:11, relates to M. M.S. 3:6, and II.i.25, Tos. M.S. 2:12, to M. M.S. 3:7, above, pp. 100-105. In M. M.S. 3:6, Simeon b. Judah alleges in R. Yosi's name that the Houses did not dispute concerning produce whose harvest was not completed. All agreed, he said, that the Second Tithe inhering in them should be redeemed and the produce might be eaten anywhere. Now we have Simeon's expansion of the version of the dispute he presents in the Mishnah: produce whose harvest has been completed. The Sham­ maites hold that the Second Tithe must be brought back to Jerusalem, and the Hillelites, that it may be redeemed for money and eaten any­ where (and the money must be brought to Jerusalem, as usual). The argument of Hillelites in part A is that just as the coins ex­ changed for the produce not fully harvested must be brought to Jerusalem, and the produce may be eaten anywhere (on which Simeon and Yosi allege the House agree), so the same rule pertains to produce fully harvested. The Hillelites' argument is rejected by the Shammaites, who introduce a distinction (part B) to show why the same rule cannot pertain to the harvest in both circumstances. That which has not been completed may in the end never be subject to the agricultural tithes, while that which has been completed is thereby already subject to the Tithes. Lieberman (= y. M.S. 3:3) supplies the following text for part C:

" A l s o p r o d u c e w h o s e h a r v e s t has b e e n c o m p l e t e d — h e can d e c l a r e t h e m ownerless property." ' A n o t h e r m a t t e r : T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i said t o t h e m , ' N o , if y o u say so c o n c e r n i n g p r o d u c e w h o s e h a r v e s t has n o t b e e n c o m p l e t e d , t h a t h e can

112

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— ILii. 2 4 , 2 5

declare them Heave-offering and Tithes f o r [produce in] another place, w i l l y o u say c o n c e r n i n g p r o d u c e w h o s e h a r v e s t has b e e n c o m p l e t e d t h a t h e declare t h e m Heave-offering and Tithes f o r [produce in] another place?' "

As to the argument of part D, Lieberman explains {Tosefta Kifshutah, p. 739 to line 62) that the owner is not liable to the priest and Levite for Heave-offering and Tithes until he raises up and separates from the untithed mass the Heave-offering and Tithes. The owner can burn the wheat, without profiting from it, if he wishes. For our purposes, it suffices to note that Simeon and Yosi have supplied a fabricated colloquy to spell out what is at issue in the Mish­ naic passage. Judah the Patriarch selected the substitute version for the Mishnah, and left for the supplementary collection, without the appropriate superscription, the remaining elements of the Simeon-Yosi fabrication. II.ii.25 corresponds to M. M.S. 3:7: If the entrance to olive-presses in the city wall was within, and the contained space outside, or vice versa— H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : T h e w h o l e is d e e m e d w i t h i n House o f Hillel: T h e part directly a b o v e the wall and inwards deemed within, the part directly a b o v e the wall and o u t w a r d s deemed outside.

is is

According to part B the opinion of the Hillelites is the same as in the Mishnah. But that of the Shammaites here is much more complex. The Tosefta explains the opinion of the House of Shammai. They did not say that all is deemed as within except to effect the more strin­ gent of the possible rulings. One may not redeem Second Tithe therein, just as in Jerusalem one may not do so. But one may not eat lesser sanctities therein, just as outside of Jerusalem one may not do so. The Hillelite ruling is therefore clarified: What is like Jerusalem enjoys the prerogatives of Jerusalem in all respects, and contrarywise as well. Therefore one may eat lesser sanctities and Second Tithe. What is not like Jerusalem is likewise not like Jerusalem in all respects: one may there redeem Second Tithe. R. Yosah then tells us that this is the version of 'Aqiba. Before him, we had a somewhat different form. In it the House of Shammai's opinion is unchanged. But that of the Hillelites comes in quite different language, although the meaning seems the same. That is, what is deemed inside still enjoys all the prerogatives of being in the city, and what is deemed outside likewise. This follows M. M.S. 3:8: In the chambers built in the Temple and o p e n i n g into g r o u n d that was n o t h o l y , n o s a n c t i t y a t t a c h e d t o t h e space w i t h i n t h e m , b u t t h e i r r o o f s a r e deemed t o be w i t h i n h o l y g r o u n d . . . .in t h o s e b u i l t b o t h w i t h i n t h e T e m p l e c o u r t a n d o n g r o u n d t h a t w a s n o t holy and opening both into the Temple and into g r o u n d that was n o t h o l y , [then i n w h a t c o n c e r n s ] t h e space w i t h i n t h e m a n d t h e i r r o o f s , d i r e c t l y

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

113

— II.ii.26

a b o v e t h e T e m p l e [ c o u r t ] a n d i n w a r d s t o w a r d t h e T e m p l e is h o l y , a n d d i r e c t l y a b o v e the T e m p l e a n d o u t w a r d t o w a r d g r o u n d t h a t is n o t h o l y is n o t h o l y . (M.

M.S.

3:8,

trans. Danby, p.

77)

Accordingly, one follows the direction of the door and contained space. If the door (etc.) is toward one direction, the law of the place follows that side in all respects. Thus the Hillelite rule remains the same, but the language in which it was framed is different. Once again we have a terminus ante quern for a tradition. But the forms of the tradition are various and complicated. Clearly, a Houses-dispute was set by the time of R. Aqiba. But the form of Aqiba is somewhat different from that of M. M.S. 3:7. The House of Shammai is unchan­ ged in the two versions—and different from the opinion attributed to them in the Mishnah! The House of Hillel is changed in form, though not in substance, and also differs in form, though not in substance, from the Mishnah in the latter version. For the House of Hillel, Judah the Patriarch has selected the 'Aqiban version. But we do not know where he got his version of the Shammaites' opinion. What came be­ fore Aqiba? It is difficult to say. My guess is that this is not the sort of pericope one can readily date to pre-70 times. First, it is complex in form. Second, in the face of attributions to later authorities, one had best not seek earlier sources, surely not among pre-Yavnean traditions. It once again looks as if an existing form has been used for new materi­ als. Note Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 78. c

c

c

II.ii.26.A. Second Tithe which entered Jerusalem and became un­ clean, whether it was made unclean by a Father of Uncleanness or by an Offspring of Uncleanness, whether within the city or outside— B. "The House of Shammai say, 'All will be redeemed and eaten within.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'All will be redeemed and eaten within, except for that which has been made unclean by a Father of Uncleanness [and which is eaten] outside' "— The words of R. Meir. C. R. Judah says, "The House of Shammai say, 'All will be re­ deemed and eaten within, except for that which is made unclean by a Father of Uncleanness [which is eaten] outside.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'All will be redeemed and eaten out­ side, except for that which is made unclean by an Offspring of Un­ cleanness [which is eaten] inside.' " D. R. Leazar says, "If it was made unclean by a Father of Un­ cleanness, whether inside or outside, it will be redeemed and eaten NEUSNER, The Rabbinic T r a d i t i o n s about t h e P h a r i s e e s before 70, II

8

114

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.26

outside. If it is made unclean by an Offspring of Uncleanness, whether inside or outside, it will be redeemed and eaten inside." E. R. Aqiba says, "If it is made unclean outside, whether by a Father of Uncleanness or by an Offspring of Uncleanness, it will be re­ deemed and eaten outside. If it is made unclean within, whether by a Father of Uncleanness or by an Offspring of Uncleanness, it will be redeemed and eaten within." F. R. Simeon b. Leazar said, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not dispute concerning that which was made un­ clean by a Father of Uncleanness outside, that it should be redeemed and eaten outside. "And concerning that which was made unclean by an Offspring of Uncleanness within, that it should be redeemed and eaten within. "Concerning what did they debate? "Concerning that which was made unclean by a Father of Unclean­ ness inside, and concerning [that which was made unclean] by an Off­ spring of Uncleanness outside, for "The House of Shammai say, 'It will be redeemed in the place [where it was made unclean] and eaten in the place [where it was made unclean].' "And the House of Hillel say, 'It is redeemed in the place and eaten in every place.' " (Tos. M.S. 2:16, ed. Lieberman, pp. 255-6, lines 87-101) c

Comment: The relationship to M. M.S. 3:9 is clear: Judah the

Meir

Patriarch

Judah h. Ilai

Leaqar

'Aqiba

Simeon b.

Lea^ar

1.

1. Father/out­ side—outside. Offspring/in­ side—inside

(M. M.S. 3:9) 1. Whether made unclean by a Father of Un­ cleanness o r b y an Offspring of Uncleanness 2. Whether within or with­ out

» » »

2

1.

2. yy yy yy

—

—

1. — Unclean by Father ofUnleanness

2

—

Unclean outside

2. — yy yy yy W h e t h e r by Father o f Off­ spring

2.

—

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

Judah the Patriarch

Meir

3. House of Shammai: A l l w i l l be redeemed and eaten inside

3

Judah b. Ilai

Leazar

'Aqiba

Simeon b. Leazar

3.

—

3.

—

3.

4.

— 4.

—

4. Father/inside and Offspring/ outside

—

3

4 . E x c e p t w h a t is 4 . made unclean by a Father of Un­ cleanness o u t ­ side [that i t is eaten outside]

—

4

4*

4*

115

— II.ii.26

4.* Re­ deemed and eaten outside

4.* Shammai:

4 * ••

Redeem in the » »

»

place [ J e r u s a ­ l e m ] a n d eat i n the place. Hillel: Redeem in the place and eat a n y w h e r e .

5. A n d House o f Hillel: A l l r e ­ deemed and eaten outside

5» a » inside

6. Except w h a t is m a d e u n c l e a n by an Offspring o f Uncleanness i n s i d e [to b e eaten inside]

6. Except unclean by

7.

7.

»

5.» » »

5.—

5.—

5.

—

6* » » »

6.

6.

—

6.

—

7.

7. By an Off­ spring, whether in or out eaten within

7. Un­ clean i n ­ side, whether Father o r Off­ spring, eaten inside

7.

—

—

Father of Un­ cleanness —out­ side. —

—

Judah the Patriarch's version derives from Judah b. Ilai. But he has taken the superscriptions of Meir, nos. 1 and 2, then the substance of Judah b. Ilai, nos. 3 , 4 , 5 , and 6 (!). Strikingly Leazar and 'Aqiba do not even bother to frame their opinions in the form of Houses-disputes, but speak in their own names. Simeon b. Leazar has complicated matters still more by denying the dispute concerned what all the others supposed, then by giving completely new substance to the dispute, with new legal forms and rulings (no. 4 * ) .

116

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.27, 2 8

The legal issues are no longer of much consequence. Our earlier conclusion applies here as well. II.ii.27. R. Simeon b. Leazar said, "The House of Hillel and the House of Shammai did not disagree concerning one who stamps with his finger on the jar [and in this connection, the wine was never in the vat, for with his finger he stamped and pressed out the grapes in the bottle and afterward stopped it up], that he opens but does not have to empty [out the wine into the vat, for it is sufficient if he opens the bottle and restores it to its former condition, and even the House of Shammai agree in this matter]. "Concerning what did they differ? "Concerning him who tramples [the grapes] in the vat, for "The House of Shammai say, 'He opens and empties into the vat.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'He opens but does not need to empty.' " ^ M

$

e d

L i e b e r m a n 5

p

2 5 6 j

l i n e s

l l l - 1 1 3 ( y . M.S. 2:10)] Comment: In M. M.S. 3:13 the House of Shammai say that if the bottles are sealed and the man wants to give Heave-offering from one on behalf of all, he must open the jars and empty them into the wine­ press. The House of Hillel say, "He must open them but need not empty them." Simeon b. Leazar's supplement specifies that the dispute pertains only to wine which has originally come from the vat. Judah the Patriarch was unclear on this point. All he preserved of the Houses was their ruling, but not the case to which it applied. II.ii.28.A. They redeem (HLL) produce with coins in Jerusalem in this time— The House of Shammai say, "This and this are Second Tithe." The House of Hillel say, "The coins are as they were, and the produce is as it was [ = not holy but profane]." B. The House of Hillel say, "A man separates First Tithe of Demai and lifts its Heave-offering and eats it [the rest], and does not need to separate Second [Tithe]." The House of Shammai say, "He needs to separate Second [Tithe], for I.say, 'If the Second is raised up, the First is raised up; if the First is raised up, the Second is not raised up.' " And the law is according to the words of the House of Shammai. [Tos. M.S. 3:14-15, ed. Lieberman, pp. 260-1, lines 48-53 (y. M.S. 1:3)]

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.ii.29

117

Comment: Part A is the counterpart of M. M.S. 5:7, above, p. 106. The Hillelites hold he has done nothing at all, and both the produce and the coins are as they were. In other words the law is now in abey­ ance. In part B the man does not have to take into account the possibility that a non-observant person has separated First Tithe and not separ­ ated Second Tithe, so the Tithe of the fellow (HBR) is still to be tithed for Second Tithe, since we assume that if a non-observant person nor­ mally separates First Tithe, he will also separate Second Tithe. The Shammaites give the same opinion as Leazar, (y. M.S. 4:8, cited by Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshutah, p. 761, to line 52): "He who is reliable for Second Tithe is reliable for First Tithe."

II.ii.29A. Fruit of the Fourth-Year Vineyard— "The House of Shammai say, 'It has no Added Fifth, and it has no Removal.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'It has the Added Fifth, and it has Removal.' "Under what circumstances ? In the Seventh Year, but in the rest of the years of the seven, it has the Added Fifth and it has Removal"— the words of Rabbi. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, "It is all the same whether it is the Seventh Year or the rest of the years of the seven. The House of Shammai say, 'It has no Added Fifth, and it has no Removal.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'It has the Added Fifth, and it has Removal.' " B. The House of Shammai say, "They do not cut it down (GMM)." And the House of Hillel say, "They cut it down." C. The House of Shammai say, "They do not redeem it as grapes but as wine." And the House of Hillel say, "[As] wine and grapes." But all agree that they do not redeem that which is attached to the soil [since it cannot be accurately evaluated]. D. The House of Shammai say, "They do not plant it in the fourth year, for the fourth year [next] will fall in the Seventh Year." And the House of Hillel permit. (Tos. M.S. 5:17-20, ed. Lieberman, p. 272, lines 54-62) Comment: The words of the Houses are constant. Rabbi has omitted in the Mishnah reference to the dispute between himself and his father with regard to the limitations specified in the superscription.

118

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.34, 3 5

Lieberman explains that the House of Hillel compare the Fourth Year fruits to Second Tithe. Just as Second Tithe is not given in the Seventh Year, so the law of the Fourth Year fruits does not apply in the Seventh Year. This is made explicit in part D, which draws the same conclusion. Part A therefore limits the Shammaite ruling to the Seventh Year. For the rest of the years of the cycle, the House of Shammai is re­ presented as agreeing with the House of Hillel: Fourth Year fruits do have the Added Fifth and Removal, just as does Second Tithe. Com­ pare Sifra Qedoshim 3:8. Simeon b. Gamaliel says that the House of Shammai do not compare Fourth Year fruits to Second Tithe. Scripture (Lev. 19:24) contains no hint that the Fourth Year fruits have the Added Fifth and Removal. For further comment, see Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshutah to Zera'im, pp. 785-7. II.L34.A. Flour-paste is exempt according to the House of Sham­ mai. According to the House of Hillel it is liable. B. Dumplings are liable according to the House of Shammai. Ac­ cording to the House of Hillel they are exempt. [M. Hallah 1:6, trans. Danby, p. 83 (y. Hal. 1:4, b. Pes. 37b)] Comment: The

Danby's translation obscures the form:

flour-paste

H o u s e o f S h a m m a i d e c l a r e it e x e m p t [of H o u s e o f H i l l e l d e c l a r e it l i a b l e .

Hallah]

The dumplings House o f S h a m m a i declare liable House o f Hillel declare exempt.

No logical reasons are given in the commentaries (e.g. Albeck, Seder p. 276) for the rulings of the Houses. Epstein, Mishnah, pp. 2-3, holds A and B are on the same species of food, and the Tanna of A, R. Yosi (M. <Ed. 5:2), differs from that of B, R. Meir. He cites Tarbis 7, pp. 143,156-7.

Zera'im,

II.L35.A. Whatsoever is leavened, flavored, or mingled with Heave-offering, Or/ah-fruk, or Diverse Kinds of the Vineyard, is forbidden. The House of Shammai say, "It can also convey uncleanness." And the House of Hillel say, "It can never convey uncleanness un­ less it is an egg's bulk in quantity." c

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.35

119

B. Dositheus of Kefar Yatmah was one of the disciples of the House of Shammai, and he said, "I have heard a tradition from Shammai the Elder, who said, 'It can never convey uncleanness unless it is an egg's bulk in quantity.' " [M. Orlah 2:4-5, trans. Danby, p. 90 (y.
Comment: The prohibition concerns whether produce that conveys a marked flavor can be neutralized (in a hundred and one). It cannot. The House of Shammai say that if it is unclean, even though less than an egg's bulk, which is the quantity that conveys food-uncleanness, it also conveys uncleanness. The House of Hillel rule it can convey uncleanness only in the usual quantity. The rulings of the Houses gloss the foregoing: And H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, Also (*P) r e n d e r s u n c l e a n H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, N e v e r r e n d e r s u n c l e a n , u n l e s s t h e r e is i n it as [ m u c h as] a n egg.

The form of the Houses' rulings is complex. Since the Shammaite ruling is also makes unclean, without further qualification as to quantity, it carries the implication that less than an egg's bulk is sufficient. The Hillelite ruling therefore could not have been does not make unclean, under any circumstances. The issue would thereby have been obscured. Hence the gloss, unless. . . an egg, makes things entirely clear. But had the Shammaite ruling read: H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, Less than an egg's

bulk r e n d e r s

unclean

then the Hillelite lemma would have been: H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, L e s s t h a n an e g g ' s

bulk d o e s not

render unclean.

That would have been the simplest form. Why was it not used? Per­ haps the pericope is highly developed. But the development included dropping the operative words less than egg's bulk from the primary Shammaite lemma—and that would not serve any editorial purpose. Perhaps, therefore, the Houses-dispute originally stood by itself, as follows: Less than an egg's bulk House o f Shammai say: Renders unclean House of Hillel say: D o e s not r e n d e r u n c l e a n .

The referent is omitted. The pericope was attached to the foregoing. All that was augmented in the Shammaite version was the addition of also, the necessary joining-word. Then the Hillelite saying was complet­ ely revised; the superscription was included in its lemma, and the whole was rephrased as never. . . until. . . Normally, superscriptions are

120

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.36

read into the first, Shammaite clause. Still, this seems the more satis­ factory theoretical form. Part B is quite another matter. Here Shammai is curiously represented as saying the words of the House of Hillel, verbatim. We are supposed to believe that the House of Shammai did not know the ruling of the master (above, I, pp. 192-193). It was a disciple of that very House who did know what Shammai had said. These were not told—or, incre­ dibly, were told and did not accept the tradition. Then the Hillelites took it over. This seems on the face of it a Hillelite fabrication. But what if the tradition was an accurate report? Then what has been fabricated is not Shammai's opinion, but the position of the House of Shammai. On that basis, the Hillelite position in part A should be exchanged with the Shammaite one. But to do so, it would be necessary to reverse the order of the Houses—highly irregular!—or to reverse the opinions attributed to them. Form-critical considerations suggest this too is difficult: H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, " I t c a n never c o n v e y u n c l e a n n e s s e g g ' s b u l k in q u a n t i t y . " H o u s e of.Hillel say, " I t canfalso) c o n v e y u n c l e a n n e s s . "

unless it is an

Without knowing the position of the Hillelites, that of the Shammaites is incomprehensible. Why say never. . . unless. . ., not as a contradiction to an antecedent opinion, but as an independent lemma, first in se­ quence? Normally never. . . unless. . . serves as the negative-intensive for the second, contrary opinion. It would have been adequate for the Shammaite position to read as follows: House of Shammai: A n egg's bulk conveys uncleanness. House o f Hillel:

E v e n less t h a n an e g g ' s b u l k c o n v e y s

uncleanness. The language of the House of Hillel obviously has been given to Shammai. If Shammai had shared the opinion of the House of Hillel, it would not likely have been phrased in the form necessary for a Housesdispute. And Dositheus is not accurately represented. C

II. MO ED

II.i.36.A. (And) these are among the laws which the sages said in the upper room of Hananiah b. Hezeqiah b. Gurion. When they went up to visit him, they voted, and the House of Shammai outnumbered the House of Hillel. Eighteen things did they decree on that day. B. The House of Shammai say, "They do not soak ink, dyestuffs, or vetches [on a Friday], unless there is ( L KDY S) [time] for them to be [wholly] soaked while it is still day (MB'WD YWM)." And the House of Hillel permit. J

5

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.36

121

C. The House of Shammai say, "They do not put bundles of flax into an oven, unless there is time for them to steam off while it is still day; nor wool into a [dyer's] cauldron, unless there is time for it to absorb the color while it is still day." And the House of Hillel permit. D. The House of Shammai say, "They do not spread nets for wild animals, birds, or fishes, unless there is time for them to be caught while it is still day." And the House of Hillel permit. E. The House of Shammai say, "They do not sell [aught] to a gentile or help him to load his beast or raise [a burden] on his shoul­ ders, unless there is time for him to reach a place nearby." And the House of Hillel permit. F. The House of Shammai say, "They do not give hides to a [gentile] tanner nor clothes to a gentile washerman, unless there is time for [the work to be] done while it is still day." G. And all these the House of Hillel permit such time as the sun is c

up( MHSMS).

H. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said, "In my father's house they used to give white clothes to a gentile washerman three days before Sabbath." I. Both [the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel] agree that men may lay down the olive-press beams or the winepress rollers. [M. Shab. 1:4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, trans. Danby, pp. 100-101 (y. Shab. 1:4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, b. Shab. 13b, 17b, 18a-b, b. A.Z. 36a-b)] Comment: The legal problem concerns beginning on the eve of the Sabbath (Friday) work which will be completed on the Sabbath. The Shammaites say that one must not begin such work; the Hillelites, that one may begin it. We have already seen the same dispute attributed to Shammai and Hillel, I, pp. 324-325,157,196-197. The first problem is the referent of part A. The accepted explanation is that it pertains to the foregoing paragraphs, which are as follows: A m a n s h o u l d n o t sit d o w n b e f o r e t h e b a r b e r n e a r t o t h e t i m e o f t h e a f t e r n o o n Tefillah, u n l e s s h e has a l r e a d y p r a y e d ; a m a n s h o u l d n o t e n t e r a b a t h - h o u s e o r a t a n n e r y , n o r s h o u l d he [ b e g i n t o ] eat a meal o r d e c i d e a suit, t h o u g h i f a n y h a v e b e g u n [a l i k e d e e d ] t h e y n e e d n o t i n t e r r u p t it. T h e y m u s t i n t e r r u p t [their d o i n g s ] t o recite t h e Shema\ b u t t h e y n e e d n o t i n t e r r u p t t h e m f o r t h e Tefillah. A t a i l o r s h o u l d n o t g o o u t w i t h his n e e d l e [on F r i d a y ] n e a r t o n i g h t f a l l ,

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.36

lest h e f o r g e t a n d ' g o o u t / n o r s h o u l d a s c r i v e n e r [ g o o u t t h e n ] w i t h h i s p e n ; n o r s h o u l d a m a n s e a r c h h i s c l o t h e s [ f o r fleas] o r r e a d b y l a m p l i g h t . R i g h t l y h a v e t h e y said, " A s c h o o l - m a s t e r m a y l o o k w h e r e t h e c h i l d r e n are r e a d i n g , b u t h e h i m s e l f m a y n o t r e a d . " I n l i k e m a n n e r a m a n t h a t h a s a flux m a y n o t eat w i t h a w o m a n t h a t h a s a flux, since i t l e n d s o c c a s i o n t o t r a n s g r e s s i o n . (M. Shab. 1 : 2 - 3 , trans. D a n b y , p. 1 0 0 )

The greater number of readings is, These are, meaning the foregoing, though some readings have And these are, meaning, the following (b. Shab. 13b). Albeck {Seder Mo'ed, p. 406, to 1:4) prefers the first, though he notes that even These are serves both to introduce, as well as to complete, a pericope. He admits that there is no decisive evidence, one way or the other. See Epstein, Mishnah, p. 426. The further problem is, What are the eighteen things? In the antecedent paragraphs, we find the following issues: 1. barber; 2. bath-house; 3. meal; 4. law-suits; 5. tailor; 6. scribe; 7. fleas; 8. read. However, one counts, we do not have eighteen. Nor do eighteen follow. Albeck further reviews the traditional commentaries on this point. Part A,M. Shab. 1:4, is an independent lemma, attached as a super­ scription for the following collection. It mentions the Houses, and since the Houses do not occur in the antecedent materials, it seems to me unlikely that the editor meant M. Shab. 1:2-3. The little story about the superiority of the Shammaites joins the several {sword, Hillel in Temple) in which the temporary predominance of the Shammaites is explained. The story is composed of several phrases: 1. T h e s e a r e [ s o m e ] of t h e l a w s w h i c h t h e y said i n t h e u p p e r c h a m b e r of Hananiah b. Hizqiyahu b. G u r i o n 2. W h e n t h e y w e n t u p t o v i s i t ( B Q R ) h i m 3. T h e y v o t e d , and the House o f Shammai w e r e m o r e n u m e r o u s than the House o f Hillel 4 . [and] e i g h t e e n t h i n g s t h e y d e c r e e d 5. o n t h a t d a y .

The function of no. 2 is a little problem. It may be assigned as the conclusion of no. 1, or as the beginning of no. 3; my guess is that it serves as a joining-phrase, a later gloss, for one could proceed from no. 1 to no. 3 without it. As to no. 1, we have already seen material of the same sort in connec­ tion with the question of why Hillel did not receive the holy spirit. There the sages were assembled as follows: Tos. Sot. 13:3: house of Guryo in Jericho; y. Sot. 9:13, same, but GDY ; b. Sanh. 11a, once they were reclining in the upper room of Guryo; b. Sot. 48b = b. Sanh. 11a; y. A.Z. 3:1 = y. Hor. 3:5 has upper room of GDYY\ The combi­ nation of the Houses (Hillel), upper room and GuryojGedya looks suspi­ cious. We may readily recognize when they went up to visit him as a gloss of no special interest. But what shall we make of upper room of Hananiah y

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

123

— II.i.36

b. Hizqiyahu b. Gurion? Perhaps someone supposed this is Guryo's (Gedya's) grandson? That seems to me implausible. What appears more likely is that a garbled tradition has been straightened out and used for another meeting of the sages, this time not for the purpose of receiving heavenly messages or of discussing why they were not receiving them, but to make decrees. Since the holy-spirit-rmtetiaXs derive from Samuel the Small-Judah b. Baba, we had best suppose that the whole was doctored sometime after ca. 150. No. 3 is the operative clause: the Shammaites outnumbered the Hillelites. We have seen this theme earlier, in connection with the Shammai-Hillel debate about vintaging grapes and crushing olives in cleanness, also Hillel in the Temple. There Hillel is silenced by a sword—or by the mob—and the Shammaites outvote the Hillelites anyhow. Now it is unambiguous that one time the Shammaites were more numerous, y. Shab. 1:4 supplies the missing violence: it has the Shammaites murder Hillelite voters. No. 4 obviously is a formal lemma, which can serve any sort of list. The eighteen things tradition perhaps began in some sort of collection, arranged for mnemonic purposes, much like the Ushan ones (M. Ed., below). It has been taken up and set into narrative form. No. 5 surely comes together with no. 4. On that day also serves as a formula to introduce or conclude stories connected with the deposition of Gamaliel II. Here, however, I doubt that it means more than it says: then. I hear no echo of the Gamaliel-deposition. The pericope need not be regarded as a composite, in the sense that a final editor has put together existing, completed materials. Apart from no. 2, nothing seems to me either superfluous or redundant. I see no other glosses. It looks to me like a little story, much like the holy spiritstories and the sword-in-the-school-house fable, composed of existing themes, or key-words and episodic phrases, but not put together part by part, as elsewhere. It surely comes at the end of a long history of transmission of inchoate and unfinished materials. No. 4 can be no earlier than other collection-forms, therefore not much be­ fore the middle of the second century. It certainly is more elaborate than other collection-superscriptions, which consist of numbers plus key-words (stringencies/leniencies), and represents a considerable literary improvement. The form of parts B, C, D, E, F is rigidly fixed and consistent: c

>

>

T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y , They do not. . . except in order to ( L K D Y § ) . . . A n d t h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l permit.

The laws are as follows: Part B: Part

C:

T h e y d o n o t soak ink, and dyes, and vetches, except in o r d e r that t h e y m a y b e w h o l l y s o a k e d w h i l e it is still d a y T h e y d o n o t place b u n d l e s o f flax i n t h e o v e n , e x c e p t in o r d e r t h a t t h e y m a y s t e a m off w h i l e it is still d a y

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

Part D: Part E:

Part F:

— II.i.36

T h e y d o n o t s p r e a d n e t s o f beast, b i r d s , a n d fish, e x c e p t in o r d e r t h a t t h e y m a y be t r a p p e d w h i l e it is still d a y T h e y d o n o t sell t o t h e g e n t i l e a n d c a r r y w i t h h i m a n d t h e y d o n o t raise u p o n h i m , e x c e p t in o r d e r t h a t he m a y r e a c h a n e a r place [ O m i t s : while it is still day] T h e y d o n o t give hides t o the tanner, and n o t vessels to the gentile l a u n d r y m a n , e x c e p t i n o r d e r t h a t t h e y m a y b e d o n e w h i l e it is still day.

Part G then serves as a summary-subscription for the whole, as well as for part F: And in all of them t h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l p e r m i t with the sun.

The Hillelite stock-phrase of the foregoing is augmented fore and aft. The glossator provides an appropriate summary; at the end, a new element is introduced, which is redundant: with the sun (while it is still day = with the sun, as long as the sun is shining). The expected Hillelite lemma, with appropriate editorial glosses (in italics), completes the collection. Epstein, Mevo*ot, p. 282, does not see these as glosses. The laws are closely related to one another. Parts B, C, and D con­ cern Jews only. Parts E and F pertain to what one may ask a gentile to do. The form of part E is slightly defective, as I pointed out, but the change is not consequential. Albeck {Seder Mo'ed, p. 20) explains that the Shammaites holdall one's work must be done at the end of the sixth day. The Hillelites say that if the work is completed on the Sabbath, it is permissible, since inanimate objects, but neither man nor beast, are involved. The Shammaites prohibit imposing on the gentile, lest it appear that the gentile is doing the work of an Israelite, as his agent, on the Sabbath. Part H tells us that Simeon b. Gamaliel's father's house followed the Shammaite ruling. We do not know whether this is Gamaliel I or Gamaliel II, though the state of the Simeon b. Gamaliel I materials is such that the much greater likelihood is Gamaliel II. If so, then once again the Yavnean Gamaliel is represented as a Shammaite. I see no hostile polemic in his son's report. On the contrary, it is probably as firm historical evidence as we are likely to have. Had he not said it, given the conditions governing the formation of Hillelite traditions, no one would likely have invented it; and he did not say it to prove a case ("father was a Shammaite"), but told it in innocence. Perhaps no one later on (in Judah the Patriarch's day) was much disturbed, since the House-disputes had long since become a matter of legal theory (as asserted in M. Yev. 1:4) for Hillelite heirs to work on. • Part I comes at the end and seems to me not part of the foregoing list, but a later addition. One may begin the process of crushing olives and grapes. The placing of the weights (beams, rollers) may be done before the Sabbath, since the primary pressing is thereby completed. The issue of parts B-D therefore does not apply. The form before us is exceptional. We should have expected:

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— III.i.3, II.i.37

125

As to soaking ink( before I and) on the Sabbath House of Shammai: Prohibit House of Hillel: Permit

This would have covered all aspects of both opinions. The KDY § form is an awkward circumlocution. Some affirmative formulation of the issue must have been possible; the one proposed above is hardly adequate. That the Shammaite lemmas before us are all highly develop­ ed and carefully glossed (while it is still day), the persistence of the glos­ ses, and the 'L KDY § clauses prove that a developed form has taken the place of a primitive one. But why? My guess is that the authority behind the collection is also responsible for its form and structure. He has preferred a smoother set of legal cases, not separated by superscrip­ tions or other topical phrases, and therefore has turned whatever ex­ planatory matter he had into integral parts of the Shammaite part of the pericopae. But even as it stands the collection follows an obvious mnemonic pattern. Note Epstein, Mevo*ot p. 145, 282-6, 423. He assigns the whole of 1:5-7 to 'Aqiba, by reference to b. Shab. 18b. 5

III.i.3. R. Joshua Onia taught (TNP), "The disciples of the House of Shammai took up positions for themselves downstairs and would slay the disciples of the House of Hillel." TNY: Six of them went up and the rest stood with swords and spears. (y. Shab. 1:4, ed. Gilead, p. 9a) Comment: The traditions supply details of the story to expand this one.

spear in the school house

II.L37.A. A stove (KYRH) which had been heated with stubble or straw—cooked food may be set on it. But if with peat or wood, cooked food may not be set on it until it has been swept out or covered with ashes. B. The House of Shammai say, "Hot water but not cooked food [may be set thereon]." And the House of Hillel say, "Hot water and cooked food." C. The House of Shammai say, "They remove [on the Sabbath] but do not put back." And the House of Hillel say, "They also put back." [M. Shab. 3:1, trans. Danby, p. 102 (y. Shab. 3:1,4; b. Shab. 36b-37a)]

126

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.38

Comment: The dispute of the Houses pertains to the second clause of the foregoing rule: a stove heated by fuel that produces coals likely to burn for some time. The possibility is that he may stir the coals. In part B the Shammaites rule that even after it is swept out, one cannot put food on such a stove, but only hot water. One may not put food back on it either. The Houses-dispute glosses the foregoing. Without it we should have assumed no distinction is made between hot water and food, or between removing food and putting it back. The form is brief and elliptical: B . H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : H o t w a t e r but not f o o d . House of Hillel: H o t w a t e r and f o o d . C. H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : T a k e b u t n o t r e t u r n . House of Hillel: Also r e t u r n .

The first pair is perfectly balanced, and the sole difference is the ne­ gative particle. The second pair makes the Hillelite opinion dependent on the Shammaite one. It should have been take and return. The latter pair therefore looks like a gloss on the former, extending the ruling of the Houses to a separate, but related case. See Epstein, Mishnah, p. 455-6. II.i.38. The House of Shammai say, "They take up bones and shells from the table(SLHN) [on the Sabbath]." And the House of Hillel say, "He takes the entire table (TBLH) and shakes it (MN'RH)." [M. Shab. 21:3, trans. Danby, p. 118 (b. Shab. 143a, 157a, b. Bes. 2a)] Comment: The Houses opinions are not balanced, but separate: H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : They r a i s e u p f r o m t h e t a b l e ( § L H N ) b o n e s a n d shells H o u s e o f H i l l e l : He t a k e / t h e w h o l e t a b l e t ( T B L H ) and shakes it.

The verbs are neither the same root nor in the same person; the noun of the predicate changes. The two thus look more like separate rulings which have been juxtaposed, than a standard dispute on the same matter in the same language and forms. Tos. Shab. reverses the Houses' posi­ tions, but preserves the anomalies of form and word choice. This makes it all the more curious. MS Kaufmann has the following: T h e H o u s e o f Hillel

say, " T h e y remove (
shells a n d b o n e s . " A n d t h e H o u s e o f Shammai say, "He takes away ( § L Q ) t h e w h o l e t a b l e t ( T B L H ) a n d s h a k e s it ( W M N ' R H ) . "

The order is Tosefta's, and so are the word-choices. See Epstein, Mevo ot, p. 297; Mishnah, pp. 357-8, for a full explanation. y

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.ii.30

127

II.ii.30.A. R. Simeon b. Leazar said, ". . .they said a male should not eat with a female Zab [= one afflicted with gonorrhaea] on account of becoming accustomed to transgression. "For(S) the House of Shammai say, *A Pharisee-Z^ should not eat with an outsider-Z^.' "And the House of Hillel permit." [Tos. Shab. 1:14(end)-15, ed. Lieberman, p. 4, lines 34-5 (y. Shab. 1:3, b. Shab. 13a)] B. These are among the laws which they said in the upper chamber of Hananiah b. Hizqiyahu b. Garon when they went up to visit him. And they counted, and the House of Shammai were more numerous than the House of Hillel. Eighteen thing[s] they decreed on that very day. And that day was as hard for Israel as the day on which the [golden] calf was made. (Tos. Shab. 1:16, ed. Lieberman, p. 4, lines 36-8) C. On that day they said, "All things which are carried bring un­ cleanness with the thickness of an ox-goad (MRD )." And they counted and the House of Shammai were more numerous than the House of Hillel. C

[Tos. Shab. 1:18, ed. Lieberman, p. 4, lines 40-41 (b. Shab. 16b-17a, M. Oh. 16:1)] D.l. On that day they said, "He who forgets vessels on the Eve of the Sabbath at darkness under the water pipe." 2. And they counted, and the House of Shammai were more numerous than the House of Hillel. [Tos. Shab. 1:19, ed. Lieberman, p. 4, lines 42-3 (M. Miq. 4:1, b. Shab. 16b assigns D.2to Meir)] E. The House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel, "Do you not agree that they do not roast meat, onion[s] and egg[s] on the Eve of the Sabbath except so that ('L* KDY S) they may be roasted [while it is still day]? Also it suffices for dyestuffs and vetches [to be] like them." The House of Hillel said to them, "Do you not agree that they lay

128

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.30

down the olive-press beams and the winepress rollers on the Eve of the Sabbath at darkness? Also it suffices for dyestuffs and vetches [to be] like them." F. These stood in their answer, and these stood in their answer, but thatCL'S) The House of Shammai say, "Six days will you labor and do all your work (Ex. 20:9)—that all your work should be finished by the eve of the Sabbath." And the House of Hillel say, "Six days willyou labor—you do work all six days."

^

S

h

a

b

1 : 2 0

_

2 1 >

e

d

L i e b e r m a n 5

p p >

4

.

5 j

lines 43-49 (y. Shab. 1:5, b. Shab. 18b)] G. The House of Shammai say, "One does not sell to the gentile or carry with him or lift up on him [a burden] unless there is time ('L* KDY S) for him to reach a near place." H. What is a near place? Until he reaches a house near the wall. R. Aqiba says. . . I. R. Leazar b. R. Sadoq said, "[Those] of (§L) the House of Rabban Gamaliel would bring their washing to the gentile washerman three days before the Sabbath, and dying on the eve of the Sabbath. . . " c

[Tos. Shab. 1:22, ed. Lieberman, p. 5, lines 49-55 (b. Shab. 19a has R. Sadoq)] Comment:

Part

A : L i e b e r m a n e x p l a i n s (Tosefta

Kifshutah

p. 13) that

t h e H i l l e l i t e s , e v e n t h o u g h t h e y p e r m i t t h e P h a r i s a i c Zab to e a t w i t h t h e non-Pharisaic Zab,

agree with the foregoing

rule, that a male and

f e m a l e Zab s h o u l d n o t e a t t o g e t h e r . O t h e r t e x t s , h o w e v e r , p r e s e n t t h e H o u s e s - d i s p u t e as a n e w a n d s e p a r a t e i t e m . Part

B:

T h e s u p e r s c r i p t i o n of t h e e i g h t e e n t h i n g s , M . S h a b . 1:4, is

s o m e w h a t d i f f e r e n t : M . S h a b . Gurion

becomes

Garon.

T h e gloss

and

that day, w h i c h w e s a w a b o v e in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e h u m i l i a t i o n o f H i l l e l ( b . S h a b . 1 7 a , I , p . 3 1 8 ) , fits as w e l l h e r e a s i t d o e s t h e r e , a n d f o r t h e s a m e r e a s o n : I t i s t h e H i l l e l i t e c o m m e n t o n t h e a f f a i r . (See e x t e n d e d c o m m e n t s , Tosefta

Kifshutah,

Lieberman's

p p . 14-16.) B u t the comment it­

s e l f is a s t o c k p h r a s e , w h i c h c a n b e a t t a c h e d p r e t t y m u c h a n y w h e r e . Part

C:

N o w w e have a new form,

O n t h a t d a y t h e y said Law A n d they counted and the House of Shammai w e r e more numerous than t h e H o u s e o f Hillel. T h e f o r m is s o u n d , b u t t h e s t a t e m e n t o f t h e l a w i s i n s e v e r a l p l a c e s

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

129

— II.ii.30

truncated; the Hillelite opinion is omitted. Thus in part C, we do not have the opposing opinion, (presumably) that even less than the thick­ ness of a staff suffices. See M. Oh. 16:1: A n y m o v a b l e o b j e c t c o n v e y s t h e u n c l e a n n e s s i f it is as t h i c k as a n o x goad. R. T a r f o n said, " M a y I b u r y m y c h i l d r e n i f t h i s is n o t a p e r v e r t e d halakhah, w h i c h t h e h e a r e r h e a r d w r o n g l y : " W h e n a h u s b a n d m a n passed b y [a t o m b ] w i t h t h e o x - g o a d o v e r his s h o u l d e r a n d o n e e n d o f it o v e r s h a d o w e d t h e t o m b , t h e y d e c l a r e h i m u n ­ clean b y v i r t u e o f t h e l a w o f 'vessels w h i c h o v e r s h a d o w a c o r p s e . ' " R . ' A q i b a said, ''I w i l l a m e n d [it] s o t h a t t h e w o r d s o f t h e sages s h a l l r e ­ main valid: " A n y m o v a b l e object c o n v e y s uncleanness t o him that carries the object i f it is as t h i c k as a n o x - g o a d , a n d t h e o b j e c t c o n v e y s t h e u n c l e a n n e s s t o itself w h a t s o e v e r its t h i c k n e s s , b u t t o o t h e r m e n a n d v e s s e l s o n l y i f i t is a handbreadth wide." ( M . O h . 16:1,

trans. Danby, p.

672)

We therefore have here the unaltered law, before 'Aqiba's emendation. Part D presents the same strange form, in which the law is stated without the opposing opinion. This time it concerns one who leaves vessels under the water-pipe on the Sabbath Eve at darkness—now, however, without the pertinent law, let alone a conflicting opinion! It obviously is an abbreviated allusion to existing materials. Lieberman explains that the man has left the objects intending to bring them into his house, but has forgotten to take them in. Mean­ while rain fell, and the water pipe filled up, so the vessels are filled as well. The water is not regarded as drawn water, according to the House of Hillel, since the man did not leave the vessels intending to fill them up. We shall see other versions of the same situation, in which the Sabbath is not the issue at all. What we have here, therefore, is an apocopated lemma, in which reference is made to a case without the legal details and outcome. Parts E-F supply an argument for M. Shab. 1:5 (II.i.34.B), and make reference as well to M. Shab. 1:9 (II.i.34.I). See Mekhilta deR. Simeon b. Yohai, ed. Epstein-Melamed, p. 149, cited above, I, pp. 185-187. Lieberman explains the Hillelite exegesis: "You work all six days, and the rest of your work will be done of itself on the Sabbath (without your own efforts)." The legal exegesis is joined by the awkward 'L* §, the § being a common joining-particle. Part G = M. Shab. 1:7: M. Shab. gives L>, Tos. Shab., >YN, for the negative particle. Otherwise there are no changes. Part H is of interest in supplying a terminus ante quern for the ante­ cedent paragraph: R. Aqiba and others of his generation (b. Shab. 18b). c

Part I compares to M. Shab. 1:9: NEUSNER, T h e Rabbinic T r a d i t i o n s about t h e P h a r i s e e s before 70, I I

9

130

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

M. Shab.

1:9

— II.ii.31

Tos. Shab.

1:22

1 . R a b b a n S i m e o n b . G a m a l i e l said

1 . R. L e a z a r b . R . S a d o q said,

2. The House of A b b a were accustomed

2 . Those of ( D ) t h e H o u s e o f Gamaliel would bring ( H Y W M W L Y K Y N ) their

(NWHGYN

HYW)

3. that they w o u l d give white garment ( K L Y LBN) t o the gentile laundryman three days before the Sabbath.

Rabban

3. white garment to the gentile laundryman three days before the Sabbath.

The differences in no. 1 are striking indeed. Instead of a first-hand re­ port, we have the recollection of Leazar b. R. Sadoq. No. 2 of Tos. drops were accustomed, and supplies would bring their for would give, but otherwise, the passages are identical, and strikingly, verbatim in the operative clause: white garment]gentile laundry man] three days before Sabbath. We have a single lemma, which has come down in one form, but with differing superscriptions. Judah the Patriarch has preferred the version of his father. It is difficult to understand how a first-person recollection in direct discourse could have produced a third-person-narrative in in­ direct discourse. It seems more likely that someone dropped Eleazar b. R. Sadoq and reframed the story in the first person, supplying the name of Simeon b. Gamaliel. It is hard to believe someone would have suppressed the name of the nasi and inserted that of a subordinated sage, especially in a matter pertaining to the household of the earlier nasi. Therefore the Eleazar-attribution must be authentic. And note b. Shab. 19a: R. S a d o q said, " T h i s w a s t h e p r a c t i c e o f t h o s e o f t h e H o u s e o f R. G a ­ maliel : T h e y w o u l d g i v e w h i t e g a r m e n t s t o t h e f u l l e r t h r e e d a y s b e f o r e t h e Sabbath, but colored garments even on the eve of the Sabbath."

See also Epstein,

y

Mevo ot,

p. 278, 286, 507;

Mishnah,

p. 426.

II.ii.31 A. . . .What do they keep on it [stove] ? "The House of Shammai say, 'One may not keep (QYM) anything at all on it.' "The House of Hillel say, 'Hot water, but not food.' B. "[If] he has removed ( QR) the kettle, all agree that he should not put back," the words of R. Meir. R. Judah says, "The House of Shammai say,'Hot water, but not food.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'Hot water and food.' " C. He removed [the kettle]— The House of Shammai say, "He does not put [it] back." And the House of Hillel say, "He puts [it] back." C

[Tos. Shab. 2(3) :13, ed. Lieberman, pp. 9-10, lines 42-46 (y. Shab. 3:1,4 [hot/cold water], b. Shab. 36b-37a, 42a [hot/cold water])]

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

Comment: M. Shab.

131

— II.ii.31

The synopsis is as follows:

3:1

1. [ S t o v e heated w i t h peat o r w o o d ] , cooked f o o d may n o t be set o n it u n t i l it has been swept out o r covered with ashes.

Tos. 2:13

Meir

(Anon.)

1. W h a t d o they keep o n i t ? H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : They do not keep anything on it.

1.

Judah

—

1.

—

2.

—

House of Hillel: Hot water, but not food.

2. House of Sham­ mai say: Hot w a t e r but not food

2.

—

3. House of Hillel say, H o t w a t e r a n d food.

3.

—

2. If he r e m o v e d t h e k e t t l e , all a g r e e that he should n o t p u t it b a c k . 3.

—

3 . R. J u d a h says, House of Shammai say, H o t w a t e r but not food. House of Hillel say, H o t w a t e r a n d food.

4. House of Sham­ m a i say, T h e y t a k e off b u t d o n o t p u t back.

4.

—

4.

—

4.

—

5. House of Hillel say, T h e y a l s o p u t back.

5.

—

5.

—

5.

—

6.

6.

—

6.

—

6. He removed— House of Shammai say, He does not p u t back. House of Hillel say, He puts back.

—

Judah the Patriarch has taken Judah b. Ilai's version of the opinions of the Houses, dropped the superscription, put the whole into the plural (they/he), and assigned the rulings to a new situation entirely. M. Shab. nos. 2-3 are the same as Judah no. 3; nos. 4-5 = Judah no. 6. Here the form of the Houses-sayings is so abbreviated that one can well under­ stand how the second-century authorities would have had difficulty in knowing to what legal problem the sayings pertained. It is the sort of lemma one would be inclined to assign to the earliest stratum of the Houses' sayings.

132

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.ii.32, 3 3

11.11.32. [As to carrying certain objects on the Sabbath]— R. [Simeon b.] Leazar says, "The House of Shammai say, 'They are not handled (NYTLYN) except in case of need.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'In case of need and not in case of need/ " [Tos. Shab. 14(15) :1, ed. Lieberman, p. 64, lines 5:7(Tos. Bes. 1:11, y. Shab. 17:4)] Comment: The form is a standard, developed exemplum, with the insertion of the explanatory matter into the opinion of the House of Shammai: Handling H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y , O n l y i n case o f n e e d H o u s e o f Hillel,

I n case o f n e e d a n d n o t i n case o f n e e d .

Simeon b. Leazar followed the form that seems to have come early in the formation of the Houses-materials. We therefore can hardly assign all such materials in conventional form to the time of the Houses them­ selves. We shall see further disputes about the same principle. For the legal issues, see Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshutah to Mo ed, p. 226. Note also b. Shab. 124a-b: c

D T N N : T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, " O n e m a y n o t [on f e s t i v a l s ] c a r r y o u t a n i n f a n t , lulav, o r s c r o l l o f T o r a h i n t o t h e s t r e e t . " A n d the House o f Hillel permit.

See Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 279. 11.11.33. R. Simeon b. Leazar said, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not dispute concerning one that was born cir­ cumcized, that one needs to draw from him a drop of blood [in ob­ servance] of the covenant, because it is a tucked-in foreskin ( RLH KBWSH). "Concerning what did they dispute? Concerning a proselyte who converted when already circumcized, for(S) "The House of Shammai say, 'One needs to draw from him a drop of blood [in observance] of the covenant.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'One does not need to draw from him a drojp of blood [in observance] of the covenant.' " C

[Tos. Shab. 15(16) :9, ed. Lieberman, pp. 71-2, lines 43-7 (y. Shab. 19:2, b. Shab. 135a, y. Yev. 8:1, Sifra Tazri
MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.ii.34, 3 5

133

Comment: See Sifra Tazri'a 1:6. There the issue is whether the cir­ cumcision may be done on the Sabbath. The Shammaites hold it may, the Hillelites that it may not. The primary form clearly was phrased in negative/affirmative terms: [ Concerning drawing a drop of blood in observance of the covenant from one who was] born

circumcised:

House of Shammai: They do draw blood House o f Hillel:

They do not draw blood.

Again, the superscription has been inserted into the House of Sham­ mai's lemma. The original Houses-lemma certainly consisted of one born circumcised + draw blood +/— negative. This was then assigned to the Sabbath- or conversion-circumcision of one born circumcized. But before both versions comes the dispute rejected by Simeon: one born circumcised, for this is the only issue to which the actual Housesrulings really pertain. II.ii.34. A. The House of Hillel say, "They lift up from (M
134

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — III.ii.5; I V . i . l

tween a man and his woman, and they do not pray concerning the sick person on the Sabbath.' "And the House of Hillel permit." [Tos. Shab. 16(17) :21-22, ed. Lieberman, pp. 79-80, lines 47-51 (b. Shab. 12a; y. Shab. 1:3)] Comment: The second-century masters here tend to follow the more developed form, in which the Shammaites' lemma carries the super­ scription. However, as we observed above, it was quite possible for them to make use of the more primitive form, and we cannot assign precedence to one over the other. The Shammaite view is attested by Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, Epstein, Mevo ot, p. 279. y

III.ii.5.A. TNW RBNN: They do not send a letter by the hand of a gentile on the eve of the Sabbath, unless he stipulated the cost— The House of Shammai say, "So that he may reach his home." And the House of Hillel say, "So that he may reach the house nearest t h e W a l L

"

(b. Shab. 19a)

Comment: The beraita is parallel to II.i.36.E. but with a new super­ scription, and the Hillelite opinion is different. IV.i.l. They do not send letters by a gentile either Friday or Thursday. The House of Shammai prohibit even on Wednesday. And the House of Hillel permit. (y. Shab. 1:9, repr. Gilead, p. 13a) Comment: The above is not attributed to Tannaitic authorities. III.ii.5.B. TNW RBNN: The House of Shammai say, "On the first day [of Hanukkah] he lights eight [candles], from then on he proceeds to reduce [the number]." And the House of Hillel say, "On the first day he lights one, and from then on he proceeds to augment [the number]." ^ Shab 21b) Comment: The form is standard. The primary form would have been eightjone (which could have been merely alljnot all, or alljone). The superscription, on the first day he lights, is inserted into the lemma of each House, and then both are glossed with the obvious consequent ruling, from then on etc.

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.39

135

II.i.39.A. To render [such] an alley-entry valid (HK§R HMBWY): The House of Shammai say, "[It must have both] side-post and cross-beam." And the House of Hillel say, "Side-post or cross-beam." R. Eliezer says, "There should be two side-posts." B. In the name of R. Ishmael a disciple stated before R. CAqiba, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not dispute about an entry less than four cubits [wide], which is valid if it has either side-post or cross-beam. "About what did they dispute? "About one whose width was from four to ten cubits, for (§) "The House of Shammai say, [It must have both] side-posts and cross-beam.' "And the House of Hillel say, ''Either side-post or cross-beam.' " R . Aqiba said, "They disputed about both cases." 6

<

[M. <Eruv. 1:2, trans. Danby, pp. 121-2 (b. Shab. 117a; y. <Eruv. 1:2, b. <Eruv. 2b, llb-12a)] Comment: The law concerns what must be done to mark an alley so that its residents may carry therein. The House of Shammai say the alley must have both a side-post and a crossbeam. The House of Hillel require one or the other, not both. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus wants two sidebeams. Part A is in standard, primitive form: Preparation

(HKSR)

of the alley-entry (MBWY)

:

H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y , S i d e b e a m and c r o s s - b e a m H o u s e o f H i l l e l say,

S i d e - b e a m or c r o s s b e a m .

That this primitive form also comes very early in the formation of the tradition is proved by the dispute of the Ishmaelean and 'Aqiba. The disciple reports identical language for the Houses, but assigns it to another circumstance: Concerning [an alleyway] wider than four cubits to ten [ b e y o n d t h a t , all a g r e e it m u s t h a v e b o t h side a n d c r o s s - b e a m ] : House o f S h a m m a i say, Side-beam and cross-beam. H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, Either s i d e - b e a m or c r o s s - b e a m .

Thus, as I said, the disciple of the Ishmaeleans has made the Hillelites agree, taken the words of the original dispute, and given them a different superscription. Aqiba says the dispute pertains to an alley­ way of any width, which means he has the same superscription as is c

136

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — III.ii.6, II.i.40, III.i.4

before us in part A. The second version makes a minor stylistic im­ provement by adding either ('W). See Epstein, Mevo'ot, pp. 79, 119; Mishnah, p. 1064: The authority is Judah b. Ilai. III.ii.6. TNW RBNN: How is a road through the public domain to be provided with an eruv? The shape of a doorway is made at one end, and a side-post and cross-beam are fixed at the other. Hananiah said, "The House of Shammai say, 'A door is made at one end as well as at the other, and it must be locked when one leaves or enters.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'A door is made at one end and a side-post and a cross-beam at the other.' " c

c

c

[b. Eruv. 6a (y. Eruv. 1:1, repr. Gilead, p. 69)] Comment: The anonymous rule of part A is that of the House of Hillel in FJananiah's tradition. The form is not standard, but we are accustomed to the development of Houses-disputes by later masters. The Hananiah is Hananiah nephew of R. Joshua, following y. Eruv. 1:1. c

II.L40.A. Rabban Gamaliel said, "(M<SH B+S) A Sadducee lived with us in the [same] alley in Jerusalem. Father said to us, 'Hasten and put out all the [needful] vessels in the alley before he brings out [his vessels] and [so] restricts you.' " B. When do they give right of access ? The House of Shammai say, "While it is yet day." And the House of Hillel say, "After it has become dark." C. If five companies (HBWRWT) kept the Sabbath in the same eating-hall (TRYQLYN), the House of Shammai say, "An ^eruv [is needful] for each company (HBWRH)." And the House of Hillel say, "One *eruv [suffices] for all." [But] they agree that if some of them occupied rooms or upper chambers, an eruv is needful for each company. c

[M. <Eruv. 6:2,4a, 6, trans. Danby, pp. 129-130 (y. <Eruv. 6:3-4, 6; b. Eruv. 48b-49a, 68b, 69b, 71a, 72a-b)] c

III.i.4. The House of Shammai say, "They do not prepare an eruv for a man unless his utensils are there."

c

[y. <Eruv. 3:1 (b. <Eruv. 30b)]

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— III.ii.7

137

III.ii.7. TNY': If five residents [of the same courtyard] collected their *eruv and deposited it in two receptacles — The House of Shammai rule, "Their *eruv is not an eruv (>YN
C

(b. <Eruv. 48b) c

Comment: Part A (M. Eruv. 6:2) is discussed above, I, p. 379, and synopsis, I, p. 384. It makes Simeon b. Gamaliel follow the Shammaite view. PartBQA. Eruv. 6:4) pertains to M. <Eruv. 6:3: c

If one o f them that lived in the c o u r t y a r d f o r g o t to take part in the eruv, his h o u s e is f o r b i d d e n b o t h t o h i m a n d t o t h e m . . . b u t t h e i r h o u s e s are p e r m i t t e d b o t h t o h i m a n d t o t h e m . <

I f t h e y h a d g i v e n h i m r i g h t o f access t o t h e i r h o u s e s , h e is p e r m i t t e d [to take aught in and o u t o f his house and the c o u r t y a r d ] , b u t they are f o r ­ bidden. . . (M. ' E r u v . 6 : 3 A , trans. D a n b y , p. 1 2 9 )

The man who forgot renders his property a different domain from that of the others and may not carry in or out of it on the Sabbath. When can they give him right of access, as specified here? The House of Shammai say it must be done before sunset on Friday, since one cannot do so on the Sabbath itself. The House of Hillel say, After it gets dark. Some MSS (plausibly) read, also, a good gloss, y. Eruv. 6:4 contains the following: c

T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, " T h e y d o n o t a n n u a l t h e r i g h t a f t e r it gets dark." A n d t h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, " T h e y d o a n n u l t h e r i g h t a f t e r it g e t s d a r k . "

This is the simplest possible version of the dispute, and all the tradent needed to know was that a Houses' dispute about the matter existed. He could then reconstruct the dispute and supply the proper opinion to the right House on the basis of the general principle that the Sham­ maites were strict, the Hillelites lenient. The problem of partC(M. Eruv. 6:6) concerns five companies who spend the Sabbath in a single room, but remain as separate groups within it. The House of Shammai say that each group must supply its own erttv with others in the same courtyard; the House of Hillel say that one serves for all five, for the room joins the five groups to one household. The form of part B poses no problems: c

c

When do they give right of access? H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : W h i l e it is still d a y House o f Hillel: [ W h i l e it is still d a y a n d ] also after it g e t s d a r k .

138

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— I I . i . 4 1 , III.ii.8

Part C likewise has similar form, though the opinions of the Houses are somewhat developed: If five companies—same

eating-hall

H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : [ A n ] *eruv f o r each ( K L ) company and company House o f Hillel: An 'eruv f o r all ( K W L N ) of them

The differences are the italicized words. The Hillelite opinion depends upon the Shammaite one and could not have stood separately. The same is so in part B. The original words of the Hillelites therefore cannot be before us, though the changes in the earlier form need not have been substantial. The lemmas are not neatly matched: HD LKWLM We should have expected for the Shammaites [HD [W'HD] Thus, as above (p. 55) 1,2-2,1. The same principle is debated by the Houses in Tos. Ber. 5:30, above, p. 51. See Epstein, Mishnah, Shammaite view.

pp. 460,1200; Simeon b. Gamaliel follows the

II.L41.A. [If there was] a cistern between two courtyards [which had not made eruv], they may not draw water therefrom on the Sabbath unless they had made for it a partition ten handbreadths high, either above, or below or [only] within its rim. B. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, "The House of Shammai say, 'Below.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'Above.' " c

[M. <Eruv. 8:6, trans. Danby, p. 132 (y. <Eruv. 8:6, b. <Eruv. 86a, b. Suk. 16a-b)] Comment: Part A ignores the dispute of the Houses. That does not tell us whether it comes before or afterward. The Houses-sayings contain nothing to join them to the foregoing case. It is Simeon b. Gamaliel who has supplied that connection. Otherwise we should not have known about what the Houses disputed. As it is, all we know is that Simeon b. Gamaliel alleges the Hillelites took a lenient position, allowing the partition to stand above the whole. But the law does not in this instance follow either House.

See Epstein,

Mishnah,

pp. 358-9.

III.ii.8.A. DTNY': Hananiah says, "The House of Shammai say, 'One may bake only if he set an eruv of bread, and one may cook only if c

139

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — III.ii.9,10

c

he set an eruv of cooked food, and one may store only if he had already warm water stored on the eve of the Festival.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'One may set an 'eruv with one dish and prepare all his requirements [in reliance] thereon.' " (b. Bes. 17b) Comment: The issue is whether one must prepare an eruv for each sort of food-preparation one plans to do. The Houses take the positions one would expect. Hananiah's form for the dispute is conventional, but that proves nothing about the authenticity of his tradition. <

III.ii.9. An *eruv may be prepared for a Nazirite with wine etc. Our Mishnah does not represent the view of the House of Shammai. For it was taught: The House of Shammai say, "No 'eruv may be prepared for a Nazirite with wine or for an Israelite with Terumah. And the House of Hillel say, "An 'eruv may be prepared for a Nazirite with wine or for an Israelite with Terumah. ' B. The House of Hillel to the House of Shammai, "Do you not agree that an 'eruv may be prepared for an adult in connection with the Day of Atonement?" They said to them, "True (>BL)." They said to them, "Just as an eruv may be prepared for an adult in connection with the Day of Atonement, so may an *eruv be prepared for a Nazirite with wine or for an Israelite with Terumah." IILii.10. For it was taught: Hananiah stated, "The House of Sham­ mai did not admit the very principle of *eruv unless the man takes out thither his bed and all the objects he uses." (b. <Eruv. 30a-b) 9

c

Comment: The form is reminiscent of b. Bes. 17b, above, in that we have the specification of several items on which the Houses take consistent positions. The Houses' opinions are carefully balanced: 1. ' YN M'RBYN LNZYR BYYN 2. WLYSR'L BTRWMH 1. M'RBYN LNZYR BYYN 2. WLYSR'L BTRWMH The only difference is the negative ('YN), assigned to the Shammaites. The dispute of part B is not conventional; indeed, the Shammaites say practically nothing and are made to concede the correctness of the Hillelite position. The Hillelites Do you not agree is followed not by a distinction or counter-argument, but merely 'BL, true. Then the

140

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.42

Hillelites draw the obvious consequence of that agreement: the principle is identical, therefore just as one prepares what is theoretically prohibited for use on the Day of Atonement, so one prepares what is theoretically prohibited for use by the Nazir. The debate certainly is a late invention, in which the Hillelites as usual stress their own con­ sistency and point up the Shammaites' inconsistency, much as Hillel asks Shammai why one vintages in a state of cleanness but does not pick olives in a similar state. All Shammai is allowed to say is that he can impose his view on Hillel by force. The allegation that Shammaite positions are self-contradictory and Hillelite ones internally harmonious and logical derives, if not from the House of Hillel, then from later Hillelite tradents. The primary dispute may be authentic; it is a singleton, but is con­ sistent in giving the Shammaites the stringent position, the Hillelites the lenient one; and the form is standard and balanced. Hananiah's saying is difficult to evaluate; we do not know whether he merely drew the consequences of an existing pericope, or whether he claimed to have an independent tradition on the matter. II.i.42.A.. On the night of the fourteenth [of Nisan] the hames must be searched for by the light of a lamp. Any place into which hames is never brought needs no searching. Then why have they said, "[They search] two rows in a wine-vault?" They are a place into which hames might be brought. B. The House of Shammai say, "[They must examine] the two rows on the whole surface 0/[the stack of jars in] the wine-vault." And.the House of Hillel say, "Only the two outermost rows that are uppermost." [M. Pes. 1:1, trans. Danby, p. 136 (y. Pes. 1:1, b. Pes. 2a, 8b)] Comment: Part B serves as a gloss on the foregoing, which presum­ ably antedates the Houses. The Talmud explains the instructions of the Houses. What is of interest here is the further use of a Houses-clause as explanatory matter for a pre-existing law. As in other cases the implica­ tion is that the laws existed, in the very form in which we have them ("why have they said. . . " ) , before the Houses supplied their glosses, and that the law code therefore conies before the Houses. We have had no hint in the traditions of the named authorities that such a code existed, let alone in the precise form in which it comes down to us. We should have expected some sort of superscription, e.g.: Until where do they search? House o f S h a m m a i : [ T w o r o w s ] o n the w h o l e surface House o f Hillel: [ T w o ] external [rows] w h i c h are the uppermost.

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

141

— II.i.43, 4 4

The sayings of the Houses are as balanced as one might have expected, since the changes in word-choice are necessary to convey the sense of the respective Houses. It is the absence of a superscription that is curious. The Houses' sayings merely repeat the gloss but do not answer the question, Why have they said STY SWRWT BMRTP: Shammaite: STY SWRWT
The gloss until dundant.

dawn

clarifies the Hillelite definition of

night\

it is re­

II.i.44. If a man became a proselyte on the day before Passover— The House of Shammai say, "He immerses himself and consumes his Passover-offering in the evening."

142

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.45, 4 6

And the House of Hillel say, "He that separates himself from the foreskin is like one that separates himself from a grave." [M. Pes. 8:8, trans. Danby, p. 148 (y. Pes. 8:8, b. Pes. 92a)] Comment: The form is perfect—until we come to the saying of the Hillelites. It is a substantial development over what must have been originally stated, for otherwise, we have to assume that the Hillelites responded not according to the subject under discussion, but with an enigmatic, allusive phrase. The saying means that the one who has just been circumcized is like one who has just touched a grave: he requires sprinkling on the third and seventh day after the circumcision, just like someone who has been made unclean by a corpse (Num. 19:18-19). The Hillelites ought to have said, following the Shammaite pattern: He requires sprinkling (HZ'H) etc. or merely the negative: He does not immerse [and consume his Passover-offering]. I do not understand the preference for a somewhat elliptical expres­ sion, which, while comprehensible, carries us far afield, unless the Hillelite lemma is a development over its original language. The authority is R. Yosi, M. Ed. 5:2, so Epstein, Mev6*ot, p. 147; see also Mishnah, p. 516. c

11.1.45. After they have mixed him his first cup— The House of Shammai say, "He says the Benediction first over the day and then the Benediction over the wine." And the House of Hillel say, "He says the Benediction first over the wine and then the Benediction over the day." [M. Pes. 10:2, trans. Danby, p. 150 (y. Pes. 10:2, b. Pes. 114a)] Comment: See M. Ber. 8:1, above, p. 43. After-cup is a redactional gloss to tie the dispute to the context: laws of the Seder. The Houseslemmas are identical in both places.

11.1.46. How far does he recite [the Hallel] ? The House of Shammai say, "To 'A joyful mother of children.' " And the House of Hillel say, "To 'A flints tone into a springing well' (Ps. 114:8)." ^ ^ ( p p e §

1 Q : 6

D

a

n

b

y

j

p #

1 5 1

y

e s

10:5, b. Pes. 116b-117a)] Comment: The opinions of the Houses are followed by a dispute of R. Tarfon and R. 'Aqiba on the conclusion of the Hallel at the Passover

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — III.ii.ll, II.ii.36, III.ii.12, 1 3

143

Seder, which takes for granted the existence of the Houses dispute and therefore supplies a terminus ante quern. The sages assume that one has referred to the Exodus from Egypt, that is, the opinion of the Hillelites: One already has said, "When Israel went forth from Egypt. The form is conventional. Citing Scripture was necessary, so the usual practice of using key-words has been dropped. 111.11.11. How far does he recite it ? The House of Shammai say, "Until When Israel came forth out of Egypt(Vs. 114:1)." And the House of Hillel say, "Until Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us (Ps. 115:1)." - _ „ (b. Pes. 117a) v

n

J

N

Comment: This form ought to antedate the version of II.i.46, and it ought to be what the Yavneans would have had before them. II.ii.36.A. The House of Shammai say, "They do not burn clean meat with unclean meat." And the House of Hillel permit. B. At first they would say, "They do not sell hames to a gentile and do not give it to him as a gift, unless ('L KDY §) he eats it before the hour of Removal comes." Until R. Aqiba came and taught that they sell and give as a gift even at the hour of Removal. C. R. Yosah said, "These [ = at first] are the words of the House of Shammai, and these [ = Aqiba] are the words of the House of Hillel. R. Aqiba decided to support the words of the House of Hillel." 5

c

c

c

[Tos. Pisha 1:6, at the end, and 1:7, ed. Lieber­ man, p. 142, lines 29-34 (y. Pes. 1:6, 3:6 [re Terumah]; b. Pes. 15b; b. Pes. 21a, b. Shab. 18b)] 111.11.12. As to piggul, notar, and unclean [sacrificial meat], the House of Shammai say, "They are not burned together." The House of Hillel say, "They are burned together." ^ ^ ^ 111.11.13. TNW RBNN: "A man does not sell his leaven to a gentile, unless he knows that it will be consumed before Passover"— the words of the House of Shammai. And the House of Hillel say, "As long as he [the Jew] may eat it, he m a y S e l H t

-"

(b. Shab. 18b)

144

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.37

Comment: II.ii.36: The dispute of part A comes at the end of a set of discussions on burning unclean and clean sanctities, e.g. Heave-offering of various categories of uncleanness, etc. R. Simeon reports, "R. Liezer and R. Joshua did not dispute concerning clean and unclean, that they burn this by itself and this by itself. Concerning what did they differ? Concerning suspended [unclean] with unclean, for R. Liezer says, 'This is burned by itself and this by itself,' and R. Joshua [says], 'The two of them together.' " The positions of the Houses are suffi­ ciently parallel, though in reference to different matters, so that it looks as if Eliezer = House of Shammai and Joshua = House of Hillel. The dispute logically comes before the issue discussed in Sifra Sav = M. M. S. 3:9, above, p. 13,100. The pericope of the Houses (part A) is preceded by a saying of R. Yosah and may in fact be read as part of that saying; in any case he supplies the terminus ante quern. Part B's opening ruling, that the gentile has to be able to consume the leaven before the hour of Removal, is similar to the ruling of the House of Shammai (M. Shab. 1:7), that the gentile must be able to reach his home before sunset. In b. Shab. 18b, the ruling on leaven is attributed to the House of Shammai. So at first the law followed the Shammaites. R. 'Aqiba then reversed matters. R. Yosah then makes the whole explicit: At first. . . is the ruling of the House of Shammai, and 'Aqiba's ruling is the House of Hillel, and 'Aqiba decided matters in favor of the House of Hillel. (See Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshutah, to Tos. Shab. Chap. 1, line 51, p. 21, for further comment.) Hanina, Prefect of the Priests, M. Pes. 1:6, y. Pes. 1:6, is in accord with the Hillelite position, I, p. 402. II.ii.37.A. "The pesah—they return it whole and they do not return it in pieces. "Concerning what did they dispute? "Concerning the limbs, for "The House of Shammai say, 'They return.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'They do not return.' " [Tos. Pisha 7:2, ed. Lieberman, p. 176, lines 6-10 (Sifre Deut. 134, y. Shab. 1:11)] Comment: The dispute of the Houses pertains to the ^.ra^-sacrifice. The sacrifice was cut apart by the limbs. The House of Shammai say one does not return them to the oven, the House of Hillel that one does. Simeon builds the dispute on the basis of Yosi and Judah. For the parallel problem with reference to the Sabbath, see Tos. Shab. 2:13, ed. Lieberman, pp. 9-10, lines 42-45. Indeed the verbal formulae are so close that it again looks as if the same rulings have been assigned to different disputes:

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

Tos. Shab.

Tos. Pisha

2:13

7:2

M. Shab.

1. •. . .concerning the

1. He r e m o v e d

145

— II.ii.38, 39

1.

3:1

—

limbs 2. H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say he does n o t put back

2. House of Shammai say, They p u t b a c k

2. H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, T h e y take but d o n o t p u t back

3. and House o f say h e p u t s b a c k

3 . H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, They d o n o t p u t b a c k

3. House of Hillel T h e y also p u t b a c k

Hillel

say,

Clearly, a tradition involving the root HZR, causative, third person singular or plural, with or without the negative particle, has been everywhere developed into a Houses-dispute, with the various possible combinations of singular and plural, affirmative and negative, assigned to each of the Houses. All that changes is the legal setting and super­ scriptions, just as in M. Pes. 10:2 = M. Ber. 8:1. See Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 332. II.ii.38.A. R. Leazar b. R. Sadoq said, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel agree concerning an uncircumcized male (Israelite), that he receives sprinkling and eats. "Concerning what did they dispute? "Concerning an uncircumcized gentile [convert, who was converted and circumcized on the eve of Passover], for (S) B. "The House of Shammai say, 'He immerses and eats his pesah in the evening.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'He who separates from the foreskin is like him who separates from the grave.' " [Tos. Pisha 7:14, ed. Lieberman, p. 181, lines 63-66 (b. Pes. 92a)] c

See M. Pes. 8:8, M. Ed. 5:2. Judah the Patriarch has followed Eleazar b. R. Sadoq's version, part B, adding the necessary superscription. But then as I suggested, the original dispute must have been as follows: Comment:

An uncircumcized Jew who circumcised on the eve of Passover bejore the sacrifice H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : I m m e r s e s [ = s p r i n k l i n g ] a n d eats House o f Hillel:

D o e s n o t etc.

Eleazar now has the Hillelites go over to the Shammaite position in that case, but differ concerning the gentile. II.ii.39.A. They mixed for him the first cup— The House of Shammai say, "He blesses the day and afterward he NEUSNER, T h e Rabbinic T r a d i t i o n s about t h e P h a r i s e e s before 70, I I

10

146

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.39

blesses the wine, for the day causes that the wine should come, and the day is already sanctified, and still the wine has not come." And the House of Hillel say, "He blesses the wine and afterward he blesses the day, for the wine causes that the Sanctification of the day should be said. B. "Another matter, the blessing of the wine is perpetual, and the blessing of the day is not perpetual." C. And the law is according to the words of the House of Hillel. (Tos. Pisha 10:2-3, ed. Lieberman, p. 196, lines 4-8) Comment: See M. Ber. 8:1: M. Ber. 8:1 1. T h e s e a r e t h e t h i n g s t h a t a r e b e t w e e n the House o f Shammai and the H o u s e

Tos. Pisha 10:2-3 [M. Pes. 10:2] 1. They mixed for him the first cup

o f Hillel concerning the meal. 2. T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y , H e blesses t h e d a y , a n d a f t e r w a r d h e blesses the wine. 3 . A n d t h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, H e blesses t h e w i n e , a n d a f t e r w a r d h e blesses t h e d a y .

2.

„„„

for the day causes etc.

3 , „ „ „ for the wine causes e t c

The glosses explaining the positions of the Houses come after the simple formulae of those positions. The Shammaites hold that if it were not for the festival, there would be no wine. The day is sanctified as soon as it gets dark, and the wine still has not come. Therefore its blessing comes first. The Hillelites hold that if there is no wine, the Sanctification is not said—all just as in Tos Ber., above, p. 50. The other matter, Part C, defends the foregoing argument against a possible criticism. Even if he did not yet say the Sanctification of the day in his prayer, and he does so without wine, the blessing of the wine comes first, since it is perpetual obligation. The contrary critique there­ fore would have been that he certainly does have to sanctify the day—in prayer—even though there is no wine. One therefore cannot say that the wine causes the Sanctification of the day to be said. While the Shammaite critique is not given, the answer to it thus lies before us. We do not have to suppose the Shammaites said such a thing. The later masters were stern logical critics of their own positions and would have seen the difficulty and willingly responded to it, whether or not Shammaites were available to point out the difficulty. The other matter is therefore apt to be a gloss, justifying the Hillelite position against a theoretical critique. The Shammaites are (probably rightly) not credited with it.

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.ii.40, II.i.47

147

II.ii.40. The House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel, "And have they already gone forth [from Egypt, in the evening] that they should make mention of the Exodus from Egypt?" The House of Hillel said to them, "Even if he should wait until the cock crows, lo, if they did not go forth until the sixth hour of the day, how should he say [words concerning] redemption, for they still were not redeemed?" [Tos. Pisha 10:9, ed. Lieberman, p. 198, lines 24-28 (y. Pes. 10:5)] Comment: The debate explains the reasoning of each side in M. Pes. 10:6. The Shammaites are not given a reply, y. Pes. 10:5 gives a fuller version of the Hillelite lemma: " I f h e w a i t e d u n t i l t h e c o c k c r o w s , still t h e y h a v e n o t r e a c h e d h a l f t h e r e d e m p t i o n . H o w are they t o m a k e m e n t i o n o f r e d e m p t i o n , and still they h a v e n o t b e e n r e d e e m e d ? A n d is it n o t s o t h a t t h e y d i d n o t g o f o r t h u n t i l n o o n . . . B u t since h e b e g a n w i t h t h e misvah, h e said 'Finish ( M R Q ) ' [talking a b o u t i t ] . "

Note House of Shammai in Mekh. de R. Simeon b. Yohai to Ex. 12:6, Epstein-Melamed p. 12, Is. 4-5, on evening, (Vol. I, p. 156). II.L47.A. [If a man] brings together (KN$) coins and said, "Lo, these are for my sheqel"— The House of Shammai say, "The surplus falls as a free-will offering (NDBH) [to the Temple fund]." And the House of Hillel say, "The surplus is free for common use (HLYN)." B. [If he said that] I shall bring from them for my sheqel, they agree that their surplus is for common use (HLYN). C. [But if he said], "These are for my sin-offering," they agree that the surplus falls as a free-will offering (NDBH) [to the Temple fund]. [But if he said], "I will bring my sin-offering from them," they agree that the surplus is free for common use (HLYN). [M. Sheq. 2:3, ed. Danby, p. 153 (y. Sheq. 2:3, y. Naz. 5:1)] Comment: The Houses-dispute is in conventional form: He who gathers together coins and said, Lo, these are my sheqel T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y , [ T h e i r excess is] f r e e - w i l l o f f e r i n g ( N D B H ) T h e H o u s e o f Hillel say, [ T h e i r excess is] u n c o n s e c r a t e d ( H L Y N ) .

148

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.48

Part B preserves the apodosis of the superscription, taking for granted the protasis, so the pericope is a unity. The legal issue is the effect of the man's intention. The Hillelites hold that while he only intended to sanctify what was necessary, his language was imprecise. The Shammaites regard the actual language as decisive. The dispute of the Houses on whether what is erroneously consecrated is regarded as consecrated recurs elsewhere; the various specific dis­ putes all turn on that principle and look like variations of that single fixed difference. In the second case the Houses obviously agree, since the language now conforms to the precise intention. As to the sinoffering, part C, here the Shammaites' position is accepted by the Hillelites. R. Simeon specifies the reason in M. Sheq. 2:4. The sheqel has a limit, while there is no limit on sin-offerings. So the Hillelites now have no reason to disagree. On this basis Epstein, Mevo*ot, p. 152, assigns 2:3-4 to Simeon. II.i.48. If the flesh of the Most Holy Things (QD$Y QD$YM) contracted uncleanness, whether from a primary uncleanness or from a derived uncleanness, whether inside [the Temple Court] or outside it— The House of Shammai say, "All must be burnt inside, save when it has contracted uncleanness from a primary uncleanness—outside." And the House of Hillel say, "All must be burnt outside, save when it has contracted uncleanness from a derived uncleanness—inside." [M. Sheq. 8:6, trans. Danby, p. 161 (y. Sheq. 8:3)] Comment: See M. M.S. 3:9, where the superscription pertains to Second Tithe which enteredJerusalem: MM.S.3:9

M. Sheq.

1. S e c o n d T i t h e t h a t e n t e r e d J e r u s a l e m a n d

1. Flesh of Holy of Holies that be-

8:6

became unclean

came unclean

2. W h e t h e r u n c l e a n b y a F a t h e r o f U n c l e a n ness o r an O f f s p r i n g o f U n c l e a n n e s s

2. whether by a Father „ „ „ [ O m i t s : made unclean]

3 . W h e t h e r inside o r o u t s i d e

3. „ „ „

4. H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y , A l l is r e d e e m e d a n d eaten i n s i d e , e x c e p t w h a t is m a d e u n ­ c l e a n b y a F a t h e r o f U n c l e a n n e s s [ w h i c h is eaten] outside

4. A l l is burned inside „ „ „

5. H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, A l l is r e d e e m e d a n d e a t e n o u t s i d e , e x c e p t w h a t is m a d e u n c l e a n b y an O f f s p r i n g o f U n c l e a n n e s s [ w h i c h is e a t e n ] inside

5 . A l l is burned o u t s i d e ,, „ „

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.41, III.ii.19

149

The opinions of the Houses are the same, except is redeemed of Second Tithe becomes is burned for the meat, a change required by the legal context, and the verb made unclean is not repeated in M. Sheq. no. 2, a stylistic change of no importance. Here again, it looks as though a standard Houses-opinion has been placed into several appropriate contexts by doctoring the superscriptions. This is Judah's version in Sifra Sav 8:6, so Epstein, Mevcfot, pp. 73-4. II.ii.41.A. Meat of the Most Holy Things which contracted un­ cleanness, whether from a Father of Uncleanness or an Offspring of Uncleanness, whether inside or outside— The House of Shammai say, "All will be burned inside, except for that which was made unclean by a Father of Uncleanness, [which is burned] outside." And the House of Hillel say, "All will be burned outside, except for that which was made unclean by an Offspring of Uncleanness, [which is burned] inside." B. R. Liezer says, "What is made unclean by a Father of Unclean­ ness, whether inside or outside, is burned outside, and by an Offspring of Uncleanness, whether outside or inside, is burned inside." C. R. Judah says, "R. Liezer speaks [says] according to the words of the House of Shammai. R. Aqiba speaks [says] according to the words of the House of Hillel." c

[Tos. Sheq. 3:16, ed. Lieberman, pp. 216-7, lines 46-52 (Sifra Sav 8:6, M. M.S. 3:9, Tos. M.S. 2:16)] Comment: See M. Sheq. 8:6, and above, pp. 100-105. Here R. Judah b. Ilai makes explicit what we surmised above. What is missing here is the opinion of ' Aqiba, which is in M. Sheq. 8:7. See also Sifra Sav 8:6.

III.ii.19. How much must one have drunk to become culpable [for drinking on the Day of Atonement] ? The House of Shammai say, "One fourth [of a log]. The House of Hillel say, "One mouthful." R. Judah in the name of R. Eliezer says, "As much as a mouthful." 99

(b. Yoma 80a) Comment: The form is standard. The Houses-sayings consist of the following: Shammai: RBY
150

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.49, 5 0

The sayings consist of standard measures of liquid, therefore are as balanced as one could expect. Eliezer's difference from the House of Hillel is discussed in the accompanying gemara. The Hillelites are not exact as to the matter. Eliezer insists it must be exactly a mouthful. The Shammaite's minimum is greater than the Hillelites'; they therefore are in the more lenient position, and R. Hoshaiah observes, "If so, it would be a case in which the House of Shammai take the more lenient view, the House of Hillel the more stringent one." This is a singleton. The difference between the Houses is not consider­ able, and it may be that, if the traditions are authentic, the real difference is in word-choice. That is, curiously, the sole Houses-tradition per­ taining to the Day of Atonement. II.i.49.A. hrLo\&Sukkah— The House of Shammai declare invalid And the House of Hillel declare valid. B. And what is deemed an old Sukkah} Any that was made thirty days before the Feast. But if it was made for the sake of the Feast, even at the beginning of the year, it is valid. [M. Suk. 1:1, trans. Danby, p. 173 (y. Pes. 2:4 = old massah; y. Suk. 1:2, b. Suk. 9a)] Comment: The form is standard. Part B serves as a neutral, later gloss to the Houses-dispute. II.i.50. If there was a timber roofing that had no plastering— R. Judah says, "The House of Shammai say, 'He loosens and re­ moves one beam between each two.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'He [either] loosens or removes one beam between each two.' " R. Meir says, "He removes one beam between each two, but does not loosen the roofing." [M. Suk. 1:7, trans. Danby, p. 173 (y. Suk. 1:8, b. Suk. 15a)] Comment: Judah b. Ilai records a Houses-dispute on a Sukkah cover­ ed by a timbered roofing. To render the Sukkah valid, the Shammaites say, the man has both to loosen the timbers and to remove one of every two, and then to place sekhakh over the whole instead. The House of Hillel say it is sufficient either to loosen the whole or to remove one of every two beams, then to place the sekhakh, but one does not have to do both. Meir says, following the Hillelite view, that one must remove

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.51

151

alternate beams but does not loosen; thus there is no choice as to the procedure. Meir does not attribute his view to the House of Hillel. But in effect, the dispute is between Meir and Judah and concerns whether there is a choice as to the matter; Judah says there is, Meir, there is not. No one regards the Hillelite opinion as other than law. Both interpret it. One must therefore wonder, Why has Judah b. Ilai preserved the Houses-dispute? For the purposes of the law, it would have sufficed to give his opinion in the following setting: If there was a timber roofing that had no plastering J u d a h s a y s , H e [either] l o o s e n s o r r e m o v e s M e i r says,

He r e m o v e s and does not loosen.

Dropping the Houses-materials, Judah would have adequately stated his view of the legal issue before the second-century masters. Since I can see no purpose served by preserving the Houses-form, I suppose Judah may report an authentic Houses-pericope. To be sure, whether the Houses-pericope goes back to the actual Houses, or to earlier masters who made use of the Houses-form, we cannot say for sure. But as it stands, the pericope seems to me possibly to reflect an inten­ tion accurately to preserve the traditional materials. See Epstein,

Mishnah,

p. 1064 on disputes as to >W.

II.L51.A. If a man's head and the greater part of his body are within the Sukkah, but his table is within the house— The House of Shammai declare it invalid (P$L). And the House of Hillel declare it valid (K$R). B. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, "Was thus not the incident, that (WL> KK HYH M'SH S) the Elders of the House of Shammai and the Elders of the House of Hillel went to visit R. Yohanan b. HaHorani and found him sitting with his head and the greater part of his body within the Sukkah, while his table was within the house, and they did not say a thing to him [MS Kaufmann omits and-him~\ ?" C. The House of Shammai said to them, "Is there proof from that? They indeed (*P) said to him, 'If such has been your custom you have never in your life fulfilled the law of the Sukkah' " [M. Suk. 2:7, trans. Danby, p. 175 (b. Ber. 11a, y. Suk. 2:8, b. Suk. 3a, 7b, 28a-b)] Comment: Part A is standard. The legal issue is whether the Sukkah is sufficiently large. If the man cannot go into it, but leans into it while

152

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.51

sitting in his own house, he has not fulfilled the obligation, so the Shammaites. But their language is not YSM The Hillelites accept so small a Sukkah as valid. YS —also in part C, would be better. The debate-form in part B is used not for an exchange of principles, but rather to trade stories. What we in fact have is two separate ver­ sions of the incident, joined by they said to them and revised to support the positions of the respective Houses. The House of Hillel's version is that a Shammaite disciple followed the law according to the House of Hillel. Sages of both Houses knew about it and said nothing to him. Hence good Shammaites follow the Hillelite law, the evidently well-known Yohanan b. HaHorani among them, and even the elders of the House knew about it and registered no complaint. The Hillelite House thus contend the Shammaite position is not what the House of Shammai now allege it to be! The Shammaite House does not even know the authentic Shammaite tradition. The House of Shammai do not reject the story. They merely claim that the sages of both Houses say the man has never carried out the commandment. Their allegation, therefore, is the precise opposite of the Hillelites': The sages of the Hillelite House in fact concurred in the Shammaite ruling. So the little debate concerns the validity of part A, each party maintaining the other had agreed with its position—there ought to be no dispute at all. It is not difficult to reconstruct an original for the story cited in the debate. It looks to me as if the Shammaite version would be as follows: 5

A. B.. C.

T h e E l d e r s of t h e H o u s e of S h a m m a i a n d t h e E l d e r s of t h e H o u s e of H i l l e l w e n t t o v i s i t R. Y o h a n a n . T h e y f o u n d h i m s i t t i n g w i t h his h e a d a n d g r e a t e r p a r t o f his b o d y w i t h i n t h e Sukkah, w h i l e his table w a s w i t h i n t h e H o u s e . T h e y said t o h i m , " I f s u c h has b e e n y o u r c u s t o m , y o u h a v e n e v e r in y o u r life fulfilled t h e l a w o f t h e

Sukkah"

This story has been revised for redactional purposes. The opening lines obviously do not need to be repeated. But the imposition of the debate-form has required the inclusion of is there proof from that, but. . . indeed. This now connects the operative statement, If such. . . to the dispute. The Hillelite version of the story is before us without alter­ ation. It serves no purpose to speculate on what "really" happened, if anything. The fact is that the Houses made use of incidents involving the elders as precedents. Presumably, the Shammaites told how Hillel had obeyed the law as the Shammaites taught it (Temple sacrifice), just as the Hillelites alleged all good Shammaites followed Hillelite law (Baba b. Buta). The involvement of Yohanan is the real problem before both Houses. The Hillelites allege that, while he is claimed by the Shammaites, he really followed the law of the House of Hillel. The Shammaite response is: If so, he never kept the law at all. This is a rather weak reply, since it implicitly accepts the allegation of the

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

153

— II.ii.15, II.i.52

Hillelites and merely repeats the Shammaite position without new testimony. We should have much preferred a Shammaite story about how Yohanan had never done any such thing at all, but had built his Sukkah in the proper dimensions to begin with. So it looks to me as if the Shammaite version of the story is just that—a version. They have revised the antecedent Hillelite story to serve their own purposes, but they have no other story to substitute in its place, or whatever other story they had has been suppressed. If this is the case, it is striking that the Shammai-Hillel-Houses-form has prevailed. The Hillelites do not suppress the Shammaite answer. As usual, the Houses enjoy full formal parity with one another. If so, why could the Shammaites not have introduced their own version, which would not have had Yohanan's Sukkah improper to begin with ? We cannot suppose concern for veracity prevented them, since they were prepared to revise the Hillelite story at its crucial point. It looks to me as if the Shammaites of this story come long after the fact (if any), and that they invent no new account because, coming sufficiently long after he died, they could only contradict Hillelite allegations about him, but not invent new facts. We have no further stories of visits of the Elders of both Houses to this particular master, so we cannot speculate on what the Shammaites would have preserved as a record of the occasion, instead of the issue of the size of his Sukkah. We shall see further versions of the Horanite-problem, Tos. Suk. 2:3, below, p. 155. Note Epstein, Mevo ot, pp. 213, 353; Mishnah, pp. 630,635. y

III.ii.15. If the rays of the sun cannot be seen through it [the cover­ ing of the Sukkah]— The House of Shammai declare invalid. And the House of Hillel declare valid. (b. Suk. 22b) Comment: This is a singleton, part of a beraita but unattested else­ where. The form is entirely conventional. The problem pertains to the foregoing, II. i. 51. II.i.52. [A citron] of ^^/-produce— The House of Shammai declare invalid. And the House of Hillel declare valid. c

[M. Suk. 3:5, trans. Danby, p. 176 (y. Eruv. 3:2;y. Suk.3:5,b. Suk. 35b)] Comment: The form is standard. The issue is whether one may make use of citrons of various sorts: stolen, withered, from an asherah, from an apostate city, ' orlah-fruit, unclean Heave-offering, clean Heaveoffering, then demai, finally, Second Tithe. The Houses rule only on one

154

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.53

detail; all the rest of the laws are given anonymously and unanimously. The implication is that the other laws come earlier and form part of a a standard code, with the Houses' supplying a minor addition to the list. If one is not sure whether the citron comes from tithed produce, he must not make use of it but may feed it to the poor, as in the case of demai in general. So the case of demai pertains to doubtful, not certain status, while the other items in the list are all certainly in the category of produce to which laws surely pertain (stolen, or Heave-offering, and so forth). The Houses-dispute pertains to the most ambiguous matter. Compare M. Eruv. 3:2: They make an eruv with demai. c

II.i.53.A. And where do they shake the Lu/av? "At the beginning and the end of the Psalm, O give thanks unto the Lord (Ps. 118) and at Save now, we beseech thee, O Lord"—according to the words of the House of Hillel. The House of Shammai say, "Also ( P) at O Lord, we beseech thee, send now prosperity." B. R. Aqiba said, "I once watched Rabban Gamaliel and R. Joshua, and while all the people were shaking their Lulavs, they shook them only at Save now, we beseech thee, O Lord." 5

c

[M. Suk. 3:9, trans. Danby, p. 177 (y. Suk. 3:8,b. Suk. 38a)] Comment: The form is egregious, for it places the House of Hillel before Shammai, and it is KDBRY, rather than >MRYM. As it stands, part B supplies the information that the masters had apparently done things according to neither House. The pericope therefore breaks the normal form. The testimony of Aqiba tells us something we cannot relate to the antecedent dispute. We should have expected the following c

Where do they shake? T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, A t O Lord we beseech thee, send now prosperity T h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, ( 1 ) A t t h e b e g i n n i n g a n d (2) t h e e n d o f t h e P s a l m : O give thanks unto the Lord a n d (3) at Save now.

As it now stands, the difference is four (Shammai) vs. three (Hillel). In the revised form, we have simply rearranged the opinions of the Houses. But to do so, we must drop the also, which here serves only redactional purposes, from before the Shammaite opinion. The dispute then is one vs. three. Let us now introduce 'Aqiba's story: R. ' A q i b a said, I o n c e w a t c h e d R a b b a n G a m a l i e l a n d R. J o s h u a , a n d w h i l e all t h e p e o p l e w e r e s h a k i n g t h e i r Lulavs, t h e y s h o o k t h e m o n l y at Save now, O Lord, we beseech thee.

155

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.53, II.ii.42

The Hillelites say one shakes at Ps. 118:1 and Ps. 118:25A. The Sham­ maites say one shakes at Ps. 118:25B only: A. Save us, we beseech thee, O Lord B. O Lord, we beseech thee, send now prosperity. 'Aqiba's story therefore now tells us that Gamaliel and Joshua followed the Shammaite practice. So the issue between the Houses was whether one shakes at the start and at the end of Ps. 118 (Hillel) or only at the end (Shammai). The form is now standard, and the Aqiban report makes sense; we have several other stories of Aqiba's reporting Gamaliel's and Joshua's following Shammaite practice. It seems to me that the pericope has been revised so as deliberately to obscure the meaning of 'Aqiba's point, and to do so, the Shammaite ruling has been phrased in terms of part B, rather than part A, of Ps. 118:25. Had normal reference to a Scripture been made, it would have been merely to the opening words, Save us, we beseech thee, and everyone would have understood the reference. This theory depends on the supposition that shaking was done at a whole Scripture, and not in response to reading only a part of it. If that is not the case, then we have the following: c

c

P s . 118:1

House o f Hillel, H o u s e o f Shammai

P s . 118:25A P s . 118:25B

Gamaliel and J o s h u a , H o u s e o f Hillel and H o u s e o f Shammai House o f Shammai

c

In that case, Aqiba's story serves to establish a third position on the question: One shakes only at Ps. 118:25A. Form-critical considerations cannot be decisive, merely suggestive. For a summary of traditional views, See Epstein, Mishnah, p. 359. II.ii.42.A. R. Leazar b. R. Sadoq said, "When I was studying with Yohanan b. HaHoranit, I saw that he ate a dry piece of bread, for they were years of drought. I came and told father. And he said to me, 'Here are olives for him.' "I brought olives to him. He took them and looked at them and saw that they were moist [and susceptible to uncleanness]. "He said to me, 'I do not eat olives [without mentioning possible un­ cleanness, as a respectful gesture].' "I came and I told father. "He said to me, 'Go, say to him, It was broached [therefore the liquid has not made them susceptible to uncleanness], according to the words of the House of Hillel; [according to the House of Shammai, even if it were not broached, the olives would not have been susceptible —thus the concern of Yohanan shows he followed the Hillelite view; see M. Ed. 4:6] but the lees had stopped it up.' " c

156

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.ii.42

B. [This is] to tell you that he ate his unconsecrated food in a state of ritual purity. C. For (§) even though he was of the disciples of the House of Shammai, he behaved only according to the words of the House of Hillel. D. The law is always according to the House of Hillel. E. He who wishes to be stringent on himself to behave according to the House of Shammai and according to the words of the House of Hillel—of such a one it is said, And the fool walks in darkness (Qoh. 2:14). He who holds to the lenient rulings of the House of Shammai and the lenient rulings of the House of Hillel is evil. But if according to the words of the House of Shammai, then accord­ ing to their lenient and their strict rulings, or [if] according to the words of the House of Hillel, then according to their lenient and strict rulings [should he behave]. [Tos. Suk. 2:3, ed. Lieberman, pp. 261-2, lines 16-26 (y. Ber. 1:4, b. <Eruv. 6b, b. R.H. 14b, y. Yev. 1:6; M. <Ed. 2:2; y. Qid. 1:1, b. Hul. 43b-44a, y. Sot. 3:4, b. Yev. 15b)] Comment: Compare M. Suk. 2:7. The story of part A is a unity. It is another version of the "Hillelization" of Yohanan, this time in connec­ tion with his observance of the purity laws. Part B is a gloss, explaining the point of Leazar's father's message. Then comes the usual subscrip­ tion, part C, a stock-phrase attached to pretty much any story about a good Shammaite. Part D introduces a new and separate pericope, formed of parts D and E. It is addressed to inconsistent people. It seems to me a curious tradition, for the message should be, as with Ishmael, Tarfon, and other early Yavneans, that one who follows the teachings of the Shammaites is worthy of supernatural retribution (death, in the case of Tarfon). One can suppose two possible times in which such a ruling could have been made, either long after anyone seriously threatened Hillelite predominance {the law is always according. . .), or at a time that the Houses were of equal strength or the Shammaites superior, so that the best the Hillelites could do was to say, "Be consistent one way or the other." •It is difficult to choose between these alternatives. Obviously, Yavneh does not present itself as a likely location. Before that time, when the Hillelites probably were subordinated within Pharisaism, the Shammaites presumably would have had a different logion, and the Hillelites would, as I said, have had to have satisfied themselves with this sort of counsel. Dating logia by the criterion of their content is

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— III.ii.16

157

surely a questionable procedure; one can only guess, and my guess is that the saying comes after the Shammaites represented a serious alter­ native within the Pharisaic-rabbinic movement, presumably at the time of the Bar Kokhba War, and, because of the date of Tos., certainly before ca. 250; this is consistent with my suggestion for the equally ironic saying of M. Yev. 1:4, below, p. 190. As to part A, the story of Leazar seems to me quite credible. It is, to be sure, told from the Hillelite perspective, but that Leazar told it— perhaps, after the fact, justifying his father's choice of a master—seems to me reasonably certain. What is curious, if we discount the Hillelite glosses, is that Leazar did study with a Shammaite. As above, we should have preferred no story at all to a story raising significant doubt about Yohanan's true loyalty. "Yohanan would not eat more than minimal meals in years of drought" or some such theme would have been preferable from the Shammaite viewpoint. IILii. 16.A. R. Abba stated in the name of Samuel, "For three years there was a dispute between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel, the former asserting, 'The law is in agreement with our views' and the latter contending, 'The law is in agreement with our views.' "Then an echo came forth and said, 'Both are the words of the living God, but the law is in agreement with the rulings of the House of Hillel.' " Since, however, both are the words of the living God, what was it that entitled the House of Hillel to have the law fixed in agreement with their rulings? Because they were kindly and modest, they studied their own rulings and those of the House of Shammai, and were even so [humble] as to mention the words of the House of Shammai before theirs, as may be seen from what we have learnt: If a man had his head and the greater part of his body within the Sukkah but his table in the house, the House of Shammai say [that the booth was] invalid but the House of Hillel say that [it was] valid. Said the House of Hillel to the House of Shammai, "Did it not so happen that the elders of the House of Shammai and the elders of the House of Hillel went on a visit to R. Yohanan b. HaHoranit and found him sitting with his head and greater part of his body within the Sukkah while his table was in the house?" The House of Shammai replied, "From there may proof be drawn? They indeed told him, 'If you have always acted in this manner you have never fulfilled the commandment of Sukkah' "

158

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— III.i.5, II.i.54

This teaches you that him who humbles himself the Holy One, blessed be He, raises up, and him who exalts himself the Holy One, blessed be He, humbles; from him who seeks greatness, greatness flees; but him who flees from greatness, greatness follows; he who forces time is forced back by time, but he who yields to time finds time standing at his side. B. Our rabbis taught: For two and a half years were the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel in dispute, the former asserting that it were better for man not to have been created than to have been created, and the latter maintaining that it is better for man to have been created than not to have been created. They finally took a vote and decided that it were better for man not to have been created than to have been created, but now that he has been created, let him investigate his past deeds or, as others say, let him examine his future actions. [b. <Eruv. 13b, trans. I. W. Slotki, pp. 85-7 (y. Suk. 2:8)] Comment:

Samuel's story includes the citation of M. Suk. 2:7.

III.i.5. [This rule applies] before the echo went forth, but after the echo went forth, the law is always according to the words of the House of Hillel, and whoever transgresses the words of the House of Hillel is liable to death. TNY: An echo went forth and said, "These and these are the words of the living God, but the law is according to the words of the House of Hillel." Where did the echo go forth? Rabbi Bibi said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, "In Yavneh the echo went forth." , ~ . , , (y. Ber. 1:4, ed. Gilead, p. 17) A

Comment: The foregoing is appended to the rule about consistently following the Houses. It corrects the false impression that one may ever follow the Shammaites. The Babylonian discussion on the same matter differs, b. Yev. 11a ff.

II.i.54.A. If an egg was laid on a Festival-day— The House of Shammai say, "It may be eaten." And the House of Hillel say, "It may not be eaten." B. The House of Shammai say, "An olive's bulk of leaven and a date's bulk of what is leavened."

159

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.54

And the House of Hillel say, "An olive's bulk of either (ZH WZH KZYT)." C. If a man slaughtered a wild animal or a bird on a Festival-day— The House of Shammai say, "He digs with a mattock and covers up [the blood]." And the House of Hillel say, "He should not slaughter unless he had earth set in readiness [to cover up] from the day before [MS Kaufmann omits from-before\" But they agree that if he had slaughtered, he digs with a mattock and covers up [the blood]. [Moreover they agree] that the ashes of a stove may count as set in readiness [See b. Hul. 88b, below, pp. 167-168]. D. The House of Shammai say, "They do not remove a ladder from one dovecot to another, but only incline it from one opening (HLWN) to another [of the same dovecot]." And the House of Hillel permit it. E. The House of Shammai say, "A man may not take [pigeons for slaughtering on a Festival-day] unless he stirred them up the day before (MB<WD YWM—while it is still day)." And the House of Hillel say, "He stands and says, 'This one and this one shall I take.' " F. The House of Shammai say, "They do not take off cupboarddoors (TRSYN) on a Festival-day." And the House of Hillel permit even to put back. G. The House of Shammai say, "They do not lift up a pestle to hack meat on it." And the House of Hillel permit. H. The House of Shammai say, "They do not put a hide before the treading-place, and they may lift one up only if there is an olive's bulk of flesh on it." And the House of Hillel permit. I. The House of Shammai say, "They do not carry out a child or a Lulav or a scroll of the Torah into the public domain." And the House of Hillel permit. J . The House of Shammai say, "They do not take Dough-offering or [Priests'] Dues (MTNWT) to the priest on a Festival-day, whether they were set apart (HWRMW) on the day before (MB WD YWM) or on the same day." And the House of Hillel permit. K. The House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel, "It is a (

160

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.54, III.ii.17

ge^erah shavah \ Dough-offering and [Priests'] Dues are a gift to the priest, and the Heave-offering is a gift to the priest. Just as they do not bring Heave-offering, so they do not bring [Priests'] Dues." The House of Hillel said to them, "No! If you argue of Heaveoffering, which [a man] has not the right (ZKYY) to set apart [on a Festival-day], would you also argue of [Priests'] Dues, which [a man] has the right to set apart [on a Festival-day] ? " L. The House of Shammai say, "Spices are pounded with a wooden pestle, and salt in a cruse and with a wooden pot-stirrer." And the House of Hillel say, "Spices may be pounded, after their usual fashion, with a stone pestle, and salt with a wooden pestle." M. If a man picked out pulse on a Festival-day, the House of Sham­ mai say, "He [forthwith] eats the edible parts as he picks them out." And the House of Hillel say, "He picks them out after his usual fashion—into his lap or into a basket or into a dish; but not on to a board or into a sifter or sieve." Rabban Gamaliel says,"He even swills them and separates the husks." N. The House of Shammai say, "They send only [prepared] por­ tions (MNWT) [as gifts on a Festival-day]." And the House of Hillel say, "They send cattle, wild animal, or bird, whether alive or slaughtered." O. They may send wine, oil, flour, or pulse, but not grain. But R. Simeon permits grain. ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 1

[

M

B e ?

%

pp. 181-3 (y. Demai 4:3 = M. 1:6, b. Yoma 79b = M. 1:1; y. Pes. 5:4 = M. 1:1; y. Bes. 1:1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11; y. Bes. 4:7 = part E; b. Shab. 124a-b = part I; b. Bes. 2a-b, 6b-7a, 7b, 9a, 9b, 10a, 10b, 11a, l i b , 12a, 12b, 14a, 14b, 37a; y. A.Z. 2:7)]. IILii. 17. If it [an egg] is laid on a Sabbath, it may be eaten on a Festival; [if it is laid] on a Festival it may be eaten on a Sabbath. R. Judah says in the name of R. Eliezer, "The dispute still continues: for the House of Shammai say, 'It may be eaten;' and the House of Hillel say, 'It may not be eaten.' " ^ g g 4^ e

Comment:

The

p e r i c o p e p e r t a i n s to

w o r k that m a y be done

f e s t i v a l i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e p r e p a r a t i o n of f o o d , a c c o r d i n g to

on

a Ex.

12:16. 1

O n t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f N u m . 1 5 : 1 7 - 2 1 a n d D e u t . 1 8 : 3 , see G e z a V e r m e s i n Cambridge History of the Bible ( C a m b r i d g e , 1 9 7 0 ) , I, p . 2 2 2 .

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.54, III.ii.17

161

The first part of the collection, parts A-I, M. Bes. 1:1-5, concerns muqseh, that is, something which has not been set aside for use on the festival. It is prohibited to make use of it on the festival, just as on the Sabbath. Part A (M. Bes. 1:1) sets forth the principle under debate in terms of the particular instance of an egg born on the festival. The House of Shammai say it may be eaten on the festival; just as it is permitted to slaughter the hen on the festival for food, so it is permitted to eat its egg. The House of Hillel regard the egg as a 'new thing/ and it is not like the egg which the day earlier was in the hen. That which is born thus is not ready (MWKN) the day before the festival, but muqseh (Albeck, Seder Mo ed, p. 287). Part B (M. Bes. 1:1) pertains to Ex. 13:7, No leavened bread (HMS) shall be seen withyou, and no leaven (S WR) shall be seen withyou. The House of Shammai understand the measurements to be different from one another. One does not transgress the taboo of appearance of leaven in a quantity less than those specified. But one may not consume any quantity at all. Part B does not belong here, having nothing to do with the other items on the list. It furthermore lacks a superscription, and no explanatory gloss is inserted into the Shammaite saying, as one would expect. The redactional purpose in including it is not evident to me. Part C, M. Bes. 1:2, is superficially in conventional form: c

}

[ S t a t e m e n t o f t h e legal p r o b l e m ] He who slaughters a wild animal, etc. House o f Shammai: He may dig w i t h a mattock and c o v e r House o f Hillel:

[Shouldbe: H e m a y not d i g w i t h a m a t t o c k ] .

The Hillelite opinion, however, is that under the specified conditions, one may not slaughter at all! So the opinions are not evenly matched. That would not matter, except that the superscription ("He that slaughters") leads to the supposition that they will be balanced opposites, as usual. So the superscription is wrong. The Hillelites hold one may not slaughter at all unless the dust for covering the blood has been made ready before the festival day. Now, that opinion in fact is not that one may not slaughter. One may slaughter. The Houses differ only on whether one may now prepare the dirt— a secondary consideration. So the superscription and consequent rulings should have been: One who has not prepared the dirt the preceding day: H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : H e m a y s l a u g h t e r (and d i g a n d c o v e r ) . House of Hillel: H e m a y n o t s l a u g h t e r (at a l l ) .

What has been changed to teach the foregoing form? We have placed the operative element of the present superscription into the lemma of the Shammaites, and supplied a new superscription. If, therefore, the original tradition consisted only of the opinions of the Houses, then someone would merely have taken part of the Shammaite opinion and NEUSNER, T h e Rabbinic T r a d i t i o n s about t h e P h a r i s e e s before 70, I I

11

162

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.54

placed it as a superscription. The condition of the Hillelite rule, about preparing the dirt the day before, clearly belongs as the superscription; dropping the redactional formula unless ('L* 'M KN), and adding the negative, we have He did not have dirt ready the preceding day H o u s e of S h a m m a i : H e m a y s l a u g h t e r [and d i g a n d c o v e r ] House o f Hillel: He may not slaughter.

So what may have happened is now fairly clear. The gloss on the Hillelite opinion has been taken from the superscription, and the first clause of the original Shammaite opinion has replaced it. But why should this have been done ? Neither the present pericope, nor the one I have reconstructed, differs from Part A, which supplies a superscription, then the Houses' opinions in brief matched pairs. To be sure, part B lacks a superscription; but it also does not belong here at all. The ^^/-collection (M. Ber. 8:1-8) may supply the key. There the Houses' rulings are not preceded by superscriptions, except for the general one at the outset: concerning the meal. Here, by contrast, the collection-form has been amplified by the inclusion of superscriptions at the outset, egg born on festival. But that superscription does not serve the whole list, merely the first item on it. So someone has apparently modified the collection-form by the inclusion of superscriptions, as is common in discrete Houses-pericopae. Part A has been given the wrong superscription, according to our theory of the original collectionform. Part B has been given none—it is the primary tradition, without modification. Part C then has required the construction of an appropriate super­ scription—a general rule, parallel to concerning the meal. Rather than supplying a narrow and limited item, he did not have dirt ready, the editor has preferred the more general description, he who slaughters, intending it to serve as the beginning of an entirely new collec­ tion. He has botched the job, for reasons stated earlier, but not entir­ ely. His superscription does serve the next items on the list: parts D-E concern slaughtering pigeons. The editor has succeeded in arranging things so that a common theme unites otherwise unrelated laws, thus linking parts C, D, and E, by announcing that common theme. This would account for his preference for the general, rather than the specific, superscription. Parts D-E (M. Bes. 1:3) are in still another form already familiar everywhere except in collections: the superscription is inserted into the Shammaites' opinion. One may not carry a ladder, but may incline it toward different openings in the same dovecot. His purpose is to take the pigeons to slaughter them on the festival. The Hillelites permit car­ rying the ladder. A better-integrated form would be something like this: The ladder H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : L e a n a n d not r e m o v e [ c a r r y ] House of Hillel: L e a n and r e m o v e .

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

163

— II.i.54

That simple form, using the same verbs for both opinions, and differ­ entiating the opinions only with the negative (Shammai) and the con­ junction (Hillel) would have been developed into the more polished form before us. Part E is a still further form. The law pertains to taking pigeons. The House of Shammai hold that the day before the man must have signi­ fied his intention of using them by stirring them. The House of Hillel say he does not actually have to touch the pigeons, but may signify his intention merely by so stating. The two opinions are not matched; both represent secondary developments of whatever primary lemmas existed, for in each case we have full sentences, spelling out what actions need to be taken. The Shammaite lemma is elliptical, as in M. Shab.: H e s h o u l d not t a k e / u n l e s s h e stirred'/'the d a y b e f o r e .

The key word is therefore in the middle. The House of HillePs lemma does not contain the day before, but it should, for the Hillelite opinion pertains to that same time. So the day before should either be dropped or placed in the superscription. The /////^-construction clearly is to be rephrased as a simple, affirmative verb, presumably stirs, since take pertains to the situation addressed by both Houses. As to the Hillelite lemma, what the man says (This and this I am going to take) serves as a gloss on says. The two verbal participles seem to me essential: He [merely] stands [down below] and says. So the whole should begin something like the following: [Unstated superscription: He who wishes to slaughter pigeons on the festival which pigeons he intends to slaughter.]

must on the preceding day signify

C

H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : H e stirs [N'N , as p r e s e n t p a r t i c i p l e ] . House o f Hillel: H e stands a n d says [ U n d e r s t o o d : which one he wants].

The which-wants phrase is then rephrased into direct discourse as a gloss. What we have in the end, therefore, is a brief set of lemmas, with the opinions of the Houses given as present participles. As to the rather complex superscription, a simple, if not entirely clear, form would have been on the preceding day. The developed and complete statement I have proposed is neither better nor worse than a brief one. Much depends upon the purposes of the redactors, who were prepared to attach whatever superscriptions served their purposes. Clarity of intent was not a dominant consideration (as in part B, where the omission of a superscription leaves an enigma). So while we may reasonably speculate on the forms of the Houses-sayings, we cannot locate the principles guiding the development of superscriptions for those sayings. PartsF-I(M. Bes. 1 : 5 ) follow a single, rigid form: [No

superscription]

H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : N e g a t i v e p l u s list o f a c t i o n s House o f Hillel: P e r m i t [either e n t i r e l y , o r i n s o m e d e t a i l o f t h e f o r e ­ g o i n g list, in t h e l a t t e r i n s t a n c e j o i n e d b y also ( P ) ] . J

164

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.54

The law of part F concerns removing cupboard doors. The House of Shammai prohibit it, because it looks like tearing down a building, which is not allowed. The House of Hillel say one may both remove and restore the doors so as to take out the food therein. Part G con­ cerns a separate issue, the pestle. This on weekdays is used for things which may not be used on the festival, so it is muqseh, and may not be used even for the processes permitted on the festival. Part H con­ cerns the hide of a beast slaughtered on the festival. One may not tread it unless some flesh adheres, for it is permitted to move the hide only on account of the meat. The House of Hillel permit it, for if not, the man will not slaughter the animal to begin with. Part I has the House of Shammai prohibit moving things which have nothing to do with the meal. The House of Hillel hold that, since it is permitted to remove objects for the meal, removing objects not con­ nected with the meal may also be done. This position is consistent with part H, so much so that part I may simply represent a gloss serving to make explicit, with reference to common things (Scroll of the Torah, child, Lulav), what has already been said about something uncommon (the hide). See Simeon b. Gamaliel, above, p. 133. Part / ( M . Bes. 1:6) conforms to the foregoing pattern, but part K diverges from it by supplying a Houses-debate. Here, however, the House of Shammai come first, contrary to the usual debate-form. They hold that since one may not bring Heave-offering, one may also not bring other Priestly gifts. The House of Hillel come last and distinguish between the two sorts of gifts. Normally, we should have expected to see the Shammaites last, answering the Hillelite argument. The form of the argument is consistent with others already examined: the second party answers, No, if you say concerning so-and-so, the reason is such and such, but will you

say so concerning something

to which that

same reason

does not

Part K presumably represents a Hillelite gloss on part J . It completely violates the integrity of the collection-form, even in the loose state of the form before us. PartL constitutes still another, and quite different form from those in the earlier segments of the list. It has a full account of the opinions of both Houses. Clearly a superscription specifying the items under dis­ cussion would have allowed a very simple Houses-dispute:

pertain?

Crushing

Spices:

H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : W i t h a w o o d e n pestle House o f Hillel: A f t e r their usual fashion Salt: House of Shammai: In a cruse, with w o o d e n pot-stirrer House o f Hillel: W i t h a w o o d e n pestle.

We do not gain much by such a rearrangement; in this case, the opi­ nions, though phrased in a considerable number of words, are still evenly balanced, element by element, and the contrasts are clear as

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.54

165

given. What is more interesting is the progression of the wooden pestle: Spices may be pounded: H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : W i t h a w o o d e n pestle House o f Hillel: A s usual. Salt: House of Shammai: House o f Hillel:

In a cruse, w i t h w o o d e n pot-stirrer I n a w o o d e n pestle.

In the salt-case, the Hillelites do require a change in the usual manner of preparing the salt. The wooden pestle occurs in the opinions of each House, though in reference to different items. One can hardly propose, however, that the whole matter from a formal viewpoint depends simply upon the placement of the wooden pestle. Part M returns to what we have called 'conventional' form. The Shammaite opinion has been lightly glossed, with the addition of edible parts. Two verbs would have sufficed: pick-eat. The Hillelite opinion has been heavily glossed. It was sufficient to say, he picks after his usual fashion. The rest, moreover, not merely glosses, but changes the meaning! The issue is, Does he do it after the usual fashion or not? The original opinion of the Hillelites is that he does. Then the gloss adds, but not quite—for he may use his lap, a basket, or a dish, but not 2. board, a sifter, or a sieve, all of which were no less part of his "usual fashion" than the first three specified. So the gloss has the Hillelites requiring a slight change in the usual practice after all. Gamaliel stands within the Hillelite tradition in the unglossed form, for he adds further procedures which are after his usual fashion, and he would presumably have been surprised by the exclusions listed in the gloss. In this instance it seems sure that Gamaliel supplies a terminus ante quern for the Housesdispute. Part M thus represents the form without a superscription. The Houses-sayings are not balanced. The Shammaites say one may send only prepared portions. The House of Hillel say one may send whole animals, alive or prepared. The issue is divided into two parts, but concerns only one matter, namely, whether or not the gifts of meat have to be prepared. The balance is difficult to restore out of the words be­ fore us: H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : [ O n e m a y s e n d o n l y ] portions House o f Hillel: [One may send] 1 . cattle-animal-bird 2. w h e t h e r alive or slaughtered

How can one reduce both elements of the Hillelite opinion to a single word or extremely brief phrase ? It looks to me as if two disputes have been reduced to one, by the device of abbreviating the Shammaite ruling; or, alternatively, one dispute has been expanded to two, by augmenting the Hillelite one. But the single word portions cannot produce both Shammaite arguments on both of the issues specified in the Hillelite ruling.

166

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.55

It remains to observe that this "collection" is quite unlike more primitive exempla of the collection-form, and had best be regarded as a separate formal category, which we may call the compilation. By collec­ tion we have meant lists in which the Houses-materials are preserved in extremely brief and gnomic form, without superscriptions, and always in rigidly consistent form, with every element carefully matched. We are misled, therefore, to regard the complex of pericopae before us as comparable to the simple collection-form of M. Ber. 8:1-8. What characterizes the compilation-form seems to me to be the use of a single theme or principle to organize pre-existing, highly developed constitu­ ent pericopae. Epstein, Mevo ot, p. 102 assigns M. Bes. 1:1-2 to Meir, by analogy to M. Pes. 3:8. He observes (pp. 354ff.) that Mishnah-tractate Besah is based on sources of the disciples of 'Aqiba, though the laws in it are earlier than Usha. M. Bes. 1:1-2 derives from M. Ed. 4, the leniencies of the House of Shammai. The dispute about leaven etc., which does not belong here, proves that M. Ed. is the primary source. See also Epstein, Mishnah, p. 125, M. Bes. 1:1 = Meir; pp. 255-6: in M. Bes. 1 :l-2, the Hillelites take the stringent position, and after­ ward, the lenient one; also pp. 368, 393, 466, 652-3, 955, 967, 1003. 1012. y

c

c

II.i.55. A. If a Festival-day fell on the eve of the Sabbath, [a man] may not cook on the Festival-day food [intended] from the outset for the Sabbath., But he may cook food [intended solely] for the festival-day, and if any is left over, it is left over for the Sabbath; or he may prepare a dish on the eve of the Festival-day and depend ($MK) on it for the Sabbath. B. The House of Shammai say, "Two dishes." And the House of Hillel say, "One dish." But they agree that a fish covered with an egg counts as two dishes. If the dish [intended for the Sabbath] was eaten or lost, a man may not cook another anew in its stead, but if aught soever of it remained, he may depend on that for the Sabbath. C. If [a Festival-day] fell on the day after the Sabbath, the House of Shammai say, "They immerse all on the day before the Sabbath." And the House of Hillel say, "Vessels [must be immersed] before the Sabbath, but men [may immerse themselves] on the Sabbath." D. Howbeit they agree that [on a Festival-day] they may render [unclean] water clear by [surface] contact in a stone vessel, but they may not immerse it, and that they may immerse [vessels on a Festival-

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.55, III.ii.18

167

day] if they are to be changed from one use to another, or [at Passover] from one company to another. E. The House of Shammai say, "They may bring Peace-offerings [on a Festival-day] and do not lay their hands thereon; but [they may] not [bring] Whole-offerings (<WLWT)." And the House of Hillel say, "They may bring [both] Peaceofferings and Whole-offerings and do lay their hands thereon." F. The House of Shammai say, "A man may not heat water for his feet unless it is also such as could be drunk." And the House of Hillel permit. A man may make a fire and warm himself before it. G. In three things Rabban Gamaliel rules stringently, according to the opinion of the House of Shammai: (1) Hot food may not be covered up on a Festival day for the Sabbath; (2) nor may a candle stick be put together on a Festival-day; (3) nor may bread be baked into large loaves (GRYSWT) but only into thin cakes (RQYQYM)." Rabban Gamaliel said, "Never did my father's household bake bread into large loaves but only into thin cakes." They said to him, "What shall we infer from your father's house­ hold, which applied the stringent ruling to themselves but the lenient ruling to Israel, so that they might bake the bread both in large loaves and thick cakes!" H. Moreover he gave three opinions applying the more lenient ruling: (1) They may sweep up between couches, and (2) put the spices on the fire on a Festival-day, and (3) prepare a kid roasted whole on Passover night. But these things the sages forbid. M. Bes. 2:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, trans. Danby, pp. 183-4 (y. Bes. 2:1, 2, 4, 5, 6; b. Shab. 39b = Part F; b. Pes. 36b-37a, baking a thick loaf on Passover = Part G; b. Bes. 15b, 17b, 19a, 20a, 21b, 22a, 22b)] IILii. 18. Our rabbis taught: "One may cover up [the blood] only with dust," the words of the House of Shammai. But the House of Hillel say, "We find ashes referred to as dust, for

168

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — III.ii.19, 2 0 , 2 1

it is written, And for the unclean thej shall take of the dust of the burning of the purification from sin (Num. 19:17)." The House of Shammai, however, say, "It [ashes] might be re­ ferred to as the 'dust of the burning' but it is never referred to as simply 'dust'." [b. Hul. 88b (b. Sot. 16a)] 111.11.19. Our rabbis taught: The House of Shammai say, "One may not bake thick bread on Passover." And the House of Hillel permit. It was taught likewise: The House of Shammai say, "One may not bake a large quantity of bread on a Festival." And the House of Hillel permit. (b. Bes. 22b) 111.11.20. An objection was raised: R. Simeon b. Eleazar said, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel do not differ con­ cerning a burnt-offering which is not for the Festival, [both agreeing] that it may not be offered on a Festival, and concerning peace-offerings of the Festival, that they may be offered on the Festival. "They differ concerning a burned-offering which is for the Festival and concerning peace-offerings which are not for the Festival. "The House of Shammai say, 'He may not bring [them].' "And the House of Hillel say, 'He may bring [them].' " Reconcile it by saying thus: R. Simeon b. Eleazar said, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel do not differ concerning a burned-offering or peace-offering which are not connected with the Festival, that they may not be offered on the Festival; and concerning peace-offerings connected with the Festival, that they may be offered on the Festival; they differ only concerning a burnt-offering connected with the Festival. "The House of Shammai say, 'He may not bring.' And the House of Hillel say, 'He may bring.' " (b. Bes. 19a) IILii. 21. It was taught: The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, "If, when it is forbidden [to slaughter to provide food] for a layman, it is permitted [to slaughter] for the Most High, when it is permitted on behalf of a layman, it is surely logical that it is permitted for the Most High."

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

169

— III.ii.21

The House of Shammai said to them, "Let vows and freewillofferings prove [the contrary], for they are permitted for a layman and yet forbidden for the Most High." The House of Hillel said to them, "As for vows and freewillofferings, that is because there is no fixed time for them. Will you say [the same] with respect to a pilgrimage burned-offering ( WLH), seeing that it has a fixed time?" The House of Shammai said to them, "Even [for] this [sacrifice] there is no [strictly] fixed time, for we have learned: He who did not bring his Festival offering on the first day of the Festival may bring it during the whole of the remaining days of the Festival, even on the last day." The House of Hillel replied to them, "Even [for] this there is in­ deed a time fixed, for we have learned: If the Festival passes and he has not brought his Festival offering, he is unable to bring it after the Festival." The House of Shammai said to them, "Surely it is said, [That only may be done] for you (Ex. 12:16)—but not for the Most High God." The House of Hillel said to them, "Surely it is said, [Andyou shall keep it as a feast] unto the Lord (Lev. 23:41)—whatever is for the Lord." C

(b. Bes. 20b, trans. M. Ginsberg, pp. 105-6, = y. Bes. 2:4) Comment: b. Bes. 19a shows how not only Houses-materials but also direct quotations of early masters might be fabricated in the context of much later discussions. Simeon b. Eleazar said either one thing or the other, but not both. The obvious fact is that the editors of the pericope have made him say what he logically ought to have said. b. Bes. 20b = y. Bes. 2:4 supplements the preceding Mishnah with a full repertoire of arguments for both sides. b. Bes. 22b supplies a Houses-dispute in conformity with part E. Since Gamaliel follows the Shammaites, it was easy enough to create a dispute in the conventional model. If the dispute of III.ii.18 goes back to the early period, then the Hillelite lemma has been developed over the primitive form, which should have been, "Also ashes." Instead we have an argument in favor of that position, complete with a Scripture. The antecedent Mishnah in Hullin (M. Hul. 8:1) mentions neither dust nor ashes; but it cannot accord with the position of the Shammaites, who say only dust, or with the Hillelites by inference, for they accept dust and ashes, but not the other items in the same list. M. Bes. 2:1-5 adds further disputes to the list. I have included M.

170

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.55

Bes. 2:6-7 to supply the context for M. Bes. 2:6, discussed above, Vol. I, p. 380. Parts A-B, M. Bes. 2 : 1 , now deal with a complication of the foregoing pericope, namely the festival that coincides with the Sabbath. Part A has the festival on Friday. One may not cook on the festival for the Sabbath, though he may cook on the festival for the needs of that day. If food remained over, he may make use of it. Part A concludes with the rule that he may prepare a dish on Friday, and, depending on that, he may continue to cook on the festival for the Sabbath—thus at the outset he did not cook for the Sabbath, merely happened to continue. This dish (TB$YL), called ^eruve-tavshilin, mitigates the effects of the foregoing rule. So part A is in two sections, an apparently old rule, followed by a quite contrary one, in which the foregoing is set aside. The dispute of the Houses, part B, then concerns how many dishes he prepares so that he may make food for the Sabbath. The House of Shammai say two, the House of Hillel, one—a classic form for the dispute, originally consisting merely of the numbers two I one. The tradents would readily have assigned the stricter ruling (two) to the House of Shammai. Then comes an agreement, using the verb shavin ($WYN) rather than the more common modin (MWDYN). The agreement is curious, for it takes for granted that the Shammaite ruling is decisive. The Hillelites ought not to have bothered to specify a particular dish that constitutes two tavshilin, when in the first place they require merely one. So the clause should be Shammaite only, unless we suppose that the unlikely antecedent as the subject of shavin is the House of Shammai, accounting for the difference in word-choice. Part C, M. Bes. 2:2, now places the festival on Sunday. The issue is when the ritual of purification from Levitical uncleanness takes place. Th£ House of Shammai say everything, both men and vessels, must be immersed before the Sabbath. The House of Hillel say vessels must be done on Friday, but men may immerse on the Sabbath itself. The rea­ son is that men may in any case immerse on the Sabbath for the pleasure of it, so they may also immerse to wash away ritual uncleanness. The form is conventional: If after the Sabbath : H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, T h e y i m m e r s e all b e f o r e t h e S a b b a t h H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, Vessels b e f o r e t h e S a b b a t h , man o n t h e S a b b a t h .

The Hillelite lemma takes for granted, and depends upon, the Sham­ maite one. Standing independently it would have had to include the verb, they immerse. One might suppose the verb could have stood in the superscription, and placing it in the Shammaite lemma instead provides a more fluent text. But the difference is slight, one way or the other. Part D, M. Bes. 2:3, supplies an agreement, with SWY, but does not pertain to the law discussed in part C at all! The agreement pertains either to a Sabbath or to a festival—therefore has nothing to do with a festival on Sunday. The details of the law are of no interest here. What is

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.55, III.ii.22

171

striking is that the redactor's and they agree, parallel to the same usage above, part B, leads us to suppose the foregoing dispute is now to be narrowed in scope or otherwise modified, while in fact there is no sub­ stantive connection whatever. Without and they agree that, the law would have stood as an independent, anonymous pericope, and the Houses would have no bearing on it at all. It looks as if a redactor has joined it to the foregoing, on the model of part B, but here without good reason. The only good reason for and they agree would be agreement following disagreement of the Houses. PartE,M. Bes. 2:4, is familiar from M. Hag. 2:2 and from the story of Hillel in the Temple. The Houses' positions are as follows: S h a m m a i : ( 1 ) T h e y b r i n g peace-offerings a n d d o n o t lay o n hands. (2) T h e y d o n o t b r i n g w h o l e - o f f e r i n g s at a l l . Hillel: ( 1 ) T h e y b r i n g p e a c e - o f f e r i n g s and w h o l e - o f f e r i n g s . (2) T h e y l a y hands o n both.

I see no formal problems here. The opinions are as balanced as they could be, given the fact that three rulings, including two disagreements, have been compressed into one pericope: S h a m m a i : [ T h e y b r i n g peace o f f e r i n g s a n d ] d o not l a y o n h a n d s Hillel:

[ T h e y b r i n g peace offerings a n d ] d o l a y o n h a n d s .

Thus originally : [They bring] peace-offerings on the festival S h a m m a i : N o t lay o n hands Hillel:

Lay o n hands.

That is, M. Hag. 2:2! Then comes: Whole-offerings S h a m m a i : D o not b r i n g Hillel:

Bring.

The third ruling pertains only to the Hillelites: They also lay on hands. Obviously, it is superfluous for the Shammaites to rule on the issue. All this is compressed, as I said, and so deftly that the strict conventions of the simple dispute-form have not been greatly stretched, an example of a secondary development closely following the primary form. Note also the following: I I I . i i . 2 2 T N Y * : Peace-offerings w h i c h a r e offered o n a c c o u n t o f t h e festival: T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y , " H e l a y s [hands] o n t h e m o n t h e e v e o f t h e festival, a n d slaughters them o n the festival." A n d t h e H o u s e o f Hillel s a y , " H e lays [hands] o n t h e m on t h e f e s t i v a l a n d slaughters them o n the festival." B u t a l l a g r e e t h a t v o w s a n d f r e e w i l l - o f f e r i n g s a r e n o t offered o n a f e s t i v a l . (b. B e s . 1 9 a - b )

172

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.43, 4 4

Now the dispute is reduced to the issue of laying on of hands, since the second clause in both lemmas is identical. This is a far simpler version than M. Bes. Part F, M. Bes. 2:5, by contrast is not at all balanced: H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : F o r h i s feet a m a n m a y heat o n l y d r i n k i n g w a t e r [since the w o r k may be done only f o r preparation of f o o d ] . H o u s e o f H i l l e l permit [ m a k i n g a fire f o r a p u r p o s e n o t c o n n e c t e d w i t h food].

Our earlier observations on this form apply here. Part G adds three rulings of the House of Shammai: 1 . H o t f o o d m a y n o t b e c o v e r e d u p o n a f e s t i v a l f o r t h e S a b b a t h [and t h e House of Hillel permit] 2 . T h e y d o n o t p u t t o g e t h e r a c a n d l e s t i c k o n t h e f e s t i v a l [and t h e H o u s e o f Hillel permit] 3 . T h e y b a k e o n l y t h i n cakes o n t h e f e s t i v a l [and t h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l p e r m i t ] .

We have before us in fact a collection of the stringent Shammaite rulings followed by Gamaliel. What we do not have is the reformulation of the collection into generalized statements of law, or balanced disputes of the Houses in any of the several conventional forms. That comes, as I said, in b. Bes. 22b, for no. 3. Equally striking is the omission of the Hillelite ruling entirely. We then have Gamaliel's recollection of his father's House's following Shammaite practice, and as usual this is dismissed as private idiosyncracy, nothing more. Part H resumes the pericope, which has been broken by the little colloquy. We shall return to this collection below, M. Ed. 3:3-12. c

II.ii.43. The House of Shammai say, "An olive's bulk of leaven and a date's bulk of what is leavened." And the House of Hillel say, "An olive's bulk of either." [Tos. Yom Tov 1:4, ed. Lieberman, p. 280, lines 9-10 (M. <Ed. 4:1, y. Bes. 1:2, y. Pes. 5:4, b. Bes. 7b)] Comment: See M. Bes. 1:1b. Lieberman discusses the problem of the relevance of the pericope to M. Bes.-Tos. Yom Tov, Tosefta Kifshutah ad loc. p. 911, s.v. And in the novellae of the Meiri. He makes it clear that the classical commentators observed most, if not all, of the literary phenomena before us. He cites the earlier discussions, and then adds, "And in the language of our time, the principle [appearance] of the whole Mishnah is in M. Ed., Chapter Four, and the Tanna repeated here (according to) the language of M. Ed." y

c

c

II.ii.44.A. R. Simeon b. Leazar said, "The House of Hillel and the

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.44, 4 5 , 4 6

173

House of Shammai agree that they may move the ladder from one dovecot to another. "Concerning what did they differ? Concerning bringing it back— "For (§) the House of Shammai prohibit, and the House of Hillel permit." [Tos. Yom Tov 1:8, ed. Lieberman, p. 281, lines 24-6 (b. Bes. 9b)] II.ii.44.B. R. Simeon says, "The House of Shammai say, 'A man should not take a pigeon [which is ownerless, and which he has not yet acquired] until he ties (Q§R) it.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'A man should not take [it] until he stirs [it].' " (Tos. Yom Tov 1:8, ed. Lieberman, p. 281, lines 29-30) II.ii.45. R. Simeon b. Leazar said, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel agree that if he set [them] aside in the nest and found [them] before the nest, they are prohibited." [Tos. Yom Tov 1:10, ed. Lieberman, p. 282, lines 33-4 (b. Bes. 25a)] II.ii.46.A. R. Simeon b. Leazar said, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel agree that they remove the doors [of the cup­ board] on the festival day. "Concerning what did they dispute? "Concerning returning it— "For the House of Shammai prohibit, and the House of Hillel permit." B. "They agree that if he hacked on the pestle, it is prohibited to move it." C. "They agree that they do not salt hides on the festival, but they salt on it a piece of meat for roasting." D. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel agree that they may bring full vessels on account of the need [of preparing food], and empty ones for filling. "Concerning what did they dispute? "Concerning empty ones that were not on account of the need [of preparing food]—

174

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.47

"For (S) the House of Shammai prohibit, and the House of Hillel permit." [Tos. Yom Tov 1:10b, 11a, ed. Lieberman, pp. 282-3, lines 37-43 (y. Shab. 17:4 = part D; b. Bes. 11a, b. Shab. 123a, y. Bes. 1:5, y. Shab. 17:4)] II.ii.47.A. R. Judah said, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel agree that they may take the gifts that were taken up [set aside] the day before the festival with the gifts which were taken up on the festival. "Concerning what did they differ? "Concerning gifts which were taken up by themselves the day be­ fore the Festival— "For the House of Shammai prohibit, and the House of Hillel permit. "The House of Shammai said, 'It is an analogy: Dough offering and gifts are a gift to the priest, and Heave-offering is a gift to the priest. Just as they do not bring the Heave-offering, so they should not bring the gifts.' "The House of Hillel said to them, 'No, if you say so concerning Heave-offering, which a man has not the right to set apart, will you say so concerning the gifts, which a man has the right to set apart?' " B. R. Yosah says, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel agree that they may take the gifts on the festival. "Concerning what did they disagree? "Concerning the Heave-offering— "For the House of Shammai prohibit, and the House of Hillel permit. "The House of Hillel said, 'It is an analogy. Dough offering and gifts are a gift to the priest, and Heave-offering is a gift to the priest. Just as they take the gifts, so they should take the Heave-offering.' "The House of Shammai said to them, 'No, if you say so concerning gifts, which he is permitted to raise up, will you say so of Heaveoffering, which he is not permitted to raise up?' " Others say, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel agree that they do not take the Heave-offering on the festival day. "Concerning what did they disagree? "Concerning the gifts—

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

175

— II.ii.48, 4 9

"For the House of Shammai prohibit, and the House of Hillel permit." [Tos. Yom Tov 1:12-14, ed. Lieberman, pp. 283-4, lines 46-60 (y. Bes. 1:8, b. Bes. 12b)] II.ii.48.A. R. Meir said, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel agree that the spices are pounded with a wooden pestle, and the salt with them. "Concerning what did they disagree? "Concerning the salt by itself, for— "The House of Shammai say, 'In a cruse and with a wooden potstirrer for roasting.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'With anything.' " B. The House of Shammai say, "They take spices and the pestle to the crusher, and not the crusher to them." And the House of Hillel say, "They take this to this, and this to this, and there is no reason to be wary." C. The House of Shammai say, "They take the knife and the butcher to the beast, and not the beast to them." And the House of Hillel say, "They take this to this and this to this, and there is no reason to be wary." [Tos. Yom Tov 1:15-17, ed. Lieberman, p. 284, lines 62-9 (b. Bes. 14a)] II.ii.49. If a man picked pulse on the festival— R. Judah says, "The House of Shammai say, 'If the inedible (SRWRWT) parts are more numerous than the edible parts, he picks the edible parts and leaves the inedible parts.' "The House of Hillel say, 'He picks whatever he likes.' " [Tos. Yom Tov 1:21, ed. Lieberman, p. 284, lines 77-9 (b. Bes. 14b, b. Shab. 142b)]

Comment:

The

set o f p e r i c o p a e

exhibits

a single c o m m o n

theme:

agreements o f the Houses, leading to redefinition of their differences. S i m e o n b. Leazar in the Toseftan

traditions alleges t h a t the

Mishnaic

r e c o r d is n o t a c c u r a t e . W h a t t h e M i s h n a h - t r a d i t i o n s s a y i s i n

dispute,

t h e T o s e f t a n o n e s s a y is u n a n i m o u s l y a g r e e d u p o n , a n d n e w

distinc­

tions need to be read into the Houses-lemmas. The pericopae

derive

176

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.43-49

principally from mid-second-century masters, who therefore supply a terminus ante quern for the whole set of M. Bes-pericopae. One must ask, Which version is likely to have come first, that present­ ed in the Mishnah, or that of the second-century masters ? It seems to me obvious that the primary version is the one selected by Judah the Patriarch. The allegation that the Houses agreed upon a given point of law (now verbatim in the Mishnah) but differed upon a subset of that same law (now in the Tosefta) can mean only one thing. The secondcentury masters had before them the law now in the Mishnah, and after the fact proposed revisions in the traditions. They did not differ con­ cerning thus comes to mind only when provoked by the contrary assertion, that the Houses did differ. Without it who would have in­ vented the legal problem to begin with? But that does not prove the antiquity of the Mishnaic formulations, merely that they were revised by the authorities represented in the Tosefta. The contrary possibility is that Judah the Patriarch has consistently revised the Toseftan allegations, and where the earlier masters say the Houses did not differ, he has said they did and has further dropped the differences alleged by the Toseftan traditions to have separated the Houses. His tendency would therefore have been to broaden the range of disagreement. This seems to me less likely than the foregoing, for the tendency normally was to find further refined distinctions in general principles, rather than to drop fine distinctions in favor of gross generalities. II.ii.44.A, Moving the ladder = M. Bes. 1:3. Simeon uses the language now in the Mishnah: they move the ladder from dovecot to dovecot, but denies the Houses differed on the matter. The only issue is whether one may bring it back. II.ii.44.B, Taking the pigeon — M. Bes. 1:3b. Lieberman explains (Tosefta Kifshutah, ad toe. p. 926) that the Mishnah pertains to tame pigeons, and the passage before us to wild ones. Here the House of Hillel require not merely a spoken word as sufficient specification, but the act of acquisition, and the House of Shammai require not merely stirring but tying up. So Simeon has supplemented the law of the Mishnah with a new case, in which the difference between the Houses is a fixed difference, but more stringent by a degree as the circumstances change. The Houses-dispute presumably has come before Simeon and been supplemented by him through the creation of a new situation. II.ii.45. R. Simeon b. Leazar now adds a further agreement. The antecedent, anonymous tradition held that if he set the birds aside in the nest and found them before it, they were prohibited, but if at the door, they were permitted. Simeon says the Houses are unanimous on the first point. This pertains to M. Bes. 1:4, in which the Houses do not appear at all. He alleges that the Houses agree that pigeons of the dovecot require specification in advance of the festival, and are not re­ garded as house (tame) pigeons; and the disagreement in the Mishnah pertains only to how one makes a sign of specification. II.ii.46.A. Returning the cupboard doors = M. Bes. 1:5. The Mishnah

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

177

— II.ii.43-49

has the Houses differ on removing the doors. But it adds to the Hillelite lemma not only permission to do so, but also to return, an allusion to the dispute created by Simeon. Judah the Patriarch thus claims that the Houses differed on the removal, all the more so on the restoration of the doors. Including the latter detail makes sense only if Judah knew the contrary assertion of Simeon in the Tosefta concerning the nature of the dispute, for otherwise the Hillelite ruling is superfluous. II.ii.46.B. Using the pestle = M. Bes. 1:5. The House of Shammai say that after work is done on the pestle, it may not be moved. In the Mishnah the Shammaites hold he may not make use of it to begin with. The Hillelite position is constant. The same difference between the Houses is therefore present in both versions. The real problem is the Shammaite position: May he use the pestle at all ? Judah the Patriarch says they say he may not. Simeon says they say he may use it, but he may not move it thereafter. II.ii.46.C. Salting the hide = M. Bes. 1:5 has the House of Shammai prohibit bringing the hide to the tanner. Here it may not be salted, a later stage in the process of preservation of the leather. But the Hillelites now agree that one may not salt the hides—a limitation of the foregoing Hillelite position. Only if some flesh adheres, so that preparation of food is involved, do the Houses permit salting the hide. II.ii.46.D. Moving vessels = M. Bes. 1:5. The House of Hillel prohibit taking out the child, Lulav, and Torah to the public domain. The House of Hillel permit. Simeon b. Gamaliel introduces two distinctions not present in M. Bes. 1:5, namely, whether the vessels are used for need, and whether they are empty—irrelevant to the cases of M. Bes.! II.ii.47. Taking the priestly gifts = M. Bes. 1:6. We have four versions of the dispute about bringing the priestly gifts: M. Bes.

Tos. Y.J.

1:6

1:12

:Judah

Yosah

Others

1. House of Shammai say, T h e y d o n o t bring dough-offering and gifts t o t h e p r i e s t o n t h e Festival

1 . [ A g r e e a b o u t gifts taken before the festival w i t h gifts t a k e n u p o n the festival. Differ:] Gifts taken up before the festival by themselves.

1. [Agree on all gifts o n t h e festival. Differ o n : ] Heaveoffering.

1. [They agree about Heaveoffering, but differ c o n ­ cerning] the gifts.

2. w h e t h e r taken yesterday o r today

2.

2.

2.

up

3. House of Hillel permit

—

3 . House of Shammai prohibit and

—

—

3. [ = Judah's version]

3. [ = Judah's version]

4. „ „ „

4. House Hillel

4.

—

^* yy >> yy

^* >> yy yy

5.

—

yy yy >> 4. House of said t o t h e m , 5.

Analogy

Shammai

N E U S N E R , The R a bbinic T r a d i t i o n s about t h e P h a r i s e e s b e f o r e 70, I I

of

12

178

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.43-49

M. Bes. 1:6

Tos. YJ.

6. Dough-offering and g i f t s a r e a gift t o t h e priest, and Heave-offer­ i n g is a gift t o t h e p r i e s t .

6* » » >>

1. J u s t as t h e y d o n o t bring the Heave-offer­ ing, so they d o n o t b r i n g t h e gifts.

7

8 . T h e H o u s e o f Hillel said t o t h e m , 9 . N o , i f y o u say s o concerning Heaveoffering, w h i c h a m a n h a s n o t t h e r i g h t t o set a p a r t , w i l l y o u say s o concerning gifts, w h i c h a m a n has the right t o set a p a r t ?

' •

11 11 11

Q °*

11 11 19

9 '

m

99 99 99

1:12

Judah

Yosah 91 11 11

Others 6. —

7. Just as they bring gifts, so they should b r i n g Heaveoffering

7.

8.

8. —

Shammai

9 . gifts. . . Heave-offering

9.

—

—

Judah the Patriarch has followed others say in defining the dispute, namely, concerning the gifts. But he has added dough-offering. He further alludes to Judah's version by specifying that it makes no difference when the gifts were taken up, before or on the festival. Judah's version itself refers to a disagreement about the same distinc­ tion and says that disagreement is not at issue. So before both Judah the Patriarch and Judah b. Ilai was a dispute not represented here, in which the distinction of when the gifts were taken up was important. The positions of the Houses are fixed, and the editorial difference be­ tween M. Bes. no. 3 and the other versions is readily explained. Judah the Patriarch is working within a different redactional and formal framework: House of Shammai say [in such-and-such a case]—prohibit House of Hillel permit. The more conventional form is used in the Tosefta: Statement of Law

Houses: prohibit/permit. Then comes the argument. This appears without alteration, except for Yosah's version, which places Hillel first and has the argument con­ cern Heave-offering. It is curious that not infrequently the same ar­ guments or opinions serve a number of different disputes. This suggests that the formation of the argument took place before anyone had settled

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.ii.50

179

the issue, To what disagreement did the debate actually pertain? The debate required little revision, since the main point is the validity of the analogy of Heave-offering. What is interesting is that Judah the Patriarch has added the debate-materials to others say, which lacks them. Yosah's view of matters cannot be ignored. Two important facts should be observed. First, Yosah has preserved the proper order for a debate, Hillel then Shammai. Second, he has the only superscription which accounts for the inclusion of Heave-offering in the debate-form. The other superscriptions do not even allude to it; Yosah's does. Since the substance of the debate focuses upon Heave-offering and its distinctions from other gifts, it looks to me as though Yosah has drawn the most reasonable conclusion from pre-existing debatematerials and made Heave-offering the center of the dispute. The others are aware of, therefore come after, Yosah's formulation, and Judah has accepted their view of matters and revised the debate to conform to it. So he stands in this instance at the end and has taken account of all the second-century versions. His tradition is not inde­ pendent and presumably as old as, if not older than, the Toseftan ones, but refers to the Toseftan ones in the superscription. M. Bes. no. 2 mentions Judah b. Ilai no. 1 ; M. Bes. no. 1 depends upon others no. 1 and has added the detail about dough-offering (which ought to have been taken for granted) for reasons I cannot discern. One cannot, on the other hand, attribute to Yosah the oldest and therefore the sup­ posedly most authentic account, merely because his follows the form we should have expected. II.ii.48.A. Spices and salt = M. Bes. 1:7. The Mishnah has the House of Hillel's requiring no change in the normal preparation of spices, and small change in the normal preparation of salt. On the legal issues, see Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshutah, p. 933. 11.11.48. B-C has no counterpart in M. Bes. 11.11.49. Picking pulse = M. Bes. 1 : 8 . The Mishnah's version of the House of Hillel's opinion is no different from the one before us, except in formulation. Here he picks whatever he likes, there he picks in his usual way. The Shammaite rule there concerns whether he must separ­ ate, and thereby implies the same, he picks food—and leaves the rest. So the differences are merely in the formulation of the argument. The superscriptions are identical. The glosses of M. Bes. 1 : 8 are of course absent. See Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshutah, pp. 937-8 for important clarifications of the legal issues. See also Epstein, Mishnah, p. 258. II.ii.50. R. Simeon b. Leazar said, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel agree that they are two tavshilin. "Concerning what did they disagree? "Concerning the fish with the egg that is on it, for "The House of Shammai say, '[They constitute] one tavshil.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'Two tavshilin. " 9

180

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.51

"They agree that if he cooked two different species in the same pot, or if he mashed an egg in the fish, or if he cut porret under the fish, that they are two tavshilin" [Tos. Yom Tov 2:4, ed. Lieberman, p. 287, lines 10-14 (y. Bes. 2:1, b. Bes. 17b)] Comment: The Tosefta now makes sense of the dispute of the Houses in M. Bes. 2:1, concerning the fish and egg dish. As we observed, in M. Bes. 2:1 that "agreement" is pointless, for the Hillelites need not rule on the question at all. Simeon now tells us the disagreement is the heart of the matter, since both Houses agree two tavshilin are required and need only to determine whether certain mixed dishes constitute one or two—a considerable limitation on the range of differences between the Houses. For the difficulty in ascertaining the reading here, see Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshutah, pp. 946-7. II.ii.51. R. Simeon b. Leazar said, "The House of Shammai [and the House of Hillel] did not differ concerning those which were gathered together in the enclosure, that they bring [them], and con­ cerning those scattered in the field, that they do not bring [them]. "Concerning what did they disagree? "Concerning those scattered in the enclosure and gathered together in the field— "For the House of Shammai say, 'They do not bring [them].' "And the House of Hillel say, 'They do bring.' " R. Judah said, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not differ concerning what was scattered in the enclosure and gathered in the field, that they bring [them]. Concerning what did they dispute? Concerning what was scattered in the field— "For the House of Shammai say, 'They do not bring.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'They do bring.' " [Tos. Yom Tov 3:10, ed. Lieberman, pp. 295-6, lines 34-41 (y. Bes. 4:1, 2; b. Bes. 31a)] Comment: The passage has no conterpart in Houses-pericopae in M. Bes., but does have a parallel in M. Bes. 4:2: T h e y b r i n g w o o d f r o m t h e field f r o m t h a t w h i c h is g a t h e r e d a n d f r o m t h e e n c l o s u r e , e v e n f r o m w h a t is scattered.

together;

So Judah the Patriarch has settled matters. The Toseftan traditions are as follows:

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.52

181

Simeon Judah Gathered in field Scattered in the field Scattered in enclosure Shammai: Not bring

Shammai: Not

Hillel:

Hillel:

Bring

bring

Bring

Judah the Patriarch has followed Simeon's version, but has dropped the tradition that the Houses disputed the matter, and given only the Hillelite position as the law. II.i.56. [There are four New Year days: on the first of Nisan is the New Year for kings and feasts. On the first of Elul is the New Year for the Tithe of Cattle. R. Eleazar and R. Simeon say, "The first of Tishri." On the first of Tishri is the New Year for (the reckoning of) the year (of foreign kings), of the Years of Release and Jubilee years, for the planting (of trees) and for vegetables.] And— "The first of Shevat is the New Year for the [fruit-] trees"—the words of the House of Shammai. And the House of Hillel say, "On the fifteenth thereof." [M. R.H. 1:1, trans. Danby, p. 188 (y. R.H. 1:2, b. R.H. 8a, 14b)] Comment: The form of the Houses-pericope is unconventional, for the Shammaite opinion is not quoted, merely cited: On the first. . . for the tree [according to] the words of the House of Shammai. Then the House of Hillel say. The practical result concerns when the tithe of the produce of trees is to be given. One does not give tithe from produce that has ripened be­ fore the first of the year for produce that has ripened thereafter. The legal consequences therefore are important, but not specified. It looks as if someone has drawn the implication of antecedent lemmas and not cited the words verbatim; the Aqiba story (p. 80) may therefore come before the formulation of the Houses-dispute and may supply the earliest evidence of the existence—but not the language—of the dispute. c

II.ii.52.A. If the festival of the New Year coincides with the Sabbath— The House of Shammai say, "He prays ten." And the House of Hillel say, "He prays nine." If a festival coincided with the Sabbath— The House of Shammai say, "He prays eight, and says that of the Sabbath by itself and that of the festival by itself, and begins with that of the Sabbath."

182

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.52, 53

And the House of Hillel say, "He prays seven, and begins with that of the Sabbath and concludes with that of the Sabbath and says the Sanctification of the Day in the middle." B. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, "Is it not so that in the presence (M MD) of all of you, Elders of the House of Shammai, Honi the Little went down [as leader of the prayers] and said seven, and all the people said to him, 'May it be a pleasure for you.' " The House of Shammai said to them, "[It was] because it was a time appropriate for cutting short." The House of Hillel said to them, "If the time was appropriate for cutting short, he should have cut short all of them [rather than omitting one]." ^ _^ C

R

R

e

d

L i e b e r m a n j

p

p

3 2 Q

lines 88-96 (Tos. Ber. 3:13, y. Shav. 1:5, b. <Eruv. 40a, b. Bes. 17a)] Comment: Part A of the dispute occurs in Tos. Ber. 3:13, ed. Lieberman, p. 15, line 58. Part A is not changed from Tos. Ber. Part B is new. Lieberman observes that the dispute of part A takes for granted that the subject is the Morning, not the Additional Prayer, therefore comes before the Shofar-sounding was moved to the Additional Prayer. Part B pertains to a festival that coincided with the Sabbath. Honi said seven blessings in their order, unabbreviated, but he began with the Sabbath, said the Sanctification of the Day in the middle, and ended with the Sabbath, following the House of Hillel. The people praised him for doing so. The Shammaites explain that he had had to make has­ te. The Hillelites reply that he has dropped the eighth blessing entirely and should have abbreviated each of them and not dropped one alone. The form of the debate is exceptional, in that the Hillelites have two speeches, the Shammaites only the one in the middle. The pericope should have had an equal number for each House. Perhaps the closing Hillelite saying is a later gloss, and the whole should have ended with the Shammaite answer. But the Hillelite question would have had to have been raised, for the point of the story was that seven were said, as the Hillelites taught, and not eight. So the Shammaite answer is not to the point at all. It is therefore wholly a Hillelite story, not shaped like other debate-forms. We have no further information on Honi the Small.

II.ii.53.A. He who has carried out the rule of overturning the couch [as a sign of mourning] for three days before the festival does not overturn it after the festival. R. Liezer b. Jacob says, "Even one day."

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.53, II.i.57

183

B. R. Leazar b. R. Simeon says "The House of Shammai say, 'Three days,' and the House of Hillel say, 'Even one hour.' " [Tos. M.Q. 2:9, ed. Lieberman, p. 370, lines 20-24 (b. M.Q. 20a)] Comment: The anonymous rule is the Shammaites'. No one gives the Hillelite opinion. What came before Leazar b. R. Simeon's saying? He does not supply a complete superscription, but rather depends upon the foregoing. What he contributes is the identification of the authority behind the anonymous rule. b. M.Q. 20a gives the anonymous rule in the name of R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus. The sages say, "A day or even an hour." Simeon b. Eleazar then says the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel are herein re­ presented, and he gives for the House of Shammai three days, and for the Hillelites, one day. It looks as if the primitive pericope, if any, read three/one. Then Tos. M.Q. glossed with hour (rather than day) which was "improved" in some texts of the beraita, being changed to day, to match the Shammaite lemma.

II.i.57.A. Who is deemed a child? "Any that cannot ride on his father's shoulders and go up from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount," according to the words of the House of Shammai. And the House of Hillel say, "Any that cannot hold his father's hand and go up [on his feet] from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount, as it is written, Three regalim (Ex. 23:14)." B. The House of Shammai say, "The Re'iyyah-offeting [must be not less in value than] two pieces of silver and the Festival-offering [not less than] one ma*ah of silver." And the House of Hillel say, "The Re'iyyah-offeting [must be not less in value than] one ma'ah of silver, and the Festal-offering [not less than] two pieces of silver." C. Whole-offerings during mid-festival are brought from [beasts bought with] unconsecrated money, and Peace-offerings also from [what is bought with Second] Tithe [money]. D. On the first Festival-day of Passover, the House of Shammai say, "[They are brought from beasts bought with] unconsecrated money (HLYN)." And the House of Hillel say, "[Also] from [what is bought with Second] Tithe (M<SR) [money]." [M. Hag. 1:1, 2, 3, trans. Danby, pp. 211-2 (y. Hag. 1:1, 2, 3, b. Hag. 2a, 6a, 7b, 8a)]

184

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.57, III.i.6

III.i.6. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, "Is it not better to learn [the law pertaining to] the sacrifice of an individual from [the law pertaining to] the sacrifice of an individual, and not to learn [the law pertaining to] the sacrifice of an individual from [that per­ taining to] the sacrifice of the community?" The House of Shammai said to them, "Is it not better to learn [the law pertaining to] a matter which is observed for all generations from [the law pertaining to] a matter which is observed through all genera­ tions, and do not bring to me [the law pertaining to] the sacrifice of princes, which is not observed through all generations." (y. Hag. 1 : 2 ) Comment: II.i.57.A glosses the foregoing Mishnah, which says that all are liable to the commandment to appear before the Lord (Ex. 23:14) except for a child (among others). The Houses' definitions therefore come to say what sorts of children are not obligated, hence phrased in the negative: Whoever cannot go up by foot is a child, therefore exempt. See above, Sifre Deut. 143, p. 35. II.i.55.B preserves a House-dispute in which the operative words are placed in contrary order:

House of Shammai H o u s e o f Hillel

Re'iyyah

Hagigah

Two s i l v e r Ma'ah o f s i l v e r

Ma'ab o f s i l v e r Two s i l v e r

So the problem is to assign the right opinion to the right House. It is a common difficulty for the later tradents working with primitive Houseslemmas. Part C-D has a Houses-dispute on the final clause of a general, anonymous ruling. The law concerns the funds to be used for the purchase of the festival offerings. The House are concerned with the peace-offerings to be brought on the first day of every festival, re­ ferred to in A-B. The House of Shammai say the funds must come from unconsecrated funds; the House of Hillel permit taking part from Tithes. That is, it is permitted to add the coins of Second Tithe to the two silver coins of the festal-offering-money, which come from un­ consecrated funds, and to buy with them a better sacrifice, since the offering is to be eaten by the worshipper. But, Albeck observes, the re'iyyah mentioned above, which is wholly offered on the altar and not eaten, must be purchased only from unconsecrated funds, not from Second Tithe money. The Houses-rulings are not part of a collection or compilation. While they appear in contiguous pericopae, they are in two instances merely glosses, and not separate rulings such as would have been brought together in a compilation.

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.58, III.i.7

185

y. Hag. 1:2 adds a debate for parts B-C. On according to the words of in the Mishnah, see the important discussion of Epstein, Mishnah, p. 403. Note also pp. 633-4. II.i.58.A. The House of Shammai say, "They bring Peace-offerings [on a Festival-day] and do not lay the hands thereon; but [they do] not [bring] Whole-offerings." And the House of Hillel say, "They bring [both] Peace-offerings and Whole-offerings and lay their hands thereon." B. If the Feast of Pentecost fell on the eve of a Sabbath, the House of Shammai say, "The day for slaughtering is after the Sabbath." And the House of Hillel say, "The day for slaughtering is not after the Sabbath." But they agree that, if [the Feast] fell on a Sabbath, the day for slaughtering is after the Sabbath. [M. Hag. 2:3-4, trans. Danby, p. 213 (y. Hag. 2:3,4; b. Hag. 7b, 17a, 17b)] III.i.7. The House of Shammai say, "Laying on of hands not in the ordinary manner has been permitted." And the House of Hillel say, "Laying on of hands not in the ordinary manner has not been permitted." What is 'laying on of hands not in the ordinary manner'? It is laying on of hands on the preceding day. (y- Hag. 2:3) Comment: II.i.59.A, see above, M. Bes. 2:4. II.i.58.B, M. Hag, 2:4, concerns the slaughter of the i&^^-sacrifices. The House of Shammai say they must be sacrificed on Sunday, since they do not override either the festival or the Sabbath. The House of Hillel say it may be done both on the Sabbath and on the festival itself, as above, II.i.87.A, one brings and lays on hands—therefore one slaughters on the festival day. The form is fully articulated, but conventional: If Pentecost fell on Friday H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, T h e d a y o f s l a u g h t e r is after t h e S a b b a t h H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, T h e d a y o f s l a u g h t e r is not after t h e S a b b a t h

The Hillelite opinion is not explicitly stated, merely implied through the negative of the Shammaite one. But the outcome is clear, having been specified in the immediately antecedent Mishnah. Another reading (MS Kaufmann) for the Hillelite opinion is, "It has

186

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.ii.54, 5 5

no day of slaughter," meaning no special day needs to be set aside, for the slaughter is done on the festival itself. The reading before us is preferable merely for form-critical reasons. y. Hag. 2:3 gives us a consistent issue. The Shammaites say one may then lay on hands the preceding day, since on the day itself one may not do so; and the Hillelite position follows. See Epstein,

Mevo'ot,

pp. 50-51,

Mishnah,

p. 634. y

11.11.54. The House of Shammai say, "The measure of the re iyyah is greater than the measure of the festal sacrifice (hagigah)" "The re'iyyah is entirely for the One Above, which is not so for the hagigah" The House of Hillel say, "The measure of the hagigah is greater than the measure of the reyiyyah, for the hagigah was practiced both before the Word [ = giving of the law at Sinai, being referred to in Ex. 5:1] and afterward, which is not so of the re'iyyah." [Tos. Hag. 1:4, ed. Lieberman, p. 376, lines 22-25 (y. Hag. 1:2, b. Hag. 6a)] Comment: This is an expansion of M. Hag. 1:2, in which the Sham­ maites say more money goes for the reyiyyah than for the hagigah, and the Hillelites say the opposite. It supplements M. Hag. 1:2, explaining the opinions of the Houses. This pericope would represent a third stage in the development of the single tradition. The first had the speci­ fications of coins, the second created of these a dispute between the Houses, and third explained the dispute. Alternatively, the above say­ ing, which would have been entirely theoretical, was translated into the dispute of stage two.

11.11.55. R. Simeon b. Leazar said, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree concerning offerings that come always, that he should bring [them] only from unconsecrated funds, or concerning peace offerings which come on the rest of the days of the year, that if he wants to depend on [supplement with] Tithe [money], he depends on it. "Concerning what did they differ? Concerning the hagigah of the festival day itself— "For the House of Shammai say, 'He brings all from unconsecrated funds.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'He brings his obligation from un­ consecrated funds, and if he wants to depend on Tithe-funds, he does

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.ii.56

187

so, and the rest of the days of the year he brings his obligation from unconsecrated funds.' " [Tos. Hag. 1:4, ed. Lieberman, p. 377, lines 31-6 (b.* Bes. 19a)] Comment: Simeon's revision pertains to M. Hag. 1:3. Offerings on the festival come from unconsecrated funds, and peace-offerings from the Tithe. As to the first day of the festival, the House of Shammai say, "From unconsecrated funds," and the House of Hillel say that money may be added from Tithe-funds. The reference is to sacrifices of re'iyyah, which, according to the House of Shammai, are offered continually through the festival. The House of Hillel agree with reference to the Sabbath, and affirm that one may not purchase from Tithe-money a sacrifice which a man does not eat. But as to sacrifices that come on the first day of the festival— meaning the festal peace-offerings—the Houses differ. So Simeon has clarified the dispute, rather than revising it altogether. Having defined the matter, Simeon allows the language of the House of Shammai in the Mishnah to stand without alteration. This is charac­ teristic of his method, as we have seen. The opinions of the Houses generally are fixed, but the laws to which they pertain need to be specified. But here, the Hillelite opinion is considerably expanded. When the Hillelites say from the Tithe, the meaning is that he brings the measure of his obligation (two silver coins) from unconsecrated money, and the rest from the Tithe. But he cannot bring the whole from Second-Tithe funds, for whatever is an obligation may come only from unconsecrated funds, and this is specified in the following clause, the rest of the days of the

year.

Note Epstein,

Mishnah,

p. 634, re 1:4.

II.ii.56.A. What is the laying on of hands concerning which they differed? B. The House of Shammai say, "They do not lay on hands on the festival, and as to peace offerings, the one who celebrates through them lays hands on them the day before the festival." The House of Hillel say, "They bring peace-offerings and wholeofferings and lay hands on them." C. The House of Hillel said, "Now, if at a time that you are not permitted to work for an ordinary person, you are permitted to work for the Highest One, when you are permitted to work for an ordinary person, are you not permitted to work for the Highest One?" The House of Shammai said to them, "Vows and free-will offerings will prove [the matter], for you are permitted to work [ = make them]

188

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.56

for an ordinary person, and you are not permitted to work for the Highest One." D. The House of Hillel said to them, "No, if you say so concerning vows and free-will offerings, whose time is not set (QBW ), will you say so concerning the hagigah [= re'iyyah sacrifice], whose time is set?" The House of Shammai said to them, "So too with the hagigah, sometimes its time is not set, for he who did not celebrate (HG) [the hagigah = re'iyyah-szcnfice] on the first day of the festival offers [it] the whole festival and [even] the last day of the festival [according to your view]." E. Abba Saul would say it in a different language in the name of the House of Hillel: "If when your stove is closed [you cannot cook = the Sabbath], the stove of your Lord is open, when your stove is open, will not the stove of your Lord [also] be open?" C

[Tos. Hag. 2:10, ed. Lieberman, pp. 384-5, lines 68-81 (y. Hag. 2:3, y. Bes. 2:4, b. Bes. 19b-20a-b)] Comment: The superscription refers to M. Hag. 2:3=M. Bes. 2:4 and distinguishes among the several disputes therein combined. The laying on of hands to which reference is made pertains to festival offerings. As to the hagigah, the person lays on hands the preceding day (= y. Hag. 2:3). The House of Hillel say one brings peace-offerings and sacrifices and lays on hands, just as in the Mishnah. So the revisions pertain primarily to the Shammaite lemma: M. Hag.: A . B. Tos. Hag.: A . B.

T h e y bring peace-offerings and d o n o t lay o n hands. They do not bring whole-offerings. T h e y d o n o t l a y o n h a n d s o n t h e f e s t i v a l [on a n y o f f e r i n g s ] . A s t o t h e f e s t i v a l o f f e r i n g , t h e y lay o n h a n d s t h e p r e c e d i n g day.

The clarification therefore serves M. Hag. clause A: When do they lay on hands? Tos. underlines the ruling and explains how to carry out the sacrifice. The Hillelite position is unchanged. The principle under discussion is whether or not one lays hands on the sacrifice on the festival, debated by the pairs (M. Hag. 2:2) as well as by the Houses. But no one debated whether to bring offerings on the festival. Part C: The Hillelites argue that one may not work on the Sabbath, even in connection with preparation of food, yet one may offer the perpetual sacrifices and the supplementary sacrifices. On the festival, when one is permitted to work for an ordinary person, one should be permitted to lay on hands, and the consideration of Sabbath-rest does not enter. The Shammaites reply that even when one is permitted to work for the ordinary person (the festival), one still does not offer vowand free-will sacrifices, with which the Hillelites agree.

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA—III.ii.23

189

Part D : The Hillelites distinguish between vow- and free-will offerings and the hagigah. The time for offering it is set. The Shammaites deny this invariably is the case. There the debate ends, with the Sham­ maites having the last word. Part E: The revision of Abba Saul is of great importance, for the debate before us must thereby be dated back to Yavneh and cannot be regarded as a second-century expansion of first-century legal logia. This shows not only that the dispute existed, but also that the debate had already taken shape, therefore that the debate-form comes quite early in the formation of traditions. Afterward it was used in classical style. Abba Saul holds that the House of Hillel say vow- and free-will offer­ ings are sacrificed on the festival, for if the man's oven is open, all the more so that the oven of the Master should be open for vow- and free­ will offerings. So it is not merely a matter of a new image for pretty much the same argument. The context for this pericope is interesting. Immediately following is the story of Hillel the Elder, who laid on hands on the sacrifice in the courtyard and then assured Shammaites that it was a female and needed merely for peace-offerings, above, I, p. 309. The Hillel-story comes after the legal dispute of the Houses, another instance in which a law or exegesis is turned into a narrative or "historical" account illustrating the same law or exegesis.

III.ii.23.A. TNW RBNN: The House of Shammai say, "Heaven was created first and afterwards the earth was created, for it is said, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1:1). The House of Hillel say, "Earth was created first and afterwards heaven, for it is said, In the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven" (Gen. 2:4). B. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, "According to your view, a man builds the upper story [first] and afterwards builds the house, for it is said, / / is he that buildeth His upper chambers in the heaven, and hath founded His vault upon the earth" (Amos 9:6). Said the House of Shammai to the House of Hillel, "According to your view, a man makes the footstool [first], and afterwards he makes the throne, for it is said, Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool" (Is. 66:1). [b. Hag. 12a = y. Hag. 2:1 (Lev. R. 36:1, Gen. R. 1:1, Gen. R. 12:14)] Comment: The pericope, part A, follows the classic form, heavily glossed with interpolated Scriptures; the debate is equally conventional. But the form cannot dictate the date or demonstrate authenticity,

190

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.59

especially where the Houses are assigned the only positions for debate (assuming no one supposed heaven and earth were made at the same instant, in which case the Houses would have had no argument). i n . NASHIM

II.L59.A. The House of Shammai permit [Levirate marriage be­ tween] the co-wives and the [surviving] brothers. And the House of Hillel forbid. B. [If] they had performed halisah, the House of Shammai declare them ineligible (P$L) to marry a priest. And the House of Hillel declare them eligible (K$R). C. [If] they had been taken in Levirate marriage, the House of Shammai declare [them] eligible. And the House of Hillel declare ineligible. D. Notwithstanding that these forbid ( £R) what the others permit (HTR), and these declare ineligible (P$L) whom the others declare eligible (K§R), yet the House of Shammai did not refrain from marry­ ing women from the House of Hillel, nor the House of Hillel from marrying women from the House of Shammai. E. [Despite] all [the disputes about what is] clean and unclean, wherein these declare clean what the others declare unclean, neither refrained from preparing cleannesses with one another. J

[M. Yev. 1:4, trans. Danby, pp. 218-9 (y. Yev. 1:2, 6; b. Yev. 9a, 13a-b, 14a-b, 15a-b, 16a, 27a)] Comment: While the wives themselves may not enter Levirate marriage with the surviving brothers, the co-wives may do so, accord­ ing to the House of Shammai, contrary to M. Yev. 1:1, which conforms to the Hillelite opinion without attribution to the House of Hillel. Parts B and C spell out the consequences of part A. If the cowives carried out the halisah ceremony, the House of Shammai pro­ hibit them from marrying a priest, for the halisah was necessary; she is completely in the status of a halusah, and prohibited to marry priests (M. Yev. 2:4). The House of Hillel permit it, for the halisah was not necessary. If the co-wives entered Levirate marriage and were widowed, the House of Shammai permit them to marry a priest. The House of Hillel prohibit it, for the Levirate marriage was in fact prohibited, and the woman is in the same category as a prostitute, prohibited to wed a priest (Lev. 21:7). The form of part A is standard, with the Shammaite opinion some­ what articulated. With a superscription it would have been as follows:

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.59

191

As to the Levirate marriage of co-wives to the brothers The House of Shammai: Permit. The House o f Hillel: Prohibit.

As usual, therefore, the operative words are the matched pairs: prohibit/ and these will be assigned to the Houses according to the demand of the superscription. Parts B and C, by contrast, follow the simpler form, with the Shammaites' lemma lightly glossed (in italics):

permit,

They carried out the halisah-ceremony H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : D e c l a r e i n e l i g i b l e from the priesthood House o f Hillel: Declare eligible.

Part C is simplest of all: They entered Levirate

marriage

House o f Shammai: Declare eligible House o f Hillel: Declare ineligible.

The formation of disputes is therefore around diametrically opposite rulings on given questions, with positions assigned to the Houses according to whatever principles the tradents had available. The Houses' opinions here are phrased in contrasting verbs in active, participial form, with minimum adornment. Only the presence of a superscription or the (alternative) articulation of the dispute within the Shammaite lemma distinguishes developed from somewhat more primitive exempla. The latter possibly would have come after the former, though redactional considerations may sometimes have affected the choice of form. Parts D and E present an interesting interpolation, tacked on to the foregoing and alleging a kind of compromise. Part D is artfully built on the verbs of parts A-B-C, permit/prohibit, declare ineligible)declare eligible. The order is correct. The predicate is neatly balanced as a legal condition: each side of the agreement is specified—these marry those, those marry these. We may take for granted that the women are not active participants in the Houses, but daughters of male members. Part E then takes up the theme and carries the compromise position even further: All

the cleannesses and uncleannesses which

T h e s e d e c l a r e d clean a n d these d e c l a r e d u n c l e a n — T h e y did n o t refrain making [preparing] purities T h e s e w i t h these.

One should have expected from [M] plus the infinitive, parallel to the foregoing refrain from (to) marry. The unclean element is ignored, logic­ ally, since if one party regarded the other's uncleannesses as clean, it

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.59

obviously would have made use of them. Hence the operative category is cleanness only. So we are told the Houses intermarried, even though such marriages would have produced mam^erim, or illegitimate children, according to one or the other party. In this instance, for example, the children of the co-wives who entered Levirate marriage according to the House of Shammai would be mam^erim according to the House of Hillel. Like­ wise, they would lend one another cooking ports. The picture is incredible. If the disputes came to so little that the Houses ignored the practical consequences of violating their own rulings, then why should the disputes have been carried on at all? Why should the Houses have troubled to register their contrary views of law, if they did not intend to live by them? The subscription is not meant to denigrate the disputes—that much is clear—but rather to deny their results in social life. Since the Shammaites take or are given the more stringent side in the great number of disputes, the assertion seems on the face of it to be directed toward them. But the case before us has the Hillelites declaring Shammaite children to be mam^erim—yet sup­ posedly allowing their progeny to marry such mam^erim\ In a com­ munity so conscious of genealogical purity as Palestinian Jewry, that is, as I said, simply unbelievable. One recalls, with reference to part E , that when Gamaliel's daughter married a non-observant Jew (not specified as a Shammaite, to be sure), he had to agree that cleannesses would not be prepared in his house at all. One therefore must ask, When would such an assertion have been made, by whom, and for what purpose? It is in the language of historical narrative, so we cannot suppose the intention was to settle the disputes by a legal compromise. Indeed, nothing is compromised at all. My guess is that it was important to say such a thing at a time that someone was attempting to unify the Houses, among other Jews, for action in a common purpose. The Houses by now could not have been so vigorous, or their disputes so vital, as in the past. It looks like an epitaph on a dying age: whatever the disputes may have been, the parties ignored their practical consequences and really loved one another. Anyone who believed the stories about how the Shammaites mobbed Hillel in the Temple and used a sword in the school house would not have believed this allegation. Those Yavneans who held that follow­ ing Shammaite rulings would be punishable by heaven likewise would have been surprised by it. If relations between the Houses were as characterized in those stories, they would not have yielded so benign a conclusion. The assertion of parts D-E therefore needs to be placed at a time that the Houses' disputes no longer divided the Pharisaic-rabbinic movement, but still were vividly remembered, as remnants of the old Houses persisted into a new age. That time obviously must come be­ fore Judah the Patriarch. My guess is that it was toward the end of Yavneh's consistory, on the eve of the Bar Kokhba War. The historical

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — III.ii.24

193

Houses were a dim memory. To be sure, disputes continued to be shaped within the literary-redactional framework of the Houses, but the Houses tended to serve as convenience-names to which to assign opposing viewpoints, and by which to ascertain the acceptable law (Hillel) without logical difficulty. It was now important to obliterate old disputes, in the face of the current one, about the messianic hopes associated with Bar Kokhba. The 'Aqibans who backed Bar Kokhba may well have asserted that the old Houses really loved one another, and remaining followers of the Shammaites in particular should be free to join as equals in the new cause. Since followers of the Hillelites would have regarded them as mam^erim, it was particularly important to assert the contrary; but the purity-laws had significant practical consequences as well. Now the Houses were able to eat with one another and trust the purity-laws were kept—or did not matter—for the first time in a century. The pericope would have entered the tradi­ tion and persisted long afterward, alongside contrary views of the practical consequences of the Houses-disputes. Having located an appropriate time, we may therefore suppose the assertion derives from an Aqiban authority and was issued in connection with efforts to unify the rabbinic movement behind the Aqiban-Bar Kokhban War. Ishmael's school's view is above, p. 48. This theory is virtually certain, since Simeon b. Yohai refers to part E, Tos. Yev. 1:12 (p. 204), so the saying had reached final form by Ushan times. Since the vigorous disputes on Levirate rules are verified by several early Yavneans, the allegation must come between ca. 100 and ca. 150. c

c

III.ii.24. In the days of R. Dosa b. Harkinas the rival [co-wife] of a daughter was permitted to marry the brothers. This ruling was very disturbing to the sages, because he was a great sage and his eyes were dim so that he was unable to come to the house of study. When a discussion took place as to who should go and communicate with him, R. Joshua said to them, "I will go." They began to address to him (Dosa) all sorts of questions on legal practice until they reached that of the daughter's rival. "What is the law," they asked him, "in the case of a daughter's rival?" "This," he answered them, "is a question in dispute between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel." "In accordance with whose ruling is the law?" "The law," he replied, "is in accordance with the ruling of the House of Hillel." "But, indeed," they said to him, "it was stated in your name that the law is in accordance with the ruling of the House of Shammai!" He said to them, "Did you hear, 'Dosa or 'the son of Harkinas'? " 5

N E U S N E R , T h e R a b b i n i c T r a d i t i o n s a b o u t t h e P h a r i s e e s b e f o r e 7 0 , II

13

194

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.60

"By the life of our Master," they replied, "We heard no son's name mentioned." "I have," he said to them, "a younger brother who is the first-born of Satan, and his name is Jonathan, and he is one of the disciples of Shammai. Take care that he does not overwhelm you on questions of established practice, because he has three hundred answers to prove that the daughter's rival is permitted. But I call heaven and earth to witness that upon this mortar sat the prophet Haggai and delivered the following three rulings: That a daughter's rival is forbidden, that in the lands of Ammon and Moab the tithe of the poor is to be given in the Seventh Year, and that proselytes may be accepted from the Cordyenians and the Tarmodites." (b. Yev. 16a, trans. W. Slotki, pp. 85-87 = y. Yev. 1:6) Comment: The story provides a valuable terminus ante quern for M. Yev. 1:4. On the tithe of Ammon and Moab in the Seventh Year, see Development, pp. 58-60, and above, pp. 106-108. II.i.60.A. If two of four brothers married two sisters, and the two that married the two sisters died, the sisters must perform halisah and may not contract Levirate marriage; and if the brothers had already married them, they must put them away. - R. Eliezer (Eleazar) says in the name of the House of Shammai, "They may continue [the marriage]." And the House of Hillel say, "They must put [them] away." B. If there were three brothers, two married to two sisters and one unmarried, and one of the married brothers died, and the unmarried one bespoke [performed a ma'amar] the widow, and then his second brother died— The House of Shammai say, "His [bespoken] wife [abides] with him, and the other goes forth as being the wife's sister." And the House of Hillel say, "He must put away his [bespoken] wife [both] by bill of divorce (GT) and by halisah, and his brother's wife by halisah" C. This is the case whereof they have said, "Woe to him because of [the loss of] his wife! and woe to him because of [the loss of] his brother's wife!" „ _ rx i_ ooi o / [M. Yev. 3:1, 5, trans. Danby, pp. 221-2 (y. Yev. 3:1, 4, b. Yev. 28a, 29a-b, b. Ned. 74b, b. Yev. 51b, M. <Ed.4:9,5:5)] r A T

0

A

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.60

195

Comment: The form of the Houses opinions in part A uses single, matched verbs in the future tense: If they had already married them as Levirate wives H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, T h e y w i l l continue ( Q Y M ) . H o u s e o f H i l l e l say,

T h e y will d i v o r c e (YS*).

The antecedent Mishnah (A) follows the Hillelite opinion (B). Then Eliezer's view of the history of the tradition must come first, that is, in the form of a Houses-dispute. Later on someone dropped the Shammaite position entirely and rephrased the whole following the Hillelite view, bypassing reference to the Hillelite origin of the law. This indicates that Houses-disputes later on could be suppressed, as the law was settled in favor of the Hillelites. But it also shows once again that conservative tradents preserved early as well as late formulations of the same law, as M. Yev. 1:1,4. In part B, M. Yev. 3:5, the House of Shammai say that the word (M'MR) has effected marriage, and when her sister comes for Levirate marriage, she is free both from the marriage and even from the halisahceremony because she is the sister of his wife. The House of Hillel hold that the word did not effect marriage, and when the sister comes to him as a Levirate wife, both are subject to him and prohibited, since one of them is subject to him. Therefore he can marry neither. He has to undertake the halisah-ceremony with both, and in addition gives a gef to his bespoken wife, to free her from the tie imposed by the word. The concluding remark, part C, then applies to such a situation a popular proverb: he lost both women. The form is extremely complex: [Elaborate superscription, stating n o t a problem of law but a case] Three brothers: Two married to two sisters, one free One of the husbands of the sisters died, and the free one bespoke the widow Then the second brother died.

This is not a superscription—it is a whole story! The Houses address themselves not to a problem of law, but to the position of the characters in the story: House of Shammai: H i s w i f e is w i t h h i m T h a t o n e g o e s f o r t h because o f sister of the wife House o f Hillel: H e d i v o r c e s h i s w i f e w i t h a. get a n d w i t h halisah A n d t h e w i f e o f h i s b r o t h e r w i t h halisah.

We can by no means reduce the whole to a simple dispute about the effect of the word, even though the case is a conflict about that principle. Nor can we take upon ourselves to reconstruct a simple dispute con­ cerning words, in which the complications of the laws of Levirate

196

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.61

marriage would not enter. That by definition is impossible, since the issue of word would not be before us without those very complications. To be sure, we might suppose that in some early form the whole would have come down to this: Word

(Ma'amar)

House o f S h a m m a i : D o e s sanctify ( M Q D § ) House o f Hillel: D o e s n o t sanctify

Then the requirements of the form are met. But the dispute before us plays no role. Such a debate would have had to occur in the tractate on betrothals, and it does not. This means that an alleged Houses-dispute has been preserved only in a highly complex state—hardly evidence of origin early in the formation of the tradition. See Epstein,

Mevo'ot,

p. 437; on Eliezer/Eleazar

Mishnah,

pp. 1162-3.

II.L61.A. If a woman awaiting Levirate marriage inherited pro­ perty, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel agree that she sells it or gives it away, and [the act] is valid (MWKRT WNWTNT WQYYM). B. If she died, what should be done with her Ketuvah and property that comes in and goes out with her? The House of Shammai say, "The heirs of her [deceased] husband share with the heirs of her father (YHLWQW etc.)." And the House of Hillel say, "The property falls to them [both] (NKSYM BHZQTN): the Ketuvah falls to (BHZQT) the [deceased] husband's heirs, and the property that comes in and goes out with her falls to (BHZQT) her father's heirs." [M. Yev. 4:3, trans. Danby, p. 223 (y. Yev. 4:3, b. Yev. 38a-b; b. Sot. 24a, b. Ket. 81a)] Comment: Part A could as well have omitted reference to the Houses, since no dispute concerns that situation, and we have at the outset no reason to believe the Houses would have differed. Further­ more, part A's agreement ought formally to follow part B. But be­ cause logic requires the case of the woman who is still alive to come before that of the woman who dies, the traditions have been reversed. Actually it should look something like this: One who was awaiting Levirate marriage who inherited property [ b e f o r e t h a t t i m e , t h e h u s b a n d w o u l d h a v e c o n t r o l l e d it] S h e m a y sell a n d g i v e , a n d [the act] is v a l i d .

Part B depends upon the superscription of part A, One who was awaiting. . . and died.

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.61

197

Had the woman lived, her new husband by Levirate marriage would have inherited the whole. What now are his rights, and what are the rights of her estate (= inheritors of the father)? The Shammaites say the Levirate husband inherits, because she died in the status of a "doubtful marriage." She was not free to marry, therefore is like any already-married woman. But she was not yet married to her Levir. So the Levir acquires as one of the heirs of the husband, on account of that ambiguous situation. And half the estate returns to her father, as if she were unmarried. The House of Hillel divide the estate. The marriage-settlement goes to the husband's estate. The property that remained entirely hers ("that comes in and goes out with her") goes to her father (or his heirs). So there is no division according to the equal claim of each party, rather according to the rightful claim as if no doubt of the marriage existed, according to the Hillelites. Both Houses agree that until she has entered Levirate marriage, she is free to dispose of her property as if she were not married. This position can have been taken by each House without compromising its view of the division of her estate. The form superficially is standard, with the superscription and the Houses' opinions in proper order. But the lemmas of the Houses are not evenly balanced. They however would be conventional if left unglossed: H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : T h e y divide—(the heirs of the husband with the heirs of the father) H o u s e o f H i l l e l : (The property (NK$YM) [is]) i n t h e i r p o s s e s s i o n ( B H Z Q T N ) — ( t h e Ketuvah in possession of the heirs of the husband; the property that comes in and goes out with her in the possession of the heirs of the father).

Accordingly, the Houses use different words, rather than the same word plus negative, or the usual syzygies. But that is necessitated by the nature of the dispute. Hence we do not have to regard the pericope before us as much developed; it is simply heavily glossed, and the con­ ventional form, with superscription, may well have come down from earlier times. The respective roots are H L Q vs.

HZQ

That is, a difference of a single letter in the root; each side has the same number of syllables: Shammaite: Hillelite:

yaHaLoQu beHeZQaTan

So the different word-choices still produce contrasting lemmas for mnemonic purposes. Note Epstein, Mishnah, p. 1099.

198

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.62, 6 3

II.i.62.A. No man may abstain from keeping the law Be fruitful and multiply, unless he already has children. B. The House of Shammai say, "Two males." The House of Hillel say, "A male and a female, for it is written, Male andfemale created he them (Gen. 1:27)." [M. Yev. 6:6, trans. Danby, p. 227 (y. Yev. 6:6,b. Yev. 61b-62a)] Comment: The Houses-dispute glosses the foregoing general rule. The form is standard. The rule (A) serves as the necessary super­ scription; nothing more is needed. Here the content of the pericope is remarkable, for it tells us that Pharisees wished to abstain from sexual relations and had to be re­ quired to continue to procreate until they had fulfilled their obligation to maintain the population. So within Pharisaism were ascetics who preferred the solitary life.

II.i.63.A. The House of Shammai say, "Only they that are be­ trothed (>RW$WT) exercise the right of Refusal." And the House of Hillel say, "[Both] they that are betrothed, and they that are married." B. The House of Shammai say, "[They may exercise the right] against a husband [only], and not against a brother-in-law (YBM)." And the House of Hillel say, "Against a husband and against a brother-in-law." C. The House of Shammai say, "[It must be exercised] in his presence." And the House of Hillel say, "In his presence and not in his pre­ sence." D. The House of Shammai say, "[It must be] before the court." And the House of Hillel say, "Before the court and not before the court." E. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, "While she is yet under age, she may exercise right of Refusal even four or five times." The House of Shammai answered, "The daughters of Israel are not ownerless property (HPQR). But ('L') she exercises right of Refusal and waits until she is come of age, and [then] she exercises right of Refusal and [forthwith] marries [some other]." [M. Yev. 13:1, trans. Danby, p. 237 (y. Yev. 13:1, b. Yev. 101b, 107a-b)]

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

199

— II.i.63

Comment: Parts A-D constitute a perfect model of the collectionform, lacking merely a one-word superscription (parallel to concerning the meal, M. Ber. 8:1), such as concerning refusal, perhaps with the further gloss, These are the differences between the House of.. . The opinions are matched, so far as possible:

1.

H o u s e of S h a m m a i say, to] betrothed House o f Hillel: 2. House of Shammai: H o u s e of Hillel: 3 . H o u s e of S h a m m a i : H o u s e of H i l l e l : 4. H o u s e of S h a m m a i : H o u s e of H i l l e l :

[They

do not allow t h e

right

of r e f u s a l except

B e t r o t h e d and m a r r i e d . A g a i n s t t h e h u s b a n d , a n d not t h e L e v i r . A g a i n s t t h e h u s b a n d and L e v i r . Before him. B e f o r e him a n d not b e f o r e him. In court. I n c o u r t a n d not in c o u r t .

It would be difficult to invent a better model of the collection-form, in­ deed of the most primitive sort of Houses-pericopae. The only ex­ planatory matter has been inserted in the opening clause of the Sham­ maite opinion, then understood throughout: they do not allow the right of refusal except—the double negative already familiar in the collection ofM. Shab. 1:4-8. The Houses take extreme positions, with the Hillelites consistently given the more lenient one as usual. The differences are compressed into affirmative or negative statements of the same proposition (B, C), or in inclusion or exclusion of the same detail (D). The Shammaite saying in part A ought to have had betrothed, and not married, but the explanatory matter prevented it, since not. . . except. . . leaves no room for a further exclusion. This shows the explanatory matter here is not a gloss, but is entirely integral to the collection. To be sure, the collec­ tion may have been consistent even in part A, and may have been revised to the form before us, but in this instance too close adherence to the subsequent form may not, even at the outset, have been required. Part E of course is anomalous. It has the House of Hillel debate with the House of Shammai, without an antecedent statement of their two disagreements. We may readily construct: 1. H o u s e House 2. House House

of of of of

Shammai: Hillel: Shammai: Hillel:

A d o l e s c e n t a n d not c h i l d A d o l e s c e n t and c h i l d Three times E v e n f o u r [or five] t i m e s .

The elements of part E in this form could readily have been attached to the foregoing list. I see no reason to suppose they have been removed and revised. Rather, someone else has a different version of the Houses' disputes on the right of refusal, with different legal issues, and a quite different form. Part E standing by itself follows the usual debatemodel, with the House of Hillel first, the House of Shammai second, and decisive. The opinions are not matched, but in the debate-form

200

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— III.ii.25, II.i.64

they not infrequently are whole sentences, even unrelated to one another in diction. The closing Shammaite clause is extremely com­ pressed and should have had a Hillelite counterpart along the same lines. III.ii.25. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, "(M'SH B) Pishon the camel driver's wife made her declaration of refusal in his absence." The House of Shammai said to them, "Pishon the camel driver used a reversible measure (MDD BKPYSH). They therefore used against him a reversible measure." (b. Yev. 107b = y. Yev. 13:1) Comment: This clause of the debate pertains to part C. The Hillelites have a precedent, which is taken as fact, then explained away by the Shammaites. It looks to me like an artificial construction, showing what each House theoretically might make of a known case. Pishon looks like a name formed of KPY§H, and the story seems a play on words.

II.L64.A. The House of Hillel say, "We have heard no such tradi­ tion [that a woman is believed to testify that her husband has died] save of a woman that returned from the harvest and within the same country, and according to a case that happened in fact." The House of Shammai answered, "It is all one whether she re­ turned from the harvest or from the olive-picking or from the vintage, or whether she came from one country to another. The sages spoke of the harvest only as of a thing that happened in fact." The House of Hillel reverted to teach according to [the opinion of] the House of Shammai. B. The House of Shammai say, "She marries again and takes her Ketuvah." The House of Hillel say, "She marries again and does not take her Ketuvah." The House of Shammai said to them, "You have declared per­ missible the graver matter of forbidden intercourse, and should you not also declare permissible the less important matter of property?" The House of Hillel answered, "We find that brothers may not enter into an inheritance on her testimony." The House of Shammai answered, "Do we not learn from her Ketuvah-sctoM that he thus writes for her: 'If thou be married to another, thou shalt take what is prescribed for thee?' "

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.64

201

The House of Hillel reverted to teach according to the opinion of the House of Shammai. [M. Yev. 15:2-3, trans. Danby, pp. 241-2 (y. Yev. 15:2, 3; b. Yev. 116b, 117a, 122a [woman may remarry on the evidence of an echo], y. Ket. 4:8, b. Ket. 81a)] Comment: The chapter opens with the case of a woman who went abroad with her husband, returned alone, and announced that her husband has died. If their marital relation was good and times of peace prevailed, she may remarry or enter Levirate marriage; if the relation was good, but it was a time of war, or if their relation was poor, but it was peacetime, she is not believed. The saying of the House of Hillel then serves as a commentary on the problem of whether a woman is believed when she is the sole wit­ ness to her husband's death. They report a case in which a woman came from the harvest in that same province. The specification of the details of the case leads to two general rules. She was working with her hus­ band in a situation that might readily produce the husband's death (sunstroke). And it was nearby, so that others might clarify the matter. The House of Shammai say it does not matter whether it was a harvest (of wheat) or a cutting of olives, whether it was in the same area or a distant place. The details specified relate merely to the case at hand and were not meant to serve as precedent. The House of Hillel accept this opinion. y. Ket. 15:2 adds another Shammaite argument: the entire year is a harvest time for something or other, so the Hillelites grant the Sham­ maite viewpoint. The Shammaite argument here is built on their lemma in the Mishnah. Part B is attached both because it concerns the woman in the same situation (she has testified of her husband's death), and because to it is assigned the same amiable superscription: The Hillelites changed their minds. Now, however, the dispute is phrased first as a legal pericope: H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, S h e m a r r i e s a n d r e c e i v e s h e r Ketuvah H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, S h e m a r r i e s a n d d o e s not r e c e i v e h e r Ketuvah.

The usual balanced form is then supplemented with a debate. The House of Shammai begin—which is unusual. But the subscription ex­ plains why. The Shammaite argument will be accepted, therefore may come first, since the Hillelite argument will be balanced by another Shammaite argument and a conclusive decision. The Shammaites ask how one can distinguish: Is she believed to remarry but regarded as a liar in regard to her marriage-contract? The House of Hillel point out that as regards property, her word is not everywhere taken as law. The brothers do not inherit. The House of Shammai recognize that distinc­ tion, but point out that the language of the Ketuvah is decisive. If she

202

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.ii.57

can remarry, she can also collect her Ketuvah from her first marriage. And the House of Hillel agree. Since the Mishnah is a document produced by the descendants of Hillelite masters ('Aqiba and his disciples, then Judah their disciple), we do not have to attribute the pericope before us to Shammaite tradents, and indeed, probably cannot. It seems to me unlikely that such a Shammaite pericope would have survived, had not the Hillelites wanted it to. The pericope cannot be compared to those in which both parties enjoy parity, but rather to those in which good Shammaites are represented as following the Hillelite law. Since no "good Hillelites" here are represented as following Shammaite law ("for they know that the law always follows the House of Shammai. . . " ) , we may take it for granted that this story has survived because the Hillelites preserved it. They preserved it because they either wrote it or did not object to its contents. Of the former we cannot be sure, though it seems to me un­ likely that this is how the Hillelite tradents at the outset would have represented matters. But they need not have objected to it, since what the Shammaites provide is not testimony derived from their own, partisan tradition, but rather, testimony from evidence unanimously believed to be accurate. In the latter case, the language of the Ketuvah settled matters—and everyone knew that Hillel had interpreted for legal purposes the language of the Ketuvah, as in the case/story of the Alexandrians. So the procedure of the Shammaites conformed to the Hillelite law to begin with, and part B shows that the Shammaites, like Hillel, expounded the language of legal documents of ordinary folk. And that fact is made explicit in y. Yev. 15:3, b. Ket. 81a, etc. Presumably others alleged the contrary. We have no Shammaite saying that one does not do so, but that does not much matter. The strong assertions about Hillel and the story before us together suggest that someone—if not Shammaites—thought it an important matter. As to the story in part A, all the Hillelites had to accept was the Shammaite assertion that the Hillelite tradition was accurate, but was meant merely as an example, not as a statement of the sole condition in which the law would pertain. It does not seem to me that the Hillelites had to concede a great deal. Their story was accepted as valid. The House of Shammai merely offered an interpretation for what the Hillelites alleged as fact. This is consistent with the way Hillelites re­ present the Shammaite response to precedents cited by Hillelites: The Shammaites always accept the story (M SH) as fact, merely offer an alternative interpretation of the precedent. So the Hillelites' precedents are conceded by Shammaites, who therefore are made to attest to the veracity of Hillelite records! Note Halivni, Meqorot, p. 120. C

II.ii.57.A. "Just as they [the co-wives] free [the others] from marriage, so they free [them] from betrothal. "Under what circumstances? In the case of a woman whom he may

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.ii.57

203

not ordinarily marry [Lit.: in whom he does not have qiddushin\ But in the case of a woman whom he may ordinarily marry [in whom he does have qiddushin], their co-wives undergo the halisah ceremony and do not enter Levirate marriage"—the words of the House of Hillel. The House of Shammai permit the co-wives to the brothers. B. The six forbidden connections are more stringent than these, because [if] they are married to others, their co-wives are permitted, for the co-wife is only from the brother. If they married brothers not in transgression [of the law], their cowives are free. C. These co-wives went and married— The House of Shammai say, "They are unfit, and the progeny is unfit [for the priesthood]." And the House of Hillel say, "They are fit, and the progeny is fit." [If] they entered Levirate marriage— The House of Shammai say, "They are fit, and the progeny is fit." And the House of Hillel say, "They are unfiit, and the progeny is a mam^er" D. R. Yohanan b. Nuri said, "Come and see how this law is wide­ spread in Israel: [If we] carry out the law according to the words of the House of Shammai, the progeny is a mam^er according to the House of Hillel. [If we] carry out the law according to the House of Hillel, the progeny is impaired (PGWM) according to the words of the House of Shammai. "But come and let us ordain that the co-wives carry out the halisah ceremony and do not enter Levirate marriage." They did not suffice to complete the matter before the hour was unfit (NTRPH). E.R. Simeonb. Gamaliel said,"What shall we do for thefirstco wives?" F. They asked R. Joshua, "The children of the co-wives—what is their status?" He said to them, "Why do you put my head between two great mountains, between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel, who will cut off my head? "But I testify concerning the family of the House of 'Aluba'i ('LWB'Y) from the house of soldiers (BYT SB>YM), and concerning the family of the House of Qipa'i (QYP'Y) from the house of [the] gatherer (BYT MQ$S), that they are the children of co-wives (SRWT), and from them were high priests, and they were offering [sacrifices] at the altar."

204

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.57

R. Tarfon said, "Would that (T'YB) the rival of the daughter would fall to me so that I could marry her to the priesthood." G. R. Eleazar said, "Even though the House of Shammai differed from the House of Hillel concerning co-wives, they agree that the progeny is not a mam^er, for a mam^er comes only from a woman, [for violation of] the prohibition [of whose marriage] they [she and the husband] are liable for cutting off" H. Even though the House of Shammai disagreed with the House of Hillel concerning co-wives, sisters, a woman whose marriage-tie was dubious, an old divorce-document, in reference to one who betrothes a woman with something worth a perutah, concerning him who divorces his wife and spends the night with her in the same inn— The House of Shammai did not hold back from marriage with women from the House of Hillel, nor the House of Hillel from the House of Shammai, but they behaved in truth and peace among them­ selves, as it is said, They loved truth andpeace (Zech. 8:19). I. Even though these prohibit and these permit, they did not hold back [from] preparing clean things with one another, to carry out that which is said (Prov. 21:2), Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, but the Lord weighs the heart. J . R. Simeon says, "From doubtful matters they did not hold back, but they did hold back from those which were certain." K. The law always follows the words of the House of Hillel. L. He who wants to be stringent on himself to behave according to the words of the Houses of Shammai and Hillel, concerning this one is said, The fool walks in darkness (Qoh. 2:14). He who holds to the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the leniencies of the House of Hillel is evil. But if according to the words of the House of Shammai, then according to their leniencies and stringencies, and if according to the words of the House of Hillel, then according to [both] their leniencies and their stringencies. [Tos. Yev. 1:7-13, ed. Lieberman, pp. 2-4, lines 18-44 (M. <Ed. 4:8; R. Yohanan: y. Yev. 1:6, 3:1, b. Yev. 13b, 14b, 27a; R. Simeon: y. Yev. 1:6, y. Qid. 1:1, b. Yev. 14b; He who holds: Tos. Suk. 2:3, Tos. <Ed. 2:3, b. <Eruv. 66b, R. H. 14b, b. Hul. 43b, y. Ber. 1:7, y. Sot. 3:4; y. Qid. 1:1)]

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.57, 58

205

Comment: Part A is a supplement to M. Yev. 1:4: the House of Hillel forbid Levirate marriage between the co-wives and the surviving brothers. The Houses differ not only on the fifteen categories of women listed in M. Yev. 1:1, but also on other categories of women. The House of Hillel prohibit the co-wives from entering Levirate marriage with the brothers of the deceased, and the House of Shammai permit. Lieberman however observes (Tosefta Kifshutah, p. 5), that the positions of the Houses may well be reversed in the correct reading of the Tosefta, and the reading before us may have been corrected to conform to the Mishnah. He observes that the vast majority of dispute-pericopae have Shammai first, then Hillel. The clause beginning under what circumstances pertains to M. Yev. 1:4, the House of Hillel permit the co-wives to marry the Levirate brothers. This permission pertains to those normally forbidden to marry the deceased brother. Part B pertains to M. Yev. 1:3, and Part C to M. Yev. 1:4. Parts D-E relate to the co-wives who, relying on the ruling of the House of Shammai, married brothers-in-law who were priests, prior to the ordinance of Yohanan b. Nuri. The children would be regarded as mamyerim. Part F: Joshua testifies concerning certain families, that they were children of co-wives and from them had come forth high priests. R. Tarfon agrees with Joshua's position. For a full explanation, see Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshutah to Nashim, p. 6: Joshua affirms the Hillelite position. Part H supplies a whole list of Houses-disputes in marital law, rendering the conclusion all the more impressive. Parts K-L appear above, Tos. Sukkah 2:3. For our purposes, it suffices to observe that the Houses-dispute comes no later than early Yavneh (Joshua, Tarfon). Since Joshua refers to the Houses' dispute on the same question, in this instance it stands to reason that the dispute may derive from Temple times, a supposition supported by Joshua's testimony concerning families of the priesthood of that day. It is noteworthy that Gamaliel supposedly married his daughter's co-wife: It h a p p e n e d t h a t ( M ' S H B) R . G a m a l i e l ' s d a u g h t e r w a s m a r r i e d t o his b r o t h e r A b b a , w h o died childless. Gamaliel married her rival. H o w d o y o u u n d e r s t a n d t h i s ? W a s R. G a m a l i e l o n e o f t h e disciples o f t h e House of Shammai? B u t R. G a m a l i e l ' s d a u g h t e r w a s different b e c a u s e she w a s b a r r e n . . . (b. Y e v . 1 5 a )

The story standing by itself clearly supposes Gamaliel followed the view of the Shammaites, and this is consistent with other such stories. II.ii.58.A. Four brothers, two of them married to two sisters, and

206

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.58, 5 9 , 6 0 , III.ii.26

those who had married the sisters died—lo, these [women] undergo the halisah ceremony and do not enter Levirate marriage. And if they [the other brothers] had earlier married, they must divorce. R. Leazar says, "The House of Shammai say, 'They remain married.' "The House of Hillel say, 'They divorce.' " B. R. Simeon says, "They remain married." C. Abba Saul says, "The lenient position is the House of Hillel's in this matter.

[Tos. Yev. 5:1, ed. Lieberman, p. 13, lines 1-4 (y. Yev. 3:1; M. <Ed. 5:5, Tos. <Ed. 2:9)]

Comment: Part A = M. Yev. 3:1, M. <Ed. 5:3. In part B, R. Simeon holds the Houses do not differ at all. Abba Saul agrees with Simeon on the Hillelite opinion. Alternatively, he corrects it by assigning the lenient ruling (remain married) to the Hillelites. See Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshutah, p. 35. y. Yev. 3:1 gives Abba Saul's lemma as QWL HWWY BYT HLL BDBRHZH. 11.11.59. R. Nathan says, "The House of Shammai say, 'Two sons, like the sons of Moses, as it is said, The sons of Moses, Gershom and Eliezer (I. Chron. 23:15).' "And the House of Hillel say, 'Male and female, as it is said, Male andfemale he created them (Gen. 1:27, 5:2).' " R. Jonathan says, "The House of Shammai say, 'Male and female.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'Male or female.' " [Tos. Yev. 8:4, ed. Lieberman, p. 25, lines 18-21 (y. Yev. 6:6, b. Yev. 62a)] Comment: See M. Yev. 6:6. Judah the Patriarch ignores Jonathan's tradition and copies Nathan's, dropping the proof-texts as usual. 11.11.60. The House of Hillel say, "In a court and not in a court— and on condition that [not in a court] there are three." [Tos. Yev. 13:1, ed. Lieberman, p. 45, lines 2-3 (b. Yev. 107b)] Comment: See M. Yev. 13:1. The condition is a gloss, making the Hillelite position into the Shammaite one! III.ii.26. R. Judah stated, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel agree that a man who cohabited with his mother-in-law renders

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.65, III.ii.27

207

his wife unfit [to live with him]; they differ only where a man cohabited with his wife's sister, in which case the House of Shammai maintain that he thereby causes [his wife] to be unfit for him, while the House of Hillel maintain that he does not thereby cause her to be unfit for him." R. Yosi stated, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel agree that a man who cohabits with his wife's sister does not thereby render his wife unfit for him; they differ only where a man cohabited with his mother-in-law, in which case the House of Shammai main­ tain that he thereby causes [his wife] to be unfit for him, while the House of Hillel maintain that he does not cause her to be unfit for him." [b. Yev. 95a (y. Yev. 10:6)] II.i.65. If a man vowed to have no intercourse with his wife, the House of Shammai say, "Two weeks." And the House of Hillel say, "One week." B. "Disciples [of the sages] may continue absent for thirty days against the will [of their wives] while they occupy themselves in the study of Torah; and laborers for one week. The duty of marriage ( WNH) enjoined in the Torah is: every day for them that are un­ occupied, twice a week for laborers, once a week for ass-drivers, once every thirty days for camel-drivers, and once every six months for sailors," so R. Eliezer. [M. Ket. 5:6, trans. Danby, p. 252 (y. Ket. 5:6, 7,b. Ket. 61b,71a-b)] C

III.ii.27.A. Was it not taught: If a woman vowed not to suckle her child— The House of Shammai say, "They pull the breast out of its mouth." And the House of Hillel say, "They compel her to suckle it." (b.Ket. 59b = y. Ket. 5:7) III.ii.27.B. TNW RBNN: "A nursing mother whose husband died within twenty-four months [of the birth of their child] shall neither be betrothed nor married again until the [completion of the] twenty-four months," the words of R. Meir. R. Judah permits [remarriage] after eighteen months. R. Jonathan b. Joseph said, "These are the words of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel, for— "The House of Shammai say, 'Twenty-four months.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'Eighteen months.' " [b. Ket. 60a-b (y. Sot. 4:3, below p. 227)]

208

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.61, II.i.66

II.ii.61.He who keeps his wife by vow from having sexual relations The House of Shammai say, "Two weeks, like the birth of a female." The House of Hillel say, "One week, like the birth of a male, and like the days of her menstrual period." [Tos. Ket. 5:6, ed. Lieberman, p. 73, lines 32-3 = y. Ket. 5:7] Comment: The italicized words of II.ii.61 are glosses, dropped by Judah the Patriarch. II.i.65 is standard, with the Houses' opinions merely numbers one/ two perhaps glossed with weeks($BT). The wife waits for a week or two, then may demand a writ of divorce and collect her marriage-contract. Part B has nothing to do with part A. The superscription of A pertains to a vow, and the contents of part B relate to other circum­ stances preventing the couple from maintaining a normal sexual rela­ tionship. III.ii.27.A, a singleton, is in unconventional form. The positions of course are diametrically opposed, but the word-choices are unbalanced. III.ii.25B is the usual twenty-four vs. eighteen dispute. See below, p. 227. On b. Ket. 60a, see Halivni, Meqorot, p. 205. II.L66.A. [If] a woman inherited goods before she was betrothed, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel agree that she sells [them] or gives them away and [that her act is] valid. B. [If] she inherited them after she was betrothed, the House of Shammai say, "She sells [them]." And the House of Hillel say, "She does not sell [them]." C. But they agree that if she sold them or gave them away, her act is valid. D. R. Judah said, "They said before Rabban Gamaliel, 'Since [the betrothed husband] gets possession of the woman, does he not get possession of [her] property ?' "He said to them, 'We are at a loss (BW$YM) [to find reason for giving him right] over her new [possessions], and ( L S) would you even burden us with (MGLGLYN
>

>

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.67

209

Gamaliel, 'Since he gets possession of the woman, does he not get possession of her goods also?' "He said to them, 'We are at a loss [to find reason for giving him right] over her new [possessions], and would you even burden us with the old also!' " II.i.67. If a woman awaiting Levirate marriage inherited property, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel agree that she may sell it or give it away, and the act will be valid. If she died, what should be done with her Ketuvah and property that comes in and goes out with her? The House of Shammai say, "The heirs of her [deceased] husband share with the heirs of her father." And the House of Hillel say, "Her property falls to them [both]; the Ketuvah falls to the [deceased] husband's heirs, and the property that comes in and goes out with her falls into the possession of her father's heirs." [M. Ket. 8:1, 6, trans. Danby, p. 256-7 (y. Ket. 8:1, 9, 9 : l ; b . Ket. 78a-b, 80b, 81a-b, y. Pe'ah 6:2; b. Sot. 25a, b. Yev. 38b)] Comment: II.i.66, M. Ket. 8:1, follows the same pattern as II.i.67, M. Ket. 8:6 = M. Yev. 4:3. Part A begins with an agreement, therefore in the wrong order, but logic requires the present arrangement, for the sequence is before she is betrothed, after she is betrothed, then (part C), after she is married. The opinion of the Houses in part A is in the same language as M. Ket. 8:6 — M. Yev. 4:3, hence a stock-phrase equally useful to settle different questions. Part B is in the expected form. The superscription depends on that of part A, dropping the words to be understood: the woman who. . . property. . . The several pericopae there­ fore seem to have been put together by a single hand. The opinions of the Houses are as expected, the same verb, in the same form, with or without the negative. Then comes an agreement in proper sequence, these and these agree. Part C has the Hillelites go over to the Shammaite view. Part D relates to the same problem as the foregoing ruling. Judah b. Ilai therefore supplies a terminus ante quern for the Houses, but Gamaliel does not. Why do the Houses agree that she may dispose of her property after she is betrothed? The answer is that we are concerned with the property she receives after marriage (part E ) : how to justify the husband's control over it? Part F goes back over the ruling of part B: property that comes to the woman after betrothal. Now the superscription is, If she inherited before she married and then she married—the same situation as before, namely, while she is betrothed, for, were she not betrothed, the question NEUSNER, The Rabbinic T r a d i t i o n s about t h e P h a r i s e e s before 70, II

14

210

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.67

would not be raised. Gamaliel disagrees with the Houses' agreement. He employs the language of part A: PartB She may sell them PartF If she sold, or gave, [her act is] valid Part A She sells and gives — [the act is] valid. Gamaliel's language uses the same verbs, but in the past tense. It looks as if the lemma of Gamaliel has shaped that of the Houses, or vice versa, or that all use a fixed formula. The pericope now is to be separated into its constituent elements, which are Houses-disputes and Gamaliel-rulings: Houses

Gamaliel

1 . [If p r o p e r t y c a m e t o h e r ] Before betrothed H o u s e s a g r e e s h e sells a n d g i v e s and valid 2 . After betrothed S h a m m a i : S h e m a y sell Hillel: S h e m a y n o t sell

—

[After

betrothed]

R . J u d a h said, T h e y said b e f o r e R . G a m a l i e l , S i n c e h e has a c q u i r e d t h e w o m a n , should he n o t acquire the p r o ­ p e r t y ? [ = H i l l e l i t e p o s i t i o n is a c c e p t e d but q u e s t i o n e d . ]

3 . B o t h a g r e e t h a t i f after b e t r o t h a l s h e s o l d o r g a v e , [the act is] v a l i d . 4 . After

married

=

Houses agree husband can r e t r i e v e t h e p r o p e r t y [act t h u s is invalid].

[ P r o p e r t y c a m e ] b e f o r e she w a s m a r r i e d , and she was married. R. G a m a l i e l said, I f she s o l d o r g a v e , [the act is] valid [= contrary to the Houses].

The Houses' agreement concerning her actions (no. 3) after the betrothal is astonishing. The Hillelites have ruled she may not sell the property. Yet immediately following, we are told the Houses agree that if she did sell or give it away, her action is valid. This is strange, since it has the Hillelites reversing themselves after the fact. Gamaliel is represented by Judah as recognizing the difficulty of the Hillelite position. The rulings after the marriage thus are diametrically opposed. The Houses agree that the husband controls the property, and Gamaliel says she may dispose of it. Clearly, the pericope consists of two quite separate traditions, the first concerning the Houses, the second concerning Gamaliel, with the latter also in two separate forms. The first Gamaliel-lemma is simply the report of R. Judah. But the second is in conventional form, with a

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

superscription R. Gamaliel

before she was married

211

— III.ii.28, 2 9

and she was married,

then the opinion,

says—thus an independent, finished lemma.

Since the second Gamaliel-lemma shows no knowledge of the Houses-dispute, we may suppose that the Houses-dispute was shaped after his time. As to the first, we can be less certain, for the tradent is Judah b. Ilai—prima facie evidence of a second-century redaction—but the content of the pericope is not different from the Hillelite position: by implication, she may dispose of the property. By the looks of it, therefore, the Houses-materials probably do come after Gamaliel, who is then "Hillelized." Matters now are organized more lucidly and present the whole in a simple and symmetrical scheme. Perhaps the model of M. Ket. 8:6 has served for the highly complex materials of M. Ket. 8:1. See Epstein, Mishnah, pp. 1099-1101. III.ii.28. It was taught: At what period of her age is a husband entitled to be the heir of his wife [if she dies while still] a minor? The House of Shammai say, "When she attains to womanhood." And the House of Hillel say, "When she enters into the bridal chamber." R. Eliezer said, "When connubial intercourse has taken place." Then he is entitled to be her heir, he may defile himself for her, and she may eat Terumah by virtue of his rights. ° (b. Yev. 89b) Comment: The beraita, a singleton, introduces a separate issue from M. Ket. 8:6, M. Yev. 4:3, supplying factual information pertinent to those disputes. x r

III.ii.29.A. TNW RBNN: How does one dance before the bride? The House of Shammai say, "The bride as she is." And the House of Hillel say, "Beautiful and graceful bride!" The House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel, "If she was lame or blind, does one say of her: 'Beautiful and graceful bride'? Whereas the Torah said, Keep thee far from a false matter (Ex. 23:7)." Said the House of Hillel to the House of Shammai, "According to your words, if one has made a bad purchase in the market, should one praise it in his eyes or deprecate it? Surely, one should praise it in his eyes." Therefore, the sages said: Always should the disposition of a man be pleasant with people. ^ ^ Comment: The original "dispute" is presumably as spurious as the debate, which has the Houses in reverse order and ends with an ap-

212

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.68, 6 9 , III.ii.30

propriate h o m i l y o f "the sages"—in the tradition o f kindly Hillel and petulant Shammai.

II.i.68. If a man saw others eating [his] figs and said, "May they be Qprban to you!" and they were found to be his father and brothers and others with them— The House of Shammai say, "They are permitted, but the others with them are prohibited." And the House of Hillel say, "Both are permitted." [The vow is binding for neither of them.] II.i.69.A. They vow to murderers, robbers, or tax-gatherers that [what they have] is Heave-offering even though it is not Heaveoffering; or that they belong to the king's household even though they do not belong to the king's household. B. The House of Shammai say, "They vow in all [forms of words] save in [the form of an] oath." And the House of Hillel say, "Even in [the form of] an oath." C. The House of Shammai say, "He should not be first with a vow, [but he should vow only under constraint]." And the House of Hillel say, "He may even be first [with a vow]." D. The House of Shammai say, "[Only] in a matter in which a vow is imposed." And the House of Hillel say, "Even (>P) in a matter over which no vow is imposed." E. How so? If they had said to him, "Say, 'Qpnam be any benefit my wife has of me'," and he said, "Qpnam be any benefit my wife and sons have of me — The House of Shammai say, "His wife is permitted to him and his children are forbidden." And the House of Hillel say, "Both are permitted." [M. Ned. 3:2, 4, trans. Danby, pp. 266-7 (y. Ned. 3:2,4, b. Ned. 25b-26a, 28a)] III.ii.30. R. Ashi answered, "This is what is taught: The House of Shammai say, 'There is no absolution for an oath.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'There is absolution for an oath.' " (b. Ned. 28a)

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.68, 6 9 , III.ii.30

213

Comment: II.i.68, M. Ned. 3:2, like M. Yev. 3:1,5, is superficially in the conventional form, but has a superscription that is a story, not the statement of a legal problem. The case is as follows: A man saw people eating his figs. He assumed they were not relatives. He prevented them from eating figs by a vow, saying that the figs are to them as a Temple sacrifice(Oprban). Then he found out his father and brothers were together with the others. Is the vow valid, having been made un­ der a false supposition? The House of Shammai say, "They [the re­ latives] are permitted, and those with them are prohibited," and the House of Hillel say, "These and these are permitted." The lemmas of the Houses are as balanced as they could have been under the circumstan­ ces. We cannot reduce the whole story to the sort of brief superscrip­ tion more common in Houses-materials. Nor can we read into the brief sayings of the Houses a simpler superscription. So the protasis is exceptional, but the apodosis normal. II.i.69, M. Ned. 3:4, has the Houses serve as commentators to an antecedent general law. The rule is, One may swear falsely under specified circumstances. The issue is, What sort of oath or vow is per­ mitted? The House of Shammai say, One may use any sort of vow, except for the oath (§BW H). The House of Hillel permit even that. The form is standard and the pericope constitutes a brief collection: C

B. C. D.

Shammai: Hillel: Shammai: Hillel:

[ W i t h all v o w s ] , except t h e o a t h Even t h e o a t h . [He m a y ] n o t o p e n f o r h i m [ w i t h a v o w ] Also ( P) h e m a y o p e n f o r h i m . J

S h a m m a i : In that w h i c h he makes him v o w Hillel: Even ( P) i n t h a t w h i c h he d o e s not m a k e h i m v o w . J

Part E glosses the foregoing with an example, but the Houses-rulings are in standard form, much as in II.i.68. M.Ned.

3:2

M.Ned.

3:4

They are p e r m i t t e d

His wife is p e r m i t t e d

Those with them p r o h i b i t e d

And his sons are p r o h i b i t e d .

These and these are p e r m i t t e d

These and these are p e r m i t t e d .

The opinions match, so far as possible, with the Shammaites listing the permitted category before the prohibited ones; and the Hillelite opinion is given word for word. Leaving out the glosses, we have the Shammaite opinion as prohibitedjprohihited and the Hillelite opinion— closely corresponding—as these and these are permitted, the more lenient judgment. Obviously, one may drop these and these, added for the same purpose as the other glosses, to tie the opinions to the foregoing cases. Part E is an addition to the foregoing collection, closely related in theme, but quite different in form. The list would have been complete without it; there was hardly need to add a specific example to clarify what was already clear. III.ii.30 makes explicit the general principle underlying the several

214

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.ii.62, 6 3

disputes, similar to the principle concerning erroneous consecrations below, p. 218. c

See Epstein, Mev6*ot, pp. 378-9: M. Ned. 9:6 has Aqiba in the position of the Hillelites. Note also Mishnah, pp. 1016 (rc'P), 1109. II.ii.62. A. [With reference to the father's and husband's annulling a girl's vows], if the father heard [the oath] and annulled it, but the husband did not yet hear [it] before he died, the father goes and annuls the share of her husband. B. R. Nathan said, "These are the very words of the House of Shammai. "The House of Hillel say, 'He cannot annul [the oath] (>YNW YKWL LHPR).' " [Tos. Ned. 6:3, ed. Lieberman, p. 117, lines 13-15 (y. Ned. 10:1, b. Ned. 69a, 71a-b)] II.ii.63.A. The father and last husband annul the vows of a betrothed girl (N
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.70, III.ii.31

215

he has then assigned to the Shammaites. But the Hillelite lemma is standard and brief. A more commonplace form would have had the long superscription, followed by he mayjmay not annul. II.i.70.A. [If he said,] "I will be an abstainer [ = Nazir] from dried figs and fig-cake"— The House of Shammai say, "He becomes a Nazirite." And the House of Hillel say, "He does not become a Nazirite." R. Judah said, "Howbeit when the House of Shammai said this, they spoke only of one that meant, 'May they be to me VisQorban' " B. If he said, "This cow thinks it will be a Nazirite if it stands up," or "This door thinks it will be a Nazirite if it opens!"— The House of Shammai say, "He becomes a Nazirite." And the House of Hillel say, "He does not become a Nazirite." R. Judah said, "Howbeit when the House of Shammai said this, they spoke only of one that meant, 'May this cow bzQorban to me if it stands up.' " [M. Naz. 2:1-2, trans. Danby, pp. 281^2 (y. Naz. 2:1, 2, b. Naz. 9a-b, lOa-b, b. Men. 81b, 103a)] III.ii.31. Our Mishnah is not in agreement with the following Tanna. For it has been taught: R. Nathan said, "The House of Shammai declare him both to have vowed [to abstain from figs] and to have become a Nazirite. "And the House of Hillel declare him to have vowed [to abstain from figs], but not to have become a Nazirite." According to another report, R. Nathan said, "The House of Shammai declare him to have vowed [to abstain from figs], but not to have become a Nazirite. "And the House of Hillel declare him neither to have vowed, nor to have become a Nazirite." (b. Naz. 9b) The Houses' opinions are conveyed by the single word with the Hillelites' adding w/( YNW). All the rest is an extend­ ed, narrative superscription. The first case (Part A, M . Naz. 2 : 1 ) concerns a man's declaring him­ self a Nazir with respect to things not normally prohibited to a Nazir. The House of Shammai hold that as soon as he has said, "Lo, I am a Nazir," he has become one, and the rest of the sentence means nothing. The House of Hillel says that Naziriteship does not pertain to these Comment:

Na^ir,

}

216

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.71

things. Judah b. Ilai supplies a terminus ante quern. He also glosses the the Shammaite opinion to make it conform to the Hillelite one! When the man says, "They are like zOorban to me," he has prohibited figs as if by vow, but he has not become a Nazir at all. So according to Judah, there was no dispute on the specified case at all, which is incredible. The whole thing now involves nothing more than a vow with respect to the produce. Nathan's revisions conform to Judah's. Part B introduces a new superscription for the Houses' lemmas. The man's cow does not want to arise. He furiously remarks that she does not want to stand up because she will be a Nazir if the stands. Likewise the door is stuck, etc. As above, once the man has said, "Lo, I am a Nazir," he, not the cow, becomes one. Judah again revises the Sham­ maite opinion to conform to the Hillelite view. He has taken a vow not to make use of the cow. Judah does not help us with the door, but presumably he would say the Shammaites regard the door as no longer permissible for the man's use. But the man is no Nazir. The pericopae are identical in the Houses' apodosis. The protasis given by the superscriptions consists of two quite separate cases, but in effect they set up the same conditions and lead to the same ruling. There­ fore the pericopae duplicate one another. The superscriptions are long and involved, quite unlike the simple conventional superscriptions. In the end, to be sure, all we have is the Houses' rulings, consisting of single words—Na%ir-\-j—not—assigned according to the principle of leniency vs. strictness. On b. Naz. 9a, see Halivni, Meqorot, p. 364. II.i.71.A. If a man vowed to be a Nazirite for a longer spell, and he fulfilled his Nazirite-vow and afterward came to the Land [of Israel]— The House of Shammai say, "[He need continue] a Nazirite [only for] thirty days [more]." And the House of Hillel say, "[He must again fulfill his] Naziritevow as from the beginning." B. It once happened that (M SH B) the son of Queen Helena went to war, and she said, "If my son returns in safety from the war, I will be a Nazirite for seven years." At the end of the seven years she came up to the Land [of Israel], and the House of Hillel taught her that she must be a Nazirite for yet another seven years. And at the end of this seven years she contracted uncleanness. Thus she continued a Nazirite for twenty-one years. R. Judah said, "She needed to remain a Nazirite for fourteen years." [She was not unclean.] C. If two pairs of witnesses testified of a man, and the one testified that he had vowed two Nazirite-vows and the other, that he had vowed five— C

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.71

217

The House of Shammai say, "The testimony is at variance (NHLQH H YDWT), and there is no Nazirite-vow here." And the House of Hillel say, "The two are included within the five, so that he must remain a Nazirite for two [spells]." C

[M. Naz. 3:6-7, trans. Danby, p. 283 (b. Ket. 7a, y. Naz. 3:6, 7, b. Naz. 19b-20a-b, b. Sanh. 31a, y. Sanh. 5:2; Sifre Zutta, Naso 6:5, ed. Horowitz, p. 241; note also Sifre Zutta 6:17, ed. Horowitz, p. 244)] Comment: Part A (M. Naz. 3:6) sets forth a complex case, but the Houses' opinions again are phrased very briefly and, dropping the gloss, which is in this instance self-evident, wefindsingle words: S h a m m a i : Na^ir t h i r t y day[s] Hillel: Nazir at t h e o u t s e t ( B T H Y L H ; M S K a u f m a n n : £ T H Y L H )

The man's original Naziriteship was for more than thirty days. The House of Shammai say that the man must fulfill a Naziriteship, that is, the usual thirty days, for all the time he was abroad he was in an un­ clean land and could not keep the vow. The House of Hillel take the more stringent position. The man must start all over again, since his Naziriteship abroad counted as nothing. Part B repeats the Hillelite opinion, now in the form of a story, attached to the foregoing but independent of it. It begins with the usual superscription, M SH B. Helene of Adiabene took a vow that if her son came back from war, she would be a Nazirite for seven years. She then came to Palestine at the end of the seven years. The House of Hillel required her to remain in that status another seven years. She then became unclean, and so was a Nazirite twenty-one years. The story is incredible. Helene, Queen of Adiabene, achieved an excellent reputa­ tion with the Pharisees (among others), and, since she lived abroad, she was a good choice to be heroine of the story. But the likelihood that she did any such thing is remote. Judah treats the story appropriately: he simply changes it, in order to revise the law contained therein, ig­ noring the "historicity" of both his, and the former, narrative. The commentaries supply two explanations for his emendation. Some say she was never unclean at all, further emending the story. Some say he followed the Shammaite view. So she was a Nazirite in Palestine only thirty days, but was unclean and started the original seven years all over again, thus was a Nazirite fourteen years and thirty days. The fact that Judah (as usual) makes the Shammaites follow the opinion of the Hillelites as given in the earlier pericope renders the second explanation unlikely. The first is contrary to the original account. While Judah represents a useful terminus ante quern for the story, he had no indepen­ dent information on what actually had happened. l

218

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.72

Part C (M. Naz. 3:7) is a highly developed pericope; it is impossible to recover a simple mnemonic tradition underlying it. The Houses' opinions are not matched and contain quite different words. The dic­ tion is not balanced. The case concerns a man about whom one group of witnesses testified to a two-term Naziriteship, and the other to a five-term Naziriteship. The House of Shammai rule that the testi­ mony of each group cancels that of the other, and no Naziriteship is involved. The Hillelites say the groups agree on two Nazirite-terms, to which the man is sentenced. The Houses' opinions compare as follows: S h a m m a i : T h e t e s t i m o n y is d i v i d e d , a n d t h e r e is n o t h e r e N a z i r i t e s h i p Hillel:

In five, t w o are contained, so he should be a Nazir t w o [terms].

The complex superscription is matched by highly developed lemmas. See Epstein, Mevcfot, pp. 384-5. II.L72.A. The House of Shammai say, "If a thing is dedicated in error, its dedication is binding (HQD$ T'WT HQD§)." And the House of Hillel say, "It is not binding (>YNW HQD$)." B. How so? If a man said, "The black ox that first comes out of my house shall be dedicated," and a white one came out— The House of Shammai say, "Its dedication is binding (HQD$)." And the House of Hillel say, "It is not binding." C. [If he said,] "The golden denar that first comes to my hand shall be dedicated," and a silver denar came to his hand— The House of Shammai say, "Its dedication is binding." And the House of Hillel say, "It is not binding." D. [If he said,] "The jar of wine that first comes to my hand shall be dedicated," and a jar of oil came to his hand— The House of Shammai say, "Its dedication is binding." And the House of Hillel say, "It is not binding." E. If a man vowed to be a Nazirite, and he inquired of a sage, and he declared the vow binding, he must count [the thirty days] from the time that he vowed. If he inquired of a sage, and he declared it not binding, and he had cattle already assigned [for the three offerings], they may go forth and pasture with the flock. F. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, "Do you not agree that there, although it is a thing dedicated in error, it should go forth and pasture with the flock?" The House of Shammai answered, "Do you not agree that if a man erred and called the ninth [of the herd] the tenth, or the tenth the ninth, or the eleventh the tenth, that its dedication is binding?"

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.72

219

The House of Hillel said to them, "It is not the rod that has de­ dicated them. What if he erred and laid the rod on the eighth or the twelfth—would he have done aught to all? But ('L') the Scripture which declared the tenth holy, has declared the ninth and the eleventh holy also." H. If [six] persons were on a journey and another came towards them, and one of them said, "May I be a Nazirite if this is such-aone!" And another said, "May I be a Nazirite if one of you is a Nazirite!' [And a fourth said,] "May I be a Nazirite if one of you is not a Nazirite!" [And a fifth said,] ". . .if you both are Nazirites!" [And a sixth said,] ". . .if all of you are Nazirites!"— The House of Shammai say, "They are all Nazirites." And the House of Hillel say, "None of them is a Nazirite excepting him whose words are not confirmed." And R. Tarfon says, "None of them is a Nazirite." [M. Naz. 5:1, 2, 3, 5, trans. Danby, pp. 286-7 (y. Naz. 2:2, 5:1, 2,4; b. Naz. 31a-b, 32a-b; b.
The principle is then spelled out in parts B, C, and D, each of which supplies a new example for the rule that something sanctified in error is/is not sanctified: B: C: D:

Ox — black, white Denar — g o l d e n , s i l v e r Jar — w i n e , oil.

Parts B, C, and D are glosses on part A, and not very good ones. Any­ one of them standing by itself would have sufficed for the reconstruc­ tion of part A. All of them together contribute nothing new. It is a little collection, in which part A should serve as the superscription: A thing dedicated in error House of Shammai:

Binding

House o f Hillel:

Not binding.

Then the rest follow, each beginning with a much more substantial,

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.72

articulated-superscription than the first. If it is a collection, it is hardly a primitive one, but rather, the development of a single law into several illustrations, with each illustration accompanied by an elaborate superscription, followed by the repetition of the same ruling in primary form. The Shammaites hold that the man referred to the ox that would first come out and erred merely in specifying which one that would be (and so in the other cases). The House of Hillel deny it i n each case. The Shammaites are consistent with their position in M . Naz. 2 : 1 . Part E intervenes and has nothing to do with the Houses' rulings. But part F explains the connection. If a man set aside a sacrifice for his Nazirite vow, and a sage freed him from the vow, the beast cannot be used by the man but is sent to pasture. The House of Hillel then point out to the House of Shammai that this apparently supports the Hille­ lite position. It is a thing dedicated in error, yet it is treated as an unconsecrated animal. The anonymous ruling thus backs up the Hillelite view that erroneous dedication is not binding. The House of Shammai bring up another case entirely, ignoring the one before them. All three of the misnumbered beasts are sanctified. The Hillelites give a good reply. The counting did not sanctify the animal. Scripture sanctified the tenth. He himself has sanctified the other two. But this more or less ignores the eighth and the twelfth animals specified by the Hillelites, for they too would have been sanctified by the man for the same reason as the ninth and eleventh. The debate does not follow the usual primary form, with Sham­ maites last and winning the argument. It looks as if the anonymous ruling, which conforms to the Hillelite view and supports it, was shaped for just that purpose. Then the debate was artificially constructed by Hillelites alone. The Shammaites cannot respond to the case at hand, since by definition it supports the Hillelite position. So they bring up an irrelevant matter—and there too are bested. If it is a Hillelite pericope, pure and simple, that does not tell us when it would have been shaped. I take it for granted that the anonymous law of part E could have come anytime, and the debate of part F, drawing the conse­ quences of that law for the antecedent collection, would have followed. Part H has the Hillelites adhere to the foregoing rule: a thing de­ dicated in error is not binding. Here too, the ones whose words are proved false are Nazirites, and the others are not. The Shammaites are equally consistent. Once someone has said, "I am a Nazir," that completes the matter and he is now a Nazir. The position is consistent both with Parts A-D, and with M . Naz. 2 : 1 . The presence of Tarfon supplies a useful terminus ante quern for the case, and, I think, for the Houses-opinions as well. Tarfon has moved beyond the Hillelite position. He holds that Naziriteship applies only if someone explicitly stated that he wishes to take upon himself the Naziriteship, while in this case the people merely wanted to 'strengthen their words' so the others would believe them. The Houses-disputes on Naziriteship come down to a single issue, namely, the effect of stating, "I am a Nazir," whether intentionally or

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.64

221

otherwise, whether accurately or in error. Any one of the specific cases could have produced a ruling on all the others, without further specification of the Houses' views. That does not mean that the whole began in some generalized account of the contrary positions. I think the opposite more likely. Generalized principles were rarely formulated before the beraila-stratum of Houses-materials. Rather, we find very brief statements of a case, law, or problem, followed by equally abbre­ viated positions for the Houses. It was only later that forms were available for better articulated and less casuistic statements of laws. On b. Naz. 30b, see Halivni, Meqorot, p. 369, re erroneous consecra­ tions. Note Epstein, Mevo*ot, pp. 106, 151, 390: Judah b. Ilai is the authority behind 5 :l-3; Mishnah, pp. 332, re M. Naz. 5:5: whose words were + /—not confirmed. II.ii.64.A. The House of Shammai say, "Substitutes for substitutes [for the form of words used to utter a Nazirite-vow] are prohibited. [The oath is binding]." And the House of Hillel say, "Substitutes for substitutes are per­ mitted. [The oath is not binding]." B. The House of Shammai say, "They do not testify [concerning a woman that her husband has died] by means of an echo [from heaven]." And the House of Hillel say, "They testify by means of an echo." [Tos. Nez. 1:1, ed. Lieberman, p. 124, lines 1-3 (y. Naz. 1:1, b. Ned. 10b, b. Yev. 122a, M. Yev. 14:7,16:6)] Comment: The parallel rulings, M. Naz. 1:1 etc., use Na^ir rather than prohibited/permitted. The meaning must be that the man is or is not made a Nazir by means of the substitute for the original euphemism. So the significant stylistic difference is in word-choice. Judah the Patriarch has improved matters by selecting for the apodosis mote precise and appropriate language than prohibited/permitted, which makes no sense there, substituting the substantive Na^ir, concerning which the ruling actually is made. Part A concerns a stage beyond the anonymous rule of M. Naz. 1:1, "Any substitute for [the form of words used to utter] a Nazirite-vow is as binding as the Nazirite-vow itself." Now the issue is secondary. We cannot on that basis suppose M. Naz. 1:1 is the Sham­ maite ruling. Part B concerns whether one permits the woman to remarry on the testimony of an echo that her husband has died. The Shammaites rule negatively. M. Yev. 16:6 accords with the Hillelite rule, "They permit a woman to marry again [on the evidence given] by an echo." One recalls the several stories of the echo's message about Hillel's failure to receive the holy spirit and the echo's testimony that the law follows

222

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

the Hillelites.

Hillelite

— II.ii.65

circles clearly w e r e p r o n e t o believe in

such

m a t t e r s . S h a m m a i t e o n e s w e r e n o t . J o s h u a b. H a n a n i a h ' s f a m o u s r e ­ j e c t i o n of

h e a v e n l y t e s t i m o n y (b.

B . M . 59b)

w o u l d place h i m in

the

S h a m m a i t e c a m p , E l i e z e r b. H y r c a n u s i n t h e H i l l e l i t e o n e .

II.ii.65. R. Simeon b. Leazar said, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not dispute concerning one who vowed to be a Nazir for thirty days, that if he shaved on the thirtieth day, he has not fulfilled [his obligation]. "Concerning what did they differ? "Concerning one who vowed without specifying the term— "For the House of Shammai say, 'If he shaved on the thirtieth day, he has not fulfilled his obligation.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'If he shaved on the thirtieth day, he has fulfilled his obligation.' " [Tos. Nez. 2:10, ed. Lieberman, p. 128, lines 23-26 (M. Naz. 3:1, Tos. Meg. 1:9, Sifre Num. 25 ;b. Naz. 5b)] Comment:

M . N a z . 3:1

m a k e s n o m e n t i o n of t h e H o u s e s :

A.

I f a m a n said, " I w i l l b e a N a z i r i t e , " h e s h o u l d c u t off his h a i r o n t h e t h i r t y - f i r s t d a y . B u t i f h e c u t it off o n t h e t h i r t i e t h d a y , h e h a s fulfilled his obligation.

B.

I f h e said, " I w i l l b e a N a z i r i t e f o r t h i r t y d a y s , " a n d h e c u t off his h a i r o n t h e t h i r t i e t h d a y , h e has n o t fulfilled h i s o b l i g a t i o n .

Part B

corresponds to the agreement

specified

by

Simeon.

Part

A

accords w i t h the Hillelite rule, that if he did n o t specify a t e r m a n d e n d e d t h e t e r m o n t h e t h i r t i e t h d a y , it is sufficient. T h e M i s h n a h i g n o r e s the allegation that a Houses-dispute

w a s a t h a n d . S i m e o n b.

persistently refines Houses-disputes,

and w e may suppose that before

him was a tradition that a dispute o n the

first

Eleazar

p o i n t did exist.

The

Shammaites w o u l d h a v e held that one should w a i t until the day after t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e specified p e r i o d , all t h e m o r e so t h e d a y itself; o r the Hillelites w o u l d h a v e held that o n e m a y s h a v e o n the v e r y day. If t h e r e w e r e n o s u c h a n t e c e d e n t d i s a g r e e m e n t , it is difficult t o u n d e r ­ s t a n d S i m e o n ' s c l a i m t h a t t h e r e w a s n o d i s a g r e e m e n t , f o r t h e p a t t e r n is well

established

that he

claims

no

disagreement

existed

where

the

M i s h n a h preserves one. A s t o the disagreement, unspecified terms of Naziriteship permit shaving o n l y o n the thirty-first day. Therefore the H o u s e o f S h a m m a i r u l e as t h e y d o . T h e Hillelites say t h a t h e c u t o f f t h e h a i r o n t h e t h i r t y - f i r s t d a y ( M . N a z . 3:1),

should

b u t if he did so a

d a y e a r l y , it is a c c e p t a b l e . T h e u n d e r l y i n g i s s u e i s w h e t h e r part

o f a d a y c o u n t s as a w h o l e d a y .

T h e S h a m m a i t e s take the n e g a t i v e , the Hillelites the affirmative.

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.66, III.ii.32, 3 3

223

Lieberman points out (Tosefta Kifshutah, p. 520) that some texts give the Hillelites the more stringent position. II.ii.66. R. Ishmael b. R. Yohanan b. Beroqah said, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not differ concerning two groups of witnesses testifying concerning him [that he took an oath to be a Nazirite], that he is a Nazir for the smallest period therein. Concerning what did they differ? "Concerning two witnesses testifying about him, for— "The House of Shammai say, 'The testimony is divided, and no Naziriteship is here.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'There is in the sum of five [at least] two, so let him be a Nazir for two [terms].' " [Tos. Nezirot 3:1, ed. Lieberman, p. 131, lines 1-4 (Tos. <Ed. 2:4, b. Naz. 20a, M. <Ed. 4:11, b. B.B. 41b, y. Sanh. 5:2)] Comment: Ishmael refines the dispute recorded in M. Naz. 3:7, above, p. 216. He says it does not concern groups of witnesses, con­ cerning which all parties agree with the Hillelite position, but rather two individual witnesses. The opinions of the Houses are precisely as given in the Mishnah; the refinement is effected, as usual, through altering the superscription. 111.11.32. It has been taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar said, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel do not differ with respect to two sets of witnesses, [of which] one attests a debt of two hundred [%u%] and the other of one hundred [a maneh], since one hundred is included in two hundred. They differ only where there is but one set. "The House of Shammai say, 'Their testimony is divided.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'Two hundred include one hundred.' " (b. Sanh. 31a = b. B.B. 41b) Comment: The debate shifts to other problems, but the substance is the same. 111.11.33. A bald Nazirite— The House of Shammai say, "He needs to pass a razor over his head." And the House of Hillel say, "He must not pass a razor over his hear] " e

(b. Naz. 46b = b. Yoma 61b, y. Naz. 6:11) Comment: The form is standard: S R Y K L H < B Y R T ' R $ W + / —

>YN

224

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.ii.67, 6 8

The substance of the debate is not reflected in other pericopae. I have followed the text of y. Naz. 6:11. b. Naz. 46b reverses the opinions, then explains them away, so as to conform to the outcome of y. Naz.! See Halivni, Meqorot, p. 414. II.ii.67. The House of Shammai say, "A man does not impose on his son the vow of Naziriteship." And the House of Hillel say, "He imposes the vow." [Tos. Nezirot 3:17, ed. Lieberman, p. 134, lines 51-2 (y. Naz. 4:6, Tos. <Ed. 2:2, M. Naz. 4:6, y. Sot. 3:8)] Comment: The form is standard, with the Shammaite lemma bearing the usual explanatory matter. The rulings of the Houses are impose vow/not impose vow (MDYR/L* MDYR). The Mishnah (4:6) preserves the Hillelite ruling, without saying so, in the precise language of this pericope, "A man imposes the vow of Naziriteship on his son." The Mishnaic tradition derives from the one before us; Judah the Patriarch has borrowed the explanatory matter from the Shammaite lemma. I see no way of predicting which of the Houses disputes will be preserved as such in the Mishnah, and which will be dropped in favor of the Hillelite law, given anonymously. See also M. Ed. 2:2; Epstein, c

Mishnah,

v.

1037.

II.ii.68.A. He who vowed as a Nazir and inquired of a sage and he declared the vow binding— The House of Shammai say, "He counts from the hour that he in­ quired." And the House of Hillel say, "He counts from the hour that he vowed [Lieberman: that he permitted, meaning, according to the days that he transgressed his vow]." (y. Naz. 5:2: House of Hillel: From the hour that he made the Nazirite vow [NZR]). B. If he inquired of a sage and he permitted him, these and these agree that [in the event his vow is lifted], if he had a cow set aside [for his Nazirite sacrifice], it may go forth and pasture with the flock. C. This is the error which Nahum the Mede made when he un­ loosed the vow. D. If they were going on the way, and one was coming toward them— One of them said, "Lo, I am a Nazir if this is so-and-so." And one says, "Lo, I am a Nazir if this is not so-and-so." r

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.ii.68

225

"Lo, I am a Nazir if one of you is a Nazir." And one says, "Lo, I am a Nazir if none of you is a Nazir." "Lo, I am a Nazir if two of you are Nazirites." And one says, "Lo, I am a Nazir if all of them are Nazirites." The House of Shammai say, "They are all Nazirites." The House of Hillel say, "The only one who is Nazirite is he whose words were not verified. And they bring a sacrifice in partnership." R. Judah says in the name of R. Tarfon, "None of them [is a Nazir], for Naziriteship applies only through uttering a distinct vow (LHPL>H)." E. R. Yosi said, "The House of Shammai used to say concerning him who says, 'Lo, I am a Nazir that [if] this is Joseph' and it turns out to be Joseph, 'that this is Simeon' and it turns out to be Simeon, that he is a Nazir. "If he saw an androgynous creature, and said, 'Lo, I am a Nazir that this is a man,' and one says, 'Lo, I am a Nazir that this is not a man;' 'Lo, I am a Nazir that this is a woman,' and one says, 'Lo, I am a Nazir that this is not a woman;' 'Lo, I am a Nazir that this is a man and a woman,' and one says, 'Lo, I am a Nazir that this is not a man and a woman;' 'Lo, I am a Nazir that one of you is a Nazir,' 'Lo, I am a Nazir that none of you is a Nazir;' 'that two of you are Nazirites;' 'that all of you are Nazirites'—they are all Nazirites. And they all count for nine Naziriteships [of thirty days]." [Tos. Nez. 3:19, ed. Lieberman, pp. 135-6, lines 58-73 (b. Naz. 34a; y. Naz. 5:2, M. Naz. 5:5)] Comment: The Hillelite opinion in part A occurs in M. Naz. 5:3. Both parties agree about the cow, which explains why in M. Naz. 5:3 the Hillelites can address the Shammaites as they do. Part C refers to M. Naz. 5:4. Part D is M. Naz. 5:5, in augmented form. The Houses' opinions are given in the same language as in the Mishnah. The Hillelites' lemma is glossed by the sacrifice. Judah now becomes the authority for Tarfon's opinion, which makes him the terminus ante quern for the whole pericope. Yosi then develops the Shammaite opinion, but ignores the fore­ going materials. Obviously the Shammaites agree that if a person vows on a condition and the condition is valid, he is a Nazir; they would have held that even in the contrary situation, the vow would have applied. In the case of the androgynous creature, we have a more pertinent re­ cord of the Shammaite position. As to the facts, all are right. But merely saying, "Lo, I am a Nazir" makes a Nazir out of the one who says NEUSNER, The Rabbinic T r a d i t i o n s about t h e P h a r i s e e s before 70, I I

15

226

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.73, III.ii.34

"that none of you is a Nazir." It looks as if we have several versions of the Houses' opinions, shaped toward the middle of the second century, and Judah the Patriarch has selected the first, leaving out Yosi's, though it would have served. One could easily supply the Hillelite and Tarfon opinions there as well. As to the disposition of the sacrifice, part B, although the House of Shammai hold that what is erroneously sanctified is nonetheless sanctified, the vow had never been properly made, therefore the cow had never been sanctified at all, erroneously or otherwise. II.i.73.A. These do not drink and do not receive their Ketuvah \ She that says, "I am unclean," and she against whom witnesses have testified that she was unclean, and she that says, "I will not drink." But she whose husband is not minded to make her drink, or she whose husband has connection with her while on the way, she re­ ceives her Ketuvah and does not drink. B. If their husbands died before their wives drank [the bitter water]— The House of Shammai say, "They receive their Ketuvah and do not drink." And the House of Hillel say, "They do not drink, and they do not receive their Ketuvah" [M. Sot. 4:2, trans. Danby, p. 297 (y. Sot. 4:1, 2, b. Sot 24a-b, 25b, y. Sanh. 8:6, y. Ket. 9:7)] III.ii.34. On,what point [do the two Houses] differ? The House of Shammai are of opinion that a bond which is due for redemption is considered as having been redeemed; whereas the House of Hillel are of opinion that a bond which is due for redemption is not considered as having been redeemed. [b. Sot. 25a-b (b. Shev. 48b)] Comment: The essentials are: S h a m m a i : [ T h e y ] take [Ketuvah] a n d d o n o t drink Hillel: T h e y d o n o t drink a n d d o n o t take [Ketuvah].

I cannot understand the reversal of the order of the participles. Ob­ viously, drink could be dropped, since the dispute concerns only the Ketuvah. But once the not-drink's have been supplied, presumably by a glossator, why should the Hillelite opinion follow the order of the superscription, while the Shammaite one does not? III.ii.34 explains the underlying legal principle in dispute. Epstein, Mevd*ot, pp. 409-410, sees Simeon b. Eleazar as the authority

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.ii.69, II.i.8, 9

227

for part A. His comments on this pericope, p. 410, are important for the lower criticism of the Mishnaic text. See also Mishnah, pp. 428, 524. II.ii.69. A woman that commits lewdness with her little son and he committed the first stage of cohabitation with her— The House of Shammai declare [her] ineligible [to the priesthood] (Lev. 21:7). And the House of Hillel declare eligible. [Tos. Sot. 4:7, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 301, lines 27-8 (b. Sanh. 69b, y. Git. 8:8)] The Houses-opinions here are not quotations, e.g., say, is but syzygous, present participles. The antecedent ruling is that a woman may be made unclean by any man except a child and one who is not a man. Yosi says that the woman must undergo the ordeal, "per­ haps. . . the child will grow up" and persist in adultery. So she is made unclean by a child. The rulings of the Houses pertain to Yosi's saying, with the Shammaites agreeing with Yosi. Comment:

eligible,

111.1.8. [M. Sot. 3:3: If the writing on the scroll was blotted out, and she then said, 'I am unclean,' the water is poured away and her meal-offering is scattered on the ash-heap. If the writing on the scroll was blotted out, and she said, 'I will not drink,' they urge her and give her to drink against her will.] How much is blotted out? TNY: R. Hanin: "The House of Shammai say, 'One.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'Two.' " , 0 0 0 o (y. Sot. 3:3 = y. Sot. 2:4) Comment: The reference is to blotting out the name of the Lord written in the scroll referred to in the Mishnah. The Houses opinions are the usual one/two. In this instance, however, we know who made up the Houses-pericope in the conventional form, namely, Hanin, not an early Tannaitic authority. This shows how in later times it was com­ monplace to follow the Houses-form in fabricating data. The name of the authority frequently was dropped, leaving the impression that the whole derives from "very ancient times." 3

111.1.9. TNY: "A nursing mother whose husband dies should not be married for twenty-four months," the words of R. Meir. R. Judah [b. Ilai] says, "Eighteen months." R. Jonathan b. Yosi says, "The House of Shammai say, 'Twentyfour months.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'Eighteen months.' " [y. Sot. 4:3 (b. Ket. 60a-b, above, p. 207)]

228

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.74

Comment: Here what Meir and Judah give as their own opinions recurs in Jonathan's version as a Houses-dispute. The operative opi­ nions are identical in both versions, so in this instance one cannot reasonably suppose separate and independent traditions on the same subject were handed on in the names of Ushan masters, on the one side, and the Houses, on the other. Simeon b. Gamaliel comments on the dispute, but does not name the antecedent masters; he supplies what we already have, namely, a terminus ante quern for the dispute. The twentyfour/eighteen sequence is familiar in other Houses-materials, but that proves nothing about the origin of the apodosis. What is furthermore interesting is that Jonathan has not even troubled to supply an appro­ priate superscription for the argument; it in fact depends upon "the words of R. Meir." It looks as if all he has done is to assign the opinions to the Houses instead of to the Ushans, prima facie evidence that the Ushans originated the whole. Since Meir and Judah supply numerous disputes in the names of the Houses, we may suppose they here do otherwise because the traditions are their own. Jonathan's revision of the attribution then is difficult to explain; later Palestinians follow the rule of twenty-four months, without commenting that it is Shammaite.

II.i.74. A. "If a man was half-bondman and half-freedman he should labor one day for his master and one day for himself"—the words of the House of Hillel. B. The House of Shammai said to them, "You have ordered [it well] for his master, but for him you have not ordered [it well.] He cannot marry a bondwoman, since he is half freedman; and he cannot marry a freedwoman since he is half bondman. "May he never marry? And was not the world only created for fruition and increase, as it is written, He created it not a waste ; he formed it to be inhabited^. 45:10) ? "But for the order of the world they compel his master and he sets him free; and [the bondman] writes him a bond for indebtedness for half his value." C. The House of Hillel reverted to teach according to the words of the House of Shammai. [M. Git. 4:5, trans. Danby, p. 311 (y. Git. 4:5, b. Git. 40b, 41a-b, b. 'Arakh. 26b, b. B.B. 13a, b. Hag. 2a, b. Pes. 88a-b)] Comment: This curious pericope starts out like a normal Housesdispute, with a superscription, He who was half a slave and half a free man. The Hillelite opinion, coming out of turn, then pertains to arranging the man's working hours. We should have expected a Shammaite opinion first. Theoretically, the House of Shammai would have divided

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

—

229

II.i.74

the man's working time within a given day, rather than by alternating days. Instead, part B changes the form, which now becomes a debate. But this too is truncated, since the debate contains no Hillelite lemma at the outset. Furthermore, the debate also changes the subject! It now pertains not to the man's working hours, but to whether he may marry. The Shammaite lemma is highly developed through several clauses, and I cannot propose a brief version. Then comes a subscription con­ sisting of a stock-phrase found in same form elsewhere in the chapter; and the phrase itself is a conglomerate of stock-phrases, on account of the order of the world, they force the master and he makes him a free

man,

etc.,

as in M. Git. 4 : 5 . Finally, part C adds that the Hillelites were persuaded by the category of half-slave/half-free. Clearly, one might invent some sort of Hillelite counterpart to the Shammaite argument, but this serves no purpose. We do not know what the Hillelites originally thought about the half-slave's marriage. This collection of forms and stock-phrases—"conventional" dispute, then debate, then order of the world, then the House of Hillel changed their opinion—makes it difficult, as I said, to suggest what might have con­ stituted the primary version (if any) of the pericope. Even if we drop glosses, e.g., the Scriptural proof-text, the rhetorical introduction (" You have ordered it well. . . " ) , we are still left with a pericope quite un­ like any we have seen. It looks as if two separate arguments have been joined because of their thematic connection: the status of the halfslave, with the first part pertaining to the work-arrangements, the se­ cond to the marriage. But the position of the House of Shammai is that such a status cannot be allowed to exist at all, therefore no arran­ gements need be made. The content is puzzling. Were there no precedents for the half-slave? Did such a status come into being "just at this time"? It seems to me unlikely. What is more likely is that the status is a legal fabrication, created to explore the ambiguous personal status of someone who may not have existed outside the lawyers' imagination. The discussion supposes the Houses legislate in such a case for the first time. All the preceding centuries, such people were left in a double limbo: They did not know either how to arrange their working hours or whom to marry. The appearance of the root TQN ^ordered well" "order of the world") may provide a key. Perhaps the pericope represents another theoretical ordinance, but the usual ordinance-form, at first. . . they ordained. . ., has been confused with two different Houses-forms. I cannot envision what the ordinance-form would have done with the Shammaite posi­ tion and assume it omitted the Shammaites. The Hillelite ordinance would have been simple enough: A t first t h e h a l f - s l a v e [ w o u l d h a v e ] w o r k e d f o r t h e m a s t e r o n e d a y , h i m ­ self o n e d a y . [It t u r n e d o u t t h a t ] h e c o u l d n o t m a r r y . S o t h e y o r d a i n e d t h a t he should w o r k entirely f o r himself [therefore abandoning the earlier status] a n d s h o u l d p a y b a c k t h e m a s t e r — o n a c c o u n t o f t h e o r d e r o f the world.

230

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.75, 7 6

The Shammaites could have produced no equivalent taqqanah, for to begin with they denied such a status was within the law. Part C poses no problem. The Hillelites do not give up their view that the man must work both for himself and his master. They simply accept an arrangement different from the one they originally proposed but producing the same result. The man is still in bondage, but his personal status has been clarified. The Shammaite view, that the status to begin with is inconceivable, plays no role in the Hillelite reversion. On according to the words of, Epstein, Mishnah, p. 403. II.i.75.A. The House of Shammai say, "A man may dismiss (PTR) his wife with an old bill over divorce." And the House of Hillel forbid (>$R) [it]. B. What is an old bill of divorce? If he continued alone with her after he had written it for it, [it becomes an old bill of divorce]. [M. Git. 8:4, trans. Danby, p. 317 (b. Git. 79b, y. Git. 8:9)] Comment: The form is somewhat developed, with the superscription inserted into the Shammaite lemma: T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, A m a n frees his w i f e w i t h a n o l d The House of Hillel:

Get

Prohibit.

In a simpler version we should have had: An old

Get

House of Shammai:

Permit

House o f Hillel:

Prohibit.

The Shammaite lemma has been revised, not merely glossed, and the syzygous permit has been changed to a declarative sentence, a man frees his wife-, thus YS> changes to PTR. Part B glosses the dispute. Clearly, the tradition of a Houses' dispute about an old Get circulated in many forms and produced references such as we have already observed (above, p. 204). This version is the most serviceable for the purposes of Judah the Patriarch, but not the most primitive. See Epstein, Mishnah, p. 86. II.i.76. If a wrote [a bill of divorce] to divorce his wife and changed his mind— The House of Shammai say, "He has rendered her ineligible (P§L) [for marriage with] a priest." And the House of Hillel say, "Even if he gave it to her on a con­ dition, and the condition was not fulfilled, he has not rendered inelig­ ible (PSL) for marriage with a priest."

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.77

231

ILi.77. A. If a man divorced his wife and she then lodged with him in an inn— The House of Shammai say, "She does not need from him a second bill of divorce." And the House of Hillel say, "She needs from him a second bill of divorce." B. This applies when she was divorced after wedlock. C. But they agree that if she was divorced after betrothal [only], she does not need a second bill of divorce from him, since he is not yet shameless before her. [M. Git. 8:8-9, trans. Danby, p. 318-9 (b. Git. 81a-b, b. Qid. 65a-b)] Comment: II.i.76, M. Git. 8:8, like the foregoing pericopae, begins as if it were standard, but, curiously, fails to balance the Houses lemmas: He who wrote [a Get] to divorce his wife and changed his mind: H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y , H e has r e n d e r e d h e r unfit f r o m t h e p r i e s t h o o d .

The House of Hillel should say: H e has not r e n d e r e d h e r unfit. . .

That in fact is the Hillelite opinion, but before the opinion is given, we have an intervening phrase: E v e n t h o u g h h e g a v e it t o h e r o n a c o n d i t i o n a n d t h e c o n d i t i o n w a s n o t fulfilled

Then comes: H e has not r e n d e r e d h e r unfit. . .

The intervening phrase glosses the Hillelite saying by extending the Hillelite opinion to a more extreme case than is described in the super­ scription. In the new case the man has actually given the Get, but it turns out to be impaired. Even here the woman is not regarded as having been subjected to divorce, therefore remains fit to marry a priest, according to the Hillelites. The glossator apparently regarded the original opinion as not representing the full extent of the Hillelite leniency. II.i.77, M. Git. 8:9, is standard; the lemmas of the Houses pertain to, and complete, the superscription, and are matched, the difference being the use of the negative in the Shammaite opinion. The agreement of part C clarifies the foregoing, therefore is merely a gloss, not a revision, such as is often supplied by Simeon b. Leazar in Toseftan pericopae. The meaning of the Houses-dispute is unchanged. See Epstein,

Mishnah,

p. 86, 266.

232

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.78, II.ii.70, 7 1 , 7 2

II.i.78. The House of Shammai say, "A man may not divorce his wife unless he has found unchastity in her, for it is written, Because he hath found in her indecency in anything" And the House of Hillel say, "[He may divorce her] even if she spoiled a dish for him, for it is written, Because he has found in her indecency in anything" R. Aqiba says, "Even if he found another fairer than she, for it is written, And it shall be if she find no favor in his eyes. . ." c

[M. Git. 9:10, trans. Danby, p. 321 (y. Git. 9:11,b. Git. 90a, y. Sot. 1:1)] Comment: See above, Sifre Deut. 269, p. 37. 11.11.70. The House of Shammai say, "A man does not free his wife with an old Get, so that her Get may not be older than her son" (Tos. Git. 8:3, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 332,1. 20) Comment: The italicized words gloss M. 8:4—but for the opinion of the House of Hillel! The Shammaites say one may do so. Other MSS properly correct to Hillel. 11.11.71. He who gives a Get to his wife, and they did not bear wit­ ness [to it]— The House of Shammai say, "He rendered her ineligible from the priesthood." 11.11.72. R. Simeon b. Eleazar said, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not differ concerning him who divorces his wife, and [then] she spends the night with him in an inn, that she does not require from him a second Get. "Concerning what did they disagree? "Concerning a situation in which he [actually] had intercourse [with her]." [Tos. Git. 8:8, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 333, lines 4-5, 7-9 (b. Git. 8a-b, b. Qid. 65a-b)] Comment: II.ii.71 corresponds to M. Git. 8:8, if a man gave a Get and changed his mind. The House of Shammai say that he has rendered her ineligible, and the House of Hillel say that he has not rendered her ineligible. It looks like a separate superscription for the same argument. The apodosis is defective.

233

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.79, II.ii.73

II.ii.72 conforms to the general tendency of Simeon b. Eleazar. Now the dispute concerns not a married couple, for all agree no further Get is necessary. The issue is now, What is necessitated by actual inter­ course? The opinions of the Houses are not given. We may assume that the House of Shammai would say no new Get is needed, and the House of Hillel would require a new one. In this instance the Shammaite position is made more extreme. Ob­ viously, the Hillelites will require a new Get, just as before. But the Shammaites now treat the act of intercourse as having no legal conse­ quence. The old Get remains valid, even though the couple has engaged in marital relations; therefore the act of intercourse, having no legal implications, is treated as prostitution. b. Git. 81a has it that witnesses testify the couple actually had inter­ course, or the witnesses saw them alone, thus solving the problem of who is to testify against the validity of the Get. II.i.79.A. By three means is the woman acquired and by two means she acquires her freedom. She is acquired by money or by writ or by intercourse. B. By money—the House of Shammai say, "By a denar or a denar*s worth." And the House of Hillel say, "By aperutah or aperutah s worth." C. And how much is a perutah? The eighth part of an Italian issar. 9

[M. Qid. 1:1, trans. Danby, p. 321 (y. Qid. 1:1, b. Qid. lla-b, 12a, b. Bekh. 50b, y. Shav. 6:1)] Comment: The Houses-lemma, part B, glosses part A, and then part C glosses the Hillelite clause of part B. Part C certainly comes after the Hillelite view of law became normative. We may presume part B comes after part A as well, but we do not know when part A was re­ dacted. The form of the Houses-dispute is conventional, and the Houses' opinions are presented in brief and balanced form: denarjperutah, with the additional gloss that the equivalent thereof \s acceptable. II.ii.73. He who gives permission to three men to betrothe for him the woman— R. Nathan says, "The House of Shammai say, 'Two may serve as witnesses and one as agent.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'All three of them are agents and cannot serve as witnesses.' " [Tos. Qid. 4:1, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 340, lines 3-4(y. Qid. 2:1, b. Qid. 43a)]

234

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.ii.74

Comment: The issue is whether an agent can become a witness or not. The pericope recurs verbatim in b. Qid. 43a. without attribution to Nathan. Then a separate beraita occurs: R . N a t h a n said, " T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, ' A n a g e n t a n d a w i t n e s s [ s e r v e as a t t e s t a t i o n . ] ' " A n d t h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, ' A n a g e n t a n d two w i t n e s s e s . ' "

The Tosefta is cited, but Nathan dropped; then a parallel pericope is created for Nathan, in which the same principle is discussed, but with reference to different circumstances. Shammai the Elder rules on the same issue, I, p. 201. On b. Qid. 42b-43a, Halivni, Meqorot, p. 663. i v . NEZIQIN

We shall review the 'Eduyyot collections below, section vii. II.ii.74. He who steals the beam and builds it into the group of buildings (B YRH) — The House of Shammai say, "He must tear down (Q Q ) the [entire] group of buildings and take out the beam." And the House of Hillel say, "He estimates how much it was worth and pays the owner, on account of the [good] order of penitents." C

C

[Tos. B.Q. 9:5, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 367, lines 3:5 (y. B.Q. 9:1, y. Git. 5:6, b. Git. 55a, b. B.M. 101a)] II.ii.74*. He who goes down into the ruin of his fellow and builds it without permission. When he goes forth, he says, "Give me my wood and stones." They do not listen to him. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, "The House of Shammai say, 'The right is in his hand.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'They do not listen to him.' " [Tos. Ket. 8:9, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 271, lines 1-3 (ed. Lieberman, pp. 85-6 omits the saying of Simeon b. Gamaliel)] Comment: The form is conventional, but the lemmas of the Houses are not obviously balanced; they choose quite different words, but are metrically matched, four to each lemma. The lemmas of the Houses could have stood quite independent of one another. It looks to me as if the language of M. B.Q. 9:1 etc. has influenced the revision of the

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.80,

III.ii.35

235

Hillelite lemma. The Shammaite ruling would have been suitably balanced by a simple negative for the Hillelites: He does not take down. . . The Hillelites do not merely rule on the first question, but they go on to explain what the man must do instead. They thus take for granted the ruling we should have expected. So the Hillelite lemma develops what would have been the primary form; the Shammaite one is the model for that form. The same pattern recurs in II.ii.74*. II.i.80.A. If a man put to his own use what had been left in his keeping, the House of Shammai say, "He is at a disadvantage whether its value rises or falls." And the House of Hillel say, "[He must restore the deposit] at the same value as when he put it to his own use." R. Aqiba says, "At its value when claimed." B. If a man had expressed his intention of putting the deposit to his own use, the House of Shammai say, "He is liable." And the House of Hillel say, "He is not liable until he puts it to his use, for it is written, If he have not put his hand unto his neighbor\r goods C. Thus if he tilted the jar and took from it a quarter-/^ [of wine] and the jar was then broken, he need only repay [the value of the] quarter-/0g [of wine]; but if he lifted it up and took from it a quarterlog and the jar was then broken, he must repay the value of the whole. c

[M. B.M. 3:12 (y. B.M. 3:9, b. B.M. 43a-b, 44a, y. Shev. 8:1, b. Qid.42b, Sifra Vayiqra 13:13b)] Comment: Part A, see Sifra Vayiqra 13:13, p. 11. Part B pertains to the man's intention. The Shammaite opinion is HYYB, liable, and the Hillelite one should have been either not HYYB, or, preferably, PTWR, with the gloss being understood. The gloss required by not liable adds until, then carefully spells out the point at which liability is incurred, finally supplies a proof-text. Afterward comes a new and separate gloss, part C, in which a case is given to illustrate the Hillelite position, ignor­ ing the Shammaite one. In this instance, if the original Hillelite lemma consisted merely of the negative, it invited a gloss, lest someone suppose the man would never be liable. But the gloss is in a measure redundant, since everyone knew that misappropriation of the bailment certainly would incur liability. So my guess is that the glossator felt uncomfortable with the Hillelite lemma before him, not only for reasons of clarity, but also for the sake of diction ( D §). See Epstein, Mevo*ot, p. 77; Mishnah, pp. 310, 507,1034. C

III.ii.35.A. Our Rabbis taught: [Then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges. . .] For all (KL) manner of trespass (Ex. 22:8).

236

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.80

The House of Shammai say, "This teaches that he is liable on ac­ count of [unlawful] intention just as for an [unlawful] act." And the House of Hillel say, "He is not liable until he actually puts it to use, for it is said, [To see] whether he have put his hand unto his neighbor's goods" B. Said the House of Shammai to the House of Hillel, "But it is already stated, For any wordoj trespass!" The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, "But it is already stated, [to see] Whether he have put his hand unto his neighbor sgoods I If so, what is the teaching of, For any word of trespass? For I might have thought: I know it only of himself; whence do I know [that he is liable if] he instructed his servant or his agent [to use it] ? From the teaching, For any word of trespass" }

[b. B.M. 44a (Mekh. deR. Ishmael, Nez. 15:49-55; b. Qid. 42b)] Comment: M. B.M.

The several versions compare as follows:

3:12

Mekh. Ne . Z

15:49-55

b. B.M.

44a

1. D T N W

For

1.

2. T h e House o f S h a m ­ m a i say, L i a b l e ( H Y Y B )

2. F o r the House of S h a m m a i declare liable (MHYYBYN) for the thought o f the heart in sending f o t t h the hand, as it is said E x . 2 2 : 7 , For every word ( DBR) of trespass

2. T h e H o u s e o f S h a m ­ m a i say, It teaches t h a t h e is l i a b l e ( H Y Y B ) for t h o u g h t as d e e d (*L MHSBH KM'SH)

3. A n d the House of H i l l e l say, H e is not liable until he will put forth o n it a h a n d , as it is said E x . 2 2 : 7 If he has not sent his hand

3. A n d the House of Hillel d o not declare liable ( M H Y Y B Y N ) e x ­ cept f r o m the time that he p u t o n it a h a n d , t h e r e f o r e it is said E x . 2 2 : 7

3. A n d the H o u s e of H i l l e l say, H e is n o t l i a b l e until he sends forth a h a n d , as it is said E x . 2 2 : 7

4.

4.

4. T h e H o u s e o f S h a m ­ m a i said etc. [ D e b a t e ]

—

—

RBNN:

1. He w h o thinks of put­ ting f o r t h a hand on a bail­ ment

e v e r y w o r d o f trespass

—

M . B . M . 3 : 1 2 is t h e b r i e f e s t v e r s i o n o f t h e d i s p u t e . I t d r o p s t h e S h a m ­ maite exegesis o r does n o t b o t h e r t o i n v e n t it, a n d t h e Hillelite i n c o n t e x t i s p e r f e c t . M e k h . f o l l o w s , a n d reports than

citing

the

opinions

in

direct

address

opinion

the foregoing

("say,

liable"

rather

becomes

"declare liable"), f u r t h e r m o r e adding a Shammaite exegesis t o balance

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.75, II.i.81

237

the Hillelite one. b. B.M. 44a then takes both exegeses and turns them into a debate, but not in standard form, for it gives the decisive place and argument to the Hillelites. This seems to me to be evidence that the berazta-deb&te follows and depends upon Mekh. Nez. I do not see how the former could be seen as summarized and abbreviated in the latter. It also looks as if M. B.M. 3:12 is the simplest and earliest version of the pericope, and that Mekh. has expanded it by supplying balanced exegeses, rather than leaving the Shammaites without one. II.ii.75.A. If a man put to his own use what had been left in his keeping, the House of Shammai say, "He is at a disadvantage whether its value rises or falls." H

o

W

S

O

?

' "

#

Comment:

(Tos.B.M.3:12,ed.Zuckermandel,p.377,1.3) The language occurring in the Mishnah is cited, then

glossed. II.L81.A. If the house fell down on a man and his father, or upon a man and any from whom he inherits, and he was liable for his wife's Ketuvah or to a creditor, the father's heirs may say, "The son died first and the father died afterward," and the creditors may say, "The father died first and the son died afterward." The House of Shammai say, "They divide." And the House of Hillel say, "The property is in its presumptive [possessors' hands]." II.i.81 .B. If the house fell down on a man and his wife, the husband's heirs may say, "The wife died first and the husband died afterward," and the wife's heirs may say, "The husband died first and the wife died afterward." The House of Shammai say, "They divide." And the House of Hillel say, "The property is in its presumptive [possessors' hands]—the Ketuvah to the husband's heirs and the property that comes in and goes out with her to her fathers' heirs." [M. B.B. 9:8-9 (b. B.B. 157a, y. B.B. 9:9)] Comment: See M. Yev. 4:3, M. Ket. 8:6. Here the superscription changes twice, but the opinions of the Houses are in all respects identical, except for the glosses of M. Yev. = M. Ket., which, natur­ ally, are dropped in II.i.81.A. but left in II.i.81 .B. Once again we ob­ serve that the Houses-materials can be attached to a wide range of superscriptions. The legal principle and language of the Houses do not change, therefore antedate the various superscriptions and accompany­ ing glosses.

238

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.ii.76, 7 7

II.ii.76. If the house fell on him and on his mother, since both [forms of property] come to him as an inheritance, these and these agree that they divide. R. Aqiba said, "I agree in this instance with the words of the House of Hillel that the property remains in the presumption [of the posses­ sors' hands] (BHZQTN)." c

(Tos. B.B. 10:13, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 412, lines 34-5) c

See M. B.B. 9:8-9. Aqiba supplies important evidence that the original debate took place at Yavneh or earlier. The language of the Houses must have been fixed by then, for Aqiba cites the Hillelite ruling verbatim. Comment:

c

II.ii.77.A. The House of Shammai say, "There are three groups. One is for eternal life. One is for eternal shame and perdition. These are the completely evil people. That (§) the least of them (QWLYHN) descend to Gehanna and squeal and rise again and are healed." "As it is said, And I will bring the third part through fire and will refine them as silver is refined and will try them as gold is tried. And they shall call on my name and I will answer them" (Zech. 13:9). Concerning them Hannah said, "The Lord kills and resurrects, brings down to Sheol and raises up" (I Sam. 2:6). B. The House of Hillel say, "He that abounds in grace inclines [the scales] towards grace [and they do not go to Gehenna at all]." And concerning them, David said, " / love that the Lord should hear my voice and my supplication" (Ps. 116:1). And concerning them the entire passage [of David] was said. [Tos. Sanh. 13:3, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 434, lines 11:17 (ARN, trans. Goldin, pp. 173-4)] Comment: The requirements of the Houses-form are utterly ignored in this aggadic passage. The opinions are in no way balanced; they are heavily glossed with Scriptures and references to biblical heroes. The Shammaite saying is obviously defective. We hear only about two groups, and the third ("the least of them") is not introduced properly, but tied to the foregoing with that (§), so at first glance it looks as though the completely wicked are under discussion. Only as we proceed do we see that still a third group is meant, namely, the ones who are neither wholly righteous nor wholly wicked. These go down but come up again. The Hillelite ruling then pertains to this same group: They do not go down at all. A simple version of the pericope presumably would have

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — III.ii.36, II.i.82

239

the Houses as usual debate that ambiguous group, with both sides agreeing on the wholly righteous, who go straight up, and the wholly wicked, who go straight down and stay there: The

intermediates:

The House of Shammai: They go down [and come up again] The House of Hillel: They do not go down [at all] Presumably in a legal pericope, something like this simple form would have underlain the complex and highly developed pericope. But in aggadic materials we have yet to see such an unadorned version of a House-dispute. See S. Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim (Jerusalem, 1938), II, p. 161. b. R.H. 16b-17a corrects the pericope, but loses the point of the Houses' dispute: III.ii.36. It has been taught: The House of Shammai say, "There will be three groups at the Day of Judgment—one of thoroughly righteous, one of thoroughly wicked, and one of intermediate. The thoroughly righteous will forthwith be inscribed definitively as entitled to everlasting life; the thoroughly wicked will forthwith be inscribed definitively as doomed to Gehinnom, as it says, And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life and some to reproaches and everlasting abhorrence (Dan. 12:2). "The intermediate will go down to Gehinnom and squeal and rise again, as it says, And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried. They shall call on my name and I will answer them (Zech. 13:9). Of them, too, Hannah said, The Lord killeth and maketh alive, he bringeth down to the grave and bringeth up (I Sam. 2:6)." The House of Hillel say, "He that abounds in grace inclines [the scales] towards grace, and of them David said, I love that the Lord should hear my voice and my supplication (Ps. 116-1), and on their behalf David composed the whole of the passage, / was brought low and he saved me (Ps. 116:6)." (b. R.H. 16b-17a) V.

QODASHIM

II.L82.A. The House of Shammai say, "Any offering whose blood must be sprinkled on the outer altar makes atonement, even if it is sprinkled with but one act of sprinkling: or, [if it is] a sin-offering, [with] two acts of sprinkling."

240

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.82

J

And the House of Hillel say, "Even ( P) if it is a sin-offering, it makes atonement if it is sprinkled with but one act of sprinkling." B. Therefore if the first act of sprinkling was done in the manner ordained, but the second outside the proper time, it [still] makes atonement. But if the first act of sprinkling was done outside its proper time, and the second outside its proper place, the offering is rendered Refuse (PYGWL) and punishment by Extirpation (KRT) is thereby incurred. [M. Zev. 4:1, trans. Danby, p. 472 (b. Zev. 36b, 37b, b. Sanh. 4a)] Comment: The dispute concerns the number of times blood must be sprinkled for a sin-offering. The House of Shammai say two, the House of Hillel one. According to our earlier observations, we should have expected the dispute to be phrased in terms of numbers, with a brief explanation inserted into the Shammaite lemma or set as a superscrip­ tion. The end of the Shammaite lemma would have served: In a sin-offering House o f S h a m m a i : T w o placings [sprinklings] House o f Hillel: One.

The whole of part C as usual depends upon the Hillelite opinion. As it stands, the opening part of the Shammaite lemma is complex: 1 . A l l t h e s p r i n k l i n g s o n t h e o u t e r alter, 2 . t h a t (§) if ( M ) h e s p r i n k l e d t h e m o n e s p r i n k l i n g , h e a t o n e d 3 . A n d i n a sin-offering, t w o s p r i n k l i n g s . J

The House of Hillel's opinion is glossed, primarily for redactional reasons, as indicated in italics: Also t h e sin-offering, that [ s h o u l d b e , / / ] h e s p r i n k l e d o n e s p r i n k l i n g , h e atoned.

The glosses have been inserted to tie the primary Hillelite lemma to the foregoing Shammaite one. What has complicated matters is the introduction of the topical sentence, actually serving as a super­ scription not for the Houses but for the first two pericopae of the chapter, into the Shammaite lemma: All

the sprinklings [on t h e o u t e r a l t a r ] .

This is tied to the next clause with that($). materials, we have

Dropping these redactional

If h e s p r i n k l e d t h e m o n e s p r i n k l i n g , h e a t o n e d , a n d i n a sin-offering, sprinklings.

two

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.78

241

Now the Hillelite lemma closely corresponds, though it still is some­ what glossed, A l s o as t o a sin-offering (that = ) i f h e s p r i n k l e d o n e s p r i n k l i n g , h e a t o n e d .

The primary pericope, as I said, would therefore have been twojone attached to sin-offering. Everything else is added either to gloss that dispute, or to serve the redactional needs of the context into which the dispute has been placed. II.ii.78.A. R. Eliezer b. Jacob says, "One thing of the lenient rulings of the House of Shammai and the strict rulings of the House of Hillel [is as follows]: "The House of Shammai say, 'Two sprinklings make fit and render piggul [abhorred—the flesh of the sacrifice which the officiating priest has formed the intention of eating at an improper time, Lev. 7:18] in a sin-offering, and one sprinkling in all [other] sacrifices.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'It is all the same for a sin-offering and for all sacrifices—one sprinkling makes fit and renders [the sacrifice susceptible to] piggul.' " B. How so ? If he sprinkled once in silence and the blood was poured out— The House of Shammai declares [sic] unfit (PW$L). And the House of Hillel declare fit (MK$YRYN). If he sprinkled twice in silence and the blood was poured out, all agree that it is fit. C. If he sprinkled once outside of the proper time and the blood was poured out— The House of Shammai say, "It is unfit, but the punishment of cutting off does not pertain to it." And the House of Hillel say, "It is piggul, and they are liable on its account for the punishment of cutting off" D. [If he sprinkled] twice outside of the proper time and the blood was poured out, all agree that it is piggul. E. [If he sprinkled] once outside of the proper time and once out­ side of the proper place, the House of Shammai say, "It is unfit, but the punishment of cutting off does not apply." And the House of Hillel say, "It is piggul, and they are liable on its account for the punishment of cutting off." F. In what circumstances? The sin-offering. But as to all the rest of the sacrifices, if he sprinkled once in silence and the blood was poured out, all agree that it is fit. NEUSNER, T h e Rabbinic T r a d i t i o n s about t h e P h a r i s e e s before 70, I I

16

242

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.83, 84

If he sprinkled once outside of the proper time, and the blood was poured out, all agree that it is piggul. If he sprinkled once outside of the proper time and outside of the proper place, it is unfit, and the punishment of cutting off does not apply. [Tos. Zev. 4:9, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 486, lines 2-15 (b. Zev. 38b)] Comment: M. Zev. 4:1 now stands out as a highly abbreviated summary of Tos. Zev. 4:9. Eliezer b. Jacob observes that the Sham­ maites take the more lenient position. The Hillelites are more strict because a ^gg///-intention in merely one application suffices to render the sin-offering piggul. Judah the Patriarch has selected the essentials of Eliezer's long catalogue of possibilities. Here it seems clear that the Mishnaic version depends upon and summarizes the Tosefta's.

II.i.83. A. If he slaughtered with a hand-sickle or with a flint or with a reed, what he slaughters is valid. All slaughter, and they slaughter at any time, and they slaughter with any implement excepting a reaping-sickle or a saw or teeth or the finger-nails, since these [do not cut but tear the windpipe and] choke [the beast]. B. If a man slaughtered with a reaping-sickle, drawing the blade backwards (KDRK HWLKTH)— The House of Shammai declare it invalid. And the House of Hillel declare it valid. C. But if its teeth are filed down, then it is like a knife. [M. Hul. 1:2, trans. Danby, p. 513 (b. Hul. 18a)] Comment: The Houses-dispute glosses the foregoing general rule. It is in conventional form, with the opinions a matched syzygy: unfit (PSL), fit (K$R). The Shammaites prohibit drawing the blade back­ wards, lest he draw it in the other direction. The Hillelites do not prohibit the one on account of the other—a principle commonly debated by the Houses. b. Hul. 18a observes that declare validjinvalid and permit/forbid are synonymous.

II.i.84.A. No flesh may be cooked in milk, excepting the flesh of fish and locusts. It is forbidden to serve it up on the table together with cheese excepting the flesh of fish and locusts.

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.84

243

If a man vowed to abstain from flesh, he is permitted the flesh of fish and locusts. B. "A fowl comes up on the table [ = is served] together with cheese, but it is not eaten [with it]"—the words of the House of Shammai. And the House of Hillel say, "It does not come up [with it], and it is not eaten [with i t ] . " C. R. Yosi said, "This is one of the cases where the House of Shammai followed the more lenient, and the House of Hillel the more stringent, ruling." D. Of what manner of table did they speak? Of a table whereat men eat; but on a table whereon the food is arrayed, a man may put the one beside the other without scruple. [M. Hul. 8:1, trans. Danby, p. 524 (b. Hul. 104b, b. Shab. 13a)] Comment: The Shammaite lemma has been slightly rearranged for redactional reasons. Two other versions would have been possible:

Fowl with cheese on the table H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : S e r v e d u p [and n o t eaten] House o f Hillel: Not s e r v e d u p [and n o t e a t e n ] .

Alternatively, the superscription could have been assigned to the Shammaite lemma, as often happens; if so, it would have appeared in precisely the present form. The Hillelite lemma depends upon the Shammaite one, dropping/bW, with the cheese, on the table, as one would expect. So the whole revision for redactional purposes consists of re­ placing House of Shammai say with words of. . ., and placing the attribu­ tion at the end. Normally, the Shammaites prohibit one thing on account of another —that is, extend the range of prohibitions beyond what the law strictly requires—while the Hillelites prohibit only that which may not be done. The disputes in details of law often come down to that single fundamental difference ("building a fence around the law") in which the Hillelites take the lenient position throughout; if they do not, as here, it is noteworthy. See Epstein, Mevo ot, p. 142. The Mishnah is Yosi's, Mishnah, p. 671. This would suggest the pericope comes after, and is shaped in accord with, his opinion on the respective positions of the Houses, but the theme of the dispute of the Houses on the matter comes before his time. The same judgment applies to the rest of M. 'Ed's attributions of Houses-pericopae. y

244

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — III.ii.37, II.i.85

III.ii.37. It was taught: The House of Shammai say, "One must clean [the mouth |." The House of Hillel say, "One must rinse it." (b. Hul. 104b-105a) Comment: The issue is, What must one do between eating cheese and meat ? The Houses-lemmas are in perfect form: House of Shammai: MQNH House of Hillel: MDYH We have no superscription. The singleton would mean nothing outside of the context of Amoraic discussion in which it appears. The discus­ sion makes it clear that the House of Shammai hold one must clean the mouth and also rinse it; the House of Hillel say one needs only to rinse. This is made explicit in what is presented as a theoretical Amoraic formulation: T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, M Q N H a n d t h a t is t h e l a w as t o

LMDYH

T h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, M D Y H a n d t h a t is t h e l a w as t o L M Q N H

And a further follows, substituting for the gloss, and that is the law, an Aramaic lemma, WL> B Y. The primary lemma, unglossed and without an interpretive superscription, obviously consisted of varying wordchoices, nothing more, and these are then given significance in later discussions. But that does not mean the original lemma goes back to pre-70 times. The pericope before us depends upon M. Hul. 8:1b. Without knowledge of that rule we should not have expected any discussion of further separation of cheese and meat. And we do not know when that issue first provoked study. C

II.i.85. And how many [must they be] [to be liable for the fleece-gift to the priest] ? The House of Shammai say, "Two sheep, for it is written, A man shall nourish ayoung cow and two sheep (Is. 7:21)." And the House of Hillel say, "Five, for it is written, And five sheep ready dressed (I Sam. 25:18)." R. Dosa b. Harkinas says, "Five sheep that have fleeces each of a mina and a half are subject to the law of the first of the fleece" But the sages say, "Five sheep, however much may be their fleeces." [M. Hul. 11:2, trans. Danby, p. 528 (b. Hul. 135a, Sifre Deut. 166)] Comment: See Sifre Deut. 166, above, p. 36. 'Aqiba has been drop­ ped, and Dosa takes his place. Granting that one must have five sheep— following the Hillelites—how much fleece do they have to produce to be

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.79, 80, II.i.86

245

subject to the law. This rule places Dosa in the Hillelite camp, after its original opinion has been shaped; that opinion presumably derives from Yavneh, if not earlier. Note Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 433; Mishnah, pp. 569,1160. On Dosa's re­ lationship to Yavnean Hillelites, see above, p. 193. II.ii.79. A reaping sickle, etc. (Tos. Hul. 1:6, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 500,1.29) Comment: No change from M. Hul. 1:2. ILii.80.A. The fowl does not come up and is not eaten. B. R. Yosi said, "This is one of the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the stringencies of the House of Hillel: "The House of Shammai say, 'It comes up and is not eaten.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'It does not come up and is not eaten.' " C. R. Eleazar b. R. Sadoq says, "The fowl comes up with the cheese on the table.

(Tos. Hul. 8:2-3, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 509, lines 19-21)

Comment: Part A is the Hillelite ruling, but without attribution to that House, unlike M. Hul. 8:1. Part B contains Yosi's observation, and then presents the Houses' sayings, without the explanatory glosses of M. Hul. 8:1. This proves that the simple version proposed above (p. 243) in fact circulated, and the version of the Mishnah is a revision by Judah the Patriarch. Part C indicates that the issue was faced before the time of Yosi. Eleazar now presents the opinion later on attributed to the Sham­ maites. On Eleazar's affinity for Shammaite opinion, see above, p. 155. But he does not attribute his opinion to the Shammaites, so the attribu­ tion to that House must come between ca. 80 and ca. 150, but not earlier. See Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim, II, p. 239. II.i.86. The House of Shammai say, "An Israelite may not be numbered [in the same company] with a priest for [the consumption of] a Firstling." And the House of Hillel permit even a gentile. [M. Bekh. 5:2, trans. Danby, p. 535 (b. Bekh. 32b-33a, b. Tern. 24a)] Comment: The firstling is blemished. The foregoing rule, given anonymously, states that ineligible offerings may be sold in the market, except for the firstling and tithe, which are enjoyed by their owners. The House of Shammai hold that an Israelite may not share with a

246

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.ii.81, III.ii.38

priest in the firstling. The House of Hillel permit even a gentile to do so. The form is not standard: House o f S h a m m a i : A n Israelite may n o t be n u m b e r e d w i t h the priest f o r a firstling House o f Hillel: P e r m i t even a gentile.

The Hillelite ruling extends the dispute; even... looks like an 'Aqiban gloss. No theoretical superscription obviously presents itself. See Epstein, Mevo'ot, pp. 78-9, 454-5. II.ii.81.A. The House of Shammai say, "They number on firstlings only priests alone." And the House of Hillel say, "Even an Israelite." R. 'Aqiba permits even a gentile, as it is said, Like a deer and like a locust (Deut. 12:15). B. The flesh of the firstling— The House of Shammai, "They do not feed it to menstruating women (NDWT)." And the House of Hillel say, "They do feed it to menstruating women." [Tos. Bekhorot 3:15-16, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 538, lines 2-4 (b. Bekh. 33a)] Comment: Now we see the source of the difficult form of M. Bekh. The House of Hillel's lemma there has been glossed to include 'Aqiba's opinion, so Aqiba supplies the terminus ante quern for the original dis­ pute. A more primitive superscription for part A may now be proposed: <

Numbering Israelites with priests on

firstlings:

House of Shammai: Prohibit House o f Hillel:

Permit.

The dispute concerning gentiles would not readily be phrased as a separate dispute, for neither House went that far. Part B is standard in form. It could have been given permit/prohibit form, or verb +/— negative form, by adding to a menstruatingwoman to the superscription. The Shammaite reason is that Num. 18:18 says priests may eat but lay-Israelites may not, and the same rule applies here. The Hillelites say that that rule applies only to an unblemished firstling, but Deut. 15:22 pertains to a blemished one: The unclean and clean shall eat it —all the more so a layman (b. Bekh. 33a). III.ii.38.A. Our rabbis taught: How long is the period before we receive him [as a haver] ?

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— III.ii.39

247

The House of Shammai say, "As regards [the purity of] liquids (LM§QYN), [the period is] thirty days, but as [regards the purity of his] garment, [the period is] twelve months." And the House of Hillel say, "Both in the one case as well as in the other, the period is twelve months." B. If this be so, then have you here a ruling where the House of Shammai is more lenient and the House of Hillel is the stricter? Rather [read]: The House of Hillel say, "Both in the one case as well as in the other, the period is thirty days." [b. Bekh. 30b (Tos. Dem. 2:12)] Comment: The issue concerns accepting a neophyte into the havurah. The pericope is the only one attributed to the Houses which pertains to that society for meticulous tithing and ritual purities. The pericope follows the standard form, with the superscription, then the Houses sayings: House o f S h a m m a i : F o r liquids, thirty day(s) F o r garment, twelve m o n t h (es) House o f Hillel: F o r b o t h (>HD Z H W ' H D Z H ) t w e l v e m o n t h ( e s ) .

We could have expected no other form but the one before us. But the Amoraic discussion of part B then provides definitive evidence that Amoraim were quite well prepared completely to revise Housesmaterials, following the standard form, for reasons of logic. In this case, they have assigned to the Hillelites an entirely new opinion: >HD ZH W'HD ZH LSLSYM They have thus dropped twelve months and substituted the more "credible" opinion. Without the discussion we should have assumed the pericope was classic, therefore "early." This means that merely con­ forming to the standard form by itself supplies no evidence whatever as to the antiquity of a pericope. Tos. Dem. 2:12 gives the Hillelite lemma as "This and this for thirty days (ZH WZH L$L$YM YWM)," so evidently has been corrected to conform to the Amoraic discussion. Lieberman observes, "And in all readings of the Tosefta [the passage follows] the correction of the Babylonian Talmud." So the Tosefta's tradition was preserved only in the b. Bekh. beraita, but the Tosefta itself was revised in later times. IILii.39. Our rabbis taught: The House of Shammai say, "If a man said, 'I take upon myself [to offer] a marheshet' [the vow] must stand over until Elijah comes."

248

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.ii.82, III.ii.40

(They are in doubt as to whether [these terms] refer to the vessel or to the pastry prepared therein.) But the House of Hillel say, "There was a vessel in the Temple called marheshet, resembling a deep mold, which gave the dough that was put into it the shape of Cretan apples and Grecian nuts." (b. Men. 63a) r

r

n

r

> j r

x

Comment: In this beraita, by contrast, the form is so obviously de­ fective that an early attribution seems on the face of it unlikely. In this instance archaeological data about whether such a vessel actually existed in the Temple would be helpful, but not decisive; the Hillelites might know what they were talking about, not from direct observation, but from the testimony of people unconnected with the Houses.

II.ii.82.A. He who sanctifies his property and intended to divorce his wife— R. Eliezer says, "He prohibits her by vow not to enjoy benefit, and she collects her Ketuvah from the sanctified property." [Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim, II, p. 279: R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon says, "The House of Shammai say,] 'If he wants to bring her back, he may bring her back.' " R. Joshua says, "If he wants to bring her back, he may not bring her back." B. And the House of Hillel say, "If he wants to bring her back, he may not bring her back." C. R. Eliezer says according to the words of the House of Sham­ mai, and R. Joshua says according to the words of the House of Hillel. c

[Tos. Arakh. 4:5, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 547, lines 9-13 (b.
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.82, III.ii.40

Comment:

249

Tosefta corresponds to M. 'Arakh. 6:1:

I f a m a n sanctifies his p r o p e r t y t o t h e T e m p l e w h i l e h e w a s l i a b l e f o r t h e p a y m e n t o f his w i f e ' s Ketuvah— R. Eliezer says, " W h e n he d i v o r c e s her, he must v o w t o d e r i v e n o f u r t h e r benefit f r o m h e r . " R . J o s h u a s a y s , "He n e e d n o t . "

The issue in Tos. 'Arakh. however is not whether he may make such a vow, but whether he may later remarry the woman. The dispute of the Houses in relation to M. Arakh. concerns whether a man erroneously consecrates something to the sanctuary. The House of Hillel hold one cannot do so, and the House of Shammai hold it is a valid consecration. R. Eliezer rules that even though the possessions included his wife's property (Ketuvah), they are still sanctified, so he must vow not to make use of them. By extension to the Tosefta case before us, the couple may then remarry since the sacred property is protected by the vow. The Hillelites hold the property was not sancti­ fied. The pericope provides a good example of the effort to standardize a few Eliezer-Joshua disputes in Houses-forms. The presumption is that Eliezer follows the opinion of the Shammaites, Joshua, the Hillelites, but that they did not constitute the Houses. On the one hand, the anony­ mous subscription introduces the Houses. On the other, part B repeats the opinion of Joshua, now as an attribution to the House of Hillel—as if the two lemmas circulated separately and were not related to one another. A corresponding opinion of the Shammaites has not been supplied. It should have been identical to Eliezer's. If we had had such a matched pair of pericopae, containing the same words attributed both to the Houses and to the Yavnean masters, respectively, a literary, not a historical difficulty, would have to be faced first of all. Did the named masters shape their opinions in referen­ ce to the Houses' dispute? If so, why did they not say so: The House of Shammai say. . .—just as do the Ushans later on (e.g. Simeon b. Eleazar, Yosi, Judah b. Ilai). Perhaps they shaped their opinions independently of the Houses, about whom they would have known nothing. Then, later on, someone has removed their names and replaced them with the Houses'. But the original tradition circulated alongside as well. Alternatively, the Houses' dispute on fundamental principles comes before the time of the Yavneans, who take up positions in matters of detail consistent with what the Houses had earlier said in general on those fundamental principles. Then, later authorities observed the consistencies and remarked on them, hence part C. The historical consequence of each of these theories is obvious. On the one hand, the Houses and the Yavneans are one and the same. For some reason someone has chosen to drop the names of the masters and replace them with those of the Houses. There can have been no signi­ ficant mnemonic gain. It may have had something to do with the re­ lations of the second generation Yavneans to the early masters, or c

250

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.83, 8 4

perhaps with Eliezer's excommunication. No Houses actually existed, according to this theory, but they were merely mnemonic conventions. Alternatively, the Houses did flourish as historical institutions before 70. At Yavneh, the major disciples of Yohanan b. Zakkai, Joshua and Eliezer, having mastered the principles about which the Houses de­ bated, proceeded to apply those principles, in a manner preserving a consistent pattern, to numerous concrete cases, both actual and theore­ tical. They proved so consistent in their own decisions that they were associated with the respective Houses, and it became difficult to distinguish Eliezer from the House of Shammai, Joshua from the House of Hillel. See Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim, II, p. 279. 11.11.83. The House of Shammai say, "There is an Added Fifth to the Additional Payment." And the House of Hillel say, "There is no Added Fifth to the Additional Payment." [Tos.
Comment:

c

The form is standard. The dispute pertains to M. Arakh.

8:1-2. 11.11.84. Olive-presses whose doors open inward [to Jerusalem] and whose empty space outward, or vice versa— The House of Shammai say, "They do not redeem in them Second Tithe, as if they were inside, and they do not eat in them the light sanctities, as if they were outside." The House of Hillel say, "The part directly above the wall and inwards is deemed within, and the part directly above the wall and outwards is deemed outside." R. Yosi said, "This is the Mishnah of R. 'Aqiba. The first Mishnah [is as follows]: "The House of Shammai say, 'They do not redeem in them Second Tithe as if they were outside, and they do not eat in them light sanctities, as if they were inside.' "The House of Hillel say, 'Lo, they are like the chambers: where the door opens inward it is deemed inward, and contrarywise.' " c

(Tos. Arakh. 5:15, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 550, lines 26-33) Comment:

See M. M.S.

3:7,

p.

101.

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— III.ii.41, II.i.87

251

III.ii.41.A. Our rabbis have taught: If he gave her [a harlot] wheat [as hire] and she made it into flour, olives, and she made them into oil, grapes, and she made into wine— One [beraita] taught: They are forbidden [for the altar]. And another [beraita] taught: They are permitted [for the altar]. B. Said R. Joseph, "Gurion who came from Asporak recited: 'The House of Shammai forbid, and the House of Hillel permit.' "The House of Hillel say, '[Scripture says (Deut. 23:19)]: Them, implying but not their issue; 'them\ but not their products.' "The House of Shammai say, 'Them' implying but not their issue; and the word even includes their products.' " [b. Tern. 30b (b. B.Q. 65b, b. B.Q. 93b-94a)] Comment: R. Joseph's (4th c. Babylonian) tradition accounts for the contradictory beraitot, assigning each to a House. Gurion indicates how pericopae were memorized. In this instance we know only the apodosis; Joseph assigns the standard Houses-rulings to the usual authorities. The exegesis of'P is Aqiban, and the Houses' attribution is spurious. c

II.i.87.A. If she miscarried in the night of the eighty-first day, the House of Shammai declare her exempt from an offering. And the House of Hillel declare her liable. B. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, "How does the night of the eighty-first day differ from the eighty-first day? If they are alike in what concerns uncleanness, are they not also alike in what concerns the offering?" The House of Shammai answered, "No! as you argue of her that miscarries on the eighty-first day (who was thus delivered at a time when it was fitting to bring an offering), would you likewise argue of her that miscarries on the night of the eighty-first day (who was thus delivered not at a time when it was fitting to bring an offering)?" C. The House of Hillel answered, "She that miscarries on an eightyfirst day that falls on a Sabbath affords proof, for she was delivered not at a time when it was fitting to bring an offering, yet she is liable to bring an offering." D. The House of Shammai answered, "No! as you argue of her that miscarries on an eighty-first day that falls on a Sabbath (when even if it is not fitting to bring the offering of the individual, it is nevertheless fitting to bring the offering of the congregation), would you likewise argue of her that miscarries on the night of the eighty-

252

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.85

first day (when it is not fitting to bring the offering either of the in­ dividual or of the congregation)?" E. Her blood [-uncleanness] affords no proof, for if she miscarried before her days of uncleanness were fulfilled, her blood is still unclean and she is not liable to bring an offering." (M. Ker. 1:6, trans. Danby, p. 564) ILii.85.A. The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel agree concerning the night before the eighty-first that she should be liable for a sacrifice. B. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, "Do you not agree concerning the night before the eighty-first that her blood is unclean, and that she who aborts on the eighty-first should be liable for a sacrifice? What is the difference between day and night, and between blood and giving birth?" The House of Shammai said to them, "No, If you say so concerning the day, which is fit for bringing a sacrifice, will you say so concerning the night, which is not fit for bringing a sacrifice?" "As to the blood that you mentioned, [Scripture] distinguished between blood and giving birth, for she who sees [it] during the period [after giving birth]—her blood is unclean, but she who aborts during the period, her blood is unclean. She who aborts during the period is free of all obligation." C. The House of Hillel said to them, "Lo, she who aborts on the day of the eighty-first which coincides with the Sabbath will prove it. For it did not come forth in an appropriate time in which to bring a sacrifice. And this proves that the one who aborts on the night before the eighty-first of any day of the year, when it did go forth at a time appropriate for bringing a sacrifice, is liable for a sacrifice." The House of Shammai said to them, "No, if you say so concerning the one who aborts on the eighty-first day on any other day of the year [but the Sabbath], that it is joined with the following day, that even though it is not appropriate for a private sacrifice, it is approp­ riate for a public sacrifice, will you say so concerning her who aborts on the night of the eighty-first of any day of the year, for the night is not appropriate either for a private sacrifice or for a public sacrifice?" D. The House of Hillel said to them, "Lo, you have said that the night is joined with the following day. Just as she is liable on the eighty-first day, so she should be liable on the night of the eighty-first

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.88

253

day. And let not the eighty-second day prove the matter, for [then] it went forth at a time appropriate for bringing the sacrifice." [Tos. Keritot 1:9, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 561, lines 16-32 (b. Ker. 7b-8a)] Comment: See Sifra Tazri'a 3:6, and synopses, above, pp. 16-22. See also Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim, II, p. 293; Epstein, Mishnah, p. 340. VI.

TOHAROT

II.i.88.A. If there was a jar full of clean liquids with a siphon inside it, and the jar had a tightly stopped-up cover, and it was put in a "Tent" wherein was a corpse— The House of Shammai say, "The jar and the liquids remain clean, but the siphon is unclean." The House of Hillel say, "The siphon also is clean." B. The House of Hillel reverted to teach according to the opinion of the House of Shammai. [M. Kel. 9:2, trans. Danby, p. 617 (M. Kel. 10:1, M. Oh. 5:3, 15:9, M.'Ed. 1:4)] Comment: The form is developed, but nearly conventional. Since the sole point of disagreement is the siphon, the antecedent superscrip­ tion could have made place for both the jar and the liquids: If there was a jar.

. . wherein was a corpse, the jar and the liquids remain clean—and

the siphon: House o f Shammai: Declare unclean. House o f Hillel:

D e c l a r e clean.

So the original pericope would have consisted of siphon + the Houses, and the rest would have been supplied by the editor. M. Kel. 10:1 states explicitly that an earthenware vessel with a tightly stopped-up cover affords protection only to foodstuffs, liquids, and other earthenware vessels, but not to metal. That teaching clearly contradicts the House of Hillel's here. Rather than permit an anony­ mous Mishnah to follow the Shammaite view, the glossator has added part B, to account for the fact that the law was decided against the Hillelite view before us. We may generalize that where we are told the Hillelites agreed with the Shammaites, and we cannot account for that fact in some other way, we may suppose that the later legal decision has required the tradents to revise the position attributed to the Hillelites. It is therefore striking

254

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.89, 90

that they did not change matters around, but preserved what they had, and then, through a new subscription or story, accounted for the changed circumstances, leaving the Hillelites in control of the law. This again underlines the conservatism of the tradents in preserving what they had received. See Epstein, Mevo*ot, p. 466; re >P, Mishnah, p. 1024. II.i.89.A. Articles made from iron ore, or a piece of (unshaped) smelted iron, or the iron hoop of a wheel, or of sheetmetal, or metal plating, or the bases or rims or handles of other vessels, or metal chippings or filings, are not susceptible to uncleanness. R. Yohanan b. Nuri says, "Also (such as are made) from broken up (metal) articles. If they were made from the fragments of (other) articles or from the refuse, or from nails known to have been made from other articles, they are unclean." B. If [they were made] from [common] nails— The House of Shammai declare unclean. And the House of Hillel declare clean. (M. Kel. 11:3, trans. Danby, p. 620) Comment: The form is standard. The Houses' lemmas are balanced syzygies, set against the superscription. The Houses here refine a general rule, which presumably comes before their time. The usual se­ quence will be Shammai + unclean]Hillel + clean, with the presumption that making things susceptible to uncleanness is the more stringent rul" ing. The issue is that one is not sure whether the nails have been made from other articles, therefore B depends upon Yohanan b. Nuri in A. Part B is assigned to Eleazar b. R. Yosi by Epstein, Mevo*ot, p. 179. See Tos. Kel. B.M. 1:2, as follows: R. E l e a z a r b . R. Y o s i said, " T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i a n d t h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l d i d n o t differ c o n c e r n i n g nails o f w h i c h it is k n o w n t h a t t h e y a r e m a d e f r o m a r t i c l e s , t h a t t h e y a r e u n c l e a n , a n d c o n c e r n i n g nails o f w h i c h it is k n o w n t h a t t h e y a r e n o t m a d e o f articles, t h a t t h e y a r e clean. C o n c e r n i n g w h a t d i d t h e y differ ? C o n c e r n i n g t h e c o m m o n (*L H § T M ) , f o r "The H o u s e of Shammai declare unclean. " A n d the H o u s e o f Hillel declare clean."

II.i.90.A. A staff that has a club-headed nail fashioned on its end is susceptible to uncleanness. One that is studded with nails is susceptible. R. Simeon says, "Only if three rows [of nails] are put in it." But whensoever they are put in only for adornment, [the staff] re­ mains insusceptible. If a tube was put on the end (so, too, in the case of a door) it remains insusceptible.

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— ILi.91

255

But if [the tube] had already served as some utensil and was fastened to it, it remains susceptible. B. When does it become insusceptible (THRTH) ? The House of Shammai say, "So soon as it has suffered damage." And the House of Hillel say, "So soon as it is fastened on." (M. Kel. 14:2, trans. Danby, p. 624) Comment: Here, the difference between the Houses rests on a single letter. When does it become susceptible to receive uncleanness: House of Shammai:

M$YHBJL

House o f Hillel:

MSYHB/?.

Perhaps a confused mnemonic tradition has come down, with verbs different from one another only in the third radical. The House of Shammai say that once the object can no longer be used, it no longer is susceptible. The House of Hillel say once it is clean when properly affixed for its new function. See M. Kel. 20:6 for a similar sequence. See Albeck, Seder Toharot, p. 522. It looks as if the Shammaites assign an earlier time for the purifica­ tion, just as happens in other such disputes, and therefore are in the lenient position. ILi.91 .A. A chest— The House of Shammai say, "It is measured on the inside [to determine its capacity]." And the House of Hillel say, "It is measured on the outside." But they agree that the thickness of the legs and the thickness of the rim [should not be included in the] measurement. B. R. Yosi says, "They agree that the thickness of the legs and of the rim should be included, but that the space between them should not be included." C. R. Simeon of Shezur says, "If the legs were a handbreadth high the space between them should not be included in the measurement; but if less than this, the space between them should be included." [M. Kel. 18:1, trans. Danby, p. 631 (b. Men. 31a)] Comment: The purpose of measuring is given in M. Kel. 15:1: " A chest. . . t h a t has a flat b o t t o m a n d h o l d s n o t less t h a n f o r t y seyahs o f l i q u i d , o r t w o kors o f d r y w a r e s , is n o t s u s c e p t i b l e t o u n c l e a n n e s s . "

256

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.92, 9 3

The Shammaites measure from within, the Hillelites, from without, and the language is perfectly balanced: The chest House of Shammai: [Measured from] within House o f Hillel: [Measured from] w i t h o u t .

One of the standard syzygies for Houses-opinions is within\without, as in connection with the olive press on the wall of Jerusalem, the unclean­ ness insidejoutside the walls of Jerusalem, and so forth. If the vacuum space itself holds forty seyahs, it is clean. The Hillelites include in the measurement even the thickness of the sides to reach the measure of forty se*ahs", they therefore take the more lenient position, since one wants to reach forty se*ahs and therefore render the chest in­ capable of receiving uncleanness. II.i.92.A. Bagpipes are not susceptible to /^/^/-uncleanness. B. A trough for mixing mortar— The House of Shammai say, "[Susceptible to] ^/V/ra/-[uncleanness]." And the House of Hillel say, "[Susceptible to] corpse-uncleanness [alone]." (M. Kel. 20:2, trans. Danby, p. 635) Comment: The issue is the degree of uncleanness to which the mixing mortar is susceptible; all parties agree that it may be made un­ clean. The Houses-sayings are simply the words signifying the degree of uncleanness: House of Shammai: House of Hillel:

Midras Corpse-uncleanness.

The Hillelite lemma is not unbalanced; the idiom is TM'-MT, not merely TM>, which would have been ambiguous. The difference cocerns whether one sits on the object. Since the Shammaites hold one does, it is susceptible to midras. The Hillelites exclude midras, but, by saying corpse-uncleanness, they mean to include all other forms of un­ cleanness (Albeck, Seder Toharot, p. 89). In that case, one might suppose the opinions could have been more nearly balanced with a mere nega­ tive added to the Hillelite lemma. But this too would have been ambi­ guous, for the Hillelite opinion might have been understood to mean the trough could not be made unclean at all. Therefore the only accur­ ate and precise language is as given, and the pericope is as brief and balanced as it could have been. MDRSjTM'-MT are balanced else­ where. See Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 112,130-1, 462. II.L93.A. If a sheet that was susceptible to z^raj'-uncelanness was

257

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.94

used as a curtain it becomes insusceptible to /^/^/-uncleanness, but it is still susceptible to corpse-uncleanness. When does it cease to be susceptible [to /^/^/-uncleanness] (THRTH)? The House of Shammai say, "After it has been sewn up." And the House of Hillel say, "After it has been tied up." R. Aqiba says, "After it has been fixed up [in its new place]." c

(M. Kel. 20:6, trans. Danby, p. 636) Comment: As above, M. Kel. 14:2, the Houses-opinions consist of verbs differing in the first two radicals: Shammai: Hillel: Aqiba: 4

M$Y7#R MSYj^R M$YQB

The issue is, When does the sheet cease to be used for its ordinary purpose and so become susceptible not to severe z?/^r^-uncleanness, but only to corpse-uncleanness? It is interesting that the question is, When is its purification [from z?/*/ra.r-uncleanness] ? even though it re­ mains susceptible to other uncleannesses. The Shammaites say, "When the sheet is ready for hanging." The Hillelites say, "Only when it has been hung up." Aqiba says, "When it is nailed up," that is permanently. The positions are thus in logical order. But it looks as if the point at which the sheet enters the diminish­ ed, therefore more lenient, status, begins with the Shammaite saying. If we had gemara, it presumably would note that fact and perhaps reverse matters. Note Tos. Kel. B.M. 11:7. Epstein, Mevo*ot, pp. 23-4, says that the Houses here comment on a pre-existing tradition; also pp. 77, 112; p. 128: the tradition is Yosi's, in M. Kel. 27:9. Note Epstein, Mishnah, p. 549. c

II.i.94. A. If a bride's stool lost its seat-boards— The House of Shammai declare it still susceptible to uncleanness. And the House of Hillel declare it not susceptible. B. Shammai says, "Even (>P) the frame of the stool remains sus­ ceptible to uncleanness." C. If a stool is fixed to a baking-trough— The House of Shammai declare it susceptible to uncleanness. And the House of Hillel declare it not susceptible. D. Shammai says, "Even one that was made [to be used] inside it [is susceptible]." (M. Kel. 22:4, trans. Danby, p. 637) NEUSNER, T h e Rabbinic T r a d i t i o n s about t h e P h a r i s e e s before 70, I I

17

258

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.95, 9 6

Comment: See above, I, p. 194. In both parts, the Houses-opinions are here in the intensive of TM'/THR. Shammai's saying breaks the pattern. The issue is whether the chair may continue to be used. In part A the Shammaites say the stool may still be used by ordinary folk; in part C, it may still be used, if inconveniently. The "cleanness" is from ^/^/-uncleanness, see Albeck, Seder Toharot, p. 95. On 'P, Epstein, Mishnah, p. 1026. II.i.95. A leather bag or wrapper for garments is susceptible to ^/^/-uncleanness. A leather bag or wrapper for purple wool— The House of Shammai say, "M/^ra/[-uncleanness]." And the House of Hillel say, "Corpse-uncleanness." (M. Kel. 26:6, trans. Danby, p. 643) Comment: The considerations mentioned above, M. Kel. 20:2, apply here. The words midrasjteme-met therefore form a syzygy no different from TM'/THR. See Epstein, Mevo'ot, pp. 113,133. II.i.96.A. "Scroll-wrappers, whether figures are portrayed on them or not, are susceptible to uncleanness," according to the words of the House of Shammai. And the House of Hillel say, "If figures are portrayed on them, they are not susceptible to uncleanness. If figures are not portrayed on them, they are susceptible." B. Rabban Gamaliel says, "In either case they are not susceptible to uncleanness." (M. Kel. 28:4, trans. Danby, p. 646) Comment: The lemmas are not balanced, because two different situ­ ations have been reduced to a single pericope. The Houses agree on the uncleanness of scroll-wrappers without figures. They differ on those with figures. The Shammaite saying is not properly attached to the attribution; according to the words of is inappropriate here, where the intent obviously is to cite the Houses directly. A simpler form would have been: Scroll-covers

with figures

House of S h a m m a i : Declare unclean House of Hillel: D e c l a r e clean. And they agree that those with figures are unclean.

Why has that conventional form been upset? A glance at the foregoing pericope provides the answer:

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

259

— II.i.97, II.ii.86

2 8 : 2 : " I f a piece o f c l o t h less t h a n t h r e e h a n d b r e a t h s s q u a r e w a s u s e d t o b l o c k u p [a h o l e i n ] t h e b a t h - h o u s e . . . whether it was kept in readiness or whether it was not kept in readiness, it is s u s c e p t i b l e , " a c c o r d i n g t o t h e w o r d s o f R. E l i e z e r . R. J o s h u a says, "Whether it was kept in readiness or whether it was not kept in readiness, it is n o t s u s c e p t i b l e . " R. ' A q i b a s a y s , "If it was kept in readiness, it is s u s c e p t i b l e , if it wasnot, it is not. . ."

M. Kel. 28:4 now follows the form of M. Kel. 28:2, using the BYN. . . BYN. . . form, with distinctions being introduced on that basis. 'Aqiba's lemma of 28:2 corresponds to the Hillelites' in 28:4; Eliezer's, to the Shammaite one in every detail. It therefore looks as if whatever primary lemma existed has been revised to follow the forms of later materials in the same setting; alternatively, the primary lemma is before us and has been shaped by reference to the same form as EliezerJoshua- Aqiba. 4

See Epstein,

Mevo*ot,

pp. 114, 131-2;

Mishnah,

p. 133.

II.L97.A. The length of the remnants [of the shaft] below the broad blade of the ox-goad [that serves as a connective] is seven hand­ breadths. B. Of the shaft of a householder's trowel— The House of Shammai say seven. And the House of Hillel say eight [handbreadths]. C. Of the shaft of a plasterer's trowel— The House of Shammai say nine. And the House of Hillel say ten [handbreadths]. (M. Kel. 29:8, trans. Danby, pp. 648-9) Comment:

The Houses-sayings are numbers attached to superscrip­

tions : B

C

Shammai:

seven

nine

Hillel:

eight

ten

The existence of a dispute presumably led the tradent to assign appro­ priate numbers to Houses, then to compose the whole as we have it. Since the foregoing numbers, on which all parties agree, begin with seven, it was natural to start with seven, then to proceed upward, as the materials required. II.ii.86.A. Vessels of alum-crystal— The House of Shammai say, "They render unclean from their midst and from their air space like vessels of clay (KLY HRS), and from

260

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.86, 8 7

their outer surfaces like (KLY §TP) vessels which require rinsing in order to be restored to Levitical cleanness [Jastrow, II, p. 1555, s.v. $TP]." And the House of Hillel say, "Vessels of alum-crystal are like clay vessels in every respect." B. R. Simeon b. Eleazar says in other language: "The House of Shammai say, 'They render unclean like a halfvessel and render unclean like a whole vessel.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'Vessels of alum crystal are like clay vessels in every respect.' " (Tos. Kel. Bava Qamma, 2:1, ed. Zucker­ mandel, p. 570, lines 22-5) Comment: The Hillelite lemma of part A could have stood by itself. The Shammaite one is not balanced, and even though the superscrip­ tion is standard, one could not easily revise the whole to form a con­ ventional pericope. Still, the disagreement pertains only to the differen­ ce from a clay vessel, and an agreement clause would produce a semb­ lance of balance: The outer surfaces of an alum-vessel: House of Shammai: Declare unclean House o f Hillel:

D e c l a r e clean.

Perhaps the superscription is the problem. It has been inadequately articulated, therefore the bulk of the problem is intruded into the Shammaite lemma. Simeon's version would be similarly revised. The materials before us therefore look as if they have been considerably developed over the simpler forms we should have expected. The corresponding Mishnah, M. Kel. 2:1, follows the Hillelite view: Vessels of alum-crystal and earthenware vessels are alike in what con­ cerns uncleanness, but the details, unlike the Hillelite lemma here, are spelled out. See Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim III, p. 5: They receive un­ cleanness like a half-vessel, for they follow the law of an earthenware vessel as to their air, and of the KLY §TP as to their externals. But as to imparting uncleanness, their law is identical to that of the earthenware vessels, which render unclean from their midst and from their outer surfaces. II.ii.87.A. Peat. . .which was prepared under conditions of clean­ ness and became unclean and fell into the air-space of an oven when it was heated (BS T H£YQH), it [the oven] is unclean. When not heated, (§L> B§
M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.88, 89

261

declare [the oven] unclean, and the House of Hillel declare [it] clean." C. In what circumstances? In the case of new [peat], but in the case of old, all agree that it is clean. (Tos. Kel. Bava Qamma 6:18, ed. Zucker­ mandel, p. 576, lines 24-27) Comment: Eleazar b. R. Simeon has adopted the simplest mode of forming the Houses' opinions. This is attached to part A, making A into a long superscription. Without the tradition of Eleazar b. R. Simeon, we should have assumed the law followed the House of Hillel. M. Kel. 9:5 gives the case when the oven was heated, but makes no mention of a cold oven. See Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim III, p. 23. II.ii.88. [If a shovel has lost its entire blade]— R. Nathan [Jonathan] b. Yosef said, "In this, the House of Shammai declare unclean, and the House of Hillel declare clean." (Tos. Kelim Bava MesiV 3:8, ed. Zucker­ mandel, p. 581, lines 26-7) Comment: Like Simeon, Nathan follows the simplest form. The standard idiom is clearly, House of Shammai declare unclean, House of Hillel dectare clean\ this can be attached to pretty much any disputed situation. As noted, the simplicity of the Houses-lemma establishes no claim on authenticity. Anyone could have made use of such a stockphrase for any purpose. See Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim III, p. 43. II.ii.89.A. A tube which he fixed under the door, even though he makes use of it, is clean. B. If it was unclean and he fixed it under the door, it is unclean until it is made clean. When does it become clean? "The House of Shammai say, 'So soon as he damages [it] (YHBWL).' "The House of Hillel say, 'So soon as it is fastened on (YHBR)' "— the words of R. Meir. C. R. Judah says, "The House of Shammai say, "So soon as it is damaged (YHBL) and it is fixed (YHBR)." "The House of Hillel say, 'So soon as it is damaged (YHBL) or it is fixed (YHBR).'" (Tos. Kel. Bava MesiV 4:5, ed. Zucker­ mandel, p. 582, lines 24-28)

262

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.90, 9 1 Comment: Judah the Patriarch has selected Meir's version, but has given both verbs the same form. Judah gives another picture of the tradition, which assigned both verb-roots to both Houses, but repre­ sented the difference as whether each stage had to be passed, or merely one.

11.11.90. R. Eleazar b. R. Sadoq said, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not dispute concerning a mustard strainer in which three holes in the bottom merged into one another, that it is clean. "Concerning what did they dispute? "Concerning two: "The House of Shammai declare unclean. "And the House of Hillel declare clean." (Tos. Kel. Bava MesiV 4:16, ed. Zucker­ mandel, p. 583, lines 16-19) Comment: M. Kel. 14:8 contains the agreement of the Houses without mentioning them. The issue is whether the strainer can still be used and therefore constitutes a vessel. When a smaller hole has been made, the Shammaites say it can, the Hillelites, that it cannot be used. The pericope presumably derives from Yavneh.

11.11.91. R. Simeon b. Shezuri said, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree concerning the thickness of the legs and the thickness of rim, that they are measured with it [the chest, for determining its capacity; if it contains forty seyahs or more, it is insusceptible to uncleanness]. "Concerning what did they disagree? Concerning [the empty spaces] between them ( L HBYNYM), for "The House of Shammai say, 'They are not measured.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'They are measured.' " C

(Tos. Kel. Bava MesiV 8:1, ed. Zucker­ mandel, p. 587, lines 5-7) Comment: M. Kel. 18:1 has the agreement referred to by Simeon, in the same words, but omits Simeon's name. The difference there con­ cerns measuring the inside of the chest or the outside. R. Yosi then says the space between the legs and rims should not be included, accord­ ing to all parties. Simeon Shezuri says whether one measures the space between the legs depends on the height of the legs. The disagreement reported here therefore is missing in M. Kel. The form for Simeon's report is standard in Tosefta. See Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim, III, p. 59.

263

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.92, 93

II.ii.92.A. A trough for mixing mortar which holds from two logs to nine qabs— The House of Shammai say, "Midras" And the House of Hillel say, "Corpse-uncleanness." B. And the bag— The House of Shammai, "It is filled and stands." And the House of Hillel say, "It is filled and tied up (SRWRH)." C. R. Yosi b. R. Judah says, "The matters are reversed." [Tos. Kel. Bava MesiV 1 1 : 3 , ed. Zucker­ mandel, p. 589, lines 17-20 (M.TSd. 5:1)] Comment:

c

Part A corresponds to M. Kel. 20:2 (M. Ed. 5:1):

A trough for mixing

mortar

Shammai: Midras Hillel: Corpse-uncleanness.

The qualification of the size follows: I f a t r o u g h t h a t h o l d s f r o m t w o logs t o n i n e qabs is s p l i t , it b e c o m e s s u s ­ c e p t i b l e t o w/V/raZ-uncleanness. I f it w a s left o u t i n t h e r a i n a n d it s w e l l e d , only to corpse-uncleanness.

That clause in the Mishnah depends upon the Hillelite one, since the Shammaites hold that whether or not it is split, it is susceptible to /^/^/-uncleanness. Judah the Patriarch has dropped the qualification of the size and kept the rest without revision. Part B does not specify what kind of bag. M. Kel. 20:2 refers to a bag­ pipe, and holds they are not susceptible of ^/^/-uncleanness. The issue is whether one may sit upon it, and the Mishnah concludes one may not. Here the rulings are phrased in other language. The House of Shammai say it is not used for sitting, therefore is not susceptible to /5?/V/ra/-uncleanness. The House of Hillel say if one ties it up, it can be sat upon, therefore it is subject to /#/V/ra/-uncleanness (compare M. Kel. 20:3 at the end). The Mishnah follows the Shammaite opinion. Yosi b. R. Judah has reversed the opinions presumably to accommodate the actual law. See Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim III, p. 67; Epstein, Mevd*ot, pp.94, 172, 436, and compare M. Kel. 26:2, Meir and Yosi. See also Epstein, Mishnah,

p.

1188.

II.ii.93. "When does it become clean (THRTH) [insusceptible to uncleanness] ? "The House of Shammai say, 'When it has suffered damage (YHBL).'

264

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.94

"The House of Hillel say, 'When it is fixed (YHBR)' "—the words ofR. Meir. R. Judah says, "When it has suffered damage and has been fixed on. And the House of Hillel say, 'When it has suffered damage or been fixed on.' " (Tos. Kel. Bava MesiV 11:7, ed. Zucker­ mandel, p. 589, lines 33-5) Comment: Judah's lemma is defective, for it has lost the House of Shammai say. Otherwise it is identical to II.ii.89. But the whole has been attached to a completely different problem, here concerning matting spread over roof beams. The following passage concerns the same matter as M. Kel. 20:6, a sheet made into a veil, but does not refer to the Houses' opinions on when the sheet becomes insusceptible to un­ cleanness. But Lieberman assigns the pericope to the sheet, Tosefet Rishonim III, p. 68. See Epstein, Mevo*ot, p. 77, Mishnah, p. 1064. II.ii.94.A. [If a stool is fixed to a baking trough as one sits on it, it is unclean; if not as one sits on it, it is clean.] B. "As to one that was made [to be used] inside it, the House of Shammai declare unclean, and the House of Hillel declare clean" — the words of R. Meir. C. R. Judah says, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not differ concerning one that was made [to be used] inside it, that it is clean, and Shammai was [the one who] declared it unclean. "Concerning what did they differ? Concerning one which he brought from another place and attached to it, for— "The House of Shammai declare unclean. "And the House of Hillel declare clean." D. R. Yosi said, "I see [prefer] the words of the House of Shammai, which does not say a frame even from the workshop is unclean." (Tos. Kel. Bava Batra 1:12, ed. Zucker­ mandel, p. 591, lines 18-22) Comment: The corresponding passage is M. Kel. 22:4. Judah the Patriarch says the dispute concerns a stool fixed to a baking trough, hence not according to Meir. For Judah the Patriarch, Shammai alone rules on one made to be used inside it, holding it is susceptible—that is, Meir's House of Shammai. In this detail, therefore Judah the Patriarch follows Judah b. Ilai. Our interest is in the terminus ante quern of the Houses-dispute. It cannot come later than ca. 150. But it does not look as though it is much earlier.

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.95, 96

265

See Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim III, p. 73; Epstein, Mevo'ot, pp. 118-119. II.ii.95. R. Eleazar b. R. Yosi said, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not differ concerning a bag for purple wool or wrapper for purple wool, that they are unclean. "Concerning what did they differ? "Concerning a wrapper for garments and a bag for garments, for— "The House of Shammai declare unclean. "And the House of Hillel declare clean." (Tos. Kel. Bava Batra 4:9, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 594, lines 17-19) Comment: In M. Kel. 26:6, Judah the Patriarch has the Houses differ on the purple-wool containers, with the House of Shammai ruling midras, the House of Hillel, corpse-uncleanness. As to the garmentcontainers, the law is unanimous that they are subject to midras-uncleanness. So Eleazar b. R. Yosi has the reverse tradition. Judah the Patriarch has given the Shammaites' opinion on the wrapper for gar­ ments as the unanimous one, and then has the Houses debate the purple-wool bags. Appropriately, Judah has chosen midras/corpse un­ cleanness, rather than TM'/THR, for his predicate. See Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 113. II.ii.96.A. If one makes a girdle from one side of a garment and from one side of a sheet— The House of Shammai declare unclean. And the House of Hillel declare clean, until he hems [the girdle] (SYMWL). B. From the middle of the garment and from the middle of the sheet he makes a hem on one side [of the piece which he cut out of the middle of a piece of cloth]— The House of Shammai declare unclean. And the House of Hillel declare clean, until he makes a hem from the second side (MSDW HSNY). C. R. Simeon b. Judah says in the name of R. Simeon, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not differ concerning him who makes a girdle from the middle of a garment and from the middle of a sheet from one side, that it is clean until he hems it from the second side. "Concerning what did they differ? "Concerning him who makes a girdle from the side of the garment

266

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.97, II.i.98

and from the side of the sheet, for the House of Shammai declare un­ clean and the House of Hillel declare clean, until he hems it." (Tos. Kel. Bava Batra 5:7-8, ed. Zucker­ mandel, p. 595, lines 15-21) Comment: See Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim III, p. 86. Compare M. Kel. 28:7. II.ii.97.A. The shaft of a trowel of the householders— The House of Shammai say, "Seven," And the House of Hillel say, "Eight." B. And of plasterers: The House of Shammai say, "Nine," And the Houseof Hillel say, "Ten." (Tos. Kel. Bava Batra 7:4, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 597, lines 8-10) Comment: The passage appears verbatim in M. Kel. 29:8. II.i.98.A. These convey uncleanness by contact and carrying, but do not convey uncleanness by overshadowing: a barleycorn's bulk of bone, earth from a foreign country, [earth from] a grave-area, a member from a corpse or a member from a living man that no longer bears its proper flesh, a backbone or a skull in which aught is lacking (HSRW). B. How much must be lacking in the backbone? The House of Shammai say, "Two links (HLYWT)." And the House of Hillel say, "Even (>PYLW) one link." C. And in the skull? The House of Shammai say, "As much as [a hole made by] a drill (KML> MQDH)." And the House of Hillel say, "So much that, if it was taken from a living man, he would die (KDY SYNTL MN HHY WYMWT)." D. Of what kind of drill did they speak? "A physician's small drill," the words of R. Meir. But the sages say, "The large drill that lay in a chamber in the Temple." ^ . kh. [

M

Q

h

D

a

n

b

y

>

p

6 5 2

( b

B e

37b-38a, b. Hul. 42b, 52b; b. <Eruv. 7a)] Comment: The chapter opens with a list of those things which con­ vey uncleanness by overshadowing, that is, by being under the same

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.98, 99

267

"tent", or roof, with another object susceptible of receiving unclean­ ness. These include a corpse or part of a corpse, the backbone or skull or larger bones. The pericope before us now excludes things which do not convey uncleanness by overshadowing by a tent. The Housessayings of parts B and C gloss the foregoing law, then R. Meir and the sages gloss the Shammaite ruling about a drill (but see Abraham Gold­ berg, Massekhet Ohalot [Jerusalem, 1956], p. 18). Part B poses no formal problem. It opens with a superscription, tying the Houses-rulings to the foregoing law. The Houses-rulings are two/one, glossed with link and, for the Hillelites, even. Such explanatory matter clarifies matters which were already obvious. Part C opens with the same sort of superscription, but the Houseslemmas are quite unrelated to one another: S h a m m a i : A s m u c h as a d r i l l ( K M L > M Q D H ) Hillel;. S o t h a t it m a y b e t a k e n f r o m t h e l i v i n g m a n a n d h e w i l l die.

In this instance, it is impossible to reformulate the rulings so that they will use much the same words and present a balance. No one glosses by saying the opinions are near one another. But part D is a gloss of the House of Shammai in C. See Epstein, Mevcfot, pp. 23,139. II.i.99.A. If a baking-oven stood within the House and it had an arched outlet (QMWRH) that projected outside [the house], and corpse-bearers overshadowed it [with the corpse]— The House of Shammai say, "All becomes unclean." And the House of Hillel say, "The oven becomes unclean, but the house remains clean." R. 'Aqiba says, "Even (>P) the oven remains clean." B. If over a hatchway ('RWBH) between a house and the upper room there was set a cooking-pot which had a hole such that liquid could filter into it (BKWNS M S Q H ) — The House of Shammai say, "All becomes unclean." And the House of Hillel say, "The cooking-pot becomes unclean, but the upper room remains clean." R. 'Aqiba says, "Even the cooking-pot remains clean." C. If the cooking-pot was sound— The House of Hillel say, "It protects (MSLT) all [from unclean­ ness]." The House of Shammai say, "It protects only food, liquids, and earthenware vessels." The House of Hillel changed their opinion and taught according to the opinion of the House of Shammai.

268

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.99

D. If there was a flagon full of clean liquid [in the upper room], the flagon contracts seven-day uncleanness, and the liquid remains clean. But if the liquid was emptied out into another vessel, it becomes un­ clean. If a woman [in the upper room] was kneading in a trough, the woman and the trough contract seven-day uncleanness, and the dough remains clean. But if she emptied it into another vessel, it becomes unclean. The House of Hillel changed their opinion and taught according to the opinion of the House of Shammai. [M. Oh. 5:1-4, trans. Danby, pp. 655-6 (b. Hag. 22a)] Comment: Part A : M. Oh. 5:1 presents a secondary development of the Houses-dispute. A simpler version would have had oven in the superscription, so that the Houses-rulings would have referred only to the house, and the lemmas would have been: Shammai: Unclean Hillel: Clean. c

R. Aqiba provides important evidence for the terminus ante quern. Part B , M. Oh. 5:2 exhibits precisely the same pattern, this time with the cookingpot in the superscription. Part C, M. Oh. 5:3: The difference between the Houses concerns things which may be rendered clean in a ritual bath. The pot protects those things—food, liquids, and earthen-ware vessels—which cannot be rendered clean in a ritual bath. The opinions of the Houses have been reversed. The reversal has nothing to do with the content. On the cont­ rary, in part A, the Hillelite lemma is longer and makes distinctions, the Shammaites refer to all; and in part B , it is just the opposite. So the arrangement does not depend upon formal or literary considerations. While we therefore cannot change the places of the Houses and leave the opinions as they are, we can account for the reversal of order. The pericope ends with the Hillelites agreeing with the Shammaites, so rearranging the Houses is meant to leave the impression that, having heard the Shammaite opinion in second place, the Hillelites "then" changed their minds. In fact, M. Ed. 1:14 presents matters in just this way (below, pp. 281-284). The rules are given as above, then comes a debate, beginning with the Hillelites asking the Shammaites "Why?" The Shammaites reply, then the Hillelites answer. Finally, the Sham­ maites give a definitive answer, and the Hillelites change their opinion. The version before us omits the debate but preserves the operative legal rulings. The whole thus is shaped within the debate-form, leaving the Shammaites last, and victorious. Part D, M. Oh. 1:4, refers to the same situation. It ends with the c

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.99,100

269

superscription, implying that we have had a Houses-dispute, but the dispute is missing. The subscription is tacked on because the final rule follows the Shammaite view, that the liquid and the dough are clean. But the vessel, the trough, and the woman are unclean, since they can be rendered clean in a ritual bath. The law was framed without reference to Shammaites at all. A tradition containing a contrary Hillelite ruling persisted, so it was important both to assign the anonymous law to the Shammaites and to explain that the Hillelites had accepted the Sham­ maite view. Then the debate was created to explain the reversion of the Hillelites. Alternatively, the opinions were to begin with attributed to the respective Houses, but when the Shammaite principle was accepted, the "debate" had to explain why. From a critical viewpoint, the single important result is unchanged: the tradents did not drop the inconvenient Hillelite tradition, nor did they assign an opinion which turned out to be the accepted law to the Hillelites, the rejected opinion to the Shammaites. The Hillelite rever­ sion comes after the fact, excellent evidence that the fact has not been doctored. While the pericopae before us do not constitute a collection, they cannot be called a compilation either, for we are dealing in effect with a single situation, spelled out in one detail after another, rather than with a set of laws shaped around a single principle. The situation concerns the oven with an arched outlet projecting outside the house, which was overshadowed by corpse-bearers. The Shammaites say everything is unclean. The Hillelites say only the oven becomes unclean. Then the house is given a hatchway and an upper room, and the hatchway is covered by a pot with a hole. The same problem recurs. Then the pot is analyzed. It has no hole at all. What does it then protect through inter­ vening over the hatchway? Finally comes a related situation: a flagon in that same upper room. All of these situations pose problems only within the theory of the Shammaites, that something other than the oven becomes unclean (in the first instance), or that the cooking pot does not protect all from uncleanness, in the third. So the whole collec­ tion of pericopae depends upon Shammaite rulings throughout. No wonder, then, that it was necessary to specify that the law follows the Shammaites and that the Hillelites concede. Otherwise, the considerable amplification of cases depending on the Shammaite opinion makes no sense at all. See Epstein, Mevo'ot, pp. 60, 77,139, 466. He says (p. 60) that reports of the reversion of the Hillelites derive from Joshua, by comparison of M. Oh. 5:3-4, Tos. Ah. 5:10-12, and b. Hag. 22b, where it is Joshua who reverts. But this would seem to me to indicate that here Joshua is the House of Hillel. Il.i.l00.A. [If] a corpse [lay] in a house to which were many entrances, they are all unclean. If one entrance was opened, it [alone] is unclean and the rest are clean.

270

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.100

B. [If there was] intention (H$B) to take out [the corpse] through one of them, or through a window which measured four handbreadths square, it afforded protection (HSYL) to all other entrances. The House of Shammai say, "The intention must have been formed (YHSWB) before the corpse was dead." And the House of Hillel say, "[It suffices] even (>P) after it was dead." C. If an entrance had been blocked up and it was determined (NMLK) to open it— The House of Shammai say, "[It affords protection to all other entrances only] when he has opened as much as four handbreadths square." And the House of Hillel say, "So soon as he begins [to open i t ] . " D. But they agree that if he opens for a first time, he should open four handbreadths [before it can afford protection]. (M. Oh. 7:3, trans. Danby, p. 659) Comment: The Houses again gloss earlier traditions. In part B the issue is, When does intention ( = thought, H§B) effect protection for the other doors ? The House of Shammai say it must come before the man has died; the Hillelites say it may be even afterward. The pericope has the explanatory matter in the Shammaite lemma: S h a m m a i : [He must think] b e f o r e he has died. Hillel: [ E v e n ] after he has died.

The italicized words serve both lemmas, and those in brackets con­ stitute an internalized superscription for the Shammaites, redactional matter for the Hillelites. Part C is a parallel, but different disagreement. If the man plans to open a window, when does the window effect protection for the other entrances? The Shammaites say it must have been completely opened to the requisite space; the House of Hillel say when he begins the work. They agree that it.must eventually be opened to four tefahs. The formal problem of part C is clear: the lemmas are by no means balanced. But if we recognize, that four tefahs is a gloss, being the opinion of both Houses, the dispute comes down to two words: when he opensI when he begins (KSYPTH, KSYTHYL), a satisfactory balance: VPTHvs.VTHL,P vs. L. The agreement at the end (D) then appropriately makes use of both verb-roots: when he opens at first (KTHYLH) he will open (YPTH) four tefahs, thus built on the roots common to the antecedent dispute, effecting a mnemonic fusion of the two. The agreement moves the Hillelites to the Shammaite position that mere intention is insufficient.

271

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.101

II.i.101 .A. If [the whole roof of] a house was split and uncleanness lay [in the house] in the outer side, the vessels [in the house] on the inner side remain clean. If the uncleanness was within, the vessels outside remain clean if, according to the House of Shammai, the split is four handbreadths wide. But the House of Hillel say, "[They remain clean] however wide it is." R. Yosi says in the name of the House of Hillel, "[If it is one] handbreadth." B. [If he set there] a thick cloak or a thick wooden block, they do not give passage to the uncleanness unless they are raised one handbreadth above the ground. If garments lay folded one above the other, they give passage to the uncleanness so soon as the upper one is raised one handbreadth above the ground. C. If a man was put there [below the split]— The House of Shammai say, "He does not give passage (MBY ) to the uncleanness." And the House of Hillel say, "A man is hollow, and his upper side does give passage (MBY*) to the uncleanness." D. If a man looked out of the window and overshadowed the corpse-bearers— The House of Shammai say, "He does not give passage to the un­ cleanness." And the House of Hillel say, "He gives passage to the uncleanness." E. But they agree that if he was wearing his clothes, or if there were two men one above the other, that these give passage to the unclean­ ness. F. If a man lay over the threshold and the corpse-bearers over­ shadowed him— The House of Shammai say, "He does not give passage to the un­ cleanness." And the House of Hillel say, "He gives passage to the uncleanness." G. If there was uncleanness within the house and they that over­ shadowed him were clean— The House of Shammai declare them clean. And the House of Hillel declare them unclean. H. If a candlestick stood in the cistern of a house, and its cup pro­ jected, and over it was an olive-basket [so placed] that, if the cand­ lestick was taken away, the olive-basket would still stay over the mouth of the cistern— J

272

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.101

The House of Shammai say, "The cistern remains clean, but the candlestick is unclean." The House of Hillel say, "The candlestick also (>P) [remains] clean." I. But they agree that if the olive-basket would fall in if the cand­ lestick was taken away, all is unclean. (M. Oh. 11:1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, trans. Danby, pp. 665-6) Comment:

Danby's translation of part A, M. Oh. 11:1, obscures the

form: The [roof of the] house which was split: Uncleanness outside—the vessels inside are clean. Uncleanness inside, the vessels outside— H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y , Until there should be in the split f o u r tefabs." H o u s e o f Hillel say, "A n y amount." 6 1

That is to say, the vessels outside are not clean, unless the split which divided the house is four tefahs wide; if less than that, the uncleanness is emitted (but not diffused). Excluding the italicized glosses, the opinions are balanced expressions of measurement. Yosi's version of course im­ proves matters, since it yields four/one. The Tosefta explains the Hillelite opinion: If the split is as wide as a thread, the vessels outside are clean, since the uncleanness is diffused. The problem is that the roof of the house has been split and divided in two. If the uncleanness is outside—that is, under the part of the roof near the door—the vessels inside are clean, since uncleanness does not enter a house, only exudes from it. The Houses debate the contrary situation. Part B, M. Oh. 11:3, develops the problem set forth in M. Oh. 11:2: I f t h e w h o l e r o o f o f a p o r t i c o w a s s p l i t a n d u n c l e a n n e s s l a y i n it o n o n e side, v e s s e l s o n t h e o t h e r side r e m a i n clean. B u t i f s o m e o n e set h i s f o o t o r a r e e d a b o v e t h e s p l i t , h e has c o m b i n e d t h e u n c l e a n n e s s [ m a k i n g t h e t w o 'tents' i n t o o n e , s o t h e u n c l e a n n e s s passes f r o m o n e side t o t h e o t h e r ] . I f h e set t h e r e e d o n t h e g r o u n d [ b e l o w t h e s p l i t ] , it d o e s n o t a l l o w t h e u n c l e a n n e s s t o p a s s , u n l e s s it is raised a h a n d b r e a d t h a b o v e t h e g r o u n d .

Part C, M. Oh. 11:3b, then introduces the problem of a man standing below the split. The House of Shammai hold that between the man and the ground there is not the necessary space of one handbreadth, so the uncleanness does not pass beneath him from one side of the portico to the other. The House of Hillel even "explains" its opinion. The form is perfect, excluding the obvious preliminary gloss of the Hillelite ruling: If a man was placed there: H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, [He] d o e s n o t b r i n g t h e u n c l e a n n e s s . House o f Hillel say, A man is empty and the upper part b r i n g s t h e u n c l e a n ­ ness.

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.101,102

Without the italicized gloss the Hillelite opinion is simply,

273 [He]does

bring. . .

Part D, M. Oh. 11:4, contains precisely the same ruling, in the same words, but now with a new superscription. The Hillelite gloss is dropped, but still serves to explain this ruling, as much as the foregoing one. In fact, parts C and D look like duplicates, in which the same principle is discussed through different examples. The clothing is above the earth by a handbreadth, so serves to conduct the uncleanness. Part F, M. Oh. 11:5, is identical, with a new superscription. The problem is no different. Part G introduces a new Houses-form: declare clean, declare unclean. The problem now is whether the by-passers have been rendered un­ clean by a man. The Shammaites hold that he cannot convey unclean­ ness (since he is not hollow), the Hillelites say the contrary, for a consistent reason. So part G in principle is no different from the fore­ going. Part H is a separate item. The Houses agree that the cistern remains clean, so the cistern could have been included in the superscription, leaving a balanced set of lemmas. It would then be: The

candlestick:

House o f Shammai declare unclean. H o u s e o f H i l l e l d e c l a r e clean.

The superscription, to be sure, is rather complex, not a problem of law but a description of an unusual-situation. But at issue is a point of law, whether the candlestick is protected by the olive-basket. The cup pro­ jects but is covered by a basket. The Hillelites hold the basket protects the candlestick and the cup. But if the basket depends on the candle­ stick, then all agree it does not serve as protection. We have now seen two composite pericopae in which the Houses dispute a single point of law through a series of examples of ascending complexity or difficulty, M. Oh. 5:1-4 and M. Oh. 11:1-6. These composites are different from both the collections and the compilations isolated above. What the previous forms have in common is that they list a number of rulings, on different legal principles, questions, or problems, and do not constitute elaborations of the same principle through different problems. The materials before us, by contrast, do not exhibit a tight and brief, apocopated form, like the collections; and they do not contain appropriate superscriptions, serving more than a single item in the list, like the compilations. The composites have in common the tendency to present an extended superscription, which tells a story or presents a detailed case. Note Epstein,

Mevo'ot,

pp. 23,139.

ILi. 102. A. If a light-hole is newly made, its measure [that suffices to give passage to uncleanness] is that of a hole made by the drill that NEUSNER, The Rabbinic T r a d i t i o n s about t h e P h a r i s e e s before 70, I I

18

274

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.102

lay in the chamber [in the Temple]. The measure of the [unblocked] residue of a light-hole is two fingerbreadths high and one thumbbreadth wide. By the residue of a light-hole is meant [also] any window which a man blocked up but was not able to finish. If water had bored the hole, or creeping things, or if it had been eaten through by saltpetre, its measure must be the size of a fist; if a man had intended to make use of it, its measure must be one hand­ breadth square; and if to make use of it as a light-hole, its measure must be that of a hole made by the drill. B. If it is a light-hole covered with grating or latticework— "The several holes are included together to make up the measure of the hole made by the drill," according to the words of the House of Shammai. And the House of Hillel say, "There must be one hole having the measure of a hole made by the drill." C [If a man] makes a place for a rod or a [weaver's] stave or for a lamp— "Its measure may be whatsoever [is needful]," according to the words of the House of Shammai. And the House of Hillel say, "One handbreadth square." [M. Oh. 13:1, 4, trans. Danby, p. 668 (Sifre Zutta, Huqat 19:15 ed. Horovitz, p. 311)] Comment: The Houses dispute whether the several holes are in­ cluded together or not. The House of Shammai say they are included together to make up the measure of the hole made by the drill. The House of Hillel say one hole must be that large. The language is somewhat difficult: T h e g r a t i n g a n d t h e l a t t i c e - w o r k are joined together as t h e h o l e o f t h e d r i l l (KM\J M Q D H ) — a c c o r d i n g to the w o r d s o f the H o u s e o f Shammai. T h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, U n t i l t h e r e s h o u l d be in one place t h e h o l e o f t h e drill (ML* M Q D H ) .

The Houses differ therefore at the italicized words. The grating—work and the measure—drill serve both Houses. It would have been better for the Hillelite opinion to be a simple negative: do not join together. We are not helped by the exceptional form of the attribution to the Sham­ maites. It looks as though the pericope has been somewhat revised for inclusion in the present pericope. In any event it is clear that the Houses gloss an antecedent legal tradition held in common by all parties.

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA — II.i.103,104

275

M. Oh. 2:3 has the same Shammaite opinion, as much as the hole of the MQDH), and the K has been attached here, where it does not belong, by analogy. The Houses here do not disagree on whether the measurement must be approximate (^TML') or exact (ML*), so the K presents the misleading impression that two disputes are before us. Part C, M. Oh. 13:4, is a separate mattei. It follows the preceding form, presenting the Shammaite attribution at the end of its opinion, rather than at the outset, where it normally comes. The opinions are as balanced as they could be, given the idioms for the differing measure­ ments. Its measure serves both Houses. They differ only on whatsoever (KL §HW') vs. handbreadth. Uncleanness will pass through one or another of these spaces in the wall, made for the specified objects. drill (KM\J

ILi. 103. The forecourt of a tomb-vault— He who stands in its midst [is] clean, if the space was not less than four cubits (amot), according to the words of the House of Shammai. And the House of Hillel say, "[He remains clean if it measures only] four handbreadths (tefahim)" [M. Oh. 15:8, trans. Danby, pp. 671-2 (b. Sot. 44a)] Comment: The Houses-dispute is simply about measurements. It consists of amotjtefahs, nothing more. The superscription has been assigned in to to to the Shammaites, as before. Actually if we stop at the first four, and there introduce the Houses-sayings: amotj tefahs, we have the primary form of the dispute. But no editor could have been satisfied with such an irregular construction, therefore the revision in favor of the form before us.

Note Epstein,

y

Mevo ot,

pp. 134,139, 210; Mishnah, p. 1069.)

II.i.l04.A. How do they gather the grapes in a Grave-area? "Men and vessels must be sprinkled the first and the second time; they then gather the grapes and take them out of the Grave-area; others receive the grapes from them and take them to the winepress. If these others touched the grape-gatherers they become unclean"— according to the words of the House of Hillel. The House of Shammai say, "They hold the sickle with a wrapping of bast, or cut the grapes with a sharp flint, and put them into a large olive-basket and bring them to the winepress." B. A field of mourners may neither be planted nor sown; but its soil is clean and may be used for making ovens suitable for the Hallowed Things.

276

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.104

And the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel agree that one examines on [behalf of him that would ]bring [his] Passover-offering, but not [on behalf of him that would eat] Heave-offering. D. And for a Nazirite— The House of Shammai say, "They examine." And the House of Hillel say, "They do not examine." E. How is the field examined? Earth that is easily shifted is taken and put in a sieve that has narrow meshes, and rubbed. If a barleycorn's bulk of bone is found there, [he that has been there] is accounted unclean. F. What do they examine? The deep drains and the foul water. The House of Shammai say, "Also the dunghill and loose earth." The House of Hillel say, "Wheresoever a pig or weasel can penetrate does not require examination." [M. Oh. 18:1, 4, 8, trans. Danby, pp. 674-5 (b. Hag. 25b; note also Sifre Zutta, Huqat 19:16, ed. Horovitz, p. 313)] Comment: The problem of part A, M. Oh. 18:1, is to keep the grapes clean. The reversal of the order of the Houses is a minor problem. The real difficulty is that the opinions of the Houses have nothing whatever to do with one another. Each could have stood apart from the other and would have been completely comprehensible. The Hillelites provide the following scenario: One sprinkles the men and vessels used for the harvest twice, as if they were unclean by reason of corpse uncleanness. That is, Albeck explains, {Seder Toharot, p. 183), to show that they do not lightly treat matters of uncleanness. Then they take the grapes out of the area. The grapes have not been made unclean by the men and vessels which were made unclean in the graveyard. Since there is no choice, the sages did not decree on them the uncleanness of the graveyard. Then others, who are clean and who have not entered the area, take the grapes and bring them to the wine­ press, but those who actually gather the grapes do not do so, since it now is possible to let others do the work. If the people touched, the grapes are rendered unclean.. The Shammaites tell a different story. One merely interposes wrap­ ping between the sickle and the man, or uses a flint, which does not re­ ceive uncleanness, and the man himself, who has not touched the grapes directly, may then bring them to the press. Yosi then qualifies the foregoing: If a vineyard has been turned into a cemetery, one may make use of the grapes for wine, but otherwise, one may not. In no way can the opinions of the Houses be matched. They agree

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— I I . i . 1 0 4 , II.ii.98

277

that one may take the grapes, but differ on all else. What it comes down to, though, is whether one achieves satisfactory protection by wrapping up the tools or using tools that do not receive uncleanness, as the Shammaites say—and this seems to me the easier way—or whether one must use two sets of workers, with the actual workers clean when they enter the grave-area (even though as soon as they enter, they be­ come unclean). The Houses want to make it clear that an unusual pro­ cedure is at hand. This pericope is completely outside the forms we have encountered. Parts B, C, D, and E, M. Oh. 18:4, are in the wrong order. The agreement of the Houses on the one who makes the Pesah and with re­ ference to Terumah should have followed the disagreement on the Nazir, thus part D then part C. Part E serves as a gloss for the whole. The Houses lemmas are simply, they examinejthey do not examine, just as one would expect. The problem is this: The field was ploughed and a grave has been turned up. A man preparing to offer his Pesah has ventured into it. On his account they search the field, as explained in part E, to find out whether or not he has touched a bone and been made unclean, in which case he may not offer his Pesah. One does not take that trouble fot a priest who eats Heave-offering. As to the Nazir, the House of Shammai say one makes a similar examination, and the House of Hillel take the more stringent position. Even if one finds no bone, the Nazir is un­ clean and has to be sprinkled. He loses the days of his uncleanness from the number needed to fulfill his Nazirite vow. This is consistent with Hillelite strictness in M. Naz., above, p. 216. Part F, M. Oh. 18:8, returns to the problem of part E. The Houses' opinions are in the right order. But they again do not relate to one another at all. The Shammaites comment on the foregoing list. The Hillelite saying does not relate to that problem. They simply say what one does not have to search, which is irrelevant to the foregoing list, but is relevant to the opening question: What do they examine? The pattern is as follows: A. B.

W h a t d o they examine ? Drains and water

A'. B'.

+ Shammai: A l s o dunghill loose earth. W h a t d o t h e y not e x a m i n e ? H i l l e l : T h e y d o n o t e x a m i n e places p i g s a n d w e a s e l s c a n g e t a t .

Thus the Houses are not paired in terms either of the form or of the substance of the law. C

II.ii.98. A quarter (RWB ) [qab] of bones from the greater part of the corpse in size, and bones, even though they are less than a quarter [qab], are unclean. R. Judah said [the tradition in] another language:

278

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.ii.98

"The House of Shammai [say], 'A quarter [qab] of the bones of the body, from the greater part of the body or from the greater part of the number [of bones], [and] the majority of members and the greater part of the number [of bones] of the corpse, even though they are less than a quarter [qab], are unclean. . " R. Joshua said, "I can make the words of the House of Shammai and the words of the House of Hillel [as] one. "If from the joints and from the thighs there are found the greater part of the larger bones in quantity, and half the greater part of the larger in bones and half the greater part of the number, they do not join together [to form the requisite quantity to convey uncleanness.]" [Tos. Ahilot 3:4, ed. Zuckermandel, pp. 599 600, lines 37-40, 1-4 (b. Naz. 52b, Sifre Zutta, Huqatll)] Comment: M. Oh. 2:1 says that a quarter-^ from the larger bones or the greater number of the bones even if less than that quantity con­ vey uncleanness by overshadowing. We have no hint of a Housesdispute. M. Oh. 2:3 contains no debate on whether things join together or not. It concerns the lacking links in the backbone, or the hole in a skull. Judah apparently had a tradition of Houses-sayings about M. Oh. 2:1, but he preserved only the Shammaite part. Compare M. Ed. 1:7, and Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim, III, p. 100; Epstein, Mevd'ot, p. 118. The version of b. Naz. 52b is as follows (trans. B. D. Klien,p. 196): c

I I . i i . 4 2 . It has b e e n t a u g h t : T h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i s a y , " A q u a r t e r [qab] o f b o n e s , w h e t h e r f r o m t w o [limbs] o r f r o m t h r e e [is sufficient t o cause d e f i l e m e n t b y o v e r s h a d o w ing]-" A n d t h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l s a y , A q u a r t e r [qab o f b o n e s ] f r o m a [single] c o r p s e [is r e q u i r e d ] , a n d [these b o n e s m u s t b e d e r i v e d ] f r o m [those b o n e s w h i c h f o r m ] t h e g r e a t e r p a r t [of a s k e l e t o n ] , e i t h e r in f r a m e o r i n n u m b e r . " R. J o s h u a said, " I can m a k e t h e s t a t e m e n t s o f t h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i a n d the H o u s e o f H i l l e l o n e . " F o r t h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, ' F r o m t w o o r f r o m t h r e e , [ m e a n i n g ] either f r o m t w o shoulders and one thigh, o r f r o m t w o thighs and one s h o u l d e r , since t h i s is the m a j o r p a r t o f a m a n ' s s t r u c t u r e in h e i g h t . ' " A n d t h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l s a y , '[The q u a r t e r qab m u s t be t a k e n ] f r o m t h e corpse, f r o m the greater part either in structure o r in n u m b e r , for this [ n u m e r i c a l m a j o r i t y ] is t o b e f o u n d in t h e j o i n t s o f t h e h a n d s a n d feet.' " S h a m m a i says,'Even a single bone f r o m the b a c k b o n e o r f r o m the skull [defiles b y o v e r s h a d o w i n g ] ' . " < 4

Let us now compare the several versions:

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.98

M.

'Ed.

1:7

1. House

of

Sham­

M.

Oh.

1.

—

2:1

m a i say

Tos. Ah.

3:4

b. Na^

1. R . J u d a h says of

52b

1. T N Y ' :

another language: House

279

House

of

S h a m m a i say

Shammai

say

2 . RB< < S M W T H'SMYM,

MN

2.

—

2. R W B < MN

BYN

<SMWT

HGWYH

MSNYM

BYN

MRWB

M$L$H

Quarter-^

> IF M R W B

HBNYN

of bones, whether of

HMNYN

the

2', R W B

bones

two

or

of

from

from

three

WRWB

C

<SMWT

M S H N Y M >W MSLSH

= BNYYNW MNYNW

(corpses) [conveys

$L

uncleanness by

S'YN BHN

over­

MT

2. R W B

M N H < S M Y M >W

>P


PY 4

shadowing.]

3. A n d the House of

3 . RB<

3. A n d the H o u s e o f

H i l l e l say,

<SMWT

H i l l e l say,

RB< S M W T M N

MRB

MN

HGWYH,

L

HBYN

MRWB

HBNYN WMRB

>W M R B

>W M R W B

HMNYN

HMNYN

HMNYN

MRB

RWB*

HGWYH, HBNYN

Quarter qab of bones f r o m a fsinglel corpse, [from bones] w h i c h are the greater part in bulk and in number.

4. S h a m m a i says, 'PYLW M'SM E v e n [a

4.

—

4.

—

4.

See b e l o w , n o .

9.

>HD.

quarter-qab]

from one bone

M. Oh. follows the Hillelite view, but with significant changes. There, From the corpse (MN HGWYH) is dropped—the context sup­ plies it. Of greater significance, now it is a matter of choice: it may be either bulk or ( W) number. M. Ed. has and (W). Tos. Ah. has Judah assign to the Shammaites the exact words of the Hillelites in M. Ed. no. 3 , except for the inclusion of or (*W) in place of and. 2' looks like a development of the foregoing ruling; now we are told that even less than a qab will be sufficient if it is from a single corpse, which extends the antecedent rule by dropping quarter-^^. No. 2 of b. Naz. is nearly exact; 'W/'W replaces BYN/BYN, not an important change, b. Naz. no. 4 follows M. Ed. in specifying/™/*? the corpse, which M. Oh. leaves out, but it preserves or ('W) of M. Oh. Since that difference is substan­ tive, b. Naz. no. 4 seems closer to M. Oh. than to M. Ed. As to the sayings of Joshua: 5

c

c

c

c

280

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.98, 99

Tos.

b.

Ah.

5. R . J o s h u a said, 6 . I can m a k e t h e w o r d s o f t h e H o u s e of

Shammai

and

the

words

of

Na%.

5» » » » 6 . „ „ „ as o n e

the

House of Hillel one. 7. M S W Q Y M RWB

W M Y R K Y M

BNYNW

BGWDL

NMS> WHSY

7. F o r

the

House

MSNYM

>W

RWB BNYNW WHSY RWB

SWQYM

W Y R K

M N Y N W 'YNN

YRKYYM

(If

from

the

MSTRPYN

shoulders and

from

the

WRWB

of

Shammai

MSLSH >HD

W S W Q

>W

say,

MSNY

'W

M§NY L

>HD,

HW YL

G W B H W §L 'DM

MGWBH

thighs there are f o u n d the greater part

(From two

o f the larger b o n e s in quantity and half

shoulders and f r o m one thigh o r

the greater part o f the larger b o n e s and

t w o t h i g h s a n d o n e s h o u l d e r since t h i s

or three—either from

two from

half the greater part o f the n u m b e r , they

is t h e m a j o r p a r t o f a m a n ' s s t r u c t u r e in

do not join together).

height).

8.

8. A n d

—

the

HGWYH MRWB

House of 'W

MNYN

BMRPQY

H i l l e l say

MRWB

YDYM

BNYN

HW'YL

MN 'W

WYSNN

WRGLYM

( F r o m the corpse, f r o m the greater part either in structure

o r in n u m b e r ,

for

t h i s is t o b e f o u n d i n t h e j o i n t s o f

the

h a n d s a n d feet). 9.

—

9. S h a m m a i says, E v e n a b o n e f r o m the back b o n e o r f r o m the skull.

The Hillelite lemma of no. 4 has no counterpart in Tos. The b. Naz. no. 3 version of Shammai is scarcely related to Tos. Ah. no. 3, except that both make reference to shoulders and thighs. It is difficult to figure out what has happened. Obviously, Tos. Ah. is a defective text, since it ignores the Hillelites and in no way solves the problem of mak­ ing the Houses say the same thing, b. Naz. is so slightly related to Tos. Ah. that it looks as though the editor of the beraita has simply worked things out on his own. II.ii.99.A. If a woman [in the upper room, referred to in M. Oh. 5:4] was kneading in one trough, and her hands were busy in the dough, so long as she is raising this and putting down this, raising this and putting down this, the woman and the trough are unclean a seven-day uncleanness, but the dough is clean. If she removed her hand from it and returned it [the hand], it is unclean and makes the dough unclean. B. R. Joshua said, "I am ashamed by your words, House of Sham­ mai. Is it possible that the woman and the trough are unclean for seven days and the dough is clean? And that the flagon [M. Oh. 5:4]

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.ii.99, III.ii.43

281

should contract seven-days uncleanness and the liquid should remain clean?" C. After he stood up, a certain disciple from the disciples of the House of Shammai said before him, "Rabbi, May I say before you a reason (T M) that the House of Shammai say concerning i t ? " He said to him, "Speak." "The vessel of an *am ha*ares, what is it, unclean or clean?" He said to him, "Unclean." "And does something unclean protect? If so, let this thing protect the vessels of a haver. D. "Another matter: And if an am hafares says to you concerning his vessel that it is unclean, when we purified the food and liquid in it, we have purified [the thing] for himself, but when we have purified the vessel, we have purified for you and for him." E. R. Joshua reverted to teach according to the words of the disciple. F. R. Joshua said, "I bow (NM) to you, bones of the House of C

l

Shammai.

[Tos. Ah. 5:11, ed. Zuckermandel, pp. 602-3, lines 39,1-9 (b. Hag. 22a)]

Comment: See M. Oh. 5:4, (II.L99.D), in which the law of part A appears in somewhat different form. The Mishnah is not attributed to the House of Shammai, but by implication, as we saw above, it is a Shammaite saying. Now Joshua treats it as such and points out the anomaly. Part D appears in M. Ed. 1:14 = b. Hag. 22b, as a Houses-dispute, and concerns the Shammaite rule that an earthenware vessel can protect only foodstuffs, liquids, and other earthenware vessels (M. Kel. 3:10). The case before us does not occur there. Joshua points out the (usual) Shammaite inconsistency. For our present purpose, it suffices to note that the House of Hillel in M. Ed. 1:14, and, by implication, the unstated Hillelite opinion of M. Oh. 5:4 in fact are to be attributed to Joshua. Eliezer plays no part, presumably because he was dead, and the reference to the "bones of the House of Shammai" of part F might be to the deceased Eliezer. This pericope apparently derives not from the pre-70 Houses but from Joshua and Eliezer. See Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 60. c

c

III.ii.43.A. For we have learned: "An earthenware vessel protects everything [therein from contracting uncleanness from a corpse that is under the same roof]," so the House of Hillel. The House of Shammai say, "It protects only foodstuffs and liquids and [other] earthenware vessels."

282

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — III.ii.43

B. Said the House of Hillel to the House of Shammai, "Wherefore?" The House of Shammai answered, "Because it is unclean on account of the *am ha'ares, and an unclean vessel cannot interpose." C. Said the House of Hillel to them, "But have you not declared the foodstuffs and liquids therein clean?" The House of Shammai answered, "When we declared the food­ stuffs and liquids therein clean, we declared them clean [only] for [the am ha ares] himself; but should we [therefore] declare [also] the vessel clean, which would make it clean for you as well as for him?" D. It is taught: R. Joshua said, "I am ashamed of your words, O House of Sham­ mai! Is it possible that if a woman [in the upper chamber] kneads [dough] in a trough, the woman and the trough become unclean for seven days, but the dough remains clean; that if there is [in the upper room] a flask full of liquid, the flask contracts seven-day uncleanness, but the liquid remains clean!" E. [Thereupon] one of the disciples of the House of Shammai joined him [in debate] and said to him, "I will tell you the reason of the House of Shammai." He replied, "Tell!" So he said to him, "Does an unclean vessel bar [the penetration of uncleanness] or not?" He replied, "It does not bar it." "Are the vessels of an am ha*ares clean or unclean?" He replied, "Unclean." "And if you say to him [that they are] unclean, will he pay any heed to you? Nay, more, if you say to him [that they are] unclean, he will reply, Mine are clean and yours are unclean. Now this is the reason of the House of Shammai." Forthwith, R. Joshua went and prostrated himself upon the graves of the House of Shammai. He said, "I crave your pardon, O bones of the House of Shammai. If your unexplained teachings are so [ex­ cellent], how much more so the explained teachings!" It is said that all his days his teeth were black by reason of his fasts. l

y

c

(b. Hag. 22a-b, trans. Israel Abrahams, pp. 140-142) Comment:

T h e a u t h o r o f t h e beraita

of Mishnah-Tosefta.

has greatly i m p r o v e d the version

T h e v a r i o u s v e r s i o n s c o m p a r e as f o l l o w s :

283

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — III.ii.43

M. Oh.

5:4

M. 'Ed.

1:14

Tos. Ah.

5:11

1. A w o m a n w h o was kneading in the t r o u g h

1.

—

1. The w o m a n w h o was kneading in a t r o u g h and her hands w e r e busy with t h e d o u g h , s o l o n g as she is r a i s i n g u p t h i s a n d p u t ­ ting d o w n this [duplic­ ated]

2 . T h e w o m a n a n d the trough are unclean a seven day uncleanness

2.

—

3 . a n d t h e d o u g h is clean

3.

—

3

4 . A n d i f she e m p t i e d it into another vessel, un­ clean.

4.

—

4. She r e m o v e d her hands f r o m it a n d p u t it b a c k , she is u n c l e a n a n d r e n d e r s unclean the dough.

5. T h e House o f Hillel r e v e r t e d t o teach a c c o r d ­ i n g t o t h e w o r d s o f the House of Shammai.

5. [Below, n o . 1 0 ]

5.

[Below]

6.

—

6. A n earthenware vessel protects all, according t o the w o r d s o f the House o f Hillel. A n d t h e H o u s e o f Shammai say, It protects o n l y f o o d , l i q u i d , a n d an e a r t h e n w a r e vessel.

6.

—

7.

—

7. T h e House o f Hillel said t o t h e m , W h y ?

7 . R . J o s h u a said, I a m ashamed by y o u r w o r d s , H o u s e o f S h a m m a i . Is it possible that the w o m a n and the t r o u g h are un­ clean for seven days [similarly vessels]? A f t e r he arose, one disciple o f the House of Shammai said t o h i m , R a b b i , M a y I say b e f o r e y o u t h e r e a s o n that the House o f Sham­ m a i say c o n c e r n i n g it ? H e said t o h i m , S p e a k .

8.

—

8. The House o f S h a m ­ m a i said t o t h e m , B e c a u s e it is u n c l e a n w i t h (*L G B ) a n am ha*ares, a n d an u n -

8. H e said t o h i m , T h e vessel of am ha^ares, w h a t is it, u n c l e a n o r c l e a n ? I shall say t o h i m ,

2 >> »

l

>>

l

284

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — III.ii.43, II.ii.100

M. Oh.

9.

10.

5:4

M. 'Ed.

—

—

1:14

Tos. Ah.

5:11

clean v e s s e l d o e s n o t p r o ­ tect ( H S S )

Unclean. A n d does un clean p r o t e c t ( M S Y L ) ? I f s o , let t h i s o n e p r o t e c t t h e v e s s e l s o f a haver.

9. T h e House o f Hillel said t o t h e m , H a v e y o u n o t d e c l a r e d clean t h e food and liquids which are in i t ? T h e House o f S h a m m a i said t o t h e m , W h e n w e declared clean the food and liquids w h i c h a r e i n it, f o r h i m ­ self w e d e c l a r e d u n c l e a n ; but w h e n y o u declared clean t h e v e s s e l , y o u d e ­ clared clean f o r y o u and for him.

9. A n o t h e r m a t t e r : If an *am ha ares says t o y o u c o n c e r n i n g his v e s s e l t h a t it is u n c l e a n , w h e n w e d e c l a r e clean t h e f o o d a n d l i q u i d s i n it, h i m s e l f h a v e w e declared clean, b u t w h e n w e declare the v e s ­ sel c l e a n , w e d e c l a r e it clean f o r y o u and f o r him.

10. „ „ „

1 0 . R. J o s h u a r e v e r t e d to teach ( § N H ) a c c o r d i n g t o t h e w o r d s o f t h e disciple. R. J o s h u a said, I b o w t o you, bones of the House of Shammai.

[=

M.

Oh.

n o . 5]

y

c

We see that M. Ed. presents the colloquy of Joshua and the "disciple" as a Houses' dispute, and reduces the whole to a few simple proposi­ tions. There can be no doubt that the M. Ed. version of the debate summarizes Tos. Ah. and makes it conform to the usual style. Thus M. Ed. hides the name of Joshua in "House of Hillel." b. Hag. cites M. Ed. without significant change, then adds, under the superscription TNY% the Toseftan story—now giving both versions and greatly ex­ panding the latter. In general, the beraita closely follows Tos., but improves the diction of the conversation between Joshua and the disciple. The concluding passage is, as usual, substantially improved. Joshua now says N'NYTY instead of the apparently less clear NMTY (reminiscent of the changes of the Simeon the Righteous-use of the same verb NM, N'M, etc. See vol, I, pp. 44-47.) c

c c

II.ii.lOO.A R. Judah says, "He who opens at the outset [an entrance to remove a corpse, so effecting protection for the other entrances of the room in which the corpse is lying, as in M. Oh. 7:3]— "The House of Shammai say, 'When he opens four tefahs. "And the House of Hillel say, 'When he begins.' B. "He who opens a blocked-up passage— "The House of Shammai say, 'When he begins.' 9

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

285

— II.ii.101,102

"And the House of Hillel say, 'When he thinks [of doing it, it affords protection]'." ^ ^ A

h

e

d

Z

u

c

k

e

r

m

a

n

d

d

5

p

6 0 5 >

x

4 0 >

p. 606, lines 1:2) Comment: M. Oh. 7:3 is somewhat different. There the first argu­ ment concerns when he must have given thought to opening the door or window to remove the corpse. The Shammaites say it must be before the man has died; the House of Hillel, even afterward. The second argument, concerning a blocked window or door, is accurately represented here. The Houses agree that when he opens at the outset, he must open four tefahs. But now Judah has that unanimous opinion in the name of the House of Shammai only. The opinion of the House of Hillel duplicates the first Shammaite opinion, but makes sense as a separate argument on the first point: he does not have to open completely at the outset, merely to begin the project. Judah the Patriarch has compressed the two arguments into the second argument of M. Oh. 7:3. For our purpose Judah b. Ilai supplies a terminus ante quern to M. Oh. 7:3: middle second-century.

II.ii.101. [M. Oh. 11:1: If the uncleanness was within, the vessels outside remain clean until there should be in the split four tefahs, according to the House of Shammai. The House of Hillel say, "(They remain clean) however wide it is."] And how much must this split (&DQ) be? The House of Hillel say, "However wide it is (KL SHW')— the thickness of a plummet-string." And R. Yosi says in the name of the House of Hillel, "An opening oUtefah." ^ [ T q s

A

h

1 2 :

e

d

Z u c k e r m a n d e l )

p

6 0 9 j

lines 29-30 (Compare Sifre Zutta, Huqat 19:15, ed. Horovitz, p. 311)] Comment: Judah the Patriarch has taken the anonymous version and has ignored both the gloss (in italics) and Yosi. Again we have a midsecond-century terminus. See Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim III, p. 129-130.

ILii. 102. [He who makes a place for a rod or a stave, as M. Oh. 13:4]— The House of Shammai say, "Its thickness." And the House of Hillel say, "One handbreadth [tefah] square." (Tos. Ah. 14:4, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 611, lines 29-30) Comment:

See M. Oh. 13:4. The lamp of M. Oh. 13:4 is given

286

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA — II.ii.103,104

anonymously; its measure is the same as the Hillelites', a tefah. The Tos. tradition therefore limits the dispute to the first two items on the list. See Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim III, pp. 137-8. II.ii.l03.A. If he made a bottle filled with [clean] liquid and tightlystoppered as a plug for a grave— R. Eliezer b. R. Simeon said, "In this the House of Shammai declare unclean, and the House of Hillel declare clean. B. "The House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel, 'And which is likely to receive uncleanness, a man or the liquid?' "They said to them, 'Liquid [for man is made unclean only by a Father of Uncleanness].' "They said to them, 'Now since if man, who is not likely to receive uncleanness, touched it [ = the bottle], he is made unclean, the liquid which is in it [the bottle], ought it not become unclean?' "The House of Hillel said to them, 'Do you not agree concerning a clean man who swallowed a clean ring and entered the tent of a corpse, even though he is unclean for seven days, the ring is [still] clean?' "The House of Shammai said to them, 'No, if you say concerning the ring, which does not become unclean by the carrying of a Zab, will you say so of liquid, which does become unclean by the carrying of a Zab? "The House of Hillel said to them, 'We reason the seven day un­ cleanness from the seven-day uncleanness, and you reason the seven day uncleanness from an evening's uncleanness. It is better to reason a seven day uncleanness from a seven day uncleanness than to reason a seven day uncleanness from an evening's uncleanness. . .' " (Tos. Ah. 15:9, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 613, lines 5-15) Comment: See M. Oh. 15:9, which omits the Houses. The debate form is not closely followed. The whole may be attributed to Eliezer and represents a later fabrication of a Houses-dispute.

II.ii.104. He who searches— "The House of Shammai say, 'He searches two jamahs'] and leaves an ^ amah "And the House of Hillel say, 'He searches an *amah and leaves an *amah "—the words of R. Aqiba. And the sages say, "The House of Shammai say, 'He searches an 9

9

c

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.105, 1 0 6 , II.i.105

287

*amah and leaves an *amah,' and the House of Hillel say, 'He searches an *amah and leaves two * amahs' " (Tos. Ah. 16:6, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 614, lines 14-17) c

Comment: Aqiba supplies the terminus ante quern for the debate, which has no counterpart in M. Oh. 18:4 or 18:8. The dispute of 'Aqiba and the sages, however, may well concern an antecedent mnemonic tradition. Aqiba has two I one, the sages one/two, and the whole can be reconstructed from that simple disagreement about the bare bones of the tradition. The passage occurs in M. Oh. 16:4, as Aqiba's version of the Hillelite opinion, with no contrary opinions. c

c

11.11.105. If one cut grapes in this grave-area, he should not cut grapes in another grave-area, and if he cut grapes, he is unclean—these are the words of the House of Hillel. (Tos. Ah. 17:9, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 616, lines 1-3) Comment: See M. Oh. 18:1. 11.11.106. The House of Shammai agree with the House of Hillel: "They do not search [a field on account of] Terumah, but it is burned." (Tos. Ah. 17:13, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 616, lines 14-15) Comment: II.ii.106 corresponds to the unanimous opinion given in M. Oh. 18:4, that one does not search on behalf of him that would eat Heave-offering. Here the disposition of the Heave-offering is explained. II.i.105. The lid of a kettle which is joined to the chain— The House of Shammai say, '[It counts as a] connective for [con­ tracting] uncleanness, but not [as] a connective for sprinkling (HBWR LHZYH)." The House of Hillel say, "[If a man] sprinkled on the kettle, he has sprinkled on the lid. [If he] sprinkled on the lid, he has not sprinkled on the kettle." ^ ~ , _ (M. Par. 12:10, trans. Danby, p. 713) /1Vyr

1

0

1

A

i<2N

Comment: The Shammaites hold that the chain produces uncleanness for the kettle, but for sprinkling to effect purification, one must sprinkle the lid as well as the kettle. The House of Hillel say sprinkling the kettle affects the lid, but not contrarywise. The Hillelite position is

288

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.ii.107, 1 0 8

therefore not completely contrary to the Shammaite one, for the chain can serve to connect the kettle to the lid when the kettle is sprinkled for cleanness, but not when the lid is sprinkled. The position completely contrary to the Shammaite one would have had the chain serving as a connector for sprinkling, no matter what is sprinkled (lid, kettle). Perhaps that accounts for the absence of a balanced pericope, which would have been, It is a c o n n e c t o r f o r u n c l e a n n e s s and it is a c o n n e c t o r f o r s p r i n k l i n g .

Given the complexity of the Hillelite position, one could probably not have produced a more succinct statement than the one before us. II.ii.107. [M. Par. 5:1: He that brings the earthenware vessel for (the water or the ashes of) the sin-offering must immerse himself and spend the night by the furnace. . . .For a jar that is to contain Heaveoffering the potter may open the furnace and take out (any jar). R. Simeon says, "Only from the second row." R. Yosi says, "Only from the third row."] R. Simeon b. Judah says in the name of R. Simeon, "The House of Shammai say, 'From the third row,' and the House of Hillel say, 'From the second row.' " (Tos. Par. 5:1, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 634, lines 19-20) Comment: R. Simeon b. Judah's tradition has placed the secondcentury master's opinions in the mouth of the Houses.

ILii. 108. A. The lid of a kettle attached by a chain— The House of Shammai say, "They are all one connection." And the House of Hillel say, "If he sprinkled the pot, he has sprink­ led the lid. If he has sprinkled the lid, he has not sprinkled the pot." B. R. Yosi said, "These are the words of the House of Shammai. The House of Hillel say, 'The vessel (KLY) is one connection.' " (Tos. Par. 12:18, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 641, lines 9-12) Comment: Part A corresponds to M. Par. 12:10, and the House of Hillel's lemma is given verbatim. The House of Shammai's saying is not accurately represented, for here no distinction is made between con­ tracting uncleanness and sprinkling—the connection serves both equally. Yosi's version of the Hillelite opinion would have nicely served for M. Par. 12:10, as I pointed out above, for there the Hillelites would more conveniently take a position diametrically opposite the Shammaite one. Yosi sets the terminus ante quern.

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.106

289

II.i.l06.A. From what time do olives receive uncleanness? "After they exude the moisture that comes out of them when they are in the vat (Z T M'TN), but not the moisture that comes out of them when they are yet in the store-basket (Z T HQPH)," according to the words of the House of Shammai. R. Simeon says, "The prescribed time for the moisture [before it renders the olives susceptible to uncleanness] is three days." The House of Hillel say, "After there is moisture enough for three olives to stick together (M$YTHBRW S L S H ZH LZH)." Rabban Gamaliel says, "After the preparation is finished." And the sages say according to his words. B. If a man left his olives in the basket to grow soft so that they may be easy to press, they [then] become susceptible to uncleanness. But if to grow soft so that they may be salted, the House of Sham­ mai say, "They become susceptible (MWK$RYM)." And the House of Hillel say, "They do not become susceptible (>YNN MWKSRYM)." C. If he wanted to take from them [only enough for] one pressing or for two pressings— The House of Shammai say, "He may set apart (QWSH) [what he needs] in [a condition of] uncleanness, but he must cover up (MHPH) [what he takes] in [a condition of] cleanness." The House of Hillel say, "He may also (*P) cover it up in a condition of uncleanness." R. Yosi says, "He may [even] dig out [what he needs] with a metal axe and take the olives to the press in [a condition of] uncleanness." C

C

(M. Toh. 9:1, 5, 7, trans. Danby, pp. 729-30) Comment: In Part A , M. Toh. 9:1, the Houses' opinions in no way match. The issue is, When does the moisture render the olives capable of receiving uncleanness? The Shammaites say that the moisture that comes out of the olives in the vat renders them unclean, but not that which comes when they still are in the basket during the harvest. Simeon says the moisture that comes out in the vat before they have been there three days does not render them unclean. This seems to re­ vise the Shammaite rule. The House of Hillel say that the olives are unclean only when the moisture has caused them to stick together in a mass—later than the time specified by the Shammaites, who hold the mere presence of moisture suffices. Gamaliel assigns a still later time, namely, when all the work is done, and the olives are ready to be taken to the crusher. In this pericope, no effort has been made to frame the Houses' N E U S N E R , T h e R a b b i n i c T r a d i t i o n s about t h e P h a r i s e e s b e f o r e 7 0 , I I

19

290

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.106

opinions in syzygies or in the normal forms. Presumably it would have been possible to specify a particular time, e.g., a number of days (as Simeon), rather than a particular condition. In any event the dispute comes from the time of Gamaliel, hence is a Yavnean pericope which, strikingly, in no way follows the Houses-forms used for other Yavnean materials. This suggests that in the earliest period the standard form was not carefully followed, while later on it was perfected. PartB, M. Toh. 9:5, is a more routine pericope, in which the Houses gloss the foregoing rule, and their superscription depends upon that rule: That they may stand so he may salt them H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : T h e y a r e p r e p a r e d [to r e c e i v e u n c l e a n n e s s , MWKSRYM] House o f Hillel: They are not prepared.

The issue is the same as in M. Toh. 9:1: Is the liquid going to prepare the olives to receive uncleanness? The man intends to eat the olives after they are salted, but not to produce oil from them. Since the man does not want the moisture, it is not regarded as a liquid-food and therefore cannot receive uncleanness, so the Hillelites. The Shammaites do not pay attention to the man's intention, just as they ignore intention in the vow of the Nazir, and the consecration—even in error—of ob­ jects to the sanctuary. PartC, M. Toh. 9:7, concerns olives not ready to receive unclean­ ness. In case the farmer wants only part of the olives, the House of Shammai say he may set apart what he needs in a condition of unclean­ ness for a pressing or two, since the olives are not thereby made ready to receive uncleanness. But he must cover up the olives in cleanness to bring them to the press, for their work has been completed, and they are now ready to receive uncleanness. The Hillelites do not require him to cover in cleanness, for they hold the olives have not yet been made ready to receive uncleanness, though if he plans to take the whole mass to the press, he must do so in a condition of cleanness. Yosi takes a more extreme position than either House, and supplies a terminus ante quern for the rest. The form is not quite balanced. All parties agree that he may set apart in uncleanness, so the issue concerns covering up only. If cut off and cover up were in the superscription, we should have the following: If he wants to take from them enough for a pressing or two, he sets apart in unclean­ ness, and he covers H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : I n cleanness House of Hillel:

In uncleanness.

The difference between such a simple form and the more complex one resulting from the inclusion of part of the superscription in the Sham­ maite lemma is not consequential.

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.107, II.ii.109

291

II.i.l07.A. If a man put [grapes into the wine-press] from what was [stored] in baskets or from what was spread out on the ground— The House of Shammai say, "He must put them in with clean hands. And if he put them in with unclean hands, he renders them unclean." And the House of Hillel say, "He puts them in with unclean hands. And he must set apart his Heave-offering in cleanness." B. All agree that [whether he takes them] from the grape-basket or from what are spread out on leaves, he must put them into the wine­ press with clean hands. If he put them in with unclean hands, he renders them unclean. (M. Toh. 10:4, trans. Danby, p. 731) Comment: The law concerns taking grapes from baskets and putting them in the press. The House of Shammai say it must be done with clean hands, lest the farmer touch the liquid coming out of the grapes and render them unclean. The House of Hillel rule, as above, that that moisture is not regarded as liquid capable of receiving uncleanness, since the man has no intention of using the moisture for food. The form is heavily glossed: He who places from baskets, etc. H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, H e places w i t h clean h a n d s and if he placed with un­ clean hands, he has rendered them unclean. H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, H e places w i t h u n c l e a n h a n d s and he separates his Heave-offering in cleanness.

The italicized words in the Shammaite lemma are a gloss, making ob­ vious what is already clear. The Hillelite gloss supplies a separate law, something we should not have known on the basis of a simple dis­ agreement with the Shammaite lemma. The Shammaites obviously would agree. Hence while the Hillelite lemma contains two rules, the latter could have been set into a superscription, or, more aptly, as a subscription, And they agree that he separates. Part B would have been the logical place for the foregoing agree­ ment. It says all agree (HKL SWYN) rather than the more common, And they agree (WMWDYN). This limits the Hillelite position once again, so the form was ideal for the inclusion of the foregoing detail. The pericope evidently is highly developed and diverges from the normal forms used for the purpose of recording both disputes and agreements. II.ii.l09.A. If one left his vessels before an 'am ha*ares and said to him, "Guard these for me," they are unclean midras- and corpse-un­ cleanness. If he left them on his shoulder, they are unclean midras [and] corpse-uncleanness.

292

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — Il.ii.l 10, II.i.108

B. R. Dosetai b. R. Yannai said, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not differ concerning one who gives (M§R) [them] to an individual, that they are unclean, and concerning one who leaves (MNYH) them in public, that they are clean. "Concerning what did they disagree? "Concerning one who gives them in public and leaves them with an individual, for— "The House of Shammai declare unclean. "And the House of Hillel declare clean." (Tos. Toh. 8:9b-10, ed. Zuckermandel p. 669, lines 19-22) Comment: Dosetai, who comes at the beginning of the second century, reports a Houses-dispute for which we have no other attesta­ tion. The Houses dispute an ambiguous situation, and they take or are assigned the usual positions. A sage coming in the second century could readily refer to, e.g., Joshua and Eliezer as the House of Hillel and Shammai, and we have no reason to believe Dosetai held an inde­ pendent tradition from Temple times. See Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim IV, p. 86.

Il.ii.l 10. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says, "When their work is done [they receive uncleanness]," and the law is according to his words. He who completes his olives in the same day [they are picked]—we have returned to the words of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel. (Tos. Toh. 10:1-2, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 671, lines 8-9) Comment: In M. Toh. 9:1, it is Gamaliel. The clause pertaining to the Houses alleges that their difference pertains only to completing the whole process in a single day, but otherwise they are in agreement. See Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim IV, pp. 93-4.

II.i.108. When are they again deemed clean (JVPYMTY THRTN) ? The House of Shammai say, "After they have been increased [by more than the like quantity of rain] and overflowed." The House of Hillel say, "After they have been increased [by more than the like quantity of rain], even though they have not overflowed." R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says, "After they have overflowed, even though they have not increased." (M. Miq. 1:5, trans. Danby, p. 733)

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A

293

— II.i.109

Comment: The question pertains to a pool which has been made un­ clean by a man, or into which a corpse has fallen (M. Miq. 1:4). The pool may be deemed clean when sufficient rain has fallen into it. The House of Shammai hold that when most of the water in the pool is rain­ water and it has overflowed, it is regarded as clean. The House of Hillel say it need not overflow to be deemed clean. The question, When are they again deemed clean? (M YMTY THRTN) appears above, p. 257. Here the opinions of the Houses are clearly balanced, but the Hillelite one is slightly apocopated: 5

House of Shammai: M $ Y R B W House o f Hillel:

WYSTPW

R B W , ' P $ T P W .

The Hillelites' first verb ought to have the same form as the Sham­ maites'; dropping the M§ makes the Hillelite lemma depend on the foregoing. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel takes the third position, that if it overflows even though it has not been so increased, it is sufficiently clean for Hallah and for washing hands. So the Hillelite position is given with precision and could not have been made simpler in any detail, e.g., by dropping the even though clause. ILi. 109.A. If a man put vessels under the water-spout [that feeds the Immersion-pool],—it is all one whether they are large vessels or small vessels or even vessels of cattle-dung, vessels of stone or vessels of [unburnt] clay—they render the Immersion-pool invalid. B. It is all one whether they were set there or left in forgetfulness, according to the words of the House of Shammai. And the House of Hillel declare it clean (MTHRYN) [if they were left] in forgetfulness. C. R. Meir said, "They voted, and the House of Shammai out­ numbered the House of Hillel. "And they agree that if they were left in forgetfulness in the court­ yard [and not under the water-spout], it is clean." D. R. Yosi said, "The dispute still stands where is was—[= as l n

(M. Miq. 4:1, trans. Danby, p. 736) Comment: Since drawn water spoils the ritual pool, the intervening vessels spoil the water, hence the pool. The Houses-dispute glosses the foregoing, raising the issue of whether intent changes matters. The House of Shammai say that intent does not matter, just as they said erroneously consecrating objects to the sanctuary is a valid consecra­ tion. The form is not standard: It is all t h e same f o r o n e w h o l e a v e s a n d f o r o n e w h o f o r g e t s ('HD H M N Y H W ' H D H S W K H ) — a c c o r d i n g t o the w o r d s o f the H o u s e o f S h a m m a i .

294

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — Il.i.l 10

T h e H o u s e o f H i l l e l d e c l a r e c l e a n ( T H R ) i n t h e case o f o n e w h o f o r g e t s (BSWKH).

In fact, the Hillelite lemma uses the wrong verb, for the problem is not whether it is clean (THR), but whether it is fit (K§R). Further, an ob­ vious balance would have been: As to one who forgets, H o u s e o f S h a m m a i d e c l a r e unfit ( P W S L Y N ) H o u s e o f Hillel d e c l a r e fit ( M K S Y R Y N ) .

Then all agree that he who intentionally leaves etc. The syzygy KSR/PSL recurs through the tractate. Its absence here is therefore remarkable, especially since it would have been natural to include it. Meir then glosses the Houses' dispute, quoting the stock-phrase about the vote. The agreement now is attributed to Meir. If the man forgot the vessels in the courtyard but not under the water-spout, and the vessels are filled with water, the water does not spoil the bath, since he certainly did not intend to draw the water. But when the man forgot the vessels under the water spout, the House of Shammai sup­ pose that, when he left them there, he intended to receive in them rain­ water, then he forgot them, so it is as if he intended to draw the water. The water that has spilled into the pool is drawn water (Albeck, Seder Toharot, p. 350). Yosi then differs with his contemporary, and says that even here the Houses differ. The Shammaites regard the water that has spilled into the pool as sufficient to render it unfit. How much earlier than Meir and Yosi is the Houses-dispute to be dated? The second-century sages had differing versions of the dispute, so we may assume their traditions go back for a while. Meir's use of the stock-phrase indicates only that by his time it was routine to refer to it, especially when one wanted to assign the correct law to the Shammaites. If so, by Meir's time the decided law conformed to the Shammaite position. Yosi does not differ, merely extends the Shammaite position— therefore the decided law—to the case of the courtyard as well. See Epstein, Mevo^ot, pp. 24,147. Il.i.l 10.A. A trough hewn in the rock—they may not gather the water into it, or mix [the ashes] therein, or sprinkle from it; it does not need a tightly stopped-up cover, nor does it render an immersionpool invalid. If it was a movable vessel, although it had been joined [to the ground] with lime, they may gather water into it or mix the ashes therein or sprinkle from it; and it needs a tightly stopped-up cover; and it renders an immersion-pool invalid. If there was a hole in it below or at the side such that it can hold no water at all, the water is valid. How large need the hole be? As large as the spout of a water-skin.

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

295

— Il.i.l 11

B. R. Judah b. Bathyra said, "It once happened that (M'SH B) the Trough of Jehu which was in Jerusalem had in it a hole as big as the spout of a water-skin, and all the acts in Jerusalem requiring clean­ ness were done [after immersing the vessels] therein ( L GBH). "And the House of Shammai sent and broke it down (PHT) for— "The House of Shammai say, '[It is still to be accounted a vessel] until the greater part of it is broken down (YPHT)'." C

[M. Miq. 4:5, trans. Danby, p. 737 (b. Yev. 15a)] Comment: There were two Judah b. Bathyras, one of whom lived in Temple times and was a Temple agent in Nisibis (see my History, Vol. I , pp. 46-52 and 130-134). If this is the same man, then he presumably knew what he was talking about, and the story is genuine. Since only the Pharisees required cleanness outside of the Temple cult in connection with the preparation of ordinary, unconsecrated food, we may assume that the Trough here referred to served primarily the Pharisaic party in Jerusalem, which therefore could not have been very numerous. The Shammaites, who probably predominated, had the power to do just what Judah said they had done. We do not have the contrary, Hillelite lemma, but it obviously is represented in part A. The story raises the question of what was the state of objects immersed before the Shammaites imposed their will. Can we imagine that for decades, even centuries, matters did not conform to the law as the Shammaites taught it, until "one day" the Shammaites sent and broke the trough into sufficiently small parts ? Or is it possible that the Sham­ maites did not approve of matters, but were able to change matters only when they came to power? If the latter, then they presumably came to power some decades before the destruction, but we do not know the state of affairs, or of the law, before that time. Judah does not refer to Hillelite opposition. His little story may well describe some­ thing that actually happened, and I think it does, but if so, it raises more problems than it settles. 2

Il.i.l 11.A. The House of Shammai say, "They immerse vessels in a rain-stream." The House of Hillel say, "They do not immerse." B. But they agree that [a man] dams it with vessels and immerses therein, but the vessels by which he dammed it are not thereby imm e r S e C

*'

(M. Miq. 5:6b, trans. Danby, p. 738)

Comment: The form is perfect. Beforehand comes a list of places where one may immerse: trenches, ditches, don key-tracks. A slight alteration would have taken the rain-stream from the Shammaite lemma

296

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.112, II.ii.lll, 1 1 2

and set it as a superscription. The Shammaites require forty seyahs of water in the whole stream. The Hillelites say one must have forty seyahs standing in one place. The agreement of the Hillelites is that a dam will establish such a collection of water in the rain-stream. But the vessels themselves, the Hillelites say, have not been cleansed, since the backs of the vessels, in the stream, are outside of the dam. The agreement thus is phrased entirely from the Hillelite viewpoint. The authority is Yosi, M. <Ed. 5:2; Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 147. Il.i.l 12. The House of Shammai say, "They do not immerse hot water in cold, or cold water in hot, or fresh water in foul, or foul water in fresh." And the House of Hillel say, "They do immerse." (M. Miq. 10:6, trans. Danby, p. 744) Comment: The different kinds of water must be alike so that they are fully merged. The superscription is inserted into the Shammaite lemma. Originally the Houses-sayings would have been immerse/not immerse, just as above, M. Miq. 5:6.

Il.ii.l 11. [When are they deemed clean, as M. Miq. 1:5] Rains came down— "They were increased [by more than the like quantity of rain] and overflowed" —according to the words of the House of Shammai. .And according to the words of the House of Hillel say [sic], "They were increased [by more than the like quantity of rain] even though they did not overflow." And according to the words of R. Simeon, "They overflowed even though they were not increased [by more than the like quantity of rain]." —they are fit for Hallah and for Terumah and to wash the hands therein. (Tos. Miq. 1:7,1:10, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 652, line 37, 653, lines 1-2, and p. 653, lines 10-12) :

Comment: See M. Miq. 1:5. Here the same verb, RWB, is assigned to all three lemmas.

Il.ii.l 12. A kneading trough which is filled with pots, and he dipped it into the ritual pool, requires a hole the size of the spout of a water-skin and a fountain of any size. R. Judah says in the name of the House of Shammai, "For a large

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— Il.i.l 13

297

vessel, [the whole should be equal to] four tefahs according to the greater part of it.

(Tos. Miq. 5:2, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 657, lines 1-3)

Comment: Judah's saying appears in M. Miq. 6:5, as follows: V e s s e l s m a y n o t be i m m e r s e d i n a b o x o r a chest t h a t is i n the sea u n l e s s t h e r e w a s i n t h e m a h o l e t h e size o f t h e s p o u t o f a w a t e r s k i n . R. J u d a h s a y s , " I f it w a s a l a r g e v e s s e l [the h o l e ] m u s t be f o u r h a n d ­ b r e a d t h s ; i f a s m a l l v e s s e l , t h e h o l e s h o u l d be e q u a l t o the g r e a t e r p a r t o f i t . "

Judah's saying is given defectively. Clearly, the concluding clause according to the greater part should be assigned to small vessels, just as the four tefahs is assigned to a large vessel. (See Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim IV p. 21.) ILi. 113.A. Women may always be assumed clean in readiness for their husbands. When men have come in from a journey their wives may be assumed clean in readiness for them. B. The House of Shammai say, "She needs two test-rags for every act; or [on every occasion] she should perform it [intercourse] by the light ofalamp(T§MS L'WR HNR)." And the House of Hillel say, "Two test-rags suffice her throughout the night (DYYH B$NY
298

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— III.ii.44

The operative phrases are for each act of intercourse vs. all the night. The italicized words serve both, therefore would have been used in a super­ scription, and the bracketed words are glosses, which could have been made uniform for both sayings, preferably she needs. It is sufficient de­ pends upon the antecedent Shammaite lemma. If the Hillelite lemma had stood separately, it therefore could not have used // is sufficient, for no contrary, more stringent rule would have existed against which to measure sufficiency. Hence the primary lemma, because of the content, could not have been stated in balanced opposites, but the Houses' opinions could have been conventionally brief. If, however, the rule had followed M. Nid. 2:1, it would have read as follows: The daughters of Israel use two

test-rags:

H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : F o r e a c h act o f i n t e r c o u r s e QL K L T S M Y S W T S M Y $ ) House o f Hillel: A l l the night ( K L H L Y L H ) .

So originally the mnemonic fundament of the Houses apodosis could have been T$MY$/LYLH. Everything else could have been con­ structed out of that brief set. The Hillel-lemma could have added // is sufficient (DYYH). Only after the Houses-dispute was separated from the antecedent law was it necessary to supply glosses, both two test rags and the verbs. The second Shammaite rule, concerning the light of the candle, looks like a gloss. Part C, M. Nid. 2:6: The Houses' dispute is nothing more than uncleanjclean. The Shammaite lemma has been expanded and attached to the antecedent rule with also. Without it, one would have expected the two colors to be in a superscription, followed by House of Shammai declare unclean. Redactional considerations of Hillelite editors have produced the obvious developments. See above, p. 22. y

Note Epstein, Mevo ot, p. 439; Mishnah, p. 485. III.ii.44.A. Our rabbis taught: Although [the Sages] have said, "He who has intercourse in the light of a lamp is contemptible," the House of Shammai say, "A woman needs two test-rags for every inter­ course, or she must perform it in the light of a lamp." And the House of Hillel say, "Two testing-rags suffice for her the whole night." B. It was taught: The House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel, "According to your view, is there no need to provide against the possibility that she might emit a drop of blood of the size of a mustard seed in the course of the first act, and this would be covered up with semen during the second act?" "But," replied the House of Hillel, "even according to your view,

299

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — Il.i.l 1 4

is there no need to provide against the possibility that the spittle, while still in the mouth, was crushed out of existence?" ["We maintain our view,"] they said, "because what is crushed once is not the same as that which is crushed twice." C. It was taught: R. Joshua stated, "I approve [see] of the view of the House of Shammai." "Master, said his disciples to him, "what an extension [of the restrictions] you have imposed upon us!" "It is a good thing," he replied, "that I should impose extensive restrictions upon you in this world in order that your days may be prolonged in the world to come." (b. Nid. 16b, trans. I. W. Slotki, pp. 109-110) Comment: The beraita supplies a debate in standard form. Part C is valuable evidence for an early date for M. Nid. 1:4, and would be still more valuable if it had Joshua actually quote the Shammaite lemma. As it stands, we merely assume it pertains to the pericope to which the editor has assigned it. The although-clause in A follows the Houses-dispute, and adds a Hillelite commentary on the Shammaite position: the Shammaites counsel a contemptible course. In later times the Babylonian rabbis warned that using a lamp attracts demons and therefore endangers the couple and its progeny, a further "reason" for following the Hillelites. Il.i.l 14.A. The blood of a gentile woman and the blood of the purifying woman that is a leper— The House of Shammai declare clean. And the House of Hillel say, "It is like her spittle or her urine." B. The blood of a woman after childbirth who has not [yet] im­ mersed herself— The House of Shammai say, "It is like her spittle or her urine." But the House of Hillel say, "It conveys uncleanness whether [it is] wet or dried up." ^ ^ ^ [

M

p

? 4 g

( y

4:3, b. Nid. 34a-b, 35b)] Comment: Part A: The Hillelite lemma should be simply, declare unclean. As it stands, the lemma explains the (unstated) Hillelite ruling, therefore develops declare unclean. The Shammaite opinion is that Scrip­ ture (Lev. 15:2) concerning the Zab and the menstrual woman speaks only of the children of Israel; likewise, the leprous woman after child­ birth is like other women after childbirth (Albeck, Seder Toharot, p. 387,

300

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.115

citing b. Nid. 34a-b). The Hillelites declare unclean: Since the sages decreed uncleanness on the spittle and urine of gentiles, who are re­ garded as Zabim, so they decreed uncleanness for the blood of gentile women; it also should be unclean, just like the spittle of a Zab, which renders unclean when moist, but not when dry. As to the blood of the leprous woman, it is unclean like spittle. Part A therefore would origin­ ally have been conventional, but the Hillelite lemma has been revised and turned into a gloss on the antecedent opinion. In part B both lemmas have been developed. The Shammaites compare the blood to that of the purifying woman. It renders unclean like spittle, that is, when moist, but not when dry. The Hillelites compare it to the blood of a menstrual woman; the foregoing distinc­ tion does not apply. Here the Hillelite lemma is briefer. The Sham­ maite one should have been // renders unclean when moist, but not dry—that is, the opposite of the Hillelite one, rendered by the negative. Neither party could have declared clean. The second Shammaite opinion is identical with the first Hillelite one, and the second Hillelite opinion, plus the negative, could have served as the first Hillelite opinion. The superscriptions require an ascending order of stringency: Blood of gentile woman, etc. H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : D e c l a r e clean House o f Hillel: W h e n w e t , unclean.

The superscription could have permitted the usual balance had it specified moist. At that point, declare unclean would have precisely rend­ ered the Hillelite opinion. Perhaps the redactor preferred a less complic­ ated superscription, but this then required a highly elliptical Hillelite lemma. The second superscription has imposed no such necessity, for the Hillelite lemma, as I said, shows what the Shammaite one should have been. The Toseftan equivalent in fact uses the simple language I have proposed here. Evidently the ^r^//^-editorsandTosefta-compilers often preferred to "develop" Houses-lemmas by restating them in the simplest possible form. So what conforms to our theoretical model of the classic form is not necessarily the earliest version and may some­ times come late in the history of a pericope. Form-critical considerations cannot be decisive in solving historical problems. Il.i.l 15. "If a woman twenty years old has not grown two hairs, she must bring proof that she is twenty years old; she is reckoned sterile, and she may not perform halisah nor may she contract Levirate marriage. "If a man twenty years old has not grown two hairs he must bring proof that he is twenty years old; he is reckoned a eunuch, and he may neither submit to halisah nor may he contract Levirate marriage"— these are the words of the House of Hillel.

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.115, 1 1 6

301

The House of Shammai say, "In either case [this applies] when they are eighteen years old." R. Eliezer says, "For a male the rule is according to the House of Hillel, and for a female it is according to the House of Shammai, since the growth of a woman is more speedy than that of a man." [M. Nid. 5:9, trans. Danby, p. 751 (b. Yev. 80a, b. Nid. 47b)] Comment: The order of the Houses is reversed, and their dispute is embedded in a fully-articulated lemma about the rules of maturation. The Houses-dispute could not have been other than: Superscription House of Shammai: House of Hillel:

Eighteen Twenty

The dispute certainly is an old one, since Eliezer b. Hyrcanus refers to it. It is pointless to revise the superscription so as to make place for a Houses-dispute in conventional form. The assertion that these are the words of the House of Hillel assigns the whole to the Hillelites, while what is theirs is only the first part of each clause, a woman or man twenty years old. The details are not subject to dispute. Further, the Shammaite lemma seems to presuppose Eliezer's opinion, for it alludes to and denies the distinction between male and female! But that distinction is not made in the Hillelite lemma. This points toward the post-Eliezer redaction of the pericope as we now have it. If we did not know of a distinction between male and female, we should not have expected the Shammaite lemma to refer to it, So we are left with the numbers eighteen and twenty, all that could have stood in the primary Houseslemmas, //there was a dispute before Eliezer. It is difficult to account for the reversal of order. We have seen numerous examples in which long superscriptions are assigned to the Shammaites, with the Hillelites' given a simple, brief word of disagree­ ment. Obviously, it is convenient to have the language this and this together with Eliezer's saying, so that his distinction seems to depend on the foregoing. But it would have been just as convenient to have the Hillelites say this and this at twenty years. Nor do I see any mnemonic advantage in placing the lower number second. So the order is puzzling. Il.i.l 16.A. If a girl (TYNWQT) who had not yet suffered a flow was married— The House of Shammai say, "They give her four nights." And the House of Hillel say, "Until the wound heals." If her time was come to suffer a flow, and she was married— The House of Shammai say, "They give her the first night."

302

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.116

And the House of Hillel say, "Until the outgoing of the Sabbath— four nights." If she suffered a flow while yet in her father's house— The House of Shammai say, "They give her the coition of obliga­ tion." And the House of Hillel say, "The whole night is hers." B. [If a man or a woman that had a flux, or a menstruant, or a woman after childbirth, or a leper have died, they convey uncleanness by carrying, until the flesh has decayed. A gentile that has died does not convey uncleanness by carrying.] The House of Shammai say, "All women that die are deemed [to have died while they were] menstruants (KL HN$YM MTWT NDWT)." And the House of Hillel say, "Only she who dies while a menstruant is deemed a menstruant (>YN NDH >L> §MTH NDH)." C. At first they used to say, "She that continues in the blood of her purifying would pour out water for [washing] the Passover-offering." But they changed [their opinion] to say, "For the Hallowed Things she is as one that has had contact with one that suffered corpse-un­ cleanness (KMG TM MT)," according to the words of the House of Hillel. The House of Shammai say, "Even as one that suffered uncleanness from a corpse (>P KTM> MT)." D. But they agree that she eats [Second] Tithe and sets apart Dough-offering, and brings near [to the other dough the vessel wherein she has put the portion set apart as Dough-offering] to designate it as Dough-offering, and that if any of her spittle or if the blood of her purifying fell on a loaf of Heave-offering, it remains clean [ = M. T.Y.4.2]. The House of Shammai say, "She needs immersion at the end [of the days of her purifying]." And the House of Hillel say, "She does not need immersion at the end." E. If she suffered a flux on the eleventh day and immersed herself at nightfall and then had a connection— The House of Shammai say, "They convey uncleanness to what they lie upon or sit upon, and they are liable to an offering." And the House of Hillel say, "They are not liable to an offering." F. If she immersed herself the next day, and she had connection and afterward suffered a flux— C

>

303

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — III.ii.45

The House of Shammai say, "They convey uncleanness to what they lie upon or sit upon, but they are not liable to an offering." And the House of Hillel say, "Such a one is gluttonous (GRGRN) [yet is not culpable]." G. But they agree that if she suffered a flux during the eleventh day and immersed herself at evening and then had connection, they convey uncleanness to what they lie upon or sit upon, and they are liable to an offering. ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ [

M

N

{

d

t

D

a

n

b

y

>

p p >

756-7 (b. Ket. 6a, b. Nid. 116, 64b-65a-b, 69b, 71a-b, 72a-b)] III.ii.45.A. Our rabbis taught: And both agree that if a woman performs immersion at night after a %ibah the immersion is invalid, for both agree that if a woman who observed a discharge during the eleven days and performed immersion in the evening and then had intercourse, she conveys uncleanness to couch and seat, and both are liable to a sacrifice. They only differ where a discharge occurred on the eleventh day, in which case the House of Shammai rule, "They convey uncleanness to couch and seat and are liable to a sacrifice." And the House of Hillel exempt them from the sacrifice. B. Said the House of Shammai to the House of Hillel, "Why should in this respect the eleventh day differ from one of the inter­ mediate of the eleven days; seeing that the former is like the latter in regard to uncleanness, why should it not also be like it in regard to the sacrifice?" The House of Hillel answered the House of Shammai, "No! If you rule that a sacrifice is due after a discharge in the intermediate of the eleven days, because the following day combines with it in regard to %ibab, would you also maintain the same ruling in regard to the eleventh day, which is not followed by one that we could combine with it in regard to t(ibah}" Said the House of Shammai to them: "You must be consistent: if one is like the other in regard to uncleanness, it should also be like it in regard to the sacrifice; and if it is not like it in regard to the sacrifice, it should not be like it in regard to uncleanness either." Said the House of Hillel to them: "If we impose upon a man un­ cleanness in order to restrict the law, we cannot on that ground impose upon him the obligation of a sacrifice which might lead to a relaxation of the law. 9

304

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— Il.i.l 1 6

"And, furthermore, you stand refuted out of your own rulings. For, since you rule that if she performed immersion on the next day and, having had intercourse, she observed a discharge, uncleanness is conveyed to couch and seat, and she is exempt from a sacrifice, you also must be consistent. "If the one is like the other in regard to uncleanness, it should also be like it in regard to the sacrifice; and if it is not like it in regard to the sacrifice, it should not be like it in regard to uncleanness either. "The fact, however, is that they are like one another only where the law is thereby restricted, but not where it would thereby be relaxed; here also, they are like one another where the law is thereby restricted, but not where it is thereby relaxed." (b. Nid. 72a, trans. LW. Slotki, pp. 500-501) Comment: Part A, M. Nid. 10:1, presents three cases, in logical order. If a girl who has not yet begun her menstrual cycle is married, she is presumed clean for the first four nights of marriage. Whatever blood she sees is regarded as hymeneal blood, therefore clean. But if she sees blood after the four nights, it is presumed to be menstrual flow. The Hillelites regard the permitted period as the time needed to heal the original hymeneal injury. It is not clear to me that these periods greatly differ from one another. The next situation pertains to a girl who has reached puberty but has not yet had a flow. The House of Shammai give a single night, and the Hillelites, four nights. The Hillelite lemma is glossed with four nights; the virgin is married on Wednesday, so until the end of the Sabbath duplicates four nights. The third case pertains to a girl past puberty. The House of Shammai give a single act of intercourse. Any blood thereafter is presumed to be menstrual. The House of Hillel give her the whole night. The presumption is that the Hillelites are lenient throughout. The Shammaites lemma carries the superscription, they give her. Without it, the Houses lemmas are as balanced as possible: Shammai 1. F o u r nights 2 . First night 3. Coition of obligation

Hillel U n t i l t h e w o u n d is h e a l e d Until end o f Sabbath (four nights) A l l her night.

I do not see how these disagreements could have been phrased so that the Houses rulings might be balanced opposites. The choices here are notfixedexpressions, such as we saw with midrasjteme-met. Part B, M. Nid. 10:4, preserves a Houses-dispute without a super­ scription, but in proximate balance: H o u s e o f S h a m m a i say, A l l w o m e n die m e n s t r u o u s — K L H N S Y M NDWT

MTWT

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

305

— II.i.116

H o u s e o f H i l l e l say, N o m e n s t r u a n t , b u t she t h a t dies m e n s t r u o u s N D H >L' § M T H N D H

'YN

Obviously, a mere negative would have served for formal purposes. The Hillelite lemma has been phrased in the singular; the not—but form has replaced the simple negative; and while the last two words correspond to the Shammaites', the protasis has dropped all and used menstruant (NDH) in place of women, then joined the whole to the apodosis with S. The Houses-opinions look like fixed stock-phrases which have been set against one another, rather than like a single opinion phrased affirmatively and negatively, or syzygies such as we have come to expect. Perhaps the stock-phrases should be regarded as equivalent to TM'/THR or K$R/PSL and the like. This suggestion presupposes that the Houses actually differ. But if we reconsider the difference between the lemmas before us not in the setting of a dispute, we find that the Houses are saying much the same thing. We shall phrase the whole in the singular, and restate the Hillelite lemma without not. . . but. . ., the double-negative: House of Shammai: House o f Hillel:

}

W o m a n dies m e n s t r u o u s §H MTH NDH M e n s t r u o u s [ — w o m a n ] dies menstruous NDH MTH NDH

The substantive difference is in the protasis, woman vs. menstruous vs. NDH! If we did not know that a Houses-dispute was at hand, we should have supposed that both Houses were saying that women who die are considered to be in a menstruous condition. The original Hillelite lemma, standing independently, repeats NDH fore and aft. This either is a tautology, or must have some "meaning." The redactor of the pericope obviously assumed that meaning would derive from a dispute with the Shammaites, and added 'YN. . . 'IS §. . .—standard redactional particles. No one could have supposed it was merely a garbled tradition. Part C, M. Nid. 10:6, has the Houses in reverse order again, just as in M. Nid. 5:9. Once more the dispute pertains not to the whole of the Hillelite lemma, but only to a clause in it. The Hillelites say that for hallowed things, the woman is like one who has touched a person who has suffered corpse-uncleanness. The Shammaites drop touch, leaving like one who is unclean corpse-uncleanness. Their lemma is introduced with the joining word 'P, even. The Hillelites say that she is like one who has touched a primary source of uncleanness, thus is prohibited from pouring out water for washing the Passover-offering, lest she touch the waters and make them unclean, and they make the Passoveroffering unclean. The Shammaites make it even worse. It is as if she is a Father of Uncleanness, and she makes the vessel unclean, all the more so the water and the Passover-sacrifice. The practical difference is hardly significant. She is certainly prohibited by both Houses from doing the same action. The Houses' difference therefore pertains to the recollec[-woman]—'§H

NEUSNER, T h e Rabbinic T r a d i t i o n s about t h e P h a r i s e e s before 70, II

20

306

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.116

tion of the accurate tradition (touch). I cannot account for the reversal of the Houses' order. Part D, M. Nid. 10:7, continues the same discussion. The Sham­ maites adopt the Hillelite position. Her status is the same as one who has bathed on the day and awaits the sunset to complete purification. Then comes a standard balanced dispute. The difference of the Houseslemmas is merely in the negative. The form obviously is perfect, if somewhat developed through the insertion of explanatory matter into the lemmas of both Houses. This makes it all the more curious that the foregoing pericope drops the conventional form. The problem of M. Nid. 10:8 = III.ii.45 is this: Scripture distin­ guishes between a woman who has a flow of menstrual blood (Lev. 15:19: When a woman has a discharge of blood which is her regular discharge. . . she shall be in her impurity for seven days), and a woman who suffers a more extended flow (Lev. 15:25: If a woman has a discharge of blood for many days, not at the time of her impurity, or if she has a discharge beyond the time of her impurity, all the days of the discharge she shall continue in uncleanness). The former speaks of a menstrual woman, the latter of a woman suffering flow (ZBH). The difference is that when the woman sees blood at the outset, she is supposed to be in her menstrual period for seven days. If she sees a flow once during the period or throughout it, she immerses at the end, on the night of the eighth day and is clean. After the seven days of the menstrual period, the days of the flow (ZYBH) begin. If a woman has afluxduring the eighth day, she waits a day and immerses, and if there is no further flow, .he is regarded as clean. If she sees blood also on the ninth day, she immerses on the tenth, waits out the next day in cleanness, and is regarded as clean. But if she sees a flow also on the tenth day, that is, three days in succession after the end of the menstrual period, she is the ZBH of which Scripture speaks, and has to count seven clean days, immerse, and bring a sacrifice on the eighth day (Albeck, Seder Toharot, p. 375). See Tos. Nid. 9:19 = M. Nid. 10:8, and compare M. Zab. 1 :l-2. Parts E-F-G, M. Nid. 10:8, revert to superscription-style: If a woman saw [a flow] on the eleventh day and immersed at nightfall intercourse

and had

H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : They render unclean by lying or sitting a n d a r e l i a b l e f o r a sacrifice House o f Hillel: T h e y a r e f r e e o f t h e sacrifice ( = III.ii.45).

In this instance, the Hillelites accept the first clause of the Shammaite ruling, which could have been added to the superscription, leaving a perfect syzygy: HYYBYN/PTWRYN. The issue on the eleventh day may be a case offlux(Lev. 15:25), and the beginning of the seven days when it may be a menstrual flow (Lev. 15:10). The law is that the woman was supposed to wait a day. She is in the ritual status of a Zab. The Hillelites do not differ on the uncleanness, but only on the sacrifice, for they hold that the requirement to wait a day is not in the Torah. But

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.ii.114,115

307

they agree that the couple renders objects unclean on account of a decree of the scribes. The second dispute is in descending order of stringency. The woman now has waited a day, then had intercourse, then saw aflux.The House of Shammai say the same uncleanness pertains, but there is no sacrifice, and the House of Hillel say there is no punishment whatever. The agreement at the end specifies the conditions in which the un­ cleanness and the sacrifice will pertain according to both parties. See Epstein, Mevo'ot, pp. 23, 63; Mishnah, p. 1030 (>P). Il.ii.l 14. "A nursing mother whose husband dies—lo, such a one should not become betrothed or married until twenty-four months have passed for her," the words of R. Meir. R. Judah says, "Eighteen months." R. Jonathan b. Joseph says, "The House of Shammai say, 'Twentyfour months.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'Eighteen months.' " [Tos. Nid. 2:2, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 642, lines 22-25 (b. Ket. 60a-b, y. Sot. 4:4)] Comment: Jonathan phrases the dispute of the second-century masters in terms of the Houses, with Meir in the Shammaite position, Judah in the Hillelite. Since the named masters presumably would have stated their views in the names of the Houses had they derived them from the Houses, we may assume Judah and Meir have come to their conclusions independent of any Houses-traditions, and that Jonathan is responsible for translating the whole into the Houses-form. See above, p. 207.

Il.ii.l 15.A. The blood of a gentile woman and the blood of the purifying of a woman that is a leper— The House of Shammai say, "Lo, they are like the blood from her wound (MGPTH)." B. "The blood of a woman who has given birth and not immersed renders unclean [when] moist, but does not render unclean [when] dry,"—the words of R. Meir. And R. Judah declares unclean [when both] moist and dry. C. R. Eliezer says [quotes] from the lenient rulings of the House of Shammai and from the stringent rulings of the House of Hillel: "The blood of a woman who has given birth and who has not im­ mersed— "The House of Shammai say, 'It renders unclean when moist and does not render unclean when dry.'

308

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— Il.ii.l 1 6

"And the House of Hillel say, 'It renders unclean when both moist and dry.' " D. The House of Hillel [following b. Nid. 35b] said to the House of Shammai, "Do you not agree concerning a menstrual woman, that, if her time to immerse has come and she has not immersed, she is un­ clean?" The House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel, "No, if you say so concerning a menstrual woman, who, if she immerses today and sees [a flux] tomorrow, is unclean, will you say concerning a woman who has given birth, who, if she immerses today and sees a flux tomorrow, is clean?" E. The House of Hillel said to them, "A woman who gives birth while in the status of a Zab will prove it." The House of Shammai said to them, "If it is a woman who gives birth while in the status of a Zab, that is the law, and that is the reply: A woman who gives birth while in the status of a Zab, the days of her being in the status of a Zab count for her from the days of her clean­ ness but do not count for her from the days of her giving birth." Il.ii.l 16. She who has difficulty [in giving birth]—how much should she be relieved from pain so as to be in the status of a Zab} R. Eliezer says, "From time to time," and the law is according to his words. R. Simeon b. Judah says in the name of R. Simeon, "The House of Shammai say, 'Three days/ and the House of Hillel say, 'From time to time.' " [Tos. Nid. 5:5-7, ed. Zuckermandel, pp. 645, lines 31-36, 646, lines 1-6 (b. Nid. l i b , 35b, 36a)] Comment: Parts A-B correspond to M. Nid. 4:3. The first thing we notice is that Judah and Meir have phrased the dispute in the simpler language we should have expected above: render unclean when moist I dry. M. Nid. 4:3 looks like a development of Tos. Nid. 5:5. Therefore the dispute begins with Meir and Judah, and not earlier. Meir is responsible for the whole (Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim III, p. 269). It is his view that the Houses did not differ concerning the blood of a gentile woman. Even the House of Shammai agree that it renders unclean when moist, but not when dry. Meir is consistent with his view in M. Nid. 2:6: The blood conveys uncleanness as a liquid. Likewise, Meir holds, the Houses did not differ concerning the blood of one who gives birth; both hold it conveys uncleanness when moist,

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

309

— Il.ii.l 17

but not when dry. Meir has used the simplest language, renders unclean So Meir diners from the picture of M. Nid. 4:3 con­ cerning the Houses-dispute. Judah then differs concerning the second clause of Meir's saying, and holds that the Shammaites regard the blood of one who gives birth as capable of rendering unclean, whether moist or dry; compare M. Ed. 5:5. Eliezer is therefore the authority of M. Nid. 4:3, since he has accurately portrayed the positions assigned to the two Houses. Part E again pertains to M. Nid. 4:3: The Houses agree that if a woman gave birth while a Zab, the liquid (blood) conveys uncleanness whether moist or dry. The Tosefta here adds (Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim III, p. 270) that it is precisely if she has not yet counted seven clean days. But if she has counted seven days of the days of her purifica­ tion, the House of Shammai rule that they do count for her (as in b. Nid. 35b; Sifra Tazri'a 1:13). Il.ii.l 16 appears in b. Nid. 7b. In M. Nid. 4:4, the pericope occurs without reference to the Houses. Here Eliezer is represented in the Hillelite position. So we cannot assume that Eliezer invariably is identical with the Shammaites. See also M. Zab. 2:3.

when moist, not dry.

c

Il.ii.l 17.A. If a girl was married that had not yet suffered a flow— The House of Shammai say, "They give her four nights not con­ tinuously (M$WRGYN), even [spread over] four months." And the House of Hillel say, "All the time that [the wound] is discharging (NYGPT)." In what circumstances ? When she has not ceased [to discharge]. But if she has ceased [to discharge] and then she saw [blood] not on account of sexual relations, lo, this one is unclean as a menstruant. B. And they give her until the wound is healed. C. If the color of [her] blood changed and she saw [blood], lo, this one is unclean as a menstruant. Concerning this one, the House of Hillel say, "All the night is hers." R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says, "They give her a full period ( WNT §LMH)—half a day and its night." D. . . .And in reference to all of them, R. Meir would say [rule] according to the words of the House of Shammai. . . C

[Tos. Nid. 9:7-9, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 651, lines 2-5, 7-12 (b. Nid. 64b, 65a)] Comment: The corresponding Mishnah is M. Nid. 10:1. Part B is borrowed from M. Nid. 10:1, the Hillelite opinion, and does not belong here. See Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim III, p. 287.

310

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.118, II.i.117

II.ii.ll8.A. That one which the House of Hillel would call glutton­ ous, R. Judah would call, "One who has intercourse with a menstru­ ant." B. The House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel, "Do you not agree that one who sees [blood] during the eleven [days] and im­ mersed at the evening and had intercourse is unclean for lying and sitting, and obligated for a sacrifice? Also the one who sees on the eleventh day should be liable for a sacrifice." The House of Hillel said to them, "No, if you say so concerning one who sees [blood] during the eleven days, it is because the day which comes afterward joins with it for her [to remain in the status of] a Zab. Will you say so concerning one who sees [blood] on the ele­ venth day, for the day which follows does not join with it [for her to remain in the status of] a Zab}" The House of Shammai said to them, "If so, she [also] should not be unclean for [uncleanness of] lying and sitting?" The House of Hillel said to them, "If we have added the [unclean­ ness of] sitting and lying, which is severe, shall we diminish from bringing the sacrifice, which is lenient?" (Tos. Nid. 9:19, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 652, lines 6-13) Comment: The corresponding Mishnah is M. Nid. 10:8. In part A Judah b. Ilai adopts the Shammaite position. Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim III, p. 290, observes that Judah's father, Ila'i was a disciple of Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, a Shammaite, so here follows the Shammaite view. The debate here in the name of the Houses is in b. Nid. 72a given in the name of Judah and the House of Hillel. This proves that the debate-form was used for later materials, long after the Houses presumably had ceased to exist. ILi. 117.A. If a man shook a tree to bring down fruit or some un­ cleanness [and he brought down also drops of rain and these fell upon the fruit], the law I J water be put on (Lev. 11:38) does not apply. But if [he shook it] to bring down the drops of rain— The House of Shammai say, "The law If water be put on applies to the drops that fell and to them that remained (HYWS'YN W'T SBW) [and that fell later]." And the House of Hillel say, "The law If water be put on applies to the drops that fell but not to them that remained [since his purpose was that all should fall off together]."

311

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — Il.i.l 17

B. If he shook a tree and the drops of rain fell on another tree; or a bush, and the drops of rain fell on another bush, and beneath them were seeds or unplucked vegetables— The House of Shammai say, "The law If water be put on applies." And the House of Hillel say, "It does not apply." R. Joshua said in the name of Abba Yosi Holiqofri of Tibeon, "Marvel at yourself, if anywhere the Torah prescribes that a liquid can render aught susceptible to uncleanness unless it was [intentionally] applied for a set purpose, for it is written, But if water be put upon the seed(Lev. 11:38)." C. If man shook a bunch of herbs and [the drops of rain thereon] fell from the top side to the bottom— The House of Shammai say, "The law If water be put on applies." And the House of Hillel say, "The law If water be put on does not apply." D. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, "If a man shakes the stalk [of a plant], do we take thought lest the drops fall from one leaf to another?" The House of Shammai said to them, "A stalk is but a single [thing], but a bunch is many stalks." The House of Hillel said to them, "If a man pulled out a sack full of fruit [that had fallen into the river] and put it on the river bank, do we take thought lest water falls from the top to the bottom? Yet if he had pulled out two sacks and put them one above the other, the law If water be put on applies to the lower sack." R. Yosi says, "Here also the lower one is not rendered susceptible." (M. Maksh. 1:2-4, trans. Danby, p. 758) Comment:

F o o d is s u s c e p t i b l e t o u n c l e a n n e s s if l i q u i d h a s m o i s t e n e d

i t . L i q u i d d o e s s o o n l y i f i t i s intended f o r d r i n k i n g o r o t h e r u s e n o t i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h w a t e r i n g s o m e t h i n g attached t o the soil. T h e may,

liquid

h o w e v e r , be spilled [put] b y s o m e accidental means, n o t m e r e l y b y

the m a n himself, a c c o r d i n g to L e v . 1 1 : 3 8 ,

When water

i s p l a c e d on the

seed, a s i n M . M a k s h . 1 : 1 :

I f a n y l i q u i d w a s acceptable i n t h e b e g i n n i n g , e v e n t h o u g h it w a s n o t a c c e p t a b l e i n t h e e n d , o r v i c e v e r s a , t h e l a w If water be put on a p p l i e s . L i q u i d s t h a t a r e u n c l e a n c o n v e y u n c l e a n n e s s w h e t h e r acceptable o r n o t . T h e s t o c k - p h r a s e f o r t h e H o u s e s ' r u l i n g s i s If water be put to liquid which renders food

on, r e f e r r i n g

capable of receiving uncleanness;

m e a n i n g is t h a t t h e l i q u i d e n t e r s t h e c a t e g o r y o f L e v . 1 1 : 3 8 .

the

MK§YR

312

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — I l . i . l 17

= BKY YTN is therefore the equivalent of TM% unclean, and >YNW MKSYR = >YNW BKY YTN is the equivalent to THR, clean. The form ofpart A, M. Maksh. 1:2, is standard. The Houses' sayings are perfectly balanced, within the limitations stated above: To bring down the drops of rain H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : T h o s e t h a t c o m e f o r t h ( H Y W S ' Y N ) and t h a t a r e o n it ( W ' T 5 B W ) [are] u n d e r (B) If water be put on H o u s e o f H i l l e l : T h o s e t h a t c o m e f o r t h [are] u n d e r If water. . . B u t t h o s e t h a t a r e o n i t [are] n o t u n d e r If water, etc.

While the Houses agree on the first matter, it is just as simple to re­ member the opinions by stating them in full as to set the agreed item into the superscription. The rest of the Hillelite saying is a gloss, explaining that the man shaking the tree did not give thought to the water that would remain on it, therefore those drops that fall later are not capable of rendering food ready to receive uncleanness. Part B, M. Maksh. 1:3, extends the dispute to a neighboring bush. The Houses' lemmas are more perfectly balanced than Danby's trans­ lation suggests; they are simply: Under If water be put/Not under If water be put. The food was still attached to the ground. The Sham­ maites hold that the water comes under the category of If water be put and makes susceptible to uncleanness whatever fruits should fall on it. The Hillelites rule that the liquid fell on produce attached to the ground, therefore is not in the category of If water be put. But if afterwards the water remained on another tree, the House of Hillel agree that the water is in the category of If water be put, since they fell from tree to tree. Abba Yosi Holiqofri is cited by Joshua (b. Hananiah), that Scripture requires the man to intend and actually to place the water himself; hence he stands outside of the position of either House; but Epstein, Mevd*ot, p. 61, says Joshua gives the Hillelite reason. Part C, M. Maksh. 1:4, concerns shaking a bunch of vegetables to rid them of water. The House of Shammai hold that the rule applies because the man has paid attention to the water. The dispute,part D, is not in the normal form, for while the Hillelites begin it, the Shammaites do not end it. The Hillelites' question is in astonishment: Do we take thought of shaking a stalk, that the drops may fall from one leaf to another! The Shammaites reply that the bunch is different from a single stalk. The Hillelites raise the same question, now concerning a man with a sack of fruit taken out of the water. They agree that if there were two sacks, the lower would be subject to the rule—which looks like a gloss. So the Hillelites are made to accept the Shammaite rule of M. Maksh. 1:3! The Hillelite "arguments" consist of a series of questions in which the astonishment of the Hillelites replaces any effort at reasoning. Yosi's saying ignores the gloss, therefore comes before it. The lower

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.118

313

sack indeed is not subject to the rule. Since the second Hillelite lemma merely repeats the argument of the first, we may imagine that the primary form of the debate had only the first two elements, and the second Hillelite saying is a new version of the first. But see below (p. 314) for other versions and an alternative explanation. Note Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 78. II.i.ll8.A. If water leaking from the roof dripped into a jar— The House of Shammai say, "It must be broken." And the House of Hillel say, "It must be emptied out." But they agree that a man may put forth his hand inside and take out produce, and that this is not susceptible to uncleanness. B. If water leaking from the roof dripped into a trough, the law If water be put on does not apply to [the water that] splashed out or over­ flowed (HNTZYN WHSPYN). If the trough was taken away to pour out [the water elsewhere]— The House of Shammai say, "The law If water be put on applies to it." And the House of Hillel says, "It does not apply." C. If he had so set it that the water leaking from the roof should fall into it, as to what splashed out or overflowed— The House of Shammai say, "The law If water be put on applies." And the House of Hillel say, "The law If water be put on does not apply." D. If it was taken away to pour out [the water elsewhere], these and these agree that the law If water be put on applies to them. (M. Maksh. 4:4-5, trans. Danby, pp. 762-3) Comment: Part A, M. Maksh. 4:4, has water dripping into the jar not at the man's desire. But the jar is full of fruit. How to get the fruit out? The Shammaites say the jar must be broken, but the man should not pour out the water, for, if he pours it out, he will willingly move the water from side to side, and it will then render the fruit susceptible. The Hillelites say he may pour out the water, for, until it has left the jar, it does not render the fruit susceptible. The Houses however agree that if he puts in his hand, the fruit remains clean. That would seem the best solution. The Houses' opinions are in the form of matched verbs: Y$BR/Y RH. NO other explanatory matter is supplied; all depends on the superscription. Part B, M. Maksh. 4:5, contains three successive disputes. The first concerns taking the trough to pour out the water—hence willingly. The House of Shammai hold that the water that splashed out or over­ flowed is subject to the rule of If water be put on, because the man has C

314

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.119, II.ii.119

paid attention to the water, as above. The House of Hillel take the same position as earlier. In the second case, he left the trough—again willingly. What overflows is in the same category as before. But the Hillelites here would hold that the water in the trough is subject to the rule of If water be put, for the man has intended to collect the water. In the third instance, the Houses agree that if he took the trough to pour it out elsewhere, he certainly intended to make use of the whole, even though he now disposes of it, and therefore his original, purposeful in­ tention has not been annulled, as above, M. Maksh. 1:1. See Epstein, Mishnah, pp. 783,1176. ILi. 119. Any unbroken stream of liquid [that is poured from a clean to an unclean vessel] remains clean, save only a stream of thick honey or batter. The House of Shammai say, "Also one of porridge made from grits or beans, since [at the end of its flow] it shrinks backwards." [M. Maksh. 5:9, trans. Danby, pp. 764-5 (b. Naz. 50b)] Comment: The Shammaites gloss the foregoing rule, and their saying is itself glossed ("since it shrinks backwards"). If what the bottom vessel contains is unclean, it does not render unclean what is poured out, for what is poured out does not render susceptible to un­ cleanness. See Epstein, Mishnah, p. 1088. Il.ii.l 19.A. [If a man] shook a tree to bring down from it the drops of rain, and they fell on those [fruits] that were unattached to it and on those that were attached [to the ground] below it— The House of Shammai say, "Under If water be put" And the House of Hillel say, "Those [that were] unattached are under If water be put, and those [that were] attached are not under If water be put" B. R. Yosi b. R. Judah said, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not dispute concerning one who shook the tree to bring down from it liquid, and it [the liquid] fell on those [fruits] that were unattached which were in it, and on those that were unattached under it, that they are not under If water be put; and concerning the roots [Lieberman: S'QRN], once they are dry, that they are not under If water be put. "Concerning what did they disagree? "Concerning him who shakes the tree to bring down from it fruits ('WKLYN = food), and they fell from basket to basket and from

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

315

— Il.ii.l 19

bush [of leaves] to bush in the same tree, that the House of Shammai say, 'Under If water be put, and the House of Hillel say, 'They are not under If water be put [Lieberman: Since the man does not intend to bring down the water, no intent is present, so the Hillelites. The Shammaites hold one cannot bring down fruit without water, so the intent is there.] C. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, "All agree concerning one who brings up a tied-up sack and places it on the side of the river, that, even though the water drips from the upper to the lower, they are not under If water be put" The House of Shammai said to them, "Do you not agree concerning him who brings up two tied-up sacks and places them one above the other so the water flows from the upper to the lower, that the lower is under the rule of If water be put}" D. R. Yosi says, "It is all the same with one or two sacks: "The House of Shammai say, 'It is under If water be put "And the House of Hillel say, 'It is not under If water be put " R. Judah says R. Eliezer says, "Both are under If water be put" R. Joshua says, "Both are not under If water be put" R. Aqiba says, "The lower one is under If water be put, and the upper is not under If water be put" 9

99

9

9

c

(Tos. Maksh. 1:1-4, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 673, lines 16-13) Comment: Parts A and B correspond to M. Maksh. 1:2-3, but only in a general way. The Houses' lemmas remain fixed, but the cases to which they are attached are different from the Mishnaic ones. While the rule of M. Maksh. 1:4 is not given, we have four versions of the little debate of M. Maksh. 1:4 in parts C-D, which accounts for the strange form of the Mishna?c version of the debate. The real pro­ blem of M. Maksh. 1:4 is the presupposition of the second Hillelite argument, that the Shammaites agree that there is a difference between the upper sack and the lower one, but that the Hillelites also agree that the lower sack has been rendered unclean. Yosi b. R. Judah

Eliezer

Joshua

D o w e w o r r y in t h e case

M. Maksh.

1:4

All

—

—

o f a s i n g l e sack lest t h e

o n e tied u p sack, t h a t

agree

concerning

water f r o m the u p p e r

t h e l o w e r is not u n d e r

fruit r e n d e r susceptible

If water be put.

the l o w e r f r u i t ? [No!] B u t if h e b r o u g h t u p t w o s a c k s , t h e l o w e r is u n d e r If water be put

Shammai: D o you not agree concerning t w o sacks, that etc.

Both are u n d e r the rule

B o t h a r e not under the rule

316

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.120, II.i.120

Finally, * Aqiba says the lower one is under If water be put, but not the upper one, which the Mishnaic version of the argument places in the Hillelites' mouth. Yosi b. R. Judah is consistent in this element, and Judah the Patriarch has used his version for the Hillelite opening, so the Mishnah in fact follows him—but with this difference: The Shammaites of Yosi are dropped in the Mishnah, leaving the Hillelites with the last answer—bad form. In their final clause, the Hillelites concede the Shammaites' view (as given here) about two sacks. So the Mishnah probably should have concluded, "The House of Shammai said to them, 'Do you not agree [or, is it not the case, HL>] that if he brought up two, and placed them'. . ." That would permit the restoration of the normal debate form. It now looks as if the single-stalk argument, with which the Hillelites open, is out of place. (See Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim IV, pp. 106-7, Epstein, Mevo*ot, p. 78). II.ii.l20.A. [If water leaking from the roof dripped into the trough, the water that splashed out or overflowed is (contrary to M. Maksh. 4:5) under the rule of If water be set.] If he took them to pour them out— The House of Shammai say, "They are under If water be set." And the House of Hillel say, "They are not under If water be set." B. "Under what circumstances? In the case of purity (BTHWRH). But in the case of impurity (BTM'H), all agree that it is under the law of If water be set" the words of R. Meir. R. Yosi says, "It is all the same whether it is clean or unclean, the House of Shammai say, 'Lo, they are under If water be set. "And the House of Hillel say, 'They are not under If water be set. 9

9

99

[Tos. Maksh. 2:6, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 674, lines 18-23 (b. Shab. 17a)] Comment: The Tosefta is equivalent to M. Maksh. 4:5. The Houses' opinions here correspond to the ones given in the Mishnah. What is different is the dispute of R. Meir and R. Yosi on whether a distinc­ tion is made between pure and impure water. The Mishnah follows the view of R. Yosi and omits such a distinction. Meir is consistent withM. Maksh. 1:1, above, p. 311. On the conflict of the anonymous, rule in part A with the Mishnah, see Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim IV, pp. 111-112. II.U20.A. If a man has suffered one issue of flux (HRW'H R'YH >HT SLZWB)— The House of Shammai say, "He is like one that awaits day against day."

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

317

— II.i.120

And the House of Hillel say, "Like one that has suffered a pollution (KB L KRY)." B. If he suffered one issue, and on the second day it ceased, and on the third day he suffered two issues, or one as profuse as if it were two— The House of Shammai say, "He is wholly a Zab." And the House of Hillel say, "He conveys uncleaness to what he lies upon or sits upon, and he must bathe in running water, but he is exempt from the offering." C. R. Eleazar b. Judah said, "The House of Shammai agree that such a one is not wholly a Zab. "And about what did they dispute? "About him that suffered two issues, or one as profuse as two, but suffered none on the second day, and on the third day again suffered one issue, [of such a one]— "The House of Shammai say, 'He is wholly a Zab. "And the House of Hillel say, 'He conveys uncleanness to what he lies upon or sits upon, and he must bathe in running water, but he is exempt from the offering.' " D. If he suffered an issue of semen (KRY) on his third day of reckoning after his flux— The House of Shammai say, "It makes void ($WTR) the two clean days that went before." And the House of Hillel say, "It made void(STR) only that day." E. R. Ishmael says, "If he suffered it on the second day it makes void the [clean] day that went before." R. Aqiba says, "It is all one whether he suffered it on the second or on the third day." F. For the House of Shammai say, "It has made void the two days that went before." And the House of Hillel say, "It has made void that day only." G. But they agree that if he suffered it on the fourth day, it makes void that day only if it was an issue of semen; but if he suffered a flux, even on the seventh day, it makes void [all] the days that went C

9

c

b e f o r e

'

[M. Zab. 1:1-2, trans. Danby, p. 767 (b. Nid. 72b)] Comment:

L e v . 1 5 : 1 - 1 5 pertains to bodily discharges, which are un­

clean. W h e t h e r a man's b o d y r u n s w i t h his

discharge

o r is

stopped

f r o m d i s c h a r g e , it is u n c l e a n . T h e b e d o n w h i c h h e lies a n d p l a c e s

on

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.120

which he sits are unclean; one who touches the bed shall wash and bathe and is unclean until evening. Whoever touches his body likewise must bathe and is unclean until evening. When the discharge stops, the man counts seven clean days and immerses. On the eighth day he brings a sacrifice. When a man sees two appearances of discharge on one day or two successive days, then he is a Zab, as described above, counts seven clean days, etc., but he is not liable for a sacrifice unless he sees three appearances on one day or one on three successive days. Parts A-C, M. Zab. 1 : 1 , now take up the ambiguous problem of one who has not fully met the conditions specified above. One who sees only a single appearance of flux clearly enters a different ritual status from a completely clean person. The House of Shammai compare him to a woman who sees blood on the eleventh day of her clean cycle. If she sees it one day, she observes one day in cleanness and is regarded as clean, but if she sees it three consecutive days, she is regarded as a Zab. Likewise, one who sees one appearance of flux has to wait; if he sees a second, he is a Zab and renders unclean through lying and sitting retroactively from the time that he first saw the flux. The Hillelites say he is like one who has suffered a seminal emission. He does not render unclean through lying and sitting, but if he sees a secondflux,he renders un­ clean henceforward. The Houses' opinions are as balanced as possible. That is, each House compares the man's condition to a different circumstance of ritual impurity. They could not have ruled uncleanjclean-, the only way their opinions could have registered with precision is the language before us: KSWMRT YWM etc. vs. KB L KRY. In part B, the ambiguity is an interrupted flux. The man saw one flux, none on the second day, and on the third, two fluxes, or one as abundant as two. The Shammaites regard him as a Zab. The Hillelites say he is not completely a Zab, therefore is exempt from the offering. Eliezer b. Judah then corrects the superscription, preserving the same opinions. Eliezer insists that the ambiguity concerns pretty much the same situation, but the specified fluxes occur in different order. The Hillelite ruling would have been not complete Zab, vs. the Shammaites' complete Zab. But this required a gloss, explaining in what respects the man like a Zab, and in what respects he was not. The gloss has survived, and the primary ruling has been dropped. Parts D, E, F, G, M. Zab. 1 : 2 , pertain to an issue of semen on the third clean day after thefluxeshave ended. This is not aflux.The issue is, What happens to the antecedent days ? The House of Shammai rule that the seminal issue has cancelled out the two clean days, and the man must start counting the seven clean days anew. The Hillelites say he loses that day, but the antecedent clean days still count. The Houses' lemmas are somewhat developed: C

S h a m m a i : It v o i d s t h e t w o d a y s before it. Hillel: It v o i d s o n l y its d a y .

The simplest comprehensible language would have been two

days

vs.

its

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.121

319

day with a gloss of before it to clarify both the Shammaite and the Hillelite position. Ishmael and * Aqiba then (E) debate a more ambiguous situation: If the man saw the semen on the second day. Ishmael seems to follow the Shammaite line. But 'Aqiba then cites the Houses' opinions; no distinction is made between the second and the third day. The sayings of Ishmael and Aqiba are definitive evidence that the Houses' dispute took shape before ca. 100. The Houses then (G) agree about the fourth day, with the Shammai­ tes' coming over to the Hillelite position. The whole is glossed: this pertains to semen, not to flux. In a case of flux, obviously, any appear­ ance cancels out the intervening clean days. c

ILii. 121 .A. If a man has suffered one issue of flux— The House of Shammai say, "He is like the woman that awaits day against day." And the House of Hillel say, "He is like one that has suffered a pollution." B. And these and these agree that he immerses and eats his Pesah at the evening. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, "Do you not agree that he immerses and eats his Pesah at the evening?" The House of Shammai said to them, "Do you not agree that if he sees [a flux] tomorrow, he is unclean? Lo, he is like a woman that awaits day against day, that if she should see tomorrow, she is un­ clean [retroactively]" (Tos. Zab. 1:1) C. If a man caused a shaking of the first observed appearance [of flux]— The House of Shammai say, "He is suspended (TLWY)." The House of Hillel say, "He is clean (THWR)." As to couches and seats he occupied [between the first and second discharge]— The House of Shammai say, "It [what he sat or lay on] is suspended." The House of Hillel say, "It is clean." [Tos. Zab. 1 : 2 (b. Nid. 72b)] D. If he saw two appearances, he who caused a shaking of both of them is unclean, according to the words of the House of Shammai. The House of Hillel say, "He who caused a shaking of the first is clean, and of the second, is unclean."

320

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.121

As to the lyings and sittings between the first and the second, the House of Shammai declare [them] unclean, and the House of Hillel de­ clare clean. E. "If he saw one as abundant as two, he who shifts the whole is unclean," the words of the House of Shammai. And the House of Hillel say, "The only one who is unclean is he who shifts the last drop only." (Tos. Zab. 1:3) c

F. R. Aqiba said, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree concerning him who sees two, or one as large as two, and on the second [day] it was interrupted, and on the third day he saw one, that this one is not a complete Zab. "Concerning what did they differ? "Concerning the one who saw on the first day, and on the second it was interrupted, and on the third he saw two. "The House of Shammai say, 'He is a complete Zab "And the House of Hillel say, 'He renders unclean through his lying and sitting, and requires immersion in living waters, but is free of the sacrifice.' " (Tos. Zab. 1:4) 9

G. When R. 'Aqiba was arranging ($DR; alt.: HBR) laws for the disciples, he said, "Whoever has heard a reason from his fellow, let him come and say so." R. Simeon said before him in the name of R. Eleazar b. R. Judah of Bartuta, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not differ concerning him who saw one on the first day, and on the second it was interrupted, and on the third he saw two, that such a one is not a complete Zab. "Concerning what did they differ? "Concerning him who saw two, or one that was as abundant as two, and on the second day it was interrupted, and on the third he saw one." He said, "Not every one that jumps forward is to be praised, but only him who gives the reason [for his words]." (Tos. Zab. 1:5) H. R. Simeon said before him, "Thus did the House of Hillel say to the House of Shammai:

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA -

321

II.ii.121

" 'What is it to me that he saw one at first and one at the end?' "They said to them, 'When he saw one at first and two at the end, the [intervening] clean day annulled the appearance [at first], and he has in his hand two appearances [of flux] [But] when he saw two at first and one at the end, since he was required to count seven [clean days], the first appearance cancelled the clean day, and he has in his hand three appearances [of flux].' " R. < Aqiba reverted to teach (LHYWT SWNH) according to the words of R. Simeon. I. R. Eleazar b. R. Yannai said in the name of R. Eleazar Hisma before Rabbi [Judah the Patriarch], "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not differ about him who saw one [flux] on the first day and one on the second, and on the third it was interrupted, and on the fourth he saw one; and concerning [ L for D] one who saw one on the first and on the second it was interrupted, and on the third and fourth he saw two—that such as this is not a complete Zab. "What did they dispute? "Concerning one who saw two or one as abundant as two, and on the second day it was interrupted, and on the third [and on the fourth] he saw one." (Tos. Zab. 1:7) C

C

c

J . One disciple of the disciples of R. Ishmael said before R. Aqiba in the name of R. Ishmael, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not dispute concerning one who saw a seminal emission on the second day, that it makes void the day before it, and concerning him who saw it on the fourth day, that it voids only its day. "Concerning what did they differ? "Concerning him who saw [it] on the third day." (Tos. Zab. 1 :l-8, ed. Zuckermandel, pp. 676-7, lines 19-40,1-8) Comment: Part A corresponds to M. Zab. 1:1. Part B is new, and the dialogue is built on the supposed agreement. Neither House persuades the other. Here the purpose of the dialogue is to explicate the reasoning of each House. Part C is found in b. Nid. 72b. Part F indicates that the Mishnah before us follows 'Aqiba. Part G-H-I supplies important evidence on how Tannaim envisioned the formation of Houses-materials. They were shaped by the later masters, who had traditions on laws and on Houses' opinions, and, N E U S N E R , T h e R a b b i n i c T r a d i t i o n s about t h e P h a r i s e e s b e f o r e 7 0 , II

21

322

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.121

through their own reasoning, figured out what opinions are to be assigned to which legal problems. Clearly, it was conventional to argue the Houses' positions in terms of "they said," working out the logic of each side and setting the whole into debate-form. This shows two things. First, the debate-form is as old as the conventional syzygies. Second, it could be, and was, used for the development of materials long after the Houses had passed from the scene. Part J corresponds to M. Zab. 1:2. Note Epstein,

Mevo'ot,

pp. 73, 79, 148, 211.

ILi. 121.A. He who gathers together (MKN$) many Doughofferings with the intention of separating them again, but they stuck together— The House of Shammai say, "They serve as a connective (HBWR BTBWL YWM) [to convey uncleanness from the one to the other if they are touched by one that had] immersed [himself the selfsame] day." And the House of Hillel say, "They do not serve as a connective (>YNW HBWR)." B. [If] pieces of dough [that were Heave-offering] were stuck together, or [if] loaves [of Heave-offering] were stuck together, or if he bakes a cake [of Heave-offering] on top of another cake before they had formed a crust in the oven, or [if there was] a blown-up skim of froth on water, or the first scum to rise in boiling bean-grits, or scum of new wine (R. Judah says, "Also that of rice")— The House of Shammai say, "These serve as a connective [to convey uncleanness if they are touched by one that had] immersed [himself the selfsame] day." And the House of Hillel say, "They do not serve as a connective." But they agree [that they serve as a connective] if they are touched by any other [grades of] uncleanness, be they slight or grave. [M. Tevul Yom 1:1, trans. Danby, pp. 773-4 (y. Hal. 3:5, ed. Gilead, p. 21a = y. Hal. 4:1)] Comment: A man who has become unclean on account of an un­ cleanness concerning which Scripture says, He shall be unclean until evening (Lev. 11:32, 22:6-7), is in a lower state of uncleanness, for he has im­ mersed himself, but only at sunset is he completely clean. The degree of uncleanness is "second grade uncleanness." He does not make com­ mon food (Hullin) unclean, but he does render Terumah invalid, that is, he conveys to it third-grade uncleanness, so the Heave-offering is unusable and must be burned. He therefore cannot touch sanctities,

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.ii.122, II.i.122

323

which are one degree still more susceptible than Heave-offering and may not go into the Temple beyond the gentiles' court. Such a man is called a tevul-yom. The Houses' sayings in both parts are perfectly balanced: connective [for tevul-yom]jnot

connective.

As often, the Hillelite lemma depends for its protasis on the Sham­ maite one. The superscriptions are highly articulated and extensive. In part A, the point is that Hallah is like Terumah. The Hillelites hold that, since the man intends to separate the loaves, the piece touched by the man is unfit, but the rest is clean. The second part contains disagree­ ment on the same principle. The agreement at the end specifies that the Hillelites accept the Shammaite view in the other grades of unclean­ ness; the Hillelites make a lenient judgment only in the case of a tevulyom.

II.ii.122. If a layer of jelly was formed over the flesh of hallowed flesh, and so too oil floating on wine— R. Ishmael b. R. Yohanan b. Beroqah says, "The House of Sham­ mai say, 'It is a connective for a tevul-yom "And the House of Hillel say, 'It is not a connective.' " 9

[Tos. Tevul Yom 2:3, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 685, lines 9-11 (y. Suk. 2:8, y. Ter. 5:2)] Comment: The corresponding Mishnah, M. Tevul Yom 2:5, follows the Hillelite view, and for the second case Yohanan b. Nuri adheres to the Shammaite opinion, but does not refer to the Houses.

II.i.l22.A. All the Holy Scriptures render the hands unclean. The Song of Songs and Qohelet render the hands unclean. R. Judah says, "The Song of Songs renders the hands unclean, but about Qohelet there is dissension." R. Yosi says, "Qohelet does not render the hands unclean, and about the Song of Songs there is dissension." B. R. Simeon says, "Qohelet is one of the things about which the House of Shammai adopted the more lenient, and the House of Hillel, the more stringent, ruling." [M. Yad. 3:5, trans. Danby, pp. 781-2 (b. Meg. 7a)] c

See M. Ed. 5:3. The Shammaites say it does not render the hands unclean. The debate is Ushan. Simeon does not quote the (theoretical) pericope, merely refers to it. M. Ed. constructs the whole in standard form. Note Epstein, Mevo ot, pp. 125,424,436. Comment:

c

y

324

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.123

II.i.l23.A. Olives and grapes that have turned hard (PRYSY ZYTYM etc.)— The House of Shammai declare susceptible to uncleanness, but the House of Hillel declare them insusceptible. Black cummin (HQSH)— The House of Shammai declare insusceptible to uncleanness, and the House of Hillel declare susceptible. So, too, [do they differ] concerning [whether it is liable to] Tithes. B. When do fish become susceptible to uncleanness ? The House of Shammai say, "After they are caught." The House of Hillel say, "After they are dead." R. Aqiba says, "If they could live [if they were put back into the water, they are not susceptible to uncleanness]." C. When do honeycombs become susceptible to uncleanness by virtue of being a liquid? The House of Shammai say, "After [he] smokes out [the bees]." And the House of Hillel say, "After he breaks [the honeycombs]." [M.
c

Part A, M. Uqs. 3:6, is in standard form: The Houses are in the right order and their opinions are standard: unclean\clean. The Shammaites hold the specified items can receive uncleanness as foods; the Hillelites do not regard them as food. Part B, M. Uqs. 3:8, is another sort of standard dispute: When does an item become susceptible to uncleanness (or, elsewhere, cleanness)? The Houses' lemmas are perfectly balanced: M$YSWDW/MSYMWTW. 'Aqiba's comes afterward, and does not balance. The Sham­ maite position is that since fish do not require slaughtering, as soon as they are caught, even while alive, they are capable of receiving un­ cleanness. 'Aqiba is essentially in line with the Hillelite view, as usual. Part C, M. Uqs. 3:11, follows the same form. The Houses' opinions are consistent. The Shammaites hold that when the honey may be reached, even though it has not been reached, it has entered the status of a liquid which one wants to make use of. The Hillelites say that only when the honey-combs are flowing is honey an available liquid. The balance is perfect: M§YHRHR vs. M$YRSQ. Comment:

c

c

See Epstein,

Mevo'ot,

c

p. 78, re Aqiba; Mishnah, p. 268.

vii. COLLECTIONS OF HOUSES-DISPUTES IN MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

In addition to the individual pericopae, sometimes loosely strung together, which contain Houses-materials, we have observed two

325

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

sorts of coherent, composites: collections and compilations. The are as follows:

collections 1.

M.

Ber.

8:1-8:

Meal

1. Day/Wine 2. Hands/Cup 3. Napkin—Table/Cushion 4. Sweep/Wash 5. Food/Spices 6. Created Light/Creates Lights 7. Forgot Grace—Go Back/Do Not Go Back 8. Wine/Food Blessing: Nos. 1,2,5, 6, [8] Uncleanness: Nos. 2, 3,4 Miscellany: No. 7 . 2.

M.

ShsbAA-S:

Form:

Sabbath

They do not. . . except in order. . . while it is still day +

permit

1. 2. 3. 4.

Soak ink, dyes, and vetches Place bundles offlaxin the oven Spread nets for beasts, birds, and fish Sell to gentile, carry with him, and raise up on him [a burden] 5. Give hides to tanner, clothes to laundryman Sabbath-rest for inanimate objects: Nos. 1, 2, 3 (nets). Gentile: Nos. 4-5. 3.

M.

Yev.

13:1:

Form:

1. 2. 3. 4.

Right of

Refusal

Explanatory matter in first Shammaite lemma: Shammai: Only betrothed exercise right of refusal Hillel: Both betrothed and married Shammai: Husband, and not brother-in-law Hillel: Husband and brother-in-law Shammai: In his presence Hillel: In his presence and not in his presence Shammai: Before the court Hillel: Before the court and not before the court.

Projected continuation: 5. Shammai: Adolescent, not child Hillel: Adolescent and child 6. Shammai: Three times [Or: One time] only Hillel: [Even] four or five. 4. M.Ned. 3:4: 1.

Vows to

They vow with

Tax-collectors

all

House of Shammai: Except oath House of Hillel: Even oath.

326

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

2. House House 3. House House

of Shammai: of Hillel: of Shammai: of Hillel:

He may not open for him with a vow He may even open for him Concerning that which he makes him vow Even n o t , , , ,

The most striking compilation is M. Bes., in the following forms: M. Bes 1:1-3,5-9: I.

Rule of law House of Shammai: Verb +/— negative House of Hillel: Verb +/— negative 1. M. Bes. 1:1—egg bom on festival 2. M. Bes. 1:2—dirt not prepared preceding day 3. M. Bes. 1:8—picking out pulse (Variation: Choose + vs. choose after his usualfashion) 4. M. Bes. 2:4—[As reconstructed]—lay on hands, bring wholeofferings II. House of Shammai: Distinction House of Hillel: No distinction 1. M. Bes. 1:1b—olive's bulk S>WR, date's bulk HMS 2. M. Bes. 1:9 —send portions (Variation: Hillelite position is spelled out in detail) III. House of Shammai: Negative plus full statement of case House of Hillel: Permit 1. M. Bes. 1:3—moving ladder+designating pigeons before festival 2. M. Bes. 1:5—take off cupboard doors —lift pestle —hide to treading place —carry child, Scroll, Lulav 3. M. Bes. 1:6—take gifts to priest e a t

IV. Full statement of positions of both Houses 1. M. Bes. 1:7—pounding spices and salt 2. M. Bes. 2:5—make fire on festival for other than cooking V.

c

Brief statement of positions of both Houses 1. M. Bes. 2:1—two/one 2. M. Bes. 2:2—immerse

M. Ed. contains Houses-collections exhibiting still further forms. M. Ed. was supposedly compiled on the day on which Gamaliel II was deposed at Yavneh. Epstein (Mevo^ot leSifrut HaTanna*im, p. 422) demonstrates that the tradition is unlikely: "Some of the traditions derive from a much earlier time than Gamaliel's deposition." The tractate, he says, organizes the undecided disputes from Shammai and c

327

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.124

Hillel up to Yavnean times. But the tractate as we have it is not in its first recension, nor is it the single recension of a given Tanna, but an assembly of Mishnahs of various Tannaim, particularly Meir, Judah, and Yosi. Our present interest is to see the principles of organization of Houses-materials, and, as always, to discern which materials may derive from pre-Yavnean times. II.i.l24.A. The House of Shammai say, "A q u a r t e r - ^ of bones (<SMWT MN H SMYM) of [any] bones, whether from two [corpses] or from three, [suffices to convey uncleanness by overshadowing]." And the House of Hillel say, "[It must be] a q u a r t e r - ^ of bones from a [single] corpse (GWYH), and from bones which are the greater part either in bulk or in number." Shammai says, "Even [a q u a r t e r - ^ ] from one bone." [ = M. Oh. 2:1] B. Heave-offering vetches— The House of Shammai say, "They soak and rub in cleanness, but they give as food in uncleanness." And the House of Hillel say, "They soak in cleanness, but they rub or give as food in uncleanness." Shammai says, "They are to be eaten dry (SRYD)." R. 'Aqiba says, "Whatsoever concerns them may be done in un­ cleanness." [ = M. M.S. 2:4] C. If a man would change a sela's worth of Second Tithe money [outside of Jerusalem]— The House of Shammai say, "[He may change] coins for the whole sela (BKL H$L< M'WT)." And the House of Hillel say, "A sheqeVs worth of silver and a sheqel s worth in copper coin (B$QL K$P WBSQL M<WT)." R. Meir says, "They may not change silver and produce [together] into [other] silver." But the sages permit it. [ = M. M.S. 2:8]. D. If a man would change a sela of Second Tithe money in Jeru­ salem— The House of Shammai say, "He must change the whole sela into copper coin (BKL HSL<M<WT)." And the House of Hillel say, "[He may take one] sheqel s worth of silver and one sheqeVs worth in copper coin (B$QL K$P WB$QL M<WT)." C

9

9

328

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.124

9

They that made argument before the sages say, "Three denars worth of silver and one of copper." R. Aqiba says, "Three denars worth of silver and from the fourth [denar] a quarter in. copper coin." R. Tarfon says, "Four aspers in silver." Shammai says, "Let him deposit it in a shop and [gradually] con­ sume its value." [ = M. M.S. 2:9] E. If a bride's stool lost its seat-boards— The House of Shammai declare it susceptible to uncleanness. And the House of Hillel declare it not susceptible. Shammai says, "Even the frame of a stool [remains] susceptible to uncleanness." If a stool is fixed to a baking-trough— The House of Shammai declare it susceptible to uncleanness. And the House of Hillel declare it not susceptible. Shammai says, "Even one that was made [to be used] inside it [is susceptible]." [ = M. Kel. 22:4] F. These are things concerning which the House of Hillel changed their opinion to teach according to the words of the House of Shammai: If a woman returned from beyond the sea and said, "My husband is dead," she may marry again. [And if she said], "My husband died [child­ less]," she may contract Levirate marriage. And the House of Hillel say, "We have heard no such tradition save of a woman that returned from the harvest." The House of Shammai said to them, "It is all one whether she returned from the harvest or from the olive-picking or from beyond the sea; they spoke of the harvest only as of a thing that happened in fact." The House of Hillel changed their opinion and taught according to the opinion of the House of Shammai. [ = M. Yev. 15:1-2] G. The House of Shammai say, "She may marry again and take her Ketuvah And the House of Hillel say, "She may marry again, but she may not take her Ketuvah The House of Shammai answered, "Since you have declared per­ missible the graver matter of forbidden intercourse, should you not also declare permissible the less important matter of property?" The House of Hillel said to them, "We find that brothers may not enter into an inheritance on her testimony." The House of Shammai answered, "Do we not learn from her c

9

99

99

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

329

— II.i.124

Ketuvah-sctoll that he thus prescribes for her, 'If you be married to another, you shall take what is prescribed for you?' " The House of Hillel changed their opinion to teach according to the opinion of the House of Shammai. [ = M. Yev. 15:3] H. "If a man was half-slave and half free, he should labor one day for his master and one day for himself," the words of the House of Hillel. The House of Shammai say, "You have ordered it [well] for his master, but for him you have not ordered it [well]. He cannot marry a bondwoman, nor can he marry a free woman. Shall he remain fruitless? And was not the world created only for fruition and in­ crease, as it is written, He created it not a waste; he formed it to he in­ habited [Is. 45:18]? But for the order of the world they compel his master and he sets him free, and the bondman writes him a bond of indebtedness for half his value." The House of Hillel changed their opinion to teach according to the opinion of the House of Shammai. [ = M. Git. 4:5] I. "An earthenware vessel can protect aught [that is within it from contracting uncleanness from a corpse that is under the same roof]"— according to the words of the House of Hillel. And the House of Shammai say, "It can protect only foodstuffs, and liquids, and other earthenware vessels." [ = M. Oh. 5:3] J . The House of Hillel said, " W h y ? " The House of Shammai said, "Because with an *am ha ares it is susceptible to uncleanness, and a vessel that is susceptible to un­ cleanness cannot interpose [to protect from uncleanness.]" The House of Hillel answered, "But have you not pronounced the foodstuffs and liquids therein clean?" The House of Shammai said to them, "When we pronounced the foodstuffs and liquids therein clean, we pronounced them clean for himself; but when you declare the vessel clean, you declare it so for yourself as well as for him." The House of Hillel changed their opinion to teach according to the opinion of the House of Shammai. [ = Tos. Ah. 5:11-12] (M. 'Ed. 1:7-14, trans. Danby, pp. 423-4) y

Comment: M.

c

Part A , M . E d . 1 : 7 , recurs without the Houses-dispute in

O h . 2 : 1 , w h i c h gives the Hillelite

pp. 2 7 7 - 2 8 0 ) . T h e lemmas aren o t closely

opinion

anonymously

(above,

matched:

S h a m m a i : Q u a r t e r [qab] o f b o n e s o f [any] b o n e s , whether from two or three Hillel: Q u a r t e r [qab] o f b o n e s f r o m t h e c o r p s e , whether from most of the bulk or from most of the number.

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.i.124

The italicized words match approximately, but do not relate to one another: BYN MSNYM BYN M$L$H MRB HBNYN >W MRB HMNYN does not match shenayim, the superscription, quarter of leaves : Binyan

minyan bones,

does not match sheloshah. Clearly is supplied to each lemma. This

<SMWT MN H'SMYM <SMWT MN HGWYH C

So the original dispute consisted of SMYM and GWYH, that is, a matter of word-choice. Presumably the law referred to was what is here represented, and at the outset the Houses' disagreed only on the language in which the law was phrased. The later masters assumed that a dispute on law, not merely on the language of the tradition, was at issue, so they developed the whole, beginning with quarter [qab] of bones, RB< <SMWT, and the BYN—BYN glosses. Shammai's lemma poses no problem. It conforms to the earlier, primitive form, SM HD, in other words, SM. The pericope has been substantially de­ veloped over the primary Houses-lemmas, and if, as is alleged, the whole was worked out in Yavneh, the original language must have been spelled out and assigned to the Houses sufficiently before that time so that the problem of interpreting precisely what the Houses had been talking about could have been confused with the mere difference in word-choice. Part J, M. Ed. 1:14, has an approximate parallel in Tos. Ah. 5:11-12, with Joshua in place of the House of Hillel, above, p. 280. We must now ask, By what principle, theme, or common form have the foregoing pericopae been strung together? Parts F, G, H, and I clearly form one sub-unit, brought together by the common super­ scription and subscriptions that the Hillelites reverted to the Sham­ maite position. The individual pericopae all contain the same statement and presumably were completed before being brought together. A single editorial hand surely would have imposed unities of form and deleted obvious redundancies. Whoever was responsible for the pres­ ent form of M. Ed. 1:12-14 actually did little more than collect what already was in final form. Parts C and D are a pair and occur together in their original place, M. M.S. 2:8-9. Parts A and B are related by the theme of uncleanness, but the specific problems have nothing to do with one another. Part E is another uncleanness problem, unrelated to that of part A. We therefore see two coherent sub-units, parts C-D and F-G-H-I-J. Parts A-B, furthermore, present a single form: l

J

C

l

c

House of Shammai House o f Hillel

+ Shammai

331

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.125 c

Part B further glosses with Aqiba. The reason for bringing together these parts is therefore the common order of authorities. In that case, parts C-D may have been added because Shammai appears (part D), and this would further explain the inclusion of part E. M. Ed. 1:1-14 therefore consists of two collections, separate but juxtaposed. The first collection is characterized by the order of opi­ nions: the Houses, then Shammai, most strikingly in M. Ed. 1:7, and M. Ed. 1:11, parts A and E. If the collection of M. Ed. was in some form such as we now have it by early Yavnean times, then the inclu­ sion of Meir in Part C is a later gloss; and the addition of 'Aqiba, with and without Tarfon, in parts B and D, would represent a somewhat earlier, intermediate, stage of development. (Note also Epstein, Mevo'ot, p. 429). The second collection is easier to discern, consisting, as I said, of M. Ed. 1:12-14, parts F-J, united by the common subscriptions about Hillelite reversion. Parts I-J certainly are problematical, for Joshua elsewhere stands in place of the Hillelites, and it may be that those pericopae are considerably later than the earliest Houses-materials. In its present form, in any case, the whole cannot come before Meir. The first collection is thus the Houses + Shammai, the second, the Reversion of the Hillelites. c

c

c

c

c

II.L125.A. In these things the House of Shammai adopted the more lenient, and the House of Hillel the more stringent ruling: B. An egg was laid on a Festival-day— The House of Shammai say, "It may be eaten." And the House of Hillel say, "It may not be eaten." The House of Shammai say, "An olive's bulk of leaven and a date's bulk of what is leavened." And the House of Hillel say, "An olive's bulk of either." [ = M. Bes. 1:1; M. Bes. 3:8] C. If a beast was born on a Festival-day, all agree that it is permitted; but if a chicken was hatched from an egg, all agree that it is forbidden. D. If a man slaughtered a wild animal or a bird on a Festival-day— The House of Shammai say, "He may dig with a mattock and cover up [the blood]." And the House of Hillel say, "He should not slaughter unless he had earth set in readiness [to cover up the blood]." But they agree that if he had slaughtered, he may dig with a mattock and cover up [the blood]; [moreover they agreed] that ashes of a stove may be regarded as set in readiness. [ = M. Bes. 1:2] E. The House of Shammai say, "[If produce is proclaimed] 'ownerless' for [the benefit of] the poor, [it is accounted] ownerless [and tithe-free]."

332

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.125

And the House of Hillel say, "[It can only be accounted] ownerless [and tithe-free] if [it is proclaimed] ownerless [equally] for [the benefit of the] rich as in the year of Release." The sheaves in a field were each of one qaVs weight but one was of four qabs ; if this was forgotten— The House of Shammai say, "It may no t be deemed a Forgotten Sheaf.'' And the House of Hillel say, "It may be deemed a Forgotten Sheaf." [ = M . Pe'ah6:l,5] F. If a sheaf lies near to a wall or to a stack or to the oxen or to the implements, and is forgotten— The House of Shammai say, "It may not be deemed a Forgotten Sheaf." And the House of Hillel say, "It may be deemed a Forgotten Sheaf." [ = M . Pe>ah6:2] G. Fourth year fruit— The House of Shammai say, "The rules of the [Added] Fifth and of Removal do not apply." And the House of Hillel say, "The rules of the Fifth and of Removal do apply." The House of Shammai say, "The laws of Grape-gleanings and of the Defective Cluster apply, and the poor redeem the grapes for themselves." And the House of Hillel say, "The whole yield goes to the wine­ press." [ = M. Pe'ah 7:6, M. M.S. 5:3] H. A jar of pickled olives— The House of Shammai say, "One need not broach." And the House of Hillel say, "One needs to broach." But they agree that if it had been broached and the lees block up the breach, it is not susceptible to uncleanness. [ = M. Maksh. 1:1; b. Yev. 15b, Tos. Yev. 1:11-13] I. If a man anointed himself with clean oil and then became un­ clean, and he went down and immersed himself— The House of Shammai say, "Even though he still drips [with oil], it is clean." And the House of Hillel say, "[It is unclean so long as there re­ mains] enough to anoint a small member." J . And if it was unclean oil at the outset— The House of Shammai say, "[It remains unclean, even after he has immersed himself, so long as there remains] enough to anoint a small member."

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.125

333

And the House of Hillel say, "[So long as it remains] a moist liquid (M$QH TWPH)." R. Judah says in the name of the House of Hillel, "So long as it is moist enough to moisten aught else." [ = y. Ber. 8:3] K. "A woman is betrothed by [the gift of] a denar or a denar's worth," according to the words of the House of Shammai. And the House of Hillel say, "By aperutah or a perutah* s worth." And how much is a perutah} The eighth part of an Italian issar. [ = M. Qid. 1:1] L. The House of Shammai say, "A man may dismiss his wife with an old bill of divorce." And the House of Hillel forbid. What is an old bill of divorce? If he continued alone with her after he had written it for her [it becomes an old bill of divorce]. M. If a man divorced his wife and she then lodged with him in an inn— The House of Shammai say, "She does not need another bill of divorce from him." And the House of Hillel say, "She needs another bill of divorce from him." This applies when she was divorced after wedlock; but if she had been divorced from him after betrothal [only], she does not need another bill of divorce from him, since he is not yet shameless before her. [ = M. Qid. 1:1; M. Git. 8:4, 8:9] N. The House of Shammai permit Levirate marriage between the co-wives and the surviving brothers. And the House of Hillel forbid it. If they performed halisah— The House of Shammai declare them ineligible to marry a priest. And the House of Hillel declare them eligible. If they had been taken in Levirate marriage— The House of Shammai declare them eligible. And the House of Hillel ineligible. Notwithstanding that these declare ineligible and the others declare eligible, yet the House of Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from the House of Hillel, nor the House of Hillel from marry­ ing women from the House of Shammai. And all the disputes about what is clean and unclean, wherein these declare clean and the others declare unclean, neither refrained from making clean things with the other. [ = M. Yev. 1:4]

334

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.125

O. If there were three brothers, two married to two sisters, and one unmarried, and one of the married brothers died, and the unmarried brother bespoke the widow, and then his second brother died— The House of Shammai say, "His [bespoken] wife abides with him, and the other is free as being his wife's sister." And the House of Hillel say, "He must put away his [bespoken] wife both by bill of divorce and by halisah, and his brother's wife by halisah."

This is a case whereof they have said, "Woe to him because of [the loss of] his wife, and woe to him because of [the loss of] his brother's wife!"[=M. Yev. 3:5] P. If a man vowed to have no intercourse with his wife— The House of Shammai say, "[She may consent] for two weeks." And the House of Hillel say, "For one week [only]." [ = M. Ket. 5:6] Q. If a woman miscarried on the night of the eighty-first day— The House of Shammai declare [her] exempt from an offering. And the House of Hillel declare [her] liable. [ = M. Ker. 1:6] R. A linen garment, as to fringes ($DYN BSYSYT)— The House of Shammai declare exempt. And the House of Hillel declare liable. [ = Mid. Tan. to Deut. 22:12] S. A basket of fruit intended for the Sabbath— The House of Shammai declare exempt [from Tithes]. And the House of Hillel declare liable. [ = M. Ma. 4:2] T. If a man vowed to be a Nazirite for a longer spell (NZYRWT MRBH) and fulfilled his Nazirite-vow and afterward came to the Land [of Israel]— The House of Shammai say, "He [need continue] a Nazirite [only for] thirty days [more]." And the House of Hillel say, "He is a Nazir as from the beginning." If two pairs of witnesses testified of a man, the one testified that he had vowed two Nazirite-vows, and the other that he had vowed five— The House of Shammai say, "The testimony is at variance, and the Nazirite-vow is not here." And the House of Hillel say, "The two are included within the five, so that he must be a Nazirite for two [spells]." [ = M. Naz. 3:6-7] U. If a man was put there below the split— The House of Shammai say, "He does not give passage to the un­ cleanness."

335

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.126

And the House of Hillel say, "A man is hollow, and [his] upper side gives passage to the uncleanness." [ = M. Oh. 11:3] (M. <Ed. 4:1-12, trans. Danby, pp. 429-30) II.i.l26.A. R. Judah says, "Six opinions of the House of Sham­ mai's lenient, and the House of Hillel's more stringent, rulings": B. The blood of the carcass— The House of Shammai declare it clean. And the House of Hillel declare it unclean. [ = b. Ker. 21a, b. Shab. 77a, b. Men. 104a] C. "An egg from a [bird's] carcass is permitted if it is in like condi­ tion to them that are sold in the market, otherwise it is forbidden," according to the words of the House of Shammai. And the House of Hillel forbid it [in any condition]. But they agree that an egg from a bird that is terefah is forbidden, since it was fashion­ ed in what was forbidden. [ = y. Bes. 1:1] D. The blood of a gentile woman and the blood of the purifying of a woman that is a leper— The House of Shammai declare unclean. And the House of Hillel say, "It is like to her spittle or her urine." [ = M . Nid. 4:3] E. According to the House of Shammai, they may eat Seventh Year produce by favor [of the owner] or without favor. And the House of Hillel say, "They may only eat it by favor [of the owner]." [ = M. Shev. 4:2] F. A water skin— The House of Shammai say, "[A water-skin can contract midrasuncleanness] when it is tied up with a durable knot (SRWRH W<MDT)." And the House of Hillel say, "Even when it is not tied up ('P L PY S'YNH SRWRH)." [ = M. Kel. 26:4] G. R. Yosi says, "Six opinions of the House of Shammai's more lenient, and the House of Hillel's more stringent, rulings": H. According to the House of Shammai, a fowl may be served up on the table together with cheese, but it may not be eaten with it. And the House of Hillel say, "It may neither be served up with it nor eaten with it." [ = M. Hul. 8:1] I. According to the House of Shammai, Heave-offering may be C

336

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.126

set apart from olives instead of from oil or from grapes instead of from wine. And the House of Hillel say, "They do not give Heave-offering." [ = M. Ter. 1:4 has it reversed.] J . If a man sowed seed within a space of four cubits [from the vines] of a vineyard— The House of Shammai say, "He renders forfeit one row." And the House of Hillel say, "He renders forfeit two rows." [ = M. Kil. 4:5] K. Flour-paste— The House of Shammai declare exempt [from Dough-offering]. And the House of Hillel declare it liable. [ = M. Hal. 1:6] L. According to the House of Shammai, they immerse themselves in a rain-stream. And the House of Hillel say, "They do not immerse." [ = M. Miq. 5:6] M. A man who became a proselyte on the day before Passover— The House of Shammai say, "He immerses himself and consumes his Passover-offering in the evening." And the House of Hillel say, "He that separates himself from his uncircumcision is like one that separates himself from the grave." [ = M. Pes. 8:8] N. R. Simeon [Ishmael] says, "Three opinions of the House of Shammai's more lenient, and the House of Hillel's more stringent, rulings": O. According to the House of Shammai [the Book of] Qohelet does not render the hands unclean. And the House of Hillel say, "It renders the hands unclean." [ = M. Yad. 3:5;b. Meg. 7a] P. Sin-offering water which has fulfilled its purpose— The House of Shammai declare it clean. And the House of Hillel declare it unclean. Q. Black cummin— The House of Shammai declare insusceptible to uncleanness. And the House of Hillel declare it susceptible. So, too, [do they differ] concerning [whether it is liable to] Tithes. [ = M .
337

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.126

S. The blood of a woman that has not yet immersed herself after childbirth— The House of Shammai say, "It is like spittle or her urine." And the House of Hillel say, "It conveys uncleanness whether wet or dried up." But they [Shammaites] agree that if a woman gave birth while she had a flux, it renders unclean whether [the blood was] wet or dried up. [ = M. Nid. 4:3; Tos. Nid. 5:5-6] T. If two of four brothers married two sisters, and the two that married the two sisters died, the sisters must perform halisah and may not contract Levirate marriage; and if the brothers had already married them, they must put them away. R. Eliezer [or, Eleazar] says in the name of the House of Shammai, "They may continue the marriage." And the House of Hillel say, "They must put them away." [ = M. Yev. 3:1; Tos. Yev. 5:1, Tos. <Ed. 2:9] (M. <Ed. 5:1-5) c

M. Ed. 4:1-12 and 5:1-5 are organized around the leniencies of the Shammaites and the strict rulings of the Hillelites, in the presumption that everything else is easily assigned, according to the content, to one or the other House. The first such list, M. Ed. 4:1-22, is anonymous. It has a superscription, then consists of a string of peri­ copae, all of which occur elsewhere. The second set of lists is attributed to masters: Comment:

c

Usha

I J

J u d a h b . Ilai Y o s i b . Halafta

six six

}

S i m e o n [Ishmael]

three

Eliezer

two

(or,then E l e athe z a r ) shorter lists. The first three are Ushans, the That is, the longer, last is presumably Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, who should therefore be set off by himself; variants give Ishmael for Simeon, thus the pair would be from Yavneh. Il.i.l25, part A, M. Ed. 4:1, is the superscription for the whole. Parts H-I-J, M. Ed. 4:6, have no equivalent in the Mishnah. Part His in standard form; the difference between the Houses is in the negative, which here is given to the Shammaites, yielding for them the lenient position. The issue is whether the brine has made the olives susceptible to receive uncleanness. The Shammaites hold this particular moisture is not regarded as liquid within that definition. The Hillelites go over to the Shammaite opinion for the agreement. Since the man has c

c

NEUSNER, T h e Rabbinic T r a d i t i o n s about t h e P h a r i s e e s before 70, I I

22

338

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.126

shown he does not intend to make use of the brine, it is not in the category of a "liquid." Part lis elliptical in form: He who anoints pure oil and is unclean, descended and immersed H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : E v e n t h o u g h he d r i p s , it is clean. House o f Hillel: A s m u c h as f o r a n o i n t i n g a s m a l l l i m b [ =

unclean].

These opinions do not relate to one another. One has to supply the Hillelites with unclean to make sense of their lemma, that is, if so much oil remains on him, the oil is unclean, but less than that is clean. The difficulty even now is not easily resolved, for the referent of cleanjunclean could be the man, not the oil. Part J continues the problem: If it was unclean oil to begin with H o u s e o f S h a m m a i : A s m u c h as f o r a n o i n t i n g a s m a l l l i m b House o f Hillel: Moist liquid ( M $ Q H T W P H )

Now the Shammaites have the Hillelite lemma. A common progression as a case becomes more extreme is for the former lenient side to take up the opposition's stringent position at the next stage. Now the Hillelites say if there remains this quantity of oil, the oil is unclean; some com­ mentaries hold the oil is clean. No one now refers to the man himself, and presumably those who do so in the first case, part I, are in error. The Hillelites say that if there is enough oil to moisten the hand, the oil is unclean; and some explain (Albeck, Seder Ne%iqin, p. 300) that if the oil is sufficient to wet the hand, it is clean, but more than that sufficiency is unclean. Parts K-L-M, M. Ed. 4:7, form a little collection of marriage-rulings. Apart from the superscription of part A, we may thus discern the following subdivisions, centered on common themes: c

1. 2. 3. 4.

P a r t s B , C, D , F e s t i v a l l a w Parts E, F, G , A g r i c u l t u r a l law P a r t s H , I, J , C l e a n n e s s ( L i q u i d s ) P a r t s K , L , M , N , O , P, M a r i t a l l a w ( B e t r o t h a l ; C e s s a t i o n o f m a r r i a g e : B i l l o f D i v o r c e , t h e n , Halisah/Levirate Marriages; then, Imposed D i v o r c e because o f V o w ) 5 . P a r t Q , M i s c a r r i a g e (Sacrifice) Part R, Fringes o n linen garments Part S, Tithing 6. P a r t T , Nazirites 7 . P a r t U , Cleanness (Tents)

The first four groups of pericopae and no. 6 form substantial collections. No. 5 seems to be the only composite without a common theme; one might regard Part Q as an extension of the marital law, but nothing unites parts R and S. Logically, part U should have been in juxtaposi-

339

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.i.126

tion with parts H, I, J , though it can as well stand by itself; the theme in common with liquids is general—cleanness. I see no principle to explain the order of the legal themes. What come first are substantial collections, then follow the miscellaneous ones. Perhaps, therefore, considerations of quantity were important, as inM. <Ed. 5:1-5. I LiAid: Part B has no counterpart in the Mishnah. In M. Ed. 8:1, Joshua b. Bathyra testifies to the ruling of the Shammaites, but the Houses do not appear. Part C likewise is a singleton. The Shammaites rule that if the egg has a hard shell, it is permitted, otherwise, prohibited. The Hillelites prohibit it under all circumstances. The form of part B is standard: Superscription, Houses, TM'/THR. Part C has the standard superscription, but the Houses' sayings are not balanced. The Shammaite one poses the problem. A more primitive form would have put the conditional clause into the superscription (as it indeed is now), but instead of and if not, prohibited, it would have had, the House of Shammai permit, balanced by the House of Hillelprohibit. The //*—not clause is of no value, since both Houses agree on that point; at best it could have produced an element of the agreement at the end. Part F has no counterpart in Houses-materials. M. Kel. 26:4 has Yosi taking the Shammaite position. But the approximate parallel is to Tos. Kel. B. M. 11:3, above, p. 263: c

Tos.

Mishnah

House of Shammai say, Is

The water-skin filled a n d

ML'H

SRWRH

stands H o u s e o f Hillel bound

filled

W'WMDT ML'H WSRWRH

W'WMDT 'P 'L P Y S'YNH SRWRH

say,

Is

and

\

The parallel is not close, but the superscription is identical. See Ep­ stein, Mishnah, pp. 128-9. Yosi's list, parts G-M, follows a somewhat different form. He starts with the Shammaite opinion, to which he appends according to the words of the House of Shammai. Then the brief Hillelite lemma follows, just as in the corresponding Mishnah. Part Nis either Simeon or Ishmael. Albeck gives Ishmael; hence the last two authorities would come from Yavnean times. But Epstein, Mishnah, p. 1193, shows it must be Simeon. The items all pertain to the Purities. PartP, M. Ed. 5:3, has no counterpart in the Mishnah. M. Par. 12:4 reads, "For they have said, 'The water of the sin-offering that has served its purpose does not convey uncleanness' "—that is, the Shammaite position here, but there it is not explicitly attributed to Shammaites. Parts R, S, and Tare Eliezer's list, the briefest of all. Part T, M. Ed. 5:5: The Mishnah is cited without reference to the superscription, assigning the citation to Eliezer to begin with. Epstein, Mevo ot, pp. 434-5, assigns all of M. Ed. Ch. 4 to Meir. As c

c

y

c

340

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

— II.ii.123,124

to Ch. 5, the attributions are clear, and all are contrary to Meir (p. 437). See his Mishnah, pp. 86-7,125,128 (re 5:1), 399, 964,1193. ILii. 123. And the House of Hillel say, "We have heard only con­ cerning the one who comes from the harvest." The House of Shammai said to them, "Are not all the days of the year [a time of] harvest? When the harvest of barley is done, the harvest of wheat comes, when the harvest of wheat is done, the grapeharvest comes, when the grape-harvest is done, the olive-harvest comes, so all the days of the year are harvest-time." The House of Hillel said to them, "We find that the brothers do not inherit on the strength of her testimony." The House of Shammai said to them, "From the Writ of her Ketuvah, let us learn, for it is written in it, 'When you be agreeable and marry another, take what is written in your Ketuvah and go forth.' " The House of Hillel reverted to teach according to the words of the House of Shammai.

Comment:

c

(fos. Ed. 1:6, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 455, lines 19-24)

See M. Yev. 15:3, above, p. 200.

II.ii.l24.A. Twenty-four things of the lenient rulings of the House of Shammai and the stringent rulings of the House of Hillel: B. The House of Shammai say, "A man does not cause his son by vow to become a Nazir." And the House of Hillel say, "A man causes his son by vow to be­ come a Nazir." [ = Tos. Naz. 3:17] C. An egg that was born on the festival. [ = M. Bes. 1:1] D. If a man anointed himself with clean oil and was made unclean, he went down and immersed— The House of Shammai say, "Even though it [the oil] drips and falls, he [it] is clean." And the House of Hillel say, "[So long as there remains] enough to anoint a small member, he is unclean; if there is less than that, he is clean." [ = M. <Ed. 4:6, above, II. i. 124.1] [E. Here follows the story of R. Eleazar b. R. Sadoq and Yohanan b. HaHoranit, cited above, Tos. Suk. 2:3, p. 155.] [F. The law always follows according to the words of the House of Hillel, and he who wishes to be stringent with himself to behave according to the House of Shammai and according to the House of Hillel, etc. As above, Tos. Suk. 2:3, p. 156.1 ,^ ^ i ~ ~ «\ (Tos. Ed. 2:2-3) t

r

J

c

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.124

341

G. The House of Hillel [sic] say, "A man does not free his wife with an old Get, so that her Get should not be older than her son." [ = M. Git. 8:4] H. R. Simeon b. Eleazar said, "They did not dispute concerning one who divorces his wife, and she spends the night with him in an inn, that she does not require from him a second Get. "Concerning what did they dispute? "Concerning if he had intercourse with her." [ = Tos. Git. 8:8] I. He who vows his wife from [having with him] sexual relations, (for) the House of Shammai say, "Two weeks, like the birth-period of a female." And the House of Hillel say, "One week, like the birth-period of a male and like the days of her period. "More than this, he should send her out and pay the Ketuvah" [ = M. Ket. 5:6] J . The basket of food set aside for the Sabbath—(and) the House of Shammai declare free of liability, and the House of Hillel declare liable. R. Judah says, "Hillel himself would prohibit." [ = M. Ma. 4:2] K. [There follows the set of pericopae in which R. Judah reports, "Hillel himself would prohibit." (See I, pp. 284-285.)] L. R. Ishmael b. R. Yohanan b. Beroqah, "The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not dispute concerning him who had two groups of witnesses, that he is a Nazir according to the smaller [num­ ber of days specified by] them. "Concerning what did they dispute? "Concerning him who had two witnesses testifying concerning him, for "The House of Shammai say, 'Their testimony is divided, and no Naziriteship is here.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'There are in the category of five two, so he should be a Nazir for two.' " [ = M. Naz. 3:7, Tos. Nez. 3:1] (Tos. <Ed.2:4) M. R. Judah says five things of the lenient rulings of the House of Shammai and the stringent rulings of the House of Hillel: "The blood of carcasses—the House of Shammai declare unclean [sic], and the House of Hillel declare clean." [ = M. <Ed. 5:1, II.L125.B, with the opinions reversed, for obvious reasons.] N. R. Yosi b. R. Judah said, "Even when the House of Hillel declared unclean, they did not declare unclean except blood which is

342

M I S H N A H - T O S E F T A — II.ii.124

as much as a quarter [log], so that if it should congeal, there should be in it as much as an olive's bulk. "They agree concerning the egg of a terefah-bird that it is prohib­ ited, since it grew up in a prohibition. "Concerning what did they disagree? "Concerning the egg of a carcass, for the House of Hillel prohibit. "And the House of Shammai say, 'If such as this are sold in the market, it is permitted, and if not it is prohibited.' " [ = M. Ed. 5:1, c

I

L

U

2

5

C

- ]

(To,<Ed.2:5)

O. R. Eliezer b. Jacob says one thing of the lenient rulings of the House of Shammai and the stringent rulings of the House of Hillel: The House of Shammai say, "Two sprinklings render fit in a sinoffering and one sprinkling in all [other] sacrifices." And the sages [sic] say, "It is all the same for a sin-offering and for all the rest of the sacrifices—one sprinkling renders fit and makes piggul." [= M. Zev. 4:1, Tos. Zev. 4:9] ^ ^ ^ P. R. Simeon says three things of the lenient rulings of the House of Shammai and the stringent rulings of the House of Hillel: "Qohelet does not render the hands unclean," the words of the House of Shammai. And the House of Hillel say, "It renders the hands unclean." [ = M. Yad. 3:5] Q. Sin-offering water which has served its purpose—the House of Shammai declare clean, and the House of Hillel declare unclean. [ = M. <Ed.5:3, M. Par. 12:4] R. A woman in hard labor, how much must she have relief (T$PH) so that [if she sees a flux] she should be a Zab? R. Eliezer says, "From time to time" [= twenty-four hours], and the law follows his words. R. Simeon b. Judah says in the name of R. Simeon, "The House of Shammai say, 'Three days.' "And the House of Hillel say, 'From time to time' [ = twenty-four hours].' " [ = M. Nid. 4:4 without the Houses; and Tos. Nid. 5:7] (Tos. <Ed. 2:7) S. R. Eliezer says two things of the lenient rulings of the House of Shammai and the stringent rulings of the House of Hillel: "The blood of one who is in childbirth who has not given birth [sic]

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

343

— II.ii.124

renders unclean when moist but does not render unclean when dry," the words of the House of Shammai. And the House of Hillel say, "It renders unclean both moist and dry." [Compare M. 'Ed. 5:4, M. Nid. 4:3. The text here is obviously defective, and the italicized words should be who has not immersed.] (Tos. <Ed.2:8) T. If of four brothers, two marry two sisters, and the two who have married the sisters die, lo, these perform halisah and do not enter Levirate marriage, and if they [the remaining brothers] went ahead and married them, they must put them away. R. Eleazar [sic] says, "The House of Shammai say, 'They may continue the marriage/ and the House of Hillel say, 'They must put them away.' " R. Simeon says, "They may continue the marriage." Abba Saul says, "The House of Hillel had a voice (QWL) (Alt.: the lenient position, as above) in this matter." [ = M. Yev. 3:1, Tos. Yev. 5-11 (Tos. <Ed. 2:2-9, ed. Zuckermandel, pp. 457, lines 9-32,458, lines 1-21) J

Comment: This composite of pericopae opens with a superscrip­ tion, promising twenty-four things, but promptly ignores it. The super­ scription is followed by the following items:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Nazir Egg Clean oil Old Get Vow against sex Basket Nazir-testimony

8. Blood of carcass 9. Sprinklings 10. Qohelet 11. Sin-offering water 12. Woman in hard labor 13. Blood of childbirth 14. Four brothers.

It seems to me that at best the superscription might read fourteen. But more likely, the superscription is correct, a stock-phrase borrowed from elsewhere, and, like much that follows, has simply been deposited here as part of a disorganized collection of materials. As indicated, nearly everything has already been seen elsewhere, generally in M. Ed., sometimes in other Toseftan passages. But we cannot suppose that the "editor" has systematically assembled pertinent Tosefta materials. The composite seems to me random and aimless. See Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim II, pp. 183-4; Epstein, Mevd*ot, p. 435.) c

344

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

AND

SOME

BERAITOT

VIII. TABLES I

I.

House of Shammai

Tannaitic Midrashim

Alone

Between t w o evenings

2.

Blessing o f s a v o r y does not exempt food cooked in pot A l m o n e r s collect food a n d d i s t r i b u t e it t o t h o s e w h o tithe

M . Ber. 6:5

Weasel Trough of Jehu broken by Shammaites K n e a d i n g t r o u g h filled with pots Stream of porridge con­ v e y s uncleanness

M. Kil. 8:5

4. 5. 6. 7.

II.

House of Hillel

Mekhilta deR. Simeon b. Y o h a i , p. 1 2 , lines 4-5

M. Demai 3:1

M. Miq.4:5 (M. Miq. 6:5 = Judah) M. Maksh. 5:9

Alone

Tannaitic

L i t t l e c h i l d r e n l i a b l e t o m a k e a p p e a r a n c e (see S i t e D e u t . 143)

I III.

Tannaitic Midrashim

House of Hillel and House of Shammai

1.

Liable steal

2.

A b o r t i o n o n eight-first day S t r a n d s o f si sit

3.

for intention

Tosefta

Mishnah

1.

3.

Il.ii

Il.i

to

Mekhilta deR. Ishmael Nez. 15:49-55 Sifra Tazri'a 3:1 Sifre Deut. 234 (Sifre N u m . 115 reverses)

Tos. Miq. 5:2

Midrashim

Mekhilta deR. Simeon p . 2 1 8 , lines 2 8 - 9

Il.i Mishnah

(M. K e r . 1:6 reverses)

Il.ii Tosefta

b.

Yohai,

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA AND

SOME

I

Il.ii

Il.i

Tannaitic Midrashim

House of Hillel and House of Shammai

Mishnah

C l e a n table

5.

Where Lulav

shake

M. Suk. 4:9

6.

G a t h e r g r a p e s in g r a v e area M a t u r i t y at 2 0 / 1 8 W o m a n after childbirth cannot touch purities

M. Oh. 18:1

7. 8.

they

M . Nid. 5:9 M . Nid. 1 0 : 6

I IV.

House of Shammai and House of Hillel

1.

I n s p e c t tefillin

2. 3.

Bailiff p a y s a c c o r d i n g t o hour of removal B u r n unclean holy things in Temple court (com­ pare M . M . S . 3:9)

4.

Baby b o r n circumcized

5.

Abortion on day

6.

Unclean

7.

Grape-gleanings and de­ fective cluster

8.

N o f e s t i v e p i l g r i m offer­ ing o n holiday/Sabbath F r u i t o f field w h i c h h a s been prepared S t r a n d s o f sisit

Il.ii

Il.i

Tannaitic

Mishnah

10.

Tosefta

Midrashim Mekhilta deR. Ishmael Pisha

eighty-first

bloods

17:210-216 Sifra

Tos. B.M. 3 : 1 2

Vayiqra 1 3 : 1 3 M . Sheq. 8:6-5 Sifra S a v 8:6 Sifra Tazri'a 1:5 (Sifra T a z r i ' a 3:1 reverses) Sifra Tazri'a 3:6 Sifra

Tos. Shab. 1 5 : 9 M. Ker. 1:6 M. <Ed.4:10 M . Nid. 2:6

1

9.

Tosefta (M. Shab. 2 1 : 3 Tos. Shab. 1 6 : 7 reverses)

4.

do

345

BERAITOT

Mesora 4:3 Sifra Qedoshim 3:7 Sifra E m o r 15:5 Sifra Behar 1:5 Sifre N u m . 115 (Sifre D e u t . 2 3 4 reverses) Midrash Tannaim to Deut. 2 2 : 1 2

M. <Ed.4:5b M . M . S . 5:3 M. Pe ah7:6 J

M. Shev. 4:26 M . <Ed. 5 : 1

Tos. K e r . 1:9

346

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

1 House of Shammai House of Hillel 11.

and

R e c i t i n g Shema*

Tannaitic Midrashim Sifre Deut. 34 (Midrash Tannaim to Deut. 6:8) Sifre Deut. 131

AND

SOME

Il.ii

Il.i

Tosefta

Mishnah M . Ber. 1:3

Tos. Ber. 1 : 4

M . Bes. 1 : 1

12.

Leaven

13.

W h o is c h i l d ? (See M e k h . deR. Simeon, p. 2 1 8 )

Sifre Deut. 143

M . Hag. 1 : 1

14.

Fleece

Sifre Deut. 166

M . Hul. 1 1 : 2

15.

Grounds for divorce

M. Git. 9:10

16.

Sisit o n l i n e n c l o a k

Sifre Deut. 269 Midrash Tannaim to Deut. 2 2 : 1 2

17.

Day/wine

M . Ber. 8:1 M . Pes. 1 0 : 2

18. 19.

W a s h hands/mix cup Napkin o n table/cushion

20. 21. 22.

Sweep/wash Spices/food Created light/creates lights Forget grace O n e blesses f o r all

M. M. M. M. M.

23. 24.

BERAITOT

M . <Ed. 4 : 1 0

Ber. Ber. Ber. Ber. Ber.

M. Ber. 8:7 Tos. Ber. 5:30 M . Ber. 8:8

28.

Ownerless

29.

S h e a f left n e a r w a l l

30. 31.

S h e a f t o city Forgotten sheaf—three/ four Grapes of Fourth-year vineyard

M. M. M. M. M. M.

Pe ah6:l <Ed. 4 : 3 Pe ah6:2 <Ed. 4 : 4 Pe ah6:3 Pe ah6:5

M. M. M. M. M. M.

M . S . 5:3 Pe ah7:6 <Ed. 4 : 5 Demai 1:3 Demai 6:6 Kil. 2:6

27.

32.

33. 34. 35. 36. 37.

Demai a n d s w e e t o i l S e l l o l i v e s o n l y t o haver Space between plots w i t h different c r o p s V i n e y a r d patch H o w many vines con­ s t i t u t e etc.

T o s . Pisha 10:2-3 Tos. Ber. 5 : 3 5 - 3 0

8:2 8:3 8:4 8:5a 8:5b

Wine/food New Year-Sabbath— h o w m a n y b l e s s i n g s , etc. Pe*ah f r o m p l o t s s o w n with grain

25. 26.

Tos. Y . T . 1:4

Tos. Ber. 3 : 1 3 Tos. R . H . 2 : 1 7 >

M. Pe ah3:l ,

,

Tos. Pe>ah3:2

>

Tos. P e a h 3 : 2

J

,

l

M. Kil. 4:1 M. Kil. 4:5 M . <Ed. 5 : 2

Tos. Demai 1:26Tos. Ma. 3 : 1 3

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

House of Shammai House of Hillel 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43.

and

Trellised vine Weasel C a p e r - b u s h in v i n e y a r d S h o o t o v e r stone Ploughing tree planted field b e f o r e S e v e n t h Y e a r P r o d u c e o f p r e p a r e d field in Seventh Y e a r

AND

SOME

I

Il.i

Tannaitic Midrashim

Mishnah

M. Shev. 1:1 M. Shev. 4:2 M . <Ed. 5 : 1 M. Shev. 4:4

45.

Cutting d o w n Seventh Year

46.

D i g g i n g u p p r o d u c e in Seventh Year Selling p l o u g h i n g heifer t o n o n - o b s e r v a n t in Seventh Year

M. Shev. 5:4

S e l l i n g p r o d u c e in Seventh Year W a t e r i n g p l a n t s in Seventh Year

M. Shev. 8:3

47.

48. 49.

T i t h i n g p o d s {hyssop)

51.

S e l l i n g field t o n o n - o b ­ s e r v a n t in S e v e n t h Y e a r 'Aqiba followed both H o u s e s in t i t h i n g

53. 54.

55. 56. 57.

58. 59. 60. 61. 62.

Sell produce for produce, n o t coins in Seventh Year I f H e a v e - o f f e r i n g is g i v e n f r o m o l i v e s instead o f t h e oil P r o p e r measure o f Heaveoffering Unclean Heave-offering n e u t r a l i z e d i n clean Heave-offering from v a r i a n t k i n d s o f same species M a k e vat unclean Crushed olives, olive oil o r olives Heave-offering f r o m g r a p e s t h a t e n d u p raisins Tithing Sabbath-fruit O n e w h o sifts b y liable f o r tithes

M. Shev. 4 : 1 0

M. Shev. 5:8

Tos. Shev. 1:5

50.

52.

Tosefta

Tos. K i l . 3 : 1 7 Tos. K i l . 4 : 1 1

T h i n n i n g o u t o l i v e trees in S e v e n t h Y e a r in

Il.ii

M. Kil. 6:1 M. K i l 8:5

44.

trees

347

BERAITOT

hand

Tos. Shev. 2:6 Tos. Ma. 1:5 Tos. Shev. 4:5 Tos. Shev. 4:21 Tos. Shev. 6 : 1 9 M. Ter. 1:4 M . <Ed. 5 : 2

(Tos. Ter. 2 : 5 ; Tos. Ter. 3:14)

M. Ter. 4:3 M. Ter. 5:4

Tos. Ter. 6:4 Tos. Ter. 2:5

Tos. Ter. 3 : 1 2 Tos. Ter. 3 : 1 4 Tos. Ter. 3 : 1 6 M. Ma. 4:2 M . <Ed. 4 : 1 0

Tos. 'Ed. 2 : 4 Tos. Ma. 3 : 1 0

348

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

I House of Shammai House of Hillel

Tannaitic Midrashim

and

Tosefta

M. M.S. 2:3

Tos. M.S. 2:1

M. M. M. M. M.

Tos. M.S. 2:1

Heave-offering of vetches

65. 66.

C h a n g e selas f o r denars C h a n g e sela o f S e c o n d Tithe m o n e y outside Jerusalem

67.

C h a n g e sela o f S e c o n d T i t h e m o n e y in J e r u s a l e m Not yet fully harvested p r o d u c e passes t h r o u g h Jerusalem

M. M.S. 2:9 M . 'Ed. 1 : 1 0 M. M.S. 3:6

69.

Olive-presses salem w a l l

M. M.S. 3:7

70.

Second Tithe produce un­ clean i n J e r u s a l e m

71.

O p e n jars t o g i v e H e a v e offering

72.

Issar o f S e c o n d T i t h e money Removal of cooked food Removal of Second Tithe produce in this time

73. 74. 75. 76.

S e p a r a t e t i t h e o f Demai Hallah f r o m flour paste and dumplings

77.

Unclean mixture renders u n c l e a n i n less t h a n a n olive's bulk Finishing w o r k before Sabbath

78.

M.S. 2:4 'Ed. 1 : 8 M.S. 2:7 M.S. 2:8 'Ed. 1 : 9

M. M.S. 3:9 M . Sheq. 8:6 M. M.S. 3:13

Tos. Tos. Tos. Tos. Tos.

M.S. 2:12 'Arak. 5 : 1 5 M.S. 2:16 Sheq. 3 : 1 6 M.S. 2:18

M. M.S. 5:6 M. M.S. 5:7

Tos. M.S. 3 : 1 3 Tos. M.S. 3 : 1 5

M . Hal. 1 : 6 M . 'Ed. 5:2 M. 'Orlah 2:4-5

Mekh. deR. Simeon b. Yohai, p. 1 4 9

M. Shab. 1:4-9

Using stove on Sabbath

M. Shab. 3:1

80.

Cleaning table on Sabbath P h a r i s a i c Zah not with outsider-Z^

M. Shab. 2 1 : 3 eat

Tos. M.S. 2 : 1 1

M. M.S. 4:8

79.

81.

Il.ii

Mishnah

64.

Jeru­

BERAITOT

Il.i

Heave-offering greek

in

fenu­

SOME

63.

68.

of

AND

Tos. Shab. 2 : 1 3 Tos. Pisha 7 : 2 Tos. Shab. 1 6 : 7 (reverses Houses) Tos. Shab. 1 : 1 4

82.

Uncleanness c o n v e y e d b y ox-goad

Tos. Shab. 1 : 1 8

83.

He w h o forgets vessels under water-pipe on eve o f Sabbath Carrying on Sabbath K i l l louse o n Sabbath Distribute charity o n Sabbath

Tos. Shab. 1 : 1 9

84. 85. 86.

Tos. Shab. 1 4 : 1 Tos. Shab. 1 6 : 2 1 Tos. Shab. 1 6 : 2 2

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA AND

House of Shammai House of

and

Hillel

SOME

Il.ii

I

Il.i

Tannaitic Midrashim

Mishnah

Tosefta

T o render alleyway valid W h e n g i v e r i g h t o f access Eruv f o r f i v e g r o u p s i n same r o o m Partition f o r cistern Search wine vault W o r k in G a l i l e e o n n i g h t before 14th of Nisan

M . <Eruv. 1 : 2 M. 'Eruv. 6:4a M. 'Eruv. 6:6

93.

Proselyte o n day Passover

94. 95.

Hallel o n P a s s o v e r B u r n unclean and meat

M . Pes. 8 : 8 M . <Ed. 5 : 2 M . Pes. 1 0 : 6

96.

Excess funds sin-offering

97. 98. 99.

O l d Sukkah Sukkah w i t h t i m b e r - r o o f Sukkah t o o s m a l l t o h o l d table Etrog o f Demai-produce E g g laid o n f e s t i v a l

87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92.

100. 101.

l

before

102.

Dirt to cover blood slaughtered animal

103. 104.

M o v e l a d d e r o n festival Prepare pigeons before festival T a k e off c u p b o a r d d o o r s , etc. T a k e gifts t o p r i e s t o n festival P o u n d spices a n d salt o n festival Picking pulse o n festival Send prepared portions as f e s t i v a l gift O n e o r t w o tavshilin Immersion for Sabbathfestival Lay hands on festival sacrifice

105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112.

113. 114. 115. 116.

M. 'Eruv. 8:6 M . Pes. 1 : 1 M . Pes. 4 : 5

of

M a k e fire o n f e s t i v a l Cover hot food on festival f o r Sabbath Put together candlestick o n festival Bake large loaves on festival

Tos. Pisha 7 : 1 4

Tos. Pisha 1 : 6

clean

f o r sheqel

349

BERAITOT

M . Sheq. 2:3 M. Suk. 1:1 M. Suk. 1:7 M . Suk. 2:7 M. M. M. M. M. M. M.

Suk. 3:5 Bes. 1 : 1 <Ed. 4 : 1 Bes. 1 : 2 <Ed.4:2 Bes. 1:3 Bes. 1 : 3

Tos. 'Ed. 2 : 2

Tos. Y . T . 1:8 Tos. Y . T . 1 : 8 , 1:10

M . Bes. 1 : 5

Tos. Y . T . 1 : 1 0

M . Bes. 1 : 6

Tos. Y . T . 1 : 1 2 - 1 4

M . Bes. 1 : 7

Tos. Y . T . 1 : 1 1 Tos. Y . T . 1 : 1 5

M . Bes. 1 : 8 M . Bes. 1:9

Tos. Y . T . 1:21

M . Bes. 2 : 1 M . Bes. 2:2

Tos. Y . T . 2:4

M. M. M. M. M.

Tos. Hag. 2 : 1 0

Bes. Hag. Hag. Bes. Bes.

2:4 2:2 2:3 2:5 2:6

M . Bes. 2:6 M . Bes. 2 : 6

350

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

House of Shammai and House of Hillel

AND

SOME

BERAITOT

Il.ii

I

Il.i

Tannaitic Midrashim

Mishnah

Tosefta Tos. Y . T . 3 : 1 0

117.

Collect scattered things in enclosure and gathered t h i n g s i n field, etc.

118. 119.

N e w Y e a r o f trees C o s t o f re iyyah a n d hagigah sacrifices S o u r c e o f f u n d s f o r festal sacrifices

M . R.H. 1:1

Pentecost o n F r i d a y — w h e n t o s l a u g h t e r festal sacrifices O v e r t u r n i n g couch of m o u r n e r before festival

M . Hag. 2 : 4

Levirate marriage of cowives Marriage followed by Levirate obligation

M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M.

Yev. 1:4 'Ed. 4 : 8 Yev. 3:1 'Ed. 5 : 5 Yev. 3:5 'Ed. 4 : 9 Yev. 4:3 Ket. 8:6 B.B. 8:8-9 Yev. 6:6 Yev. 13:1 Yev. 15:2 'Ed. 1 : 1 2 Yev. 15:3 'Ed. 1 : 1 2

120. 121.

122. 123. 124.

y

M. flag. 1:2

Tos. Hag. 1 : 4

M . Hag. 1 : 3

Tos. Hag. 1 : 4

Tos. M . Q . 2:9

125.

Effect o f mafamar i n case of Levirate marriage

126.

Estate o f w o m a n await­ ing Levirate marriage, etc.

127.

Abstain from t w o children

128. 129.

Refusal-collection W o m a n testifies i n d e a t h o f husband Disposition of woman w h o testifies re d e a t h o f husband

M. M. M. M. M.

131.

V o w against intercourse

132.

Estate o f w o m a n await­ ing marriage V o w in mistaken assump­ tion V o w to murderers-col­ lection Father and husband annul girl's v o w s

M. Ket. 5:6 M . 'Ed. 4 : 1 0 M. Ket. 8:1

130.

133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140.

sex

Substitute language Nazir Nazir f r o m abroad

after

for

D i v i s i o n o f t e s t i m o n y re Nazir T h i n g dedicated in e r r o r N a z i r i t e v o w in e r r o r

Tos. Y e v . 1:7-1: Tos. Y e v . 5:1 Tos. 'Ed. 2 : 9

Tos. B.B. 1 0 : 1 3

Tos. Y e v . 6:6 Tos. Y e v . 1 3 : 1

Tos. 'Ed. 1 : 6

T o s . 'Ed. 2 : 4

M . Ned. 3 : 2 M . Ned. 3 : 4 Tos. Ned. 6 : 4 M . Naz. 2 : 1 - 2

Tos. Nez. 1 : 1

M. M. M. M. M. M.

Tos. Nez. 3 : 1 T o s . 'Ed. 2 : 1 4

Naz. 'Ed. Naz. 'Ed. Naz. Naz.

3:6 4:11 3:7 4:11 5:1,2,3 5:5

Tos. Nez. 3 : 1 9

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

AND

I

V o w without

351

BERAITOT

Il.ii

Il.i

Tannaitic

House of Shammai and House of Hillel 141.

SOME

Midrashim

Mishnah

Tosefta

specifying

Tos. Nez. 2 : 1 0

term 142.

Impose v o w of Nazir

143. 144.

Sage rules v o w binding H u s b a n d dies b e f o r e water-ordeal W o m a n commits adult­ ery with minor son

145. 146.

Half-slave, half-free

147.

Old

148. 149.

I m p a i r e d Get Spent night together after d i v o r c e — i s n e w needed?

150. 151. 152. 153.

154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 160. 161. 162.

M. Sot. 4:2

Git. 'Ed. Git. 'Ed. Git. Git.

4:5 1:13 8:4 4:7 8:8 8:9

3:17 2:2 3:19 4:7

Tos. Tos. Tos. Tos.

Git. 'Ed. Git. Git.

8:3 2:4 8:8 8:8

Get

H o w much money for betrothal? A g e n t becomes witness R e t u r n s t o l e n b e a m o r its cost Intermediate people go to Gehenna and come back Sin-offering requires t w o sprinklings

M. Qid. 1:1 M . 'Ed. 4 : 7

Slaughter with handsickle C h i c k e n a n d cheese table

M . Hul. 1:2

Tos. Zev. 4:9 Tos. 'Ed. 2 : 6 Tos. Hul. 1:6

M . Hul. 8:1

Tos. Hul. 8:23

on

N u m b e r Israelite f o r firstling Sanctifies p r o p e r t y a n d divorces wife A d d e d fifth t o a d d i t i o n a l payment S i p h o n in tent A r t i c l e s m a d e f r o m nails W h e n d o e s t u b e (etc.) b e ­ c o m e insusceptible (HBL/HBR)

Tos. Qid. 4:1 Tos. B.Q. 9:5 Tos. Sanh. 1 3 : 3

M. Z e v . 4 : l

M . 'Ed. 5:2 M. Bekh. 5:2

Tos. Bekh. 3:15-16 Tos. 'Arak. 4:5 Tos. 'Arak. 4:22

M. Kel. 9:2 M. Kel. 1 1 : 3 M. Kel. 14:2

163.

M e a s u r e chest

M. Kel. 18:1

164.

T r o u g h for mixing mortar W h e n does sheet become insusceptible

M. Kel. 20:2 (M. 'Ed. 5 : 1 ) M. Kel. 20:6

165.

Nez. 'Ed. Nez. Sot.

Tos. Sot. 4:7 M. M. M. M. M. M.

Get

Tos. Tos. Tos. Tos.

Tos. Kel. B.M. 4 : 5 (tube) Tos. K e l . B.M. 1 1 : 7 (matting) Tos. K e l . B.M. 8:1 Tos. K e l . B.M. 11:3

352

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

I House of Shammai House of Hillel 166.

AND

SOME

Il.ii

Il.i

Tannaitic

and

Midrashim

Mishnah

Tosefta

M. Kel. 22:4

Tos. K e l . B.B. 1:12 Tos. K e l . B.B. 4:9

168. 169.

Stool fixed to baking trough Wrappers for garments and purple w o o l Scroll-wrappers Shaft of t r o w e l

M. Kel. 28:4 M. Kel. 29:9

170.

Vessels of alum-crystal

(M. K e l . 2 : 1 )

171.

Peat in cool o v e n

(M. K e l . 9:5)

172.

S h o v e l w i t h o u t blade

173.

Mustard-strainer

174.

Girdle

175. 176.

Backbone and skull Baking o v e n in house with arched outlet— overshadows corpse

M. Oh. 2:3 M. Oh. 5:1-4

177.

Cooking pot protects f r o m uncleanness

M. Oh. 5:2-3

178.

Protecting entrances r o o m with corpse

179. 180.

167.

181. 182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 187. 188. 189. 190. 191. 192.

BERAITOT

M. Kel. 26:6

(M. K e l . 1 4 : 8 )

Tos. K e l . B.B. 7:4 Tos. K e l . 2:1 Tos. Kel. 6:18 Tos. Kel. 3:8 Tos. Kel. 4:16 Tos. Kel. 5:7-8

B.Q. B.Q. B.M. B.M. B.B.

Tos. A h . 5 : 1 1 - 1 2

M. Oh. 7:3

Tos. A h . 8:7

Split in r o o f M a n g i v e s passage to uncleanness Candle-stick protected b y basket

M. M. M. M.

Tos. A h . 1 2 : 1

D o holes join place f o r rod M a n in forecourt o f tomb-vault

M. Oh. 1 3 : 4

of

G a t h e r grapes in gravearea Examine grave-area for Nazir W h a t do they examine Q u a r t e r - ^ o f bones, etc. Bottle plugging grave W h e n do olives receive uncleanness O l i v e s left t o b e salted Bringing part of olives to press Putting grapes into press

Oh. 11:1 Oh. 11:3-6 <Ed.4:12 Oh. 13:1

Tos. A h . 1 4 : 4

M. Oh. 1 5 : 8 M. Oh. 1 8 : 1

Tos. A h . 1 7 : 9

M. Oh. 1 8 : 4

Tos. A h . 1 7 : 1 3

M. Oh. 1 8 : 8 (M. O h . 2 : 1 ) M . <Ed. 1 : 7

Tos. A h . 1 6 : 6 Tos. A h . 3:4

M. Toh. 9:1 M. T o h . 9 : 5 M. f oh. 9:7 M. Toh. 1 0 : 4

Tos. A h . 1 5 : 9 Tos. Toh. 1 0 : 2

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

House of Shammai and House of Hillel

AND

SOME

Il.ii

I

Il.i

Tannaitic Midrashim

Mishnah

Tosefta

193.

L e a v i n g vessels with ^am-ha'ares

194. 195. 196.

Cleaning p o o l Vessels under waterspout Immerse vessels in rainstream

197.

Immerse hot c o l d , etc.

198.

T w o test-rags f o r e v e r y act

M . Nid. 2:4

199. 200.

Colors of unclean b l o o d B l o o d of gentile w o m a n , etc.

201.

Marriage o f girl puberty

M. M. M. M.

202.

W o m e n die as m e n s t r u ants W o m a n after c h i l d b i r t h must immerse

203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 209. 210. 211. 212. 213.

214.

215.

216. 217. 218. 219.

water

353

BERAITOT

Tos.

in

before

M. M. M. M. M.

Miq. Miq. Miq. 'Ed. Miq.

Nid. Nid. 'Ed. Nid.

1:5 4:1 5:6 5:2 10:6

2:6 4:3 5:1,4 10:1

8:10

Tos. Miq. 1:7, 1 0

Tos. Nid. 5:5-7 Tos. Nid. 2 : 7 - 8 Tos. Nid. 9:7-9

M . Nid. 1 0 : 4 M . Nid. 1 0 : 7

Suffered flux o n e l e v e n t h day Nursing mother remar­ ries 1 8 / 2 4 m o s .

M . Nid. 1 0 : 8

Shakes t r e e — w h a t of water? W a t e r l e a k s i n t o jar o f fruit W a t e r leaks into t r o u g h A m b i g u o u s Zab-state C o n n e c t i v e f o r tevul-yom

M. Maksh. 1:2-4

J e l l y as c o n n e c t i v e f o r tevul-yom Ecclesiastes r e n d e r s hands unclean Hard olives and grapes susceptible t o unclean­ ness W h e n d o fish become susceptible t o u n c l e a n ­ ness W h e n do honeycombs become susceptible to uncleanness B r o a c h p i c k l e d jars O i l o n b o d y after i m m e r ­ sion Sin-offering water that has s e r v e d its p u r p o s e B l o o d o f carcasses

Toh.

Tos. Nid. 9 : 1 9 Tos. Nid. 2:2 Tos. Maksh. 1:1-4

M. Maksh. 4:4 M. Maksh. 4:5 M. Zab. 1:1-2 M. T.Y. 1:1 (M. T.Y. 2:5)

Tos. Maksh. 2:6 Tos. Zab. 1 :l-8

M. M. M. M.

Tos. 'Ed. 2 : 7

Yad.3:5 'Ed. 5:3 'Uqs. 3 : 6 'Ed. 5:3

T o s . T.Y.

2:3

M . 'Uqs. 3 : 8

M . 'Uqs. 3 : 1 1

M . 'Ed. 4 : 6 M . 'Ed. 4 : 6 M . 'Ed. 5:3 (M. Par. 12:4) M . 'Ed. 5:1

Tos. 'Ed. 2:2 Tos. 'Ed. 2 : 7 Tos. 'Ed. 2 : 5

THE RABBINIC TRADITIONS ABOUT THE PHARISEES BEFORE 70

PART III CONCLUSIONS

THE RABBINIC TRADITIONS ABOUT THE PHARISEES BEFORE 70 P A R T III

CONCLUSIONS

BY

JACOB

NEUSNER

Professor o f Religious Studies B r o w n University

LEIDEN E. J . B R I L L 1971

Copyright

i^jt

by E. J. Brill, Leiden,

Netherlands

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche or any other means without written permission from the publisher PRINTED

IN

T H E

N E T H E R L A N D S

For Brevard and Ann ...

G U 8e

Childs

. . . evexsvTpiGcpYjc,

ev

xal auyxoivcavcx; TYJC, pi^yjc, xal TYJC, 7UI6TYJTOC, TYJC. eXaiac. e y ^ •••

OCUTOIC.

0 0

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface

xm PART ONE

THE MASTERS List o f A b b r e v i a t i o n s

xiv

Transliterations

xvi

I. II.

III.

IV.

V.

INTRODUCTION

1

THE CHAINS OF PHARISAIC TRADITION

1 1

i. ii. iii. iv.

1 1 1 2

T o L a yo n Hands Decrees Moral Apophthegms Conclusion

1 3 5 2

SIMEON THE JUST

2 4

i. ii. iii.

2 4 4 4 5 7

Traditions Synopses Conclusion

ANTIGONUS OF SOKHO. YOSI B. YO'EZER AND YOSI B. YOHANAN i. ii.

Antigonus of Sokho Traditions o f Y o s i b. Yo'ezer and Y o s i b. Yohanan

iii. iv.

Synopses Conclusion

.

.

.

.

6 0

.

6 0 6 1 7 7 8 1

JOSHUA B. PERAHIAH AND NITTAI THE ARBELITE. JUDAH B. TABBAI AND SIMEON B. SHETAH

8 2

i. ii.

J o s h u a b . Perahiah a n d Nittai t h e A r b e l i t e Traditions o f J u d a h b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah .

8 2 8 6

iii. iv.

Synopses Conclusion

.

.

.

1 2 2 1 3 7

VI.

SHEMA'IAH AND ABTALION i. Traditions ii. Synopses iii. Conclusion

1 1 1 1

4 4 5 5

2 2 5 8

VII.

YOHANAN THE HIGH PRIEST, HONI THE CIRCLER, AND OTHERS MENTIONED IN CONNECTION WITH PHARISAISM BEFORE HILLEL . . i. Y o h a n a n t h e H i g h Priest ii. H o n i the Circler iii. Others

1 1 1 1

6 6 7 8

0 0 6 2

VIII.

MENAHEM. SHAMMAI i.

Menahem

1 8 4

1 8 4

VIII

IX.

X.

XL

XII.

TABLE

CONTENTS

ii.

Traditions of Shammai

iii.

Synopses

204

iv.

Conclusion

208

HILLEL

185

212

i. ii.

Traditions Synopses

212 280

iii.

Conclusion

294

SHAMMAI AND HILLEL

303

i.

Traditions

303

ii.

Synopses

333

iii.

Conclusion

338

GAMALIEL

341

i.

Traditions

342

ii.

Synopses

370

iii.

Conclusion

373

SIMEON B. GAMALIEL

377

i. ii. iii.

XIII.

OF

Traditions Synopses Conclusion

377 384 386

OTHER PHARISEES BEFORE 7 0

389

L

M e n t i o n e d in C o n n e c t i o n w i t h S h a m m a i 1. Dositheus of Kefar Y a t m a h

389 389

2. Baba b. Buta 3 . Y o ' e z e r >Ish H a B i r a h

389 391

4. Sadoq 5. Y o h a n a n the Hauranite M e n t i o n e d in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h Hillel

392 392 392

ii.

iii.

iv.

1. Bene Bathyra

392

2. Gedya 3. Ben He He and Ben Bag Bag

392 392

4. Shebna 5 . J o n a t h a n b . 'Uzziel M e n t i o n e d in Connection w i t h Gamaliel I 1. A d m o n and Hanan

393 393 394 394

2. Hanina b. D o s a 3. Y o h a n a n the Scribe

394 396

Others 1 . H o n i t h e C i r c l e r , G r a n d s o n o f H o n i t h e C i r c l e r ( A b b a Hil­ qiah) 2. Joshua b. Gamala 3. "Rabbi" Ishmael b. Phiabi and Eleazar b. H a r s o m . . . . 4 . Hananiah Prefect o f the Priests 5. N a h u m the Mede and Hanan the Egyptian 6. Zekhariah b. Q e v u t a l and Z e k h a r i a h b. HaQassav . . . . 7. Measha, N a h u m the Scribe, Simeon o f Mispah, J u d a h b. Bathyra, *Aqavyah b. Mehallel, Hananiah b. Hezeqiah b. G o r i o n , A b b a Y o s i b. Hanan, and Y o h a n a n b. G u d g a d a .

396 396 396 397 400 413 414

415

TABLE

OF

PART

CONTENTS

IX

TWO

THE HOUSES X I X I

List o f A b b r e v i a t i o n s

x

Transliterations

XIV. XV.

INTRODUCTION

1

TANNAITIC MIDRASHIM

6

i. ii. iii. iv. v.

XVI.

v

M e k h i l t a d e R. I s h m a e l M e k h i l t a de R. S i m e o n b. Y o h a i Sifra Sifre Midrash Tannaim

6 9 H 30 39

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA AND SOME Beraitot

41

i.

Zera'im

ii. iii. iv. v. vi.

Mo'ed Nashim Neziqin Qodashim Toharot

41

vii.

C o l l e c t i o n s o f H o u s e s - D i s p u t e s in M i s h n a h - T o s e f t a

12 19 23 23 25

viii. Tables

0 0 4 9 3

324 344

PART THREE

CONCLUSIONS List of Abbreviations Transliterations XVII.

INTRODUCTION

XVIII. INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF TRADITION: TYPES AND FORMS

i.

Legal Traditions A. Standard Legal Form B. Testimony-Form . C. Debates D. Narratives 1. Historical Information in Standard Legal Form 2. Epistles 3. Ordinances 4. Chains and Lists 5. Precedents

xiv xvi 1 5

5 5 14 16 23 24 25 25 27 28

TABLE

X

OF

CONTENTS

6. Contexts 7. First-Person Accounts 8. Illustrations and Proofs 9. Histories of Laws E. Legal Exegeses 1. Scriptural References 2. Exegeses 3. Proof-texts 4. From Exegesis to Chria ii. Aggadic Traditions A. Stories 1. Allusions to Stories 2. Short Biographical References 3. Biographical and Historical Stories . . . B. Moral Sayings 1. 'T'-Sayings 2. Sayings Not in a Narrative Setting . . . 3. Apophthegms 4. "Woe"-Sayings 5. Formulaic Sayings C. Aggadic Exegeses 1. Scriptural References 2. Exegeses 3. Proof-Texts 4. From Exegesis to Fable iii. Summary of Forms and Types iv. Some Comparisons v. History of Forms XIX.

31 33 35 38 39 39 40 42 42 43 43 43 45 47 55 56 56 59 61 61 62 62 62 63 64 64 68 89

SMALL UNITS OF TRADITION AND OTHER MNEMONIC PATTERNS

i. ii. iii. iv.

Introduction Pericopae without Formulae or Patterns Pericopae with Formulae or Patterns Small Units of Tradition 1 . Fixed Opposites a. Liable vs. Free b. Unclean vs. Clean c. Prohibit vs. Permit d. Unfit ^s. Fit

101

. . . .

101 106 114 119 119 120 120 122 122

TABLE OF CONTENTS

e. Midras vs. Teme-Met f. Inside vs. Outside; Past vs. Future; Above vs. Below 2. Balance of Meter 3. Balance of Meter and Change of Letter . . . v. Syntactical and Morphological Changes Equivalent in Function to Small Units of Tradition . . . . 1. Tense and Number 2. Distinction vs. No Distinction {And vs. Or) . . 3. Reversal of Word-Order 4. Statements of Law +/—Negative 5. Negative Statement + Permit 6. *P in Second Lemma . vi. Differences in Word-Choice vii. Number-Sequences viii. Houses-Disputes Not in Precise Balance . . . . ix. Summary of Small Units of Tradition and Other Mnemonic Patterns x. Oral Transmission: Defining the Problem. . . . xi. Oral Traditions XX.

VERIFICATIONS

i. ii. iii.

123 123 124 125 126 126 126 128 129 132 134 134 136 138 140 143 163 180

Introduction Pericopae without Verifications before ca. 2 0 0 A.D. (Mishnah-Tosefta) Verifications of Yavneh 1. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus 2. Joshua b. Hananiah 3. Eliezer + Joshua 4. Eliezer +
c

XI

180 185 199 199 200 201 201 202 202 203 203 204 204 204 204 205 207

TABLE OF

XII

CONTENTS

15. Yohanan b. Nuri 16. Jonathan b. Bathyra 17. Abba Yosi b. Hanan 18. Ilai 19. Dosa b. Harkinas 20. Ishmael iv. Verifications of Usha 1. Usha in General 2. Judah b. Baba 3. Judah b. Bathyra 4. Eliezer b. Shammu'a 5. Eliezer b. Jacob 6. Dosetai b. R. Yannai 7. Yosi b. Halafta 8. Yosi b. Halafta and Judah b. Ilai 9. Yosi b. Halafta and Meir 10. Yosi b. Halafta and Simeon b. Yohai . . . . 11. Simeon b. Yohai 12. Meir 13. Meir and Judah b. Ilai 14. Judah b. Ilai 15. Simeon b. Gamaliel 16. Nathan v. Verifications of the Circle of Judah the Patriarch. 1. The Circle of Judah the Patriarch in General. 2. Simeon b. Eleazar 3. Others vi. The Pre-70 Pharisees at Yavneh vii. The Pre-70 Pharisees at Usha viii. Conclusion XXI.

HISTORY OF THE TRADITIONS

i. ii.

The Missing Traditions The Rabbinic History of Pharisaism: The Early Masters iii. The Matter of Hillel iv. Gamaliel and Simeon. Yohanan b. Zakkai . . . v. The Yavnean Stratum vi. The Ushan Stratum vii. The Laws

208 208 208 208 208 208 209 209 210 210 211 211 211 211 213 213 213 214 215 215 217 218 219 220 220 220 222 223 231 234 239

239 248 255 272 281 282 286

TABLE

XXII.

OF CONTENTS

XIII

SUMMARY : THE RABBINIC TRADITIONS ABOUT THE PHAR­ ISEES BEFORE 7 0

301

APPENDIX: BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFLECTIONS

320

INDICES I. II.

BIBLE

369

APOCRYPHA, PSEUDEPIGRAPHA, QUMRANIAN WRITINGS

372

III.

JOSEPHUS

372

IV.

MISHNAH

372

TOSEFTA

380

V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X.

MEKHILTA, SIFRA, SIFRE, MIDRASH TANNAIM

. . . .

384

PALESTINIAN TALMUD

385

BABYLONIAN TALMUD

389

MIDRASHIM AND OTHER COMPILATIONS

394

GENERAL INDEX

395

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Ah. 'Arakh. ARN A.Z. b.

= Ahilot = 'Arakhin = A v o t deRabbi Natan = 'Avodah Zarah = Bavli, Babylonian Talmud

b. = ben B.B. = B a v a Batra B.M. = Bava M e s i V B.Q. = Bava Qamma Ber. = Berakhot Bes. = Besah Bik. = Bikkurim Chron. = Chronicles Dan. = Daniel Dem. = Demai Development = J . N e u s n e r , Development of a Legend: Studies on the Traditions Concerning Yohanan ben Zakkai ( L e i ­ den, 1 9 7 0 ) Deut. = Deuteronomy <Ed. = 'Eduyyot E p s t e i n , Mevo ot = J . N. Epstein, Mevo ot leSifrut HaTanna im (J ~ salem, 1 9 5 7 ) E p s t e i n , Mishnah = J . N . E p s t e i n , Mavo le Nusah HaMishnah (Jerusalem, 1964 ) 'Eruv. = 'Eruvin Ex. = Exodus Ez, = Ezekiel F i n k e l s t e i n , Mavo = Mavo le Massekhet Avot veAvot deR. Natan (N.Y. 1950) Gen. = Genesis Git. = Gittin Hag. = Hagigah Hal. = Plallah H a l i v n i , Meqorot = David Weiss H a l i v n i , Meqorot uMesorot (Tel Aviv, 1968) Hor. = Horayot Hos. = Hosea H U C A = Hebrew Union College Annual Hul. = Hullin Is. = Isaiah JBL = Journal of Biblical Literature JE = Jewish Encyclopedia Jer. = Jeremiah y

y

y

2

e f u

Josh. = Joshua JQR = Jewish Quarterly Review Jud. = Judges Kel. = Kelim Ker. = Keritot Kil. = Kila'im Lev. = Leviticus M. = Mishnah M G W J = Monatschrift fur die Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums M.Q. = Mo'ed Qatan M.S. = Ma aser Sheni M.T. = Midrash T a n n a i m MT = Massoretic Text Ma. = Ma'aserot Mak. = Makkot Maksh. = Makshirin Mai. = Malachi Meg. = Megillah M e g . Ta. = Megillat Ta'anit Mekh. = Mekhilta Men. = Menahot Mid. = Middot Miq. = Miqva'ot Naz. = Nazir Ned. = Nedarim Neg. = Nega im Nez. = Nezirot Nid. = Niddah Num. = Numbers Oh. = Ohalot Orl. = Orlah Par. = Parah Pes. = Pesahim Prov. = Proverbs Ps. = Psalms Qid. = Qiddushin Qoh. = Qohelet R. = Rabbah R. = Rabbi REJ = Revue des etudes juives R.H. = Rosh Hashanah Sam. = Samuel Sanh. = Sanhedrin Shab. = Shabbat Shav. = Shavu*ot Sheq. = Sheqalim Shev. = Shevi'it c

l

c

l

LIST OF

Song

=

Song of Songs

Sot.

=

Sotah

Suk. Ta.

= =

Sukkah Ta'anit

Tem. Ter. Toh. Tos.

= = = =

Temurah Terumot Toharot Tosefta

T.Y. 'Uqs.

= =

Tevul Y o m 'Uqsin

ABBREVIATIONS

y.

=

XV

Y e r u s h a l m i , Palestinian

Talmud Y.T.

=

Yom Tov

Yad. Yev.

= =

Yadaim Yevamot

Zab. Zech.

= =

Zabim Zechariah

Zer.

=

Zera im

Zev.

=

Zevahim

c

TRANSLITERATIONS

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN

INTRODUCTION Having examined the individual pericopae from formal, literary, historical, and redactional-critical perspectives, as seemed appropriate, I shall now try to characterize the literary and historical traits of the tradition as a whole. Two literary and two historical studies follow. The literary studies concentrate on the intermediate, then the small units of tradition. The intermediate units comprise forms used for var­ ious types of materials. After establishing what those forms and types of pericopae are, I next compare the types and forms of rabbinic tradi­ tions about the Pharisees with those of other groups in ancient Judaism. From the definition of forms, I proceed to analyze the small units of tradition of which those forms are constructed. This leads us directly to the question of the oral formulation and transmis­ sion of traditions, the heuristic value of mnemonic patterns, and the place of Oral Torah, meaning orally formulated and orally transmitted teachings, in the rabbinic traditions about pre-70 Pharisaism. I have not examined the large units of tradition, that is, those long pericopae made up of separate and distinct materials about several pre70 Pharisaic masters all together. None of those large units can have been put together before 70. We have already paid sufficient attention to the context and thematic setting in which individual pre-70 Pharisaic pericopae appear. The development of composite pericopae, joining together already existing materials, is a problem of the study of the final stages of redaction of the several compilations and does not materially affect the analysis of the data before us. The literary and mnemonic studies lead to the question, At what stages in the formation of the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees are we able to verify the existence of completed, or nearly completed, pericopae? The study of verifications establishes the likelihood that important forms come early in the formation of the tradition and shows us what part of the tradition—the part on which named Tannaim comment—looked like at various stages in its growth. It moreover strongly suggests that the rabbinic tradents were extremely 1

1

P e r h a p s attestations w o u l d h a v e b e e n a b e t t e r w o r d .

NEUSNER, The Rabbinic Tradition about the Pharisees before 70, III

1

2

INTRODUCTION

meticulous in using Houses-forms primarily for materials they believ­ ed to derive from the Houses-tradition, and not promiscuously, merely because they required a convenient mnemonic. The verifica­ tions also point toward a distinction between generalized, or thematic, traditions, on the one hand, and the actual formulation and wording of pericopae, on the other. The former may go back to pre-70 times. I imagine it sometimes does. But the latter seldom does. The penultimate chapter builds upon the results earlier obtained to deal with substantive problems in the history of the rabbinic tradi­ tions about the Pharisees. Finally, the appendix contains discussions of other studies of the Pharisees. Since our purpose has been not to describe the historical Pharisees, but only to examine one corpus of traditions concerning them, I concentrate on materials in which those traditions themselves are discussed. It now is necessary to specify the presuppositions of what follows. First, I assume that the dates of the final redaction of the Tannaitic collections fall in the early to middle third century, and that, thereafter, interpolations and glosses were not commonly made in those collec­ tions. Second, I suppose that no reporter was present to take down verbatim what was said and done at the various incidents recorded in the rabbinic traditions, but that all we have are traditions about such events, given both form and substance on some other, later occasion than that of which they speak. Third, consequently I have not taken for granted the historical reliability of the sacred texts. In this respect I come approximately a century and a half after the establishment of a similarly skeptical position in respect to both New Testament and Tanakh. With rabbinic materials, aside from some reservations about the obvious miracles, one rarely discerns among earlier students the internal necessity to understand the historical background of texts in a manner other than that narrated in the texts themselves. When they have done so, it is for exegetical, not historical purposes. In recent times various stu­ dents of rabbinic literature in different ways have made manifest the urgency of coming to terms with the hidden historical agenda and the complex literary situation of rabbinic literature, neither of which permits reading the texts as completely reliable historical witnesses. But among those students I cannot think of a single historian before this time who has systematically followed to their logical conclusion

3

INTRODUCTION

the results of the historical-critical, literary, and exegetical inquiries of the past century of scientific study of Talmudic literature, all the more so of biblical and cognate collections. Fourth, as a working hypothesis, I take seriously the attributions of sayings to post-70 masters, and, moreover, regard post-140 attribu­ tions as absolutely reliable. Therefore if'Aqiba is said to say something, I assume he actually did say so. While this is an unexamined assumption, it will have to serve for the moment. Otherwise we should have continually to say, "the circle of Aqiba attributed to Aqiba the follow­ ing," and similarly properly qualified, but cumbersome, circumlocu­ tions. For our study, the primary temporal categories are 70-120, Yavneh; 140-165, Usha; and 165-200, Bet She'arim (the circle of Judah the Patriarch). I have made slight effort to distinguish parties and tendencies within those circles of masters. These are all conve­ nience-dates, nothing more. Later work on the traditions of those several periods and the circles and schools that flourished in them will inevitably produce refinements in the analysis of the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees. Fifth, I postulate that we deal with a 'collective literature/ which, while perhaps in many elements beginning with a single author, was publicly transmitted, and rapidly made the property of the community of the schools. Whatever the role of individuals, it was rapidly oblite­ rated and therefore does not matter. This seems to me important, for it must mean that the literary requirements of the materials before us are different from those of poetry or narrative such as are attributed to individual Jewish writers of antiquity. The impact on style is clear: nothing could be idiosyncratic, in the end relying upon the taste, judgment, or sensibility of a single man. Everything had to be accept­ able to the wider circle of authorities. This must mean that conven­ tionality takes precedence over style, formulaic routine over unusual expression, the public consensus over the private insight. And this leads us directly to the form-criticism and form-history, the usefulness of which is the sixth and predominant supposition of our study. I do suppose that form-critical, form-historical, and redactionalcritical studies in New Testament materials suggest fruitful ways of analyzing rabbinic materials. But the reader must not think that I have taken over without modification or criticism the methods and presup­ positions developed in the study of that separate, and quite different, body of materials. While I have tried to learn from New Testament c

c

4

INTRODUCTION

form-criticism, I do not claim to have mastered and applied NT form-critical method to Talmudic materials. I do not know whether New Testament form-critics will regard what is done here as real form-criticism, or some other kind of criticism, or no criticism at all. That does not seem to me an interesting question. I have asked about literary, formal, redactional, and historical matters. By and large it was from New Testament form-critics that I learned about the importance of such inquiries. More than this I do not allege. Others are bound to improve upon what I have done. Scholars of halakhah certainly will correct, clarify, and deepen the interpretation of legal materials, and literary critics inevitably will see much more in the materials than have I. Better texts certainly will yield more accurate literary studies. Philologists must improve upon the interpretation of many passages, which, after all, relies upon inadequate dictionaries. My sole merit, if I have any merit at all, is to have begun the histo­ rical-critical work.

CHAPTER EIGHTEEN

INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF TRADITION: TYPES AND FORMS The types or genres (Gattungen) of traditional materials and the forms in which they are handed on are here described and catalogued. At the end we shall compare types and forms of rabbinic pericopae concerning pre-70 Pharisees with those of other sects in ancient Judaism. i. LEGAL TRADITIONS

A legal, or halakhic, tradition is a saying or story about the way something is to be done, a statement intended to have practical effect and carry normative authority, or an inquiry into the logic or legal principle behind such a rule. Legal traditions come in five sorts of pericopae: A. Standard, or conventional form, so-called because it predominates in MishnahTosefta and in the fora/V^-literature before us; B. Testimonies; C. Debates; D. Narratives of legal interest, of various sorts, which are not comparable to the foregoing in following disciplined forms; and E. Exegesis of legal Scriptures (midrashe halakhah). Legal traditions are further put together into lists, collections, composites (II, pp. 324-343), and other larger units, and are composed of formulae, stock-phrases, and other smaller units (Chapter Nineteen). Before us are the intermediate units of tradition, between brief key-words, formulae, and cliches, on the one hand, and substantial conglomerates of materials, on the other. A. Standard Legal Form The purpose is to convey the opinion of a master on a legal issue. The simplest component is }

Authority X + says ( WMR) + opinion, in direct discourse. The important characteristic is the consistent use of present-tense verbs. This readily produces the simple dispute-form:

6

INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF

TRADITION

Authority X + says (present tense) + opinion, in direct discourse Authority Y + says + opinion, in direct discourse. Thus the dispute is built out of two legal lemmas, often combined with a protasis in present-tense. The dispute-form yields three varia­ tions. First, a common alternative is to drop the introductory super­ scription and to insert the "if-clause"—the statement of the issue of law or case—into the lemma of the first named authority; the lemma of the second will then depend upon the diction and content of the first, thus: Authority X says + statement of law or problem -f- ruling Authority Y says + ruling (often apocopated). A second variation is the exclusion of a second authority, leaving the first in dispute with the anonymous statement of law: Statement of law or legal problem Authority X + + opinion (often: even, also [*P]). s a v s

Third, the second named authority will be given a generalized opinion on the specific antecedent ruling in place of says, e.g., House of Sham­ mai say... And House of Hillel permit. Here the antecedent lemma is taken for granted, as in the foregoing, but the second lemma (per­ mit) subsumes the anticipated specific opinion (listed separately below, pp. 132-134). The limitation of this study necessarily excludes from consideration here another, still more common, legal form: the anonymous state­ ment of a law, without intervention of named authorities and beyond dispute. Because we have restricted our sample to pericopae naming either masters or the Houses of Shammai and Hillel, materials contain­ ing laws without assignment to specific authorities (anonymous legal logia) naturally are omitted. Whether or not such laws in their present form were redacted before 70 is not at issue. We shall catalogue in a single list all four varieties of conventional legal sayings, since all are composed of simple declarative sentences— WMR + direct discourse—and thus exhibit a single common charac­ teristic. The following pericopae are in standard legal form or one of the specified variations (only the first appearance of a pericope is cited):

}

1. Joshua b. Perahiah says—wheat from Alexandria— Tos. Maksh. 3:4 (The sages said—commentary on ruling: if so)

7

LEGAL TRADITIONS c

2. Shammai/Hillel + says—time vs. examinations— M. Ed. 1:1 (And the sages say, Not according to either) 3. Shammai/Hillel + says—qab for hallah—M.

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

c

Ed. 1:3

(And the sages say, Not according to either) Hillel/Shammai says—immersion-pool—M. Ed. 1:3 (And the sages say, Not according to either) Shammai/Hillel + says—vintage grapes for vat— b. Shab. 15a Hananiah Prefect of the Priests says—leprosy-signs—Sifra Tazri'a ' Neg. 2:6 = M. Neg. 1:4 Hananiah says—surplus of fruit—M. Sheq. 4:4 (Ishmael, Aqiba) Hananiah says omer in Sabbath/weekday— M. Men. 10:1 Hananiah says—Uncleanness of Terumah— Tos. Ter. 9:10 c

c

t

For the Houses-sayings, we shall add a still further variation on the standard form: the utilization of intensive, transitive verbs (Pi'el, Hiph'il), present tense, e.g. declare liable, declare clean, etc. (above, II, pp. 1-2). These verbs may be regarded as in indirect discourse, e.g.: House of Shammai say, Unclean (TM>); declare unclean (MTM'YN) House of Hillel say, Clean (THR); declare clean (MTHRYN). We shall also include pericopae in which the Houses' rulings are in the form ...the words of the House of... (and) The House of ...say. The words-of form generally substitutes for House of... say... on account of redactional considerations, and therefore falls within the present in­ quiry. 10. Baby born circumcized—Sabbath/convert—Sifra Tazri'a 1:5, Tos. Shab. 15(16):9 11. Tassels of /////— Sifre Num. 115, b. Men. 40a-b 12. Linen-cloak with woolen fringes—Mid. Tan. to Deut. 22:12, Hoffmann pp. 138-9 13. Lie down to read Shema'—M. Ber. 1:3 14. Benediction over savory—M. Ber. 6:5 [House of Shammai] 15. Day/wine—M. Ber 8:1 [others in Tos. Ber 5 (6):25-30; M. Pes. 10:2] 16. Hands/cup—M. Ber. 8:2 17. Napkin on table/cushion—M. Ber. 8:3 18. Sweep/wash—M. Ber. 8:4 19. Order of Havdalah—M.

20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

Ber. 8:5

Forgot Grace—M. Ber. 8:7 Food/wine—M. Ber. 8:8 Festival/Sabbath of New Year—Tos. Ber. 3:13 One blesses for all/each for self—b. Ber. 53a Leave tefillin outside privy—b. Ber. 23a Oil/myrtle—b. Ber. 43b Pe*ah from grain amid olive trees—M. Pe'ah 3:1

8

INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF

27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33.

TRADITION

Ownerless to poor—M. Pe'ah 6:1 Forgotten sheaf by wall—M. Pe'ah 6:2 Two sheaves together—M. Pe'ah 6:5 Grapes of fourth-year vineyard—M. Pe'ah 7:6 Sweet oil—M. Dem. 1:3 Almoners (House of Shammai vs. sages)—M. Dem. 3:1 Sell olives to haver—M. Dem. 6:6 (Tos. Ma. 3:13)

34. Excess of 'omer—Tos. Dem. 1:28

35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63.

Laws of Demai and Hallah—y. Dem. 5:1 Lay out fields in plots with different seeds—M. Kil. 2:6 Vineyard patch—M. Kil. 4:1 Row of five vines—M. Kil. 4:5 Measure from roots vs. from wall—M. Kil. 6:1 Uncleanness of weasel—M. Kil. 8:5 [House of Shammai] Caperbush in vineyard—Tos. Kil. 3:17 Dirt over shoot over stone—Tos. Kil. 4:11 Until when do they plough tree-planted field—M. Shev. 1:1 Field that has been prepared: eat produce in Seventh Year—M. Shev. 4:2 Eat seventh-year produce by favor—M. Shev. 4:2 Thin out olive trees in Seventh Year—M. Shev. 4:4 When forbidden to cut down tree in Seventh Year—M. Shev. 4:10 Dig up arum in Seventh Year—M. Shev. 5:4 Sell ploughing heifer to non-observant person in Seventh Year— M. Shev. 5:8 {Field: Tos. Shev. 4:5b) Sell Seventh-Year produce in bundles—M. Shev. 8:3 Water plants in New Year—Tos. Shev. 1:5 Pod in Seventh Year—Tos. Shev. 2:6 Sell produce of Seventh Year for coins—Tos. Shev. 6:19 If Heave-offering is given from olives for oil— M. Ter. 1:4 [Tos. Ter. 3:14, Tos. Ter. 3:16] Proper measure of Heave-offering—M. Ter. 4:3 Unclean Heave-offering nullified in large quantity of clean—M. Ter. 5:4 [Tos. Ter. 6:4] Heave-offering from two kinds of wheat, figs—Tos. Ter. 2:5 When make vat unclean—Tos. Ter. 3:12 Cask of unclean Heave-offering—b. Pes. 20b = b. B.Q. 115b116a Burn Heave-offering which may be unclean—y. Pes. 3:6 Basket of fruit for Sabbath—M. Ma. 4:2 Purity of Second Tithe of fenugreek—M. M.S. 2:3 Purity of Second-Tithe and Heave-offering of vetches—M. M.S. 2:4 [+ Shammai, Aqiba] Change selas for denars—M. M.S. 2:7 Change seta's worth of Second Tithe money outside of Jerusalem— M. M.S. 2:8 Change Seta's worth of Second Tithe money in Jerusalem—M. M.S. 2:9 [ + Tarfon, Shammai] c

64. 65. 66.

LEGAL

9

TRADITIONS

67. Produce not fully harvested passed through Jerusalem—M. M.S. 3:2 68. Tree inside Jerusalem with boughs outside—M. M.S. 3:7 69. Second Tithe brought to Jerusalem and made unclean—M. M.S. 3:9 70. Give Heave-offering from bottles of wine—M. M.S. 3:13 71. Issar ot Second Tithe redemption money—M. M.S. 4:8 72. Removing cooked food—M. M.S. 5:6 73. Removing produce after Destruction—M. M.S. 5:7 74. Hallah from flour-paste—M. Hal. 1:6 75. Neutralize produce that conveys marked flavor— M. Orl. 2:4-5 [House of Shammai] 76. Cannot start work before Sabbath that will continue on Sabbath: soaking—M. Shab. 1:5 [ + House of Hillel permit] 77. Steaming, dying, hunting—M. Shab. 1:6 78. Sell to gentile—M. Shab. 1:7 79. Give work to gentile—M. Shab. 1:8 80. Hot water and cooked food on stove—M. Shab. 3:1 [Additional materials: Tos. Shab. 2 (3): 13] 81. Clean table on Sabbath—M. Shab. 21:3 82. Male should not eat with female Zab—Tos. Shab. 1:14 [ + House of Hillel permit] 83. Carry in case of need—Tos. Shab. 14 (15): 1 84. KH1 louse on Sabbath—Tos. Shab. 16 fl7):21 85. Hanukkah lights—b. Shab. 21b. 86. Render alley-entry valid—M. Eruv. 1:2 87. *Eruv for road through public domain—b. Eruv. 6a 88. When do they give right of access?—M. Eruv. 6:4a 89. Five companies: 'eruv for each?—M. Eruv. 6:6 90. Eruv for cistern—M. 'Eriiv. 8:6 91. 'Eruv for each kind of food—b. Bes. 17b 92. *Eruv for Nazirite with wine—b. Eruv. 30a-b 93. Where search in wine-vault—M. Pes. 1:1 94. Work on night of 13th of Nisan [ + forbid/permit]—M. Pes. 4:5 95. Proselyte on day before Passover—M. Pes. 8:8 96. How far recite Hallel—^A. Pes. 10:6 97. Burn unclean with clean meat—Tos. Pisha 1:6 [House of Hillel permit] 98. Return limbs of Pesah—Tos. Pisha 7:2 99. Surplus of sheqel-coins—M. Sheq. 2:3 [Variations] 100. Burn flesh of Most Holy Things inside/outside— M. Sheq. 8:6 [M. M.S.3:9] 101. How much to drink to become culpable on Day of Atonement— b. Yoma 80a 102. Old Sukkah—M. Suk. 1:1 103. Prepare Sukkah-covering from timber roofing with no plaster— M. Suk. 1:7 c

c

c

c

c

c

c

INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF

TRADITION

104. Head and greater part of body within Sukkah—M. Suk. 2:7 [Declare invalid/valid] 105. Citron of Demai—M. Suk 3:5 [Declare valid/invalid] 106. Where do they shake the lulav—M. Suk 3:9 107. Egg laid on festival—M. Bes. 1:1 108. Olive's bulk of leaven and date's bulk of what is leavened—M. Bes. 1:1 109. Dig with mattock—M. Bes. 1:2 110. Move ladder from dovecot—M. Bes. 1:3 111. Stir pigeons day before—M. Bes. 1:3 112. Take off cupboard doors—M. Bes. 1:5 113. Lift up pestle—M. Bes. 1:5 114. Put hide before treading place—M. Bes. 1:5 115. Carry out child, lulav, scroll of Torah—M. Bes. 1:5 116. Take dough-offering to priest—M. Bes. 1:6 117. Pound spices on festival—M. Bes. 1:7 118. How to pick pulse on festival—M. Bes. 1:8 119. Send prepared portions on festival—M. Bes. 1:9 120. One dish vs. two dishes—M. Bes. 2:1 121. Festival after Sabbath, what to wash—M. Bes. 2:2 122. Bring peace-offerings and not lay on hands, not bring whole offerings—M. Bes. 2:4 123. Heat water for feet—M. Bes. 2:5 124. Cover up blood with dust and ashes—b. Hul. 88b 125. Bake thick bread on Passover—b. Bes. 22b 126. Gather wood on festival—Tos. Y.T. 3:10 127. New Year for Fruit-trees—M. R.H. 1:1 128. Resume mourning after festival—Tos. M.Q. 2:9 129. Child as pilgrim—M. Hag. 1:1 130. Value of festival and re^iyjah offerings—M. Hag. 1:2 131. Use Second Tithe money for Passover—M. Hag. 1:3 132. Pentecost on eve of Sabbath—M. Hag. 2:4 133. Laying on of hands not in the ordinary manner—y. Hag. 2:3 ( = No. 122) 134. Levirate marriage of co-wives and brothers—M. Yev. 1:4 135. Levirate marriage of surviving brothers—M. Yev. 3:1 136. Levirate marriage of surviving brother—M. Yev. 3:5 [Ma amar] 137. Woman awaiting Levirate marriage: inheritance, estate—M. Yev. 4:3; M. Ket. 8:6; M. B.B. 8:8-9 138. Abstain from sexual relations—M. Yev. 6:6 139. Exercising right of refusal—M. Yev. 13:1 140. Woman remarries on own testimony of death of husband—M. Yev. 15:3 141. Cohabit with wife's sister—b. Yev. 95a 142. Vow to abstain from sexual relations—M. Ket. 5:6 143. Vow not to suckle child—b. Ket. 59b 144. Nursing mother whose husband died—b. Ket. 60a-b y

LEGAL

11

TRADITIONS

145. Inheritance and disposition of property of betrothed woman— M. Ket. 8:1 146. Inheriting minor-wife—b. Yev. 89b 147. How dance before the bride—b. Ket. 17a 148. Oprban said in error—M. Ned. 3:2 149. Vows under duress—M. Ned. 3:4 150. Absolution from oath—b. Ned. 28a 151. Abstainer from dried figs andfig-cake—M.Naz. 2:1 152. Nazir: cow, door—M. Naz. 2:2 153. Nazirite-vow for longer spell—M. Naz. 3:6 154. Thing dedicated in error—M. Naz. 5:1 155. Nazirite-vow in error—M. Naz. 5:5 156. Substitutes for substitutes of oath—Tos. Nez. 1:1 157. Testimony from echo—Tos. Nez. 1:1 158. Nazir without specifying term—Tos. Nez. 2:10 159. Divided testimony—M. Naz. 3:7 160. Bald Nazirite—b. Naz. 46 b 161. Impose Naziriteship by vow—Tos. Nez. 3:17 162. Inquired of sage and the vow was binding— Tos. Nez. 3:19 163. If husbands died before wives drank bitter water—M. Sot. 4:2 164. Woman who has sexual relations with minor son, re priesthood— Tos. Sot. 4:7 165. How many letters blotted out of scroll—y. Sot. 3:3 166. Old Get.—M. Git. 8:4 167. Wrote Get and changed mind—M. Git. 8:8 168. Divorced his wife and spent night with her—M. Git. 8:9 169. Grounds for divorce—M. Git. 9:10 170. Get without witnesses—Tos. Git. 8:8 171. How much money for marriage—M. Qid. 1:1 172. Witnesses and agent for betrothal—Tos. Qid. 4:1 173. Return stolen beam—Tos. B.Q. 9:5 174. Malfeasance of bailiff: rate of compensation—M. B.M. 3:12 175. Two sprinklings for sin-offering—M. Zev. 4:1 176. Slaughter with reaping-sickle—M. Hul. 1:2 177. Chicken and cheese—M. Hul. 8:1 178. Rinse mouth between cheese and meat—b. Hul. 104b 179. How many sheep liable for fleece-gift—M. Hul. 11:2 180. Number Israelite with priest for firstling—M. Bekh. 5:2 181. Meat of firstling to menstrual woman—Tos. Bekh. 3:16 182. Period before accepting haver—b. Bekh. 30b 183. Vow of marheshet—b. Men. 63a 184. Sanctify property and divorce wife—Tos. 'Arakh. 4:5 185. Added Fifth to additional payment—Tos. Arakh. 4:22 186. Harlot's hire of wheat turned into flour for altar—b. Tern. 30b 187. Miscarriage on night of eighty-first: liability for offering—M. Ker. 1:6 188. Jar and liquids with tightly-stopped cover in Tent—M. Kel. 9:2 189. Articles made from common nails—M. Kel. 11:3 c

INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF

TRADITION

190. When does staff with tube on the end become insusceptible to uncleanness—M. Kel. 14:2 191. Measuring chest for uncleanness—M. Kel. 18:1 192. Trough for mixing mortar—M. Kel. 20:2 193. When does sheet cease to be susceptible—M. Kel. 20:6 194. Bride's stool that lost its seat-boards—M. Kel. 22:4 [+ Shammai] 195. Stool fixed to baking trough—M. Kel. 22:4 [+ Shammai] 196. Leather-bag or wrapper for purple wool—M. Kel. 26:6 197. Scroll-covers with figures—M. Kel. 28:4 198. Length of shaft of householder's trowel to serve as connective for uncleanness—M. Kel. 29:8 199. Stool fixed to baking trough—M. Kel. 22:4 200. Peat in oven—Tos. Kel. B.Q. 2:1 201. Shovel that lost its blade—Tos. Kel. B.M. 3:8 202. When does tube become clean—Tos. Kel. B.M. 4:5 203. Mustard strainer with two holes in bottom—Tos. Kel. B.M. 4:16 204. Bag/bagpipers—Tos. Kel. B.M. 11:3 (M. Kel. 20:2) 205. Girdle from one side of garment and one side of sheet—Tos. KeL B.B. 5:7 206. Lack in backbone so as not to convey uncleanness by overshadow­ ing—M. Oh. 2:3 207. Lack in skull—M. Oh. 2:3 208. Baking oven in house with arched outlet overshadowed by corpse—M. Oh. 5:1-4 [+ < Aqiba] 209. Window affords protection for other entrances in house wherein a corpse is lying—M. Oh. 7:3 210. Split in roof of house [various examples]—M. Oh. 11:1, 3-6 211. Candlestick in cistern, covered by basket—M. Oh. 11:8 212. Lighthole covered with grating: holes add together to make up hole made by drill—M. Oh. 13:1 213. Place for rod or stave—M. Oh. 13:4 214. Measure of space of forecourt of tomb-vault—M. Oh. 15:8 215. How do they gather grapes in grave-area?—M. Oh. 18:1 216. Do they examine field for Nazirite?—M. Oh. 18:4 217. What do they examine?—M. Oh. 18:8 218. Quarter-^ of bones from greater part of body, etc.—Tos. Ah. 3:4 (M. <Ed. 1:7) 219. Tightly-stoppered bottle as plug for grave—Tos. Ah. 15:9 220. Lid of kettle joined to chain as connective—M. Par. 12:10 221. Removing jar from oven for use with Heave-offering—Tos. Par. 5:1 222. From what time do olives receive uncleanness?—M. Toh. 9:1 223. Olives left in basket to grow soft so they may be salted—M. Toh. 9:5 224. Set apart enough olives for a pressing—M. Toh. 9:7 225. Putting grapes into the winepress from what was stored in baskets —M. Toh. 10:4 226. Leaving vessels with ^am ha*ares—Tos. Toh. 8:9b-10

LEGAL

13

TRADITIONS

227. When is pool made unclean by a man rendered clean after a rain storm—M. Miq. 1:5 228. Vessels under water-spout—M. Miq. 4:1 229. Immerse vessels in rain-stream—M. Miq. 5:6 230. Immerse hot water in cold and vice versa—M. Miq. 10:6 231. Women need test-rags for each act of intercourse vs. through the night—M. Nid. 2:4 232. Five kinds of blood unclean in a woman—M. Nid. 2:6 233. Blood of gentile woman and of purifying woman that is leper— M. Nid. 4:3 234. Signs of maturity by eighteen/twenty—M. Nid. 5:9 235. Sexual relations of minor married before puberty—M. Nid. 10:1 236. Women die as menstruants—M. Nid. 10:4 237. Uncleanness of woman in blood of her purifying—M. Nid. 10:6 238. Immersion at end of days of her purifying—M. Nid. 10:7 239. Suffered flux on eleventh day—M. Nid. 10:8 240. How long should woman who has difficulty in giving birth be relieved from pain so as to be in the status of a Zab—Tos. Nid. 5:7 241. If man shook tree to bring down drops of rain—M. Maksh. 1:2 242. If he shook tree and drops fell on another tree—M. Maksh. 1:3 243. If he shook herbs and drops from fell top to bottom— M. Maksh. 1:4 244. Water leaking from roof dripped into jar—M. Maksh. 4:4 245. Water dripped into trough—M. Maksh. 4:5 246. Unbroken stream of liquid—M. Maksh. 5:9 [House of Shammai only] 247. Man suffered one issue offlux,in various sequences—M. Zab. 1:1-2 248. Dough-offerings as connective—M. T.Y. 1:1 249. Layer of jelly on flesh of hallowed meat, oil on wine, as connec­ tive for Tevul Yom—-Tos. T.Y. 2:3 250. Olives and grapes that have turned hard—M. Uqs. 3:6 251. Black cummin—M.
c

c

c

c

c

c

Among the two hundred fifty-eight pericopae in which we find X says, either with or without an antecedent superscription and con­ trasting lemma of a second authority, all but five pertain to the Houses of Shammai and Hillel or to Shammai and Hillel. One might have added a few sayings of Hananiah Prefect of the Priests not phrased

14

INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF

TRADITION

on a strictly legal issue, but concerning the explanations or reminiscenses of cultic practice (below pp. 24-25). Nahum the Mede has a few says-tt^ditions as well (I, p. 413). But sayings of no other pre-70 Pharisaic master are redacted in what I have called standard form. Strikingly, Hananiah is the only pre-70 master considered in detail who survived the destruction and actively participated in Yavnean affairs; as we noted, an important characteristic of his traditions is redaction along with Ishmael, Aqiba, and others of Yavnean times. The three Shammai/Hillel sayings, all in a single, composite peri­ cope in M. Ed. 1:3, follow the Houses-form. The two hundred fifty Houses-pericopae could have been substantially expanded by listing parallels to the cited pericopae, breaking down composites into indi­ vidual units, and adding more exempla from the beraita-sttatum. Doing so would merely have made clear what is already obvious: the redac­ tion of the Houses-materials followed literary and formal conventions not brought to bear upon the sayings of the named pre-70 masters. It should not be supposed that the reason is the occurrence of those sayings in Mishnah-Tosefta, for the pre-70 masters also appear with appropriate frequency in the same collections, yet their sayings are not in conventional form. Therefore redactional considerations opera­ tive in Mishnah-Tosefta have not imposed the conventional form on the masters' sayings. The traditions were given that form before the final redaction of the collections in which they occur. To this catalogue, finally, we may append the following variations: c

c

259. Shammai the Elder said in the name ofHaggai the prophet— his sender is liable—b. Qid. 43a 260. A man may not say to his fellow...but he says to him—Hillel forbids CWSR)—M. B.M. 5:9 (Tos. B.M. 6:10; note Tos. Ma. 3:2-4: R. Judah says, Hillel himself used to prohibit [HYH >WSR]). The use of the past tense in no. 259 is exceptional, but so is the authority behind Shammai the Elder*s sayings. The use of forbids in place of, says, forbidden is no different from declare unclean in place of say, unclean. B.

Testimony-Form }

Testimony-form substitutes the verb H'YD for WMR and the past tense for the present; it seldom occurs in indirect discourse, testified that (no. 6), but mostly testified concerning ( L,)...that (§)... Unlike says c

LEGAL

15

TRADITIONS

which represents a timeless present, testified may be qualified as to place, time, and setting, and may suggest a one-time historical occasion. The form is normally: Authority X + testified + concerning + apodosis. A variation is, testified in the name of/from the mouth of + direct dis­ course; also, this is testimony etc. (ZW DWT—nos. 3, 4, 5). (

c

C

1. Yosi b. Yo ezer testified concerning ( L) a. qamsa-locust [is] clean b. and concerning liquid etc. c. and that (WD) he that touches... (M. 'Ed. 8:4) 2. ...Untiltwo weavers from the Dung Gate which is in Jerusalem came and the testified in the name of Shema'iah and Abtalion: Three logs of drawn water... (M. 'Ed. 1:3) 3. If an animal takes up its abode in an orchard...and this is testimony which they testified from the mouth of Shema'iah and Abtalion (b. Bes. 25a) 4. R. Zakkai said, This testimony did R. Yosi testify from the mouth of Shema'iah and Abtalion, and they agreed with him. (b. Yev. 67a) 5. This testimony did Hezeqiah father of 'Q§ testify before Rabban Gamaliel the Elder (Sifra Shemini 7:4 [b. Bekh. 38a] ) 6. Simeon b. Gode'a testified before the son of Rabban Gamaliel who said in the name of Rabban Gamaliel the Elder that it is permitted for drinking (Tos. A.Z. 4:9 [b. A.Z. 32a] ) 7. R. Hananiah Prefect of the Priest testified four things: (MYMYHM SLKHNYM) a. Priest did not refrain from burning b. Rabbi Hananiah Prefect of the Priests said, (MYMY) I never saw c. Also he testified concerning (>P HW> H'YD 'L) d. And concerning (W'L) a needle found...that the knife etc. (M. <Ed. 2:1-3) C

8. R. Nehunya b. Gudgeda testified concerning ( L) a. Deaf girl whose father married her off, that(§) she goes forth with a Get b. And concerning an Israelite minor who was married to a priest, that she...

16

INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF

TRADITION

c. And concerning the stolen beam that... d. And concerning the stolen sin offering that... (M. <Ed. 7:9 = M. Git. 5:5) The verb testified of course is used in other than formal settings, e.g. the following: 9. R. Yosi the priest and R. Zekhariah b. HaQassav testified (sing.!) concerning a girl given in pledge in Ashqelon...the sages said to them (M. <Ed. 8:2) c

Testimony-form characterizes tractate M. Ed. as a whole. But it also occurs in other settings, without parallel in M. Ed., e.g. b. Bes. 25a. The form is used in three ways, first, to introduce a list of testimo­ nies (Yosi b. Yo'ezer, Hananiah Prefect of the Priests, and Nehunya b. Gudgeda). In this usage, it is testified concerning, though the form is lost in the second lemma of Hananiah (7b); after concerning comes the subject of the testimony, then that + verb + apodosis. The second is testified in the name of, which produces a direct-discourse citation of Shema'iah and Abtalion (no. 2) or attribution to S + A (nos. 3, 4), or to Hezeqiah (no. 5). The third is testified that, Simeon B. Gode a (no. 6). By contrast to conventional legal form, testimonies are not numerous; most depend upon the editorial conventions of M. Ed. (nos. 1, 2, 7, 8, 9). The three lists of M. <Ed., 1, 7, and 8, could as well have used says, said, or used to say; testified is hardly integral to the lemmas; the lists preclude assigning a specific time, place, or setting. The attributions to Shema'iah, nos. 3 and 4, may be modeled on M. Ed. 1:3, no. 2. Hezeqiah's and Simeon's sayings, nos. 5, 6 are linked by the reference to Gamaliel the Elder. They therefore derive in present form from later Yavnean times, and represent one way in which Gamaliel I's sayings were handed on in the later period. The same date pertains to Hananiah, Nehunya, and Simeon b. Gode'a, and a still later date, of course, to Zakkai. The testimony, like the conventional legal form, comes after 70. It is not important. c

c

c

c

C. Debates The debate-form occurs only in Houses-disputes and depends upon the legal and logical contents of those disputes. It is constructed by substituting past tense for present tense 'MR (House of Shammai said), and by adding to them. Generally the substance of the Houses-lemma then consist of an argument, "Do you not agree", and the like. Some-

LEGAL

TRADITIONS

17

times the Houses-lemmas, while balanced, do not constitute a logical argument, but merely a statement of legal opinions. The debate-form is clearly artificial. It does not represent the transcription of a conver­ sation that actually took place on a given day or in a given place. Its purpose is, as I said, to spell out the reasons assigned to each House as the basis of its legal ruling. The analysis of argument normally begins with a point on which the opposition agrees and which pre­ sumably should lead to the conclusion advanced by the first party. The opposition then must distinguish between the case covered by the contrary argument and the case on which its ruling is made. That explains do you not agree, and this further yields after they agreed, or the House of Hillel reverted to teach, and similar stock-phrases. 1. Liability of one who brings forth an abortion on the eve of the eighty-first day after the birth of a girl to bring a sacrifice: —House of Hillel said to House of Shammai —Do you not agree with us —Do you not agree concerning —What is difference between —No, if you say so concerning...and behold, she who...will prove —No, if you say so... (Sifra Tazri'a 3:1-2, M. Ker. 1:6) 2. Grounds of divorce: a. —House of Hillel said to House of Shammai —And do not be surprised (Sifre Deut. 269 [M. Git. 9:10 omits] ) b. House of Hillel said to House of Shammai, Is it not already said House of Shammai said to House of Hillel, Is it not already said House of Hillel said to them... (b. Git. 90a) b. G i t . r e s t o r e s d e b a t e - f o r m b y s u p p l y i n g o p e n i n g c o l l o q u y i n w h i c h b o t h Houses are cited, then preserves the extended Hillelite exegesis.

3. Water plants until New Year: Water foliage but not root vs. water both House of Hillel said to House of Shammai, If you permit part, permit all, and vice versa (Tos. Shev. 1:5) N o S h a m m a i t e a n s w e r is s u p p l i e d t o t h e Hillelite a r g u m e n t o f S h a m ­ m a i t e i n c o n s i s t e n c y , b . S h a b . 1 7 a g i v e s S h a m m a i an a n s w e r : I shall f o r c e y o u t o c o m p l y . T h e a b o v e c a n n o t b e r e g a r d e d as a d e b a t e , e v e n t h o u g h b e g i n n i n g , House of Hillel said to House of Shammai.

INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF

TRADITION

4. Unclean Heave-offering neutralized in clean Heave-offering: House of Hillel said to House of Shammai, Since... if clean can be neutralized, unclean also... House of Shammai said to them, No, if...should Heave-offering to which stringency does apply and which is forbidden.. .neutralize? After they had agreed... (M. Ter. 5:4, Tos. Ter. 6:4) 5. Produce whose harvest has been completed passed through Jeru­ salem: House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, Do you not agree about produce not fully harvested...also produce whose harvest has been completed is like it. House of Shammai said to them, No, if you say so concerning produce...will you say so concerning...? House of Hillel said to them... (Tos. M.S. 2:11 [y. M.S. 3:3] ) The dispute is in the name of Yosi. 6. Work begun before, completed on, Sabbath: House of Shammai said to House of Hillel, Do you not agree that they do not roast meat etc. except so that...Also it suffices for dyestuffs and vetches... House of Hillel said to them, Do you not agree that they lay down olive-press beams? Also it suffices... These stood in their answer (twice)... (Tos. Shab. 1:20-21) 7.

8.

l

for Nazirite with wine: House of Hillel said to House of Shammai, Do you not agree... They said to them, True. They said to them... (b. <Eruv. 30a-b)

Eruv

Reciting

Ha//e/:

House of Shammai said to House of Hillel, And have they already gone forth...that they should... House of Hillel said to them, Even if he should wait...lo they did not go forth until sixth hour... (Tos. Pisha 10:9 [M. Pes. 10:6; fuller version of Hillelites in y. Pes. 10:5]) 9. Head and greater part of body in Sukkah: House of Hillel said to House of Shammai, Was thus (KK) not the incident, that the Elders of the House of Shammai and the Elders of the House of Hillel went to visit... House of Shammai said to them, Is there proof from that... (M. Suk. 2:7)

LEGAL

19

TRADITIONS

10. Bring priests' dues on festival: House of Shammai said to House of Hillel. It is 2Lge%erab shavah... House of Hillel said to them, No, if you argue of... would you also argue of... (M. Bes. 1:7 [Tos. Y.T. 1:12-14]) 11. Sacrifice on festival-Laying on of hands (M. Hag. 2:2): a. House of Hillel said to House of Shammai, If when it is for­ bidden... it is permitted...surely it is logical (qal vehomer) House of Shammai said to them, Let...prove the contrary... House of Hillel said to them, As for...that is because...will you say the same with respect to... House of Shammai said to them, Even here... House of Hillel said to them, Even here... b. House of Shammai: Scriptural exegesis House of Hillel: Scriptural exegesis (b. Bes. 20b [y. Bes. 2:4; Tos. Hag. 2:10]) 12. Festival of New Year coincides with Sabbath: House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, Is it not so that in the presence of all of you, Elders of the House of Shammai, Honi the Little...and all the people said to him... House of Shammai said to them, Because it was... House of Hillel said to them, If it was...he should have... (Tos. R.H. 2:17) 13. Heaven created first: House of Shammai say, Heaven created first House of Hillel say, Earth created first House of Hillel said to House of Shammai, According to your view + Scripture House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel, According to your view + Scripture (b. Hag. 12a) 14. Minor exercises right of refusal: House of Hillel said to House of Shammai, While she is yet under age, she may exercise right of refusal even four... House of Shammai said to them, The daughters of Israel are not ownerless property. But she exercises... and waits...and then she exercises... (M. Yev. 13:1) 15. Exercise of right of refusal in absence of husband: House of Hillel said to House of Shammai, M SH B + Pishon's wife who made her declaration in his absence House of Shammai said to them, Pishon used...they therefore used... (b. Yev. 107b [y. Yev. 13:1]) C

INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF

TRADITION

16. Woman testifies of husband's death: a. House of Hillel say, We have heard no such tradition save... House of Shammai said, It is all one whether... House of Hillel reverted... b. House of Shammai say, She marries again and takes... House of Hillel say, She marries again and does not take... House of Shammai said, You have declared permissible the graver matter...should you not also declare permissible the less... House of Hillel said to them, We find that... House of Shammai said to them, Do we not learn from Ketuvah... House of Hillel reverted... (M. Yev. 15:2-3) 17. Dance before bride: House of Shammai said to House of Hillel, If she was lame.. .does one say... House of Hillel said to House of Shammai, According to your words, if one has... should one praise... surely one should praise... (b. Ket. 17a) 18. Erroneous consecration: House of Hillel said to House of Shammai, Do you not agree that there [foregoing law], although it is a thing dedicated in error, it should go forth... House of Shammai said to them, Do you not agree that if a man erred and called...its dedication is binding... House of Hillel said to them, It is not the rod that has dedicated... what if he erred and...But Scripture declared... (M. Naz. 5:3) 19. Half-slave: If man was half-slave and half-free, he works one day for master and one day for self, the words of the House of Hillel. House of Shammai said to them, You have ordered it for master, but not for him. He cannot marry? And was not world created for fruition -f Scripture. House of Hillel reverted... (M. Git. 4:5) 20. Liable for unlawful intention: House of Shammai said to House of Hillel + Scripture House of Hillel said to House of Shammai + Scripture. (b. B.M. 44a [Mekh. deR. Ishmael,Nez. 15:49-55] ) T h e s a m e S c r i p t u r a l a r g u m e n t n o t in t h e d e b a t e f o r m (said to House of) o c c u r s in M e k h . a n d M . B . M . 3 : 1 2 .

21. a. Woman kneading in trough and hands busy...woman and trough are unclean but dough is clean:

LEGAL

21

TRADITIONS

R. Joshua said, I am ashamed by your words, House of Shammai. Is it possible that... After he stood up. Certain disciple from the disciples of House of Shammai said before them, Vessel of *am hd*ares what is it, unclean or clean? He said to him... R. Joshua reverted to teach according to... (Tos. Ah. 5:11 [M. Oh. 5:1-5, b. Hag. 22a-b]) y

b. Earthenware vessel protects all, according to House of Hillel. And House of Shammai say, It protects only food, liquid, and another earthenware vessel. House of Hillel said to them, Why? House of Shammai said to them, Because it is unclean... House of Hillel said to them, Have you not declared clean... House of Shammai said to them, When we declared clean... (M. <Ed. 1:14) 22. Bottle filled with clean liquid and tightly stoppered serves as plug for grave: House of Shammai said to House of Hillel, And which is likely to receive uncleanness... They said to them, Liquid. They said to them, Now since if man.. .is made unclean, liquid all the more so... House of Hillel said to them, Do you not agree... House of Shammai said to them, No, if you say concerning ring... House of Hillel said to them, We reason...and you reason...It is better to reason... (Tos. Ah. 15:9) Eliezer b. R. Simeon seems to be the authority behind this debate on M. Oh. 15:9. 23. Testing rags for each act of intercourse or for whole night: House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel, According to your view is there no need... House of Hillel said to them, Even according to your view... They said to them, We maintain our view because... (b. Nid. 16b) 24. Discharge on eleventh day: House of Shammai said to House of Hillel, Why should eleventh day differ? House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, No, if you rule, it is because... would you also maintain... House of Shammai said to them, You must be consistent. If one is like the other...it should also be like it in regard to...

INTERMEDIATE

UNITS OF

TRADITION

House of Hillel said to them, If we impose...we cannot on that ground.. .And furthermore, you are refuted from your own words... (b. Nid. 72a [M. Nid. 10:8; Tos. Nid. 9:19] ) 25. Blood of woman who has given birth and not yet immersed: House of Hillel said to House of Shammai, Do you not agree... House of Shamai said to House of Hillel, No, if you say so con­ cerning... will you say so concerning... House of Hillel said to them, Woman who gives birth while in status of Zab will prove it... House of Shammai said to them, If it is a woman who gives birth... that is the law and the reply... (Tos. Nid. 5:6 [M. Nid. 4:3; b. Nid. 7b] ) 26. Shake herbs and rain falls from top to bottom: a. House of Hillel said to House of Shammai, If a man shakes... do we take thought that the drops fall from leaf to leaf? House of Shammai said to them, A stalk is but a single thing, but a bunch is many stalks... House of Hillel said to them, If man pulled sack of fruit from river and put it on bank, do we take thought... (M. Maksh. 1:4) b. House of Hillel said to House of Shammai, All agree concern­ ing one who brings up a tied-up sack and places it on side of river... House of Shammai said to them, Do you not agree concerning him who brings up two tied-up sacks and places them one above the other... (Tos. Maksh. 1:3) 27. Man suffers one issue of flux like woman awaiting day against day vs. like one that suffered pollution; agree he immerses and eats pesah: House of Hillel said to House of Shammai, Do you not agree that he immerses and eats pesah... House of Shammai said to them, Do you not agree that if he sees flux tomorrow, he is unclean? Lo he is like woman that waits day against day... (Tos. Zab. 1:1) c

28. R. Simeon said before Aqiba, Thus did House of Hillel say to House of Shammai, What is it to me that he saw two at first and one at end? They said to them, When he saw one at first and two at end... R. Aqiba reverted to teach... (Tos. Zab. 1:7) c

LEGAL

23

TRADITIONS

We may now distinguish between formally authentic debates, that is, those exhibiting traits set forth above, and materials cast into debateform but which are not debates at all. In the former category are nos. 1, 2b, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 16b, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27. No. 3 is in debate form: the standard Hillelite argument about Shammaite in­ consistency is repeated. But the Shammaites have no contrary lemma; the Hillelite saying does not constitute a logical argument. Similarly, in no. 7 the Shammaites are not given any argument; they serve as silent partners in a one-sided colloquy. Nos. 9, 12, 15 and 16a consti­ tute discussions of historical precedents; a Hillelite story is explained away by Shammaites; no logical principles are introduced. No. 14 contains an assertion of the Hillelites, countered by an argument ("not ownerless property") for the Shammaites, then a contrary assertion. No. 17 has the Shammaites raise a logical absurdity, countered by an equivalent Hillelite absurdity. In no. 19 the Shammaites argue on a different issue from that raised by the Hillelite lemma. It is not a debate, simply a Shammaite critique. Nos. 2b, l i b , 13, and 20 are contrasting Scriptural exegeses set into debate-form. Nos. 21a and 28 give examples of what the debate-form looks like when the Houses are represented by named masters, here Joshua and a Shammaite disciple, Aqiba and Simeon. The standard debate-form clearly is a considerable advance over the materials of nos. 21a and 28. Thus the mere presence of they said to them does not always signify use of the debate-form. c

D.

Narratives

Legal traditions come not only in brief, abstract lemmas and debates, but also in various kinds of historical narratives. Some exhibit a clearcut form; others are grouped only according to type, but reveal no literary-formal traits in common. All refer in historical language to events of legal significance, in some instances merely to describe a setting in which a rule was given, in others as the reason for establish­ ing a law, as a precedent, or as historical proof for a legal proposition. While most laws assigned to the Houses are one-sentence lemmas, all laws attributed to all named pre-70 masters (except the three say­ ings in standard form of Shammai and Hillel, M. Ed. 1:3) are narra­ tives of one kind or another. These may be brief or long. In the former category are one-sentence references to something a master had said, done, or decreed as precedent. The short lemmas also may c

24

INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF

TRADITION

be constructed into lists and chains. In the latter category are fully developed stories of legal interest, which cannot be formally dis­ tinguished from equivalent stories of non-legal interest. What sepa­ rates legal narratives from conventional, testimonial, and debate-say­ ings is their historical focus, the reference in the past tense to a one­ time action, ruling, setting, or event. 1. Historical Information in Standard Legal Form The standard legal form, Authority + says + apodosis in direct dis­ course, is used for some historical sayings of Hananiah Prefect of the Priests, which pertain to the procedures of the Temple cult in times past. These have legal interest, for it was generally assumed that the Temple would be rebuilt, and its cult would then be carried on accord­ ing to the law set forth by the rabbis: 1. Hananiah Prefect of the Priests says, Father would reject the maim­ ed from the altar. (Sifra Sav 1:9) H a n a n i a h ' s t r a d i t i o n , i n s t a n d a r d legal f o r m , c o n c e r n s a c o n t i n u i n g h i s ­ torical situation, and behind the description o f w h a t the father w o u l d d o is t h e a l l e g a t i o n t h a t t h i s is n o r m a t i v e l a w ; it t h e r e f o r e is a s t o r y g i v i n g a h i s t o r i c a l p r e c e d e n t in p l a c e o f a g e n e r a l i z e d s t a t e m e n t o f t h e l a w .

2. Hananiah Prefect of the Priests says, The priests never refrained from burning flesh that had become unclean... (M. Pes. 1:6) 3. What did they do with the surplus of the Terumah?...R. Ishmael says...R. Aqiba says...R. Hananiah Prefect of the Priests says... (M. Sheq. 4:4) c

4. R. Hananiah Prefect of the Priests said, Never have I seen a hide taken out to the place of burning. R. Aqiba said, We learn from his word that if a man flayed a firstling... But the sages say, We have not seen affords no proof. (M. Zev. 12:4) c

5. R. Ishmael says, The

'omer

was brought on the Sabbath from three

seyahs...

But the sages say... R. Hanina Prefect of the Priests says, On a Sabbath it was... (M. Men. 10:1) 6. Seven days before the burning of the heifer, the priest... And through­ out the seven days they sprinkled him from the ashes of all the sinofferings that were there.

LEGAL

TRADITIONS

25

R. Yosi says, They sprinkled him only on the third... R. Hananiah Prefect of the Priests says, They sprinkled the priest... (M. Par. 3:1) 7. R. Hananiah Prefect of the Priests says, Why does the Prefect of the Priests stand at the right? In order that... (b. Yoma 39a) 8. R. Hananiah Prefect of the Priests said, For what is the Prefect of the Priests appointed? If any disqualification should occur... (b. Sot. 42a) The Hananiah-corpus is strikingly similar to his legal sayings, above, p. 7.1 see no reason for the use of said in nos. 4 and 8; the contents do not differ from those of other lemmas. All are historical narra­ tives of how things were done in the Temple. 2. Epistles Two epistles, cited to prove various legal points, exhibit uniform style. First, the historical setting is described in some detail, including the names of the authorities and scribe, where they were located when the letters were written, and the like. Second, the letters themselves are consistent: Address, salutation, We inform you that, then the sub­ stance of the letter. 1. Gamaliel and the Elders sitting on the steps on the Temple Moun­ tain, Yohanan that scribe before them. He said to him, Write To brethren...Salutation...We inform you that + apodosis. (Tos. Sanh. 2:6) 2. The same form is followed by Simeon b. Gamaliel and Yohanan b. Zakkai. (M.T. ed. Hoffmann, pp. 175-6) 3. Ordinances Ordinances present, then account for laws, by both explaining the historical situation that necessitated and justified legislation, normally in contravention of earlier rules, and also specifying the authority behind the ordinance. In general the form is rigid: 1. At first + description of historical situation 2. Ordained + authority 3. That + rule. In the Yohanan b. Zakkai-Yavnean ordinances, when the Temple was

26

INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF

TRADITION

destroyed always stands between at first and ordained. In the ordinances of the pre-70 Pharisees, on the other hand, the occasion for the ordi­ nance is rarely specified; instead, we are sometimes given the provo­ cation ("He saw that the people refrained..."). This seems to me an important formal difference, the reason for which is self-evident. In a few instances at first is omitted, but then the historical narrative is somewhat expanded. The ordinance-form is never found in Housesmaterials. The Houses are never represented as issuing decrees or ordinances. They never change existing law. HTQYN nearly always calls for an antecedent at ^-/-explanation: 1. At first, when marriage-contract was kept by father, divorce was held lightly. Simeon b. S. ordained that the marriage-contract be kept by husband. And he writes to her... (Tos. Ket. 12:1) T h e at first... ordained that... s u p p l i e s a b r i e f n a r r a t i v e - h i s t o r y o f a l a w . b . Ket. 82b greatly expands the narrative.

2. At first he would hide on the day...so that it should be...Hillel the Elder ordained that... (Sifra Behar 4:8) T h e ordinance-form gives a historical narrative o f conditions before Hillel's d e c r e e . B o t h p a r t s o f t h e n a r r a t i v e a r e s o m e w h a t l o n g e r t h a n u s u a l a n d a r e p h r a s e d i n t e r m s o f c o n t i n u i n g a c t i o n : would hide... should assign... etc.

3. He saw the people, that they held back from lending...he arose and ordained the prosbul... (Sifre Deut. 113) T h e h i s t o r i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e prosbul d o e s n o t s a y at first. T h e se­ q u e n c e h o w e v e r is t h e s a m e : first, a n e x p l a n a t i o n o f p r e v a i l i n g c o n d i ­ t i o n s necessitating t h e o r d i n a n c e , t h e n t h e o r d i n a n c e . I n s t e a d o f that they should, w e h a v e t h e f o r m u l a o f t h e prosbul. T h e at first f o r m t e n d s t o b e m o r e t e r s e a n d less f u l l y a r t i c u l a t e d .

4. The witnesses would assemble in Bet Ya'azoq. At first they did not stir from there the whole day. Gamaliel ordained that they might walk... (M. R.H. 2:5) I d e a l l y , t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e c o u r t y a r d w o u l d b e i n c l u d e d i n at first. A s it s t a n d s , from there c o n n e c t s at first t o t h e i n t r o d u c t o r y p h r a s e a b o u t t h e c o u r t y a r d , t h e n t h e u s u a l at first... ordained... f o r m f o l l o w s w i t h o u t v a r i a ­ tion.

5. At first a man used to set up a court elsewhere and annul the Gef. Gamaliel the Elder ordained...

LEGAL

TRADITIONS

27

6. At first a man used to change his name...Gamaliel the Elder ordain­ ed... 7. They refrained from making her swear on oath. Gamaliel the Elder ordained... (M. Git. 4:2-3) T h e at first... ordained-iotm

is l o s t i n n o . 7.

8. Finally Joshua b. Gamala came and ordained that teachers should be appointed... (b. B.B. 21a) T h e at first f o r m is i g n o r e d ; t h e a n t e c e d e n t n a r r a t i v e t a k e s its p l a c e , a n d at t h e e n d t h e taqqanah is g i v e n .

4 . Chains and Lists The chain is a composite of standard rulings on a single legal theme. We have noted (I, pp. 11-23) both the primitive and the developed form. The former consists of Authority + says +/— negative + infinitive (L§MK). The Shammai-Hillel item of M. Hag. 2:2 develops into a Housesdispute; the others are left in primitive form. The second form of a chain is historical-legal, that is, an authority in the past made a legal decree or ordinance, as in the list of cleanness decrees, b. Shab. 14b (y. Shab. 1:4, y. Pes. 1:6, y. Ket. 8:11): C

Authority + decreed + uncleanness upon ( L) + object. The third sort of a chain is M. Avot 1:18, a complex form: X +Y received the Torah from them. X says + three (moral) sayings Y says -f three (moral) sayings. As we observed, the three-things form is fairly common, e.g. the decrees of Yohanan the High Priest are awkwardly forced into the three-things form: Yohanan the High Priest did away with...made an end...and until his days... (M. M.S. 5:15) T h e three-things o f Y o h a n a n a r e p h r a s e d i n p a s t - t e n s e , o n e - t i m e h i s t o r i c a l l a n g u a g e . T h e n a r r a t i v e is e x t r e m e l y brief, c o n s i s t i n g o f t i m e + v e r b - f protasis.

28

INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF

TRADITION

The list of three links the testimonies of Yosi b. Yo'ezer on unclean­ ness and so forth (above, pp. 14-16). But Yohanan b. Gudgeda's testi­ monies (M. Ed. 7:9) are four, rather than three. While the chain seems to be composed of independent lemmas,, which could theoretically have been handed on separately, it probably was made up by a single hand that imposed consistent style on what­ ever discrete materials were available or made up the list to begin with. What begins the chain is a list of authorities. To this is then assigned an appropriate verb, says or decreed, and the apodosis follows. Finally, we also find chains summarizing already-known pericopae,. e.g.: c

Simeon b. Shetah ordained three things: 1) marriage contract; 2) school; 3) uncleanness for glassware.

(y. Ket. 8:11)

c

The M. Ed. collections of leniencies etc. are of the same order, but the details are fully spelled out. 5. Precedents We have already noted the appearance of precedents in the Housesdebates. The precedents often exhibit a disciplined form: In general: Ma aseh + B...§... Always: Authority + verb + predicate Normally the precedents are unadorned and contain few extraneous details; adjectives and adverbs are used very sparingly, if at all. Macaseh is not unique to precedents, but one meaning is "precedent";. >MRW 'LYW'L, they said concerning sometimes serves the same purpose. Some precedents are substantial stories, below, part 8. c

1. Kharkemit the freed bondwoman in Jerusalem was made to drink the bitter water by Shema'iah and Abtalion. (M. <Ed.5:6) T h e nufaseh s u p p l i e s a p r e c e d e n t f o r t h e legal issue. It is e x t r e m e l y t e r s e t subject + adjectives + S + A + v e r b .

2. [They said of] Hillel the Elder [that] in his life no one trespassed through the whole-offering. He would bring it as hullin, then sanctify it and lay on hands and slaughter it. (b. Ned. 9b) T h e s t o r y a b o u t h o w t h i n g s w e r e d o n e in Hillel's t i m e is i n t e n d e d as a p r e c e d e n t f o r t h e l a w . B u t t h e usual s t y l e o f p r e c e d e n t s is n o t f o l l o w e d , .

LEGAL

29

TRADITIONS

f o r it is n o t Hillel w h o is t h e s u b j e c t o f would bring, b u t anyone. T h e n a r ­ r a t i v e is s o m e w h a t l o n g e r t h a n i n t h e macaseh.

3. They said concerning Shammai the Elder: All his days he would eat for the honor of the Sabbath. (b. Bes. 16a) T h e b e h a v i o r o f t h e m a s t e r is cited as p r e c e d e n t f o r a S a b b a t h - l a w . A s a b o v e , t h e f o r m is t i m e + v e r b + p r e d i c a t e .

4. Macaseh: Daughter-in-law of Shammai the Elder bore a child, and he broke away roof-plaster... (M. Suk. 2:8) T h e s t o r y o f w h a t S h a m m a i d i d substitutes f o r a g e n e r a l i z e d legal state­ m e n t t h a t a c h i l d is o b l i g a t e d , etc. I n s t e a d w e h a v e a n a r r a t i v e o f t h e set­ t i n g , daughter-in-law bore child, a n d w h a t h e d i d , w i t h a g l o s s t o e x p l a i n t h e p e r t i n e n c e o f t h e c a s e : for the sake of the child.

5. They said of Shammai that he did not want to feed even with one hand a child on the Day of Atonement, so they decreed he must do so with both hands. (b. Yoma 77b) A s a b o v e , Shammai's rule that children are liable f o r festival o b s e r v a n c e is r e d u c e d t o a s t o r y in t h e s a m e f o r m : n a r r a t i v e o f setting (he did not want) a n d w h a t t h e y d i d .

6.

Ma'aseh:

Hillel purchased for a poor man a horse and a slave... (Tos. Pe ah4:10) >

T h e s t o r y illustrates t h e l a w a b o u t s u p p l y i n g t h e p o o r w i t h w h a t t h e y n e e d . D r o p p i n g t h e r e d a c t i o n a l m a t t e r (story is told of... who), w e find t h e usual elements: Hillel + v e r b + predicate.

7. Vain prayer: Hillel the Elder was coming from a journey and heard the sound of an outcry and said, I am confident... And of him Scripture says Ps. 112:7. (b. Ber. 60a) T h e l a w a b o u t v a i n p r a y e r s is i l l u s t r a t e d b y Hillel's b e h a v i o r . T h e macaseh is b r i e f : Hillel + v e r b s + a n d said + S c r i p t u r e .

8. Precepts do not nullify one another: (It was said of) Hillel the Elder (that he) used to wrap them -f Num. 9:11. (b. Pes. 115a) Hillel's b e h a v i o r is cited as p r e c e d e n t , w i t h o u t macaseh b-.

9. Macaseh B: They brought cooked food to Yohanan b. Zakkai and two dates etc. to Gamaliel, and they said... (M. Suk. 2:5)

INTERMEDIATE

UNITS OF

TRADITION

T h e p r e c e d e n t is a s i m p l e c o n s t r u c t i o n : v e r b + object + t o Y o h a n a n v e r b + object + t o Gamaliel and they said... T h e p r e c e d e n t s h o w s o n e eats e v e n at r a n d o m i n t h e

Sukkah.

10. Ma^aseh: Gamaliel the Elder gave his daughter in marriage to Simeon b. Netanel and agreed with him on condition that she not prepare clean things with him. (Tos. A.Z. 3:10) T h e s t o r y is a p r e c e d e n t o n i n t e r m a r r y i n g w i t h t h o s e w h o d o n o t o b ­ serve the purity-rules.

11. Ma'aseh: The Elders of the House of Shammai and the Elders of the House of Hillel went to visit R. Yohanan b. HaHorani and found him sitting with his head and the greater part of his body within the Sukkah, with his table within the House [and they did not say a thing.] (M. Suk. 2:7) 12. In the presence of all of you, Elders of the House of Shammai, Honi the Little went down and said seven, and all the people said to him, May it be a pleasure for you. (Tos. R.H. 2:17) 13. Pishon the camel driver's wife made her declaration of refusal in his absence. (b. Yev. 107b) 14. Ma'aseh: The son of Queen Helena went to war, and she said, If he returns safely, I will be Nazirite. She went up to the Land, and the House of Hillel taught her... (M. Naz. 3:6) 15. Judah b. Bathyra: The trough of Jehu in Jerusalem had a hole... [and all the acts in Jerusalem requiring cleanness were done therein]. And the House of Shammai sent and broke it down. (M. Miq. 4:5) Nos. 1 1 , 1 2 , 1 3 , 1 4 , and 1 5 appear in Houses-disputes. A l l are precedents, b u t d o n o t f o l l o w t h e s i m p l e m o d e l o f t h e e a r l i e r e x a m p l e s . N o . 11 is s o m e w h a t e x p a n d e d . I n t h e s i m p l e s t f o r m it w o u l d h a v e b e e n , Yohanan sat with head and greater part in Sukkah and table in house. N o . 1 2 , s i m i l a r l y , w o u l d be Honi the Little went down and said seven. N o . 1 3 is s a t i s f a c t o r y as is. Nos. 1 4 and 1 5 are extended narratives and cannot be reduced to simple e l e m e n t s ; b o t h a r e c o m p o s e d o f s e v e r a l d e c l a r a t i v e sentences.

16. He of the House of Gamaliel used to go in with Sheqel... (M. Sheq. 3:3) T h i s is n o t l i k e e a r l i e r e x e m p l a o f p r e c e d e n t s , f o r it is t o l d i n c o n t i n u o u s t e n s e , used to do; h e n c e it is a legal s t o r y a b o u t h o w a r i t e is c a r r i e d o n . T h e s a m e f o r m is in M . S h e q . 6 : 1 . F u r t h e r p r e c e d e n t s o c c u r i n 7 : 6 , 7 , 8 .

LEGAL

TRADITIONS

31

6. Contexts The contexts in which laws are issued or discussed are sometimes described in detail. These contexts are irrelevant to the substance of the law, unlike precedents, and are unlike the ordinance-protasis, which explains the law. I see no shared formal or morphological traits. 1. Until two weavers came from the dung date in Jerusalem and testified in the name of Shema'iah and Abtalion that... (M. <Ed. 1:3) T h e clause supplies a h i s t o r i c a l s e t t i n g f o r S + A ' s t e s t i m o n y , a n d a m o r a l is d r a w n f r o m t h e o c c u p a t i o n a n d place o f o r i g i n o f t h e w e a v e r s .

2. Judah b. Dortai and son separated and dwelt in the south. If Elijah should say, Why did you not sacrifice the hagigah on the Sabbath, what would they say to him? I am astonished at S + A etc. that they have not said to Israel: The hagigah overrides the Sabbath. (b. Pes. 70b) T h e l e g a l p r o b l e m is g i v e n a h i s t o r i c a l s e t t i n g , in w h i c h t h e p r o p o n e n t s o f t h e v i e w re hagigah / S a b b a t h a r e r e p r e s e n t e d as schismatics. ( T h i s m i g h t b e called a n e t i o l o g y f o r t h e « o « - p r o m u l g a t i o n o f a l a w . )

3. Because of this matter, Hillel came up from Babylonia. (Sifra Tazri'a 9:16) T h e r e c u r r i n g s t o c k - p h r a s e c o n s i s t s o f t h e b r i e f n a r r a t i v e : Hillel + i n t r o d u c e d b y a j o i n i n g clause.

verb,

4. Two disciples before Hillel, re vintaging grapes in cleanness but gathering olives in uncleanness. (b. Pes. 3b) T h e l i t t l e s t o r y is a s s i g n e d t o H i l l e l / Y o h a n a n b . Z a k k a i , b u t is n o t i n t h e f o r m o f a precedent. T h e o p e r a t i v e laws are appropriately cited in He­ b r e w , in direct discourse, w i t h the narrative f r a m e w o r k in A r a m a i c . T h e H i l l e l - S h a m m a i d i s p u t e a b o u t t h e s a m e m a t t e r lies in t h e b a c k g r o u n d .

5. Argument of Hillel and Shammai on vintaging grapes: Hillel said to Shammai, Why one in cleanness, the other not? Shammai, If you anger me, I will decree...A sword did they plant... They said... And on that day Hillel was submissive... (b. Shab. 17a) T h e s t o r y f o l l o w s the standard legal f o r m a n d begins like a debate. T h e n S h a m m a i replies w i t h o u t a t t e n t i o n t o t h e s u b s t a n c e o f Hillel's l o g i c a l q u e r y . T h e s t o r y is t o l d p r i m a r i l y t h r o u g h d i r e c t d i s c o u r s e , They said... T h e n a r r a t i v e details a r e l i m i t e d t o t h e sword a n d on that day, w i t h t h e c l o s i n g c o m m e n t , " a n d it w a s as g r i e v o u s . . . "

INTERMEDIATE

UNITS OF

TRADITION

6. Re how many pe*ahs required from two kinds of wheat etc.: Story is told that R. Simeon of Mispah sowed before R. Gamaliel, and they went up to the Chamber of Hewn Stone and inquired... (M. Pe'ah 2:5-6) T h e precedent-£otm s e e m s t o a p p l y , b u t i n fact t h e s t o r y d o e s n o t say Gamaliel m a d e a ruling, rather had t o ask f o r o n e . N a h u m the Scribe t h e n r e p o r t s h i s t r a d i t i o n ( Q B L H ) . T h e G a m a l i e l - S i m e o n ma*aseh t h e r e ­ f o r e is t r u n c a t e d a n d p r o v i d e s m e r e l y a s e t t i n g f o r N a h u m ' s t r a d i t i o n . B u t it is n o t Nahum said to them. I n p a r t A t h e l a w a p p e a r s a n o n y m o u s l y , t h e n in p a r t s B - C t h e n a r r a t i v e r e p e a t s t h e l a w i n a h i s t o r i c a l setting.

7. Yo'ezer of the Birah said, I asked Gamaliel standing in the Eastern Gate and he said, It never renders the dough unclean... (M. Orl. 2:12) c

T h e little n a r r a t i v e , i n t h e first p e r s o n , t h e n g i v e s G a m a l i e l ' s r u l i n g i n d i r e c t d i s c o u r s e . T h e s t a n d a r d legal f o r m w o u l d h a v e h a d G a m a l i e l says a n d w o u l d h a v e d r o p p e d t h e n a r r a t i v e details.

8. R. Gamaliel remembered that men were killed at Tel Arza and R. Gamaliel the Elder allowed their wives to marry on the evidence of one witness. _^ _ (M. Yev. 16:7) 7

x

I n ma'aseh-fotm all o n e w o u l d h a v e t o d r o p w o u l d b e Gamaliel—and. T h e n wives w o u l d b e m o d i f i e d b y of those killed at Tel Arza. T h e p r e c e d e n t w o u l d then c o n f o r m t o the brief and u n a d o r n e d style o b s e r v e d earlier: S u b j e c t + v e r b + p r e d i c a t e . T h e G a m a l i e l - a t t r i b u t i o n is e v e n s i m p l e r , d r o p p i n g t h e h i s t o r i c a l o c c a s i o n : Gamaliel permitted woman to marry on testimony of one witness.

9. And already (KBR) did the elders of the House of Shammai and the Elders of the House of Hillel enter the upper chamber of Jonathan b. Bathyra... And they said, There is no limit to sisit. , ^ ' (Sifre Num. 115) T

J

10. And these are among the laws... in the upper room of Hananiah b. Hezeqiah b. Garon. When they went up to visit him, they voted, and the House of Shammai outnumbered the House of Hillel. Eighteen things did they decree on that day. ^ ^ 11. A like error befell Nahum the Mede when Nazirites came up from the Exile and found the Temple destroyed. He said to them, Would you have vowed...They answered, No. And Nahum the Mede released them from their vow. But when the matter came before the sages they said to him, If any man vowed to be a Nazitire before the Temple was destroyed.. .But if he vowed after the Temple was destroyed... (M. Naz. 5:4)

LEGAL

TRADITIONS

33

Nos. 9 and 1 0 introduce Houses-materials, the f o r m e r , a v e r y brief r u l i n g , t h e latter, t h e e x t e n s i v e c o l l e c t i o n ( a n d parallels) o f M . S h a b . 1:4ff. N o . 1 1 , b y c o n t r a s t , a l l o w s a case t o i n t r o d u c e t h e sages' r u l i n g . W i t h o u t t h e c a s e — o n e c a n n o t call it a p r e c e d e n t — t h e sages said to him w o u l d h a v e b e e n d r o p p e d , a n d t h e l a w w o u l d h a v e b e e n g i v e n a n o n y m o u s l y , If any man vows... But if he vows... T h i s is t h e o n l y instance a m o n g all o u r p e r i ­ c o p a e in w h i c h a r u l i n g is o v e r t u r n e d . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e G a m a l i e l i n q u i r y m a t e r i a l s a r e n o t m u c h different, e x c e p t t h e r e G a m a l i e l asks, a n d h e r e t h e m a t t e r comes before t h e sages. W e d o n o t k n o w w h o a p p e a l e d N a h u m ' s r u l i n g . F o r o t h e r s u c h h i s t o r i c a l c o n t e x t s f o r legal decrees, n o t e Simeon b. Gamaliel, below, 7 : 2 .

7. First-Person

Accounts

Sometimes the legal narrative contains a first-person saying or story. This may be intended as a precedent told to illustrate a legal point, or it may describe the context in which a law is enunciated. The only common formal trait is the use of "I" + direct discourse, or the reference to the narrator's own observations or recollections. Rab­ binic traditions about pre-70 Pharisees contain no equivalent to the "F'-sayings of the Gospels; for one thing, no Pharisaic master ever says, / say to you. Pharisaic-rabbinic masters claimed Moses and his revelation as the authority behind their laws, therefore avoided giving the impression that they innovated or legislated except in dire circumstances, and then only to preserve the old law. Hence "F'-say­ ings are chiefly in narratives and seldom stand as independent lemmas. 1. Simeon the Just said, I ate the guilt-offering of Naziriteship but one, when one came from the south... (Sifre Num. 2 2 , Tos. Nez. 4 : 7 , y . Ned. 1 : 1 , y . Naz. 1 : 5 , b. Naz. 4 b , b. Ned. 9 b , etc.) T h e s t o r y is cited t o settle legal issues, t h o u g h t h e issues t e n d t o c h a n g e , as n o t e d , a n d t h e s t o r y is r e v i s e d t o s e r v e as a p p r o p r i a t e t e s t i m o n y o n each. It is a first p e r s o n n a r r a t i v e c o n t a i n i n g s u b o r d i n a t e d d i r e c t d i s c o u r s e o f t h e N a z i r i t e ("He said t o m e , T w a s . . . ' " ) . T h e S c r i p t u r e is t i e d i n t o S i m e o n ' s n a r r a t i v e , ( " u p o n y o u is f u l f i l l e d . . . " ) . Ma^aseh is i n t r u d e d in T o s . N e z . 4 : 7 , b u t is n o t i n t e g r a l . I n y. N e d . = y . N a z . t h e s t o r y t a k e s for granted that Simeon does n o t a p p r o v e o f Nazirites; b. Ned. likewise cites it t o i n v e s t i g a t e w h e t h e r v o w s o f Nazirites a r e sinful, b . N a z . uses it in a d i s c u s s i o n o n t h e difference b e t w e e n t e m p o r a r y a n d p e r m a n e n t N a z i r i t e s . A b b a y e , b . N a z . - b . N e d . , a d d s unclean N a z i r t o s t r e n g t h e n t h e legal i n t e r e s t o f t h e s t o r y . F o r m a l l y , it is a s i n g l e t o n .

Story: Pair of doves in Jerusalem stood at a golden denar. Simeon b. Gamaliel said, By this Temple! I shall not rest this night before they shall be at denars of silver. He went into the court and taught, 'The woman who owes five...' And a pair of doves stood that day at a fourth. (Sifra Tazri'a 3 : 7 )

2.

N E U S N E R , The Rabbinic Tradition about the Pharisees before 70, III

3

INTERMEDIATE

UNITS OF

TRADITION

T h e a l t e r n a t i v e t o t h e ordinance-form is b e f o r e u s . I n s t e a d o f at first... Simeon ordained... w e h a v e t h e r u l e o f l a w e x p l a i n e d b y a p a r t i c u l a r o c c a ­ s i o n . T h i s f o r m is e x c e p t i o n a l . It starts w i t h a n a r r a t i v e o n t h e h i s t o r i c a l s i t u a t i o n , m u c h l i k e at first. T h e n S i m e o n b . G a m a l i e l i n t e r v e n e s , b u t his r u l e is n o t called a n ordinance. T h e r u l e a l s o o c c u r s o u t s i d e o f t h e " h i s t o r i ­ cal" c o n t e x t o f S i m e o n ' s speech. H a d t h e r u l e b e e n g i v e n as S i m e o n b . G a m a l i e l says, it w o u l d h a v e b e e n s t a n d a r d . And a pair... r e s u m e s a n d completes the narrative.

3. [Yosah's story of Gamaliel the Elder's view on the Targum of Job]: R. Halafta said to him, I remember Rabban Gamaliel the Elder... sitting on a step on the Temple Mountain, and they brought before him the Targum of the Book of Job and he said to the builder... (Tos. Shab. 13(14):2) T h e s t o r y o f Halafta i n c l u d e s t h e u s u a l specification o f w h e r e G a m a ­ liel's r u l i n g w a s g i v e n . H i s g e n e r a l i z e d s t a t e m e n t o f l a w d o e s n o t r e c u r .

4. Gamaliel said, I see the words of Admon. (M. Ket. 13:3-5) T h e u s e o f t h e p a s t t e n s e m a r k s t h e s t o c k - p h r a s e as a n 'historical' ac­ c o u n t o f G a m a l i e l ' s legal o p i n i o n .

5. Shammai says, If the time were propitious, I would decree... (B) The court that followed him decreed... (Tos. Shev. 3:10) T h e s t o r y o f t h e c o u r t (B) c o m m e n t s o n S h a m m a i ' s s a y i n g . A l l is brief, b u t n o t a b b r e v i a t e d ; t h e tale is c o m p l e t e , a n d t h e r e a d e r is a l l o w e d t o d r a w his o w n c o n c l u s i o n . W e s h o u l d h a v e p r e f e r r e d S h a m m a i said.

6. Gamaliel said, The house of father was accustomed to give one pfah for olives in every direction, and as to carobs, all of which were in sight of one another... (Sifra Qedoshim 2:4) G a m a l i e l ' s r e c o l l e c t i o n o f h i s father's p r a c t i c e s u p p l i e s a p r e c e d e n t as t o w h a t o t h e r s m a y d o . It t h e r e f o r e c o u l d h a v e b e e n g i v e n as a g e n e r a l l a w : One gives...

7. Gamaliel said, A Sadducee lived with us in the same alley in Jeru­ salem. Father said to us, Hasten and put out all the vessels... R. Judah says in other language, Hasten and do all your needs... (M. <Eruv. 6:2) T h e n a r r a t i v e f r a m e w o r k is p r e s e r v e d , a n d M e i r a n d J u d a h s u p p l y d i r e c t d i s c o u r s e speeches f o r S i m e o n b . G a m a l i e l . A s n o t e d , t h e f i r s t - p e r s o n " r e c o l l e c t i o n " o f G a m a l i e l is a d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e earlier t r a d i t i o n t o l d about h i m .

8. Gamaliel said, Never did my father's household bake bread into thin cakes.

LEGAL

35

TRADITIONS

They said to him, What shall we do to your father's household... ( M . B e s . 2:6) c

G a m a l i e l ' s p r e c e d e n t c o u l d h a v e b e e n g i v e n in n a r r a t i v e f o r m : Ma aseb b: Simeon b. Gamaliel baked thick cakes (only). A s a d i r e c t - d i s c o u r s e r e p o r t o f G a m a l i e l , it d o e s n o t s e r v e e v e n as a p r e c e d e n t a n d is r e a d i l y d i s m i s s e d , in they said to him, n o t b y analysis o f t h e e v i d e n c e , b u t r a t h e r b y t r e a t i n g t h e p r a c t i c e as a p r i v a t e i d i o s y n c r a c y . It is n o t an a u t h o r i t a t i v e p r e c e d e n t . G a m a l i e l ' s p r e c e d e n t s a r e i n c l u d e d as e x a m p l e s o f f i r s t - p e r s o n r e c o l l e c ­ t i o n s o f w h a t o n e has h i m s e l f seen a n d d o n e .

9. Yo'ezer of the Birah was one of the disciples of the House of Sham­ mai, and he said, I asked Rabban Gamaliel [re rendering dough for­ bidden]. ( M .
2. Yaqim of Serurot, nephew of Yosi b. Yo'ezer, inflicted on himself four modes of judicial death-penalty, stoning, burning, decapitation, and strangulation. (Gen. R. 65:27) T h e i n t e r p o l a t i o n , b e g i n n i n g what did he do, s e r v e s as a h i s t o r i c a l n a r r a ­ t i v e i l l u s t r a t i n g t h e w a y in w h i c h o n e m i g h t inflict all f o u r m o d e s o f e x e c u t i o n in a p p r o p r i a t e s e q u e n c e . T h e d e s c r i p t i o n is i n d e p e n d e n t o f t h e f o r e g o i n g n a r r a t i v e ; s t a n d i n g b y itself, it c o u l d h a v e b e e n t o l d i n t h e p r e s e n t t e n s e a n d p r e s c r i p t i v e l y , One brings a post and plants it in the earth etc.

INTERMEDIATE

UNITS OF

TRADITION

3. A. Once Simeon b. Shetah sentenced to death one false witness. Judah b. Tabbai said to him + direct discourse version of Deut 19:15. B. And once Judah b. Tabbai entered a ruin and found slain man writhing and a sword in hand of slayer. Judah b. Tabbai said to him + Deut 19:15 + exegesis. Serpent bit man. (Mekh. Kaspa III 31-41) T h e p a i r o f s t o r i e s p r o v i d e s a h i s t o r i c a l setting f o r e x e g e s e s o f D e u t . 19:15, t h a t t w o w i t n e s s e s a r e r e q u i r e d in a capital case, a n d t h a t false w i t n e s s e s a r e p u t t o d e a t h o n l y if t h e r e a r e t w o . A s n o t e d , t h e first s t o r y a l s o o c c u r s w i t h o u t a n a m e d m a s t e r a n d s e r v e s as a n exegesis o f G e n .

9:6. 4. Eliezer: Did not Simeon b. Shetah hang women in Ashqelon? They said to him, He hung eighty women... (Sifre Deut. 221) T h i s is an a l l u s i o n t o a s t o r y w h i c h is n o t s p e l l e d o u t . W h e n t h e s t o r y d o e s o c c u r , it is h e a d e d b y t h e H e b r e w l e m m a , b u t t h e n is t o l d in A r a ­ m a i c , a n d t h e A r a m a i c v e r s i o n has little t o d o w i t h t h e H e b r e w i n t r o d u c ­ t i o n . I n f o r m , t h e a l l u s i o n is a p r e c e d e n t , s i m p l y S i m e o n b . § + v e r b -{o b j e c t . T h e sages a d d a n a d j e c t i v e , eighty.

5. They sound for rain.

shofar

because of public distress. Story: Honi prayed (M. Ta. 3:8)

T h e H o n i - t a l e has n o t h i n g t o d o w i t h t h e l a w t o w h i c h shofar d o e s n o t o c c u r in t h e s t o r y . I list it h e r e b e c a u s e it legal s t o r y m i g h t b e a t t a c h e d t o a l a w , p r o d u c i n g t h e any story so attached w o u l d illustrate a law, e v e n w h e n

it is a t t a c h e d . A illustrates h o w a expectation that it d o e s n o t .

6. May one who ate only vegetables bless? TNY: Three hundred Nazirites came up in the days of Simeon b. S. For one hundred fifty he found grounds for absolution, for one hundred fifty did not. (y. Ber. 7:2) T h e H e b r e w i n t r o d u c t o r y s e n t e n c e , g i v e n a b o v e , is f o l l o w e d b y a l o n g A r a m a i c t a l e . T h e c o n n e c t i o n t o t h e l e g a l p r o b l e m raised at t h e o u t s e t is in p a r t J , Give him a cup so he may bless. T h e s t o r y is n o t a b o u t t h a t l a w , but does illustrate a point u n d e r consideration.

7. Abbaye said, How do I know that if a wife is charged by one wit­ ness with adultery and the husband remains silent, he must divorce the wife? Story: Yannai the King went to Kohalit. (b. Qid. 66a) A g a i n , a s t o r y is r e f e r r e d t o t o p r o v e a legal p r i n c i p l e . A s b e f o r e , t h e s t o r y at n o p o i n t r e f e r s t o t h e legal issue a n d can h a r d l y b e said t o " p r o v e " it.

8. Simeon b. Shetah returned the pearl. (y. B.M. 2:5)

LEGAL

37

TRADITIONS

T h e s t o r y illustrates a l a w . It is t o l d b y m e a n s o f d i r e c t - d i s c o u r s e d i a l o g u e b e t w e e n S . b . S . a n d h i s disciples.

9. Why are not kings of Israel judged or permitted to judge? Be­ cause of an incident with Yannai the King. (b. Sanh. 19a-b) A s i n n o s . 6 a n d 7 , t h e s t o r y s u p p l i e s t h e e t i o l o g y f o r a n established l a w . I n t h i s i n s t a n c e , t h e l a w is cited a t t h e e n d ( C ) , i n t r o d u c e d b y at that mo­ ment they said. T h e e a r l i e r e x a m p l e s a r e n o t s o closely t i e d t o t h e l a w s t h e y supposedly account f o r .

10. Re disinheritance-law: Story is told of man whose sons did not conduct selves properly. He wrote his estate over to Jonathan b. Uzziel. Shammai attempts to remonstrate. Jonathan says, If you can take back what is sold and consecrated, you can take back what I return­ ed. (b. B.B. 133b-134a) c

T h e s t o r y is l o n g a n d w e l l a r t i c u l a t e d , t o l d p r i m a r i l y t h r o u g h d i a l o g u e . N o l a w is q u o t e d ; b u t J o n a t h a n ' s s a y i n g t a k e s f o r g r a n t e d w h a t t h e l a w requires.

11. Hillel the Elder expounded the language of common people. When the Alexandrians would betrothe...Hillel said to them... (Tos. Ket. 4:9) t

T h e i n t r o d u c t o r y clause leads t o t h e s u p p o s i t i o n o f a o n e - t i m e ma aseh l i k e p r e c e d e n t s a b o v e . B u t t h e s t o r y itself is w e l l d e v e l o p e d ; it consists o f b o t h a description o f t h e prevailing situation (when t h e Alexandrians w o u l d betrothe... they sought...), a n d t h e account, told in direct-dis­ c o u r s e , o f w h a t Hillel d i d . T h e s t o r y ' s legal p o i n t is m a d e a t t h e o u t s e t and then actually p r o v e d . y

12. Hillel laid on hands on the whole-offering in the courtyard. Disci­ ples of Shammai collected against him. He explained it was a peaceoffering. They went away. (Tos. Hag. 2:11) T h e s t o r y d o e s n o t s u p p l y a p r e c e d e n t , b u t e x p l a i n s a w a y o n e : Hillel laid h a n d s o n a peace-offering, n o t o n a w h o l e - o f f e r i n g . A s a s i m p l e ma aseh, t h e s t o r y w o u l d b e : Hillel + l a i d h a n d s + o n t h e w h o l e - o f f e r i n g . B u t as is, t h e s t o r y m a k e s a different p o i n t : it e x p l a i n s w h y t h e S h a m m a i t e s t e m p o r a r i l y p r e d o m i n a t e d , a n d h o w a l o y a l S h a m m a i t e r e t r i e v e d t h e sit­ u a t i o n — n o t a legal s t o r y at a l l . <

13. Hillel's rise to power: The assemblages of stories on this theme all introduce two legal questions, first, does the Passover-offering override the Sabbath? Second, is it all right for the people to dissim­ ulate in bringing the necessary equipment? The first theme is explored through exegetical arguments. The "story" merely gives the dramatic setting for those arguments, which stand independent of the rest. As

38

INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF

TRADITION

to the story itself, it starts with the time (One time the 14th fell...). Then, they asked Hillel, who said + arguments. Then the whole courtyard collected, and he adds more arguments. Then, / received from my masters. Afterwards the second legal problem is introduced: the rule for those who did not bring knives. The answer is that what people do is acceptable. Then: on that very day. The narratives therefore surround the legal exegeses with 'historical' information, but do not intrude on those exegeses. The narrative style is complex, but, in general, consists of a series of exchanges in direct discourse, they asked...he said to them... The narrative details, e.g., the whole courtyard...,are brief and tangential to the whole. What did Israel do in that hour is normal rhetorical material, introducing the account of what the people did. Then comes a com­ plete sentence, On that very day... (Tos. Pisha 4:13) 14. Baba b. Buta would volunteer a suspensive guilt-offering every day except day after Day of Atonement. He said, By this Temple, if they would let me... But sages say, They do not bring... (M. Ker. 6:3) Baba's b e h a v i o r and s a y i n g i l l u s t r a t e t h e r u l e of t h e sages. 15. They do not register for two Passover-offerings simultaneously. Story of king, queen, and Gamaliel... (b. Pes. 88b) T h e s t o r y is r e p e a t e d , first w i t h t h e P a s s o v e r , t h e n w i t h t h e l i z a r d . I n b o t h instances t h e s t o r y is t o l d p r i m a r i l y t h r o u g h d i r e c t - d i s c o u r s e sen­ t e n c e s , j o i n e d b y they went and said/asked; t h e n t h e c o n c l u s i o n is spelled o u t : they did so, and Gamaliel ruled. T h e s e c o n d f a b l e a n d t h e m o r a l o f t h e w h o l e a r e i r r e l e v a n t t o t h e legal issue.

16. Yosef b. Yo'ezer was the most pious in the priesthood, yet for them that ate hallowed things, his apron counted as suffering midrasuncleanness. (M. Hag. 2:7) A b r i e f ' h i s t o r i c a l ' n a r r a t i v e in t h e past tense, t h e p e r i c o p e illustrates a legal p r i n c i p l e . T h e l i t e r a r y t r a i t is t h e b a l a n c i n g o f c o n t r a s t s : m o s t p i ­ o u s , y e t midras, m u c h l i k e t h e a n t o n y m i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s established i n m o r a l a n d t h e o l o g i c a l s t a t e m e n t s , e.g. when all gather, you scatter.

9. Histories of Laws A few pericopae relate the history or consequences of a law. They exhibit no form or common literary traits. 1. Forty years before the Temple was destroyed, capital crimesjurisdiction] was removed. And in the days of Simeon b. §. [jurisdic­ tion over] cases of property litigation was removed. (y. Sanh. 1:1)

LEGAL

TRADITIONS

39

and in the days of serve like at first, but now the narrative does not supply a law or an illustration of a legal point, but rather, an historical explanation for the prevailing situation. The lemma is brief, as in the at first form: time + named authority + verb -f subject. Forty years

2. Even though these forbid and these permit, these declare ineligible and these declare eligible, the House of Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from the House of Hillel, and vice versa [Also: cleannesses] (M. Yev. 1:4) This saying purports to relate the "historical" consequences of the Houses-disputes. E. Legal Exegeses Legal exegeses do not differ in form from non-legal ones. They appear in four ways. First, a Scripture may be quoted for redactional purposes, at the beginning or end of a pericope, but not analyzed or cited as proof of a proposition integral to the pericope. Second, a Scripture may be analyzed with a view to proving a legal proposition. Third, it may be offered as a proof-text for a legal point without such close exegetical analysis, yet in a more integral relationship to the pericope than in the first group. Fourth, some exegeses produce biographical fables about sages, which then illustrate the antecedent exegeses. 1. Scriptural

References

Scriptures referred to without any sort of analysis are either glosses or redactional devices linking a pericope to the framework of an exegetical compilation, as follows: 1. Num. 6:2, Sifre Num. 22—redactional gloss, linking Simeon-story to its setting; then repeated in the story; Upon you isfulfilled the Scripture. 2. Prov. 10:27, y. Yoma 1:1—R. Aha or R. Yohanan: applies to priests in First and Second Temples; cited in connection with Simeon the Just's forty years. 3. Lev. 26:44, b. Meg. 11a—cited by Samuel in connection with Simeon the Just. 4. Mic. 7:1, M. Sot. 9:9—anonymously cited in regard to grapeclusters. 5. Deut. 22:22, Sifre Deut. 221—links Eliezer re hanging to context; omitted in M. Sanh. 6:4, therefore redactional. 6. Lev. 25:30, Sifra Behar 4:8—cited in connection with HillePs ordi­ nance about redeeming property, but not integral to the story of the ordinance.

40

INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF

TRADITION

7. Ps. 114:8 etc., M. Pes. 10:6—Houses: How far recite Hallel? 8. Ps. 118:1 etc., M. Suk. 3:9—Houses: Where shake Lulav? N o s . 9 a n d 1 0 a r e n o t e x e g e s e s b u t r e f e r e n c e s , y e t a r e i n t e g r a l t o t h e legal context.

2. Exegeses 1. Deut. 17:6,19:15, Mekh. Kaspa III: 31-41, Tos. Sanh. 6:6—Judah b. Tabbai etc.—proves that false witnesses are sentenced to death only when they are two; proves that one must have two witnesses to punish murderer: Just as there must be two...so also there must be two... 2. Ex. 20:8, Mekhilta deR. Simeon b. Yohai, p. 148, Is. 29-30; Shammai: Remember it before it comes, and keep it when it comes. 3. Ex. 13:10, Lev. 25:29, Mekh. Pisha III: 209-216—Here it says, there it says—Houses: proves year means twelve months. Re examining tefillin. 4. Deut. 20:20, Tos. Eruv. 3:7—Shammai: Until it fall— even on the Sabbath. 5. Lev. 11:24, Sifra Shemini 9:5—He who touches their corpse— Hillel: Even if they are in the midst of the water. 6. Lev. 13:37, Sifra Tazri'a 9:16—Itch will be healed—Hillel: Not that he became afflicted. 7. Deut. 15:3, Sifre Deut. 113— Whatever of yours—Hillel: But not he who gives his mortgages to the court, prosbul. 8. Deut. 15:9, M. Shev. 10:3—People refrained from lending money and transgressed, so Hillel ordained prosbul. 9. Num. 28:2, Num. 9:2, Tos. Vish2i4:l3—Its season—Hillel: proves Passover-offering overrides Sabbath. 10. Lev. 13:17b vs. Lev. 13:17a—Hillel harmonizes 11. Deut. 16:2 vs. Ex. 12:5—Hillel harmonizes 12. Deut. 16:8 vs. Ex. 12:15—Hillel harmonizes (y. Pes. 6:1) 13. Deut. 12:2-4, Sifre Deut. 61—Gamaliel says, Would it enter your mind that Israel would destroy their altars? But you should not do like their deeds. [14. Ex. 22:8, Mekh. deR. Ishmael Neziqin 15:49-55—assigned to Houses' dispute on liability for misuse of bailment, but irrelevant to that issue.] 15. Ex. 12:6, Mekhilta deR. Simeon b. Yohai to Ex. 12:6—Between two evenings—House of Shammai: Included in evening is the time after the noon hour. 16. Ex. 23:16, Mekhilta deR. Simeon b. Yohai to Ex. 23:17—Every male—to include the children. Aqiban proof for Hillelite proposition. 17. Ex. 20:9, Mekh. deR. Simeon b. Yohai to Ex. 20:9, Tos. Shab. 1:20-l—Six days shallyou work— analyzed by both Houses. 18. Lev. 6:5, Sifra Sav 8:6—On that day of his guilt offering—introduces Houses-dispute on payment of bailment that has been misappropriated. Omitted in M. B.M. 3:12-19. c

c

LEGAL

41

TRADITIONS

19. Lev. 6:30, Sifra Sav 8:6—All that is holy will be burned— introduces Houses-dispute on burning unclean flesh of holy of holies. 20. Lev. 12:6-7, Sifra Tazri'a 3:1-2—Or for a daughter—to include one who brings forth abortion, etc. 'Aqiban proof for Hillelite proposition. Omitted in M. Ker. 1:6. 21. Her bloods, Lev. 12:7, Sifra Tazri'a 3:6—introduces Houses dispute on unclean bloods. 22. Lev. 19:23-4, Sifra Qedoshim 3:7—All their fruit will be. Aqiban proof of Hillelite proposition. Omitted in M. Ed. 4:5. 23. Lev. 23:39, Sifra Emor 15:5—>K on the 15th day— Houses-dispute, on meaning of >K, is based on 'Aqiban exegetical principle. 24. Lev. 25:4-6, Sifra Behar 1:5—But in the seventh year—proof for Shammaite position. Omitted in M. Shev. 4:2. 25. Num. 15:38, Sifre Num. 115—And they shall make for themselves— introduction to Houses dispute on how many tassels. 26. Deut. 22:12 vs. Num. 15:38, Sifre Deut. 234—introduces Houses dispute on how many strands. 27. Deut. 6:7, Sifre Deut. 34—When you lie down—Houses dispute re Sherna*. 28. Ex. 13:7, Sifre Deut. 131, M. Bes. 1:1—Houses dispute whether measurements differ for leavened bread and other kinds of leaven. M. Bes. 1:1 omits Scripture. 29. Deut. 16:16, Sifre Deut. 143—to include the children.
c

c

We observe that exegetical material is not substantial by comparison to the considerable range of legal discussions in Houses-pericopae. No exegetical materials, except for nos. 1 and 13, occur with reference to legal teachings of named masters other than Shammai, Hillel, and their Houses. Thirty-three of the thirty-five items pertain to them. But of these, nos. 16,19, 22,23, 29, 30, and 35 are 'Aqiban inventions; no. 14 is irrelevant to the Houses' dispute in which it is quoted; nos, 18, 19, 21, 25, and 26 all supply a redactional connection between a

42

INTERMEDIATE

UNITS

OF

TRADITION

Houses-dispute and the compilation or context in which it is cited, but are not directly referred to in the substance of the dispute. That leaves no more than twenty exegetical pericopae that directly derive from, or pertain to, Houses' opinions or those of Hillel and Shammai. Of these, nos. 2 and 4 are Shammai's; nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 are Hillel's, in both instances without contrary opinion. The Housesdisputes that most pertinently relate to exegeses are nos. 17, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, and 34, that is, only seven of thirty-five may be called significant halakhic exegeses, in which the exegetical materials quoted in connection with disputes are actually integral to the legal opinions of opposing parties. 3.

Proof-texts

The proof-texts relate to the material to which they are attached, but do not affect the content, and appear to be glosses, except for no. 2, which is integral to Shammai's saying: 1. To make known how much damage is caused by sin, to fulfill that which is said, Jer. 5:25, Sifra Behuqotai 1:1—not analyzed but integral to story. 2. His sender is liable, for it is said, II Sam. 12:9, b. Qid. 43a—Shammai. 3. Num. 15:20, Tos. <Ed. 1:1—proof text for Hillel re hallah. 4. Prov. 14:28, b. Ber. 53a—proof text for Hillel, re blessing. 4. From Exegesis to Chria In these instances an anonymous exegesis is accompanied by a terse chria, or biographical apophthegm, in which a named master acts out the exegesis, which, in nos. 4 and 5, is told in exactly the words of the foregoing exegesis: 1. Shammai the Elder says, Remember it—before it comes (Ex. 20:8). They said concerning Shammai that the memory of the Sabbath did not move from his mouth. (Mekhilta deR. Simeon b. Yohai to Ex. 20:8) 2. Ex. 12:8: It is a misyah to eat all together. Hillel the Elder would fold them together and eat them. (Mekhilta deR. Simeon b. Yohai to Ex. 12:8 [Also: Num. 9:11, b. Pes. 115a] ) 3. Deut. 15:9: Beware that there be not a base thought. People re­ frained from giving loans, so Hillel ordained prosbul. (M. Shev. 10:3)

AGGADIC

TRADITIONS

43

4. Deut. 15:8—Sufficient for his need—even slave, horse. Hillel the Elder gave slave, horse. (Tos. Pe'ah 4:10, y. Pe'ah 8:7) 5. Ps. 112:7—If one hears outcry, he should say Ps. 112:7. Hillel heard outcry, concerning him Ps. 112:7 is said. (y. Ber. 9:3, b. Ber. 60a) II. AGGADIC TRADITIONS

An aggadic tradition is a saying or story about a moral, theological, or historical matter, without direct legal consequence, bearing no immediate, practical effect, and carrying no normative authority. Aggadic traditions in general come in three ways: short and long stories of various sorts; sayings, whether or not supplied with a historical framework; and exegeses of Scriptures. These broad divi­ sions further reveal some characteristic forms or literary traits. A . Stories The normal way of telling a story is through dialogue in direct discourse, with minimum descriptive matter to set the stage. Once the story is under way, the connecting material consists primarily of he said to him, broken up by brief narrative clauses, e.g. he did so and...; such clauses make it possible to resume the dialogue with only brief interruptions. 1. Allusions to Stories Brief clauses in Hebrew allude to stories which then are told in Aramaic, without substantial relationship to the allusion; or stories begin in Hebrew and are finished in Aramaic. These pertain primarily to masters before Shammai-Hillel, as follows: 1. Yosef b. Yo'ezer had a son who did not behave properly. (b. B.B. 133b) T h e H e b r e w clause is f o l l o w e d b y a n A r a m a i c s t o r y a b o u t h o w Y o s i ' s s o n f o u n d a pearl in a fish. T h e c o n n e c t i o n is be had a loft, rose and sanctified it. T h e s t o r y t h e n i g n o r e s Y o s i u n t i l t h e e n d , w h e n a f o r m u l a i c s a y i n g ( o n e / s e v e n ) r e s t o r e s t h e c o n n e c t i o n , Yosef brought in one and his son took out seven.

2. Always let the left hand thrust away and the right hand draw near... not like R. Joshua b. Perahiah who thrust one of his disciples away with both hands. (b. Sot. 47a)

INTERMEDIATE

UNITS OF

TRADITION

T h i s is n o t l i k e t h e f o r e g o i n g , since t h e s t o r y is n o t t o l d i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g ; it s h o w s w h a t s u c h an a l l u s i o n l o o k s l i k e w h e n s e p a r a t e d f r o m t h e s t o r y t o w h i c h it a l l u d e s . T h e s t o r y is in A r a m a i c , t h e s a y i n g in Hebrew.

3. Did not Simeon b. Shetah hang women in Ashqelon? He hung eighty... (Sifre Deut. 221) T h e r e f e r e n c e o f E l i e z e r a n d t h e sages is i n H e b r e w . It o m i t s t h e m o s t important element of the A r a m a i c story o f y. Sanh. 6 : 6 / y . Hag. 2 : 2 , that the w o m e n w e r e witches, and that Simeon had t o use witchcraft to o v e r ­ c o m e t h e m . W h a t a r e v e r i f i e d a r e S.b.S., Ashqelon, eighty, a n d hanging. O u t o f these elements, o n e could n e v e r reconstruct the long narrative.

4. Three hundred Nazirites came up in the days of Simeon b. Shetah. For one hundred fifty of them he found grounds for absolution, and for one hundred fifty he did not. (y. Ber. 7:2) U n l i k e t h e f o r e g o i n g , t h i s H e b r e w s e n t e n c e , s t a n d i n g at t h e b e g i n n i n g o f a n A r a m a i c n a r r a t i v e , is i n t e g r a l t o w h a t f o l l o w s .

5. The world was desolate until Simeon b. Shetah came and restored the Torah to its place. (b. Qid. 66a) T h i s s a y i n g is n o t o f t h e s a m e o r d e r as t h e f o r e g o i n g . I t c o m e s , i n H e ­ b r e w , at t h e e n d o f t h e H e b r e w s t o r y o f t h e f a l l i n g o u t b e t w e e n Y a n n a i a n d t h e P h a r i s e e s . It is e n t i r e l y s e p a r a t e f r o m t h e s t o r y , s u p p l i e s a h a p p y e n d i n g t o it. S i m e o n d o e s n o t o c c u r i n t h e s t o r y itself.

6.

Ma'aseh

b:

A high priest came forth from the sanctuary. (b. Yoma 71b)

T h e H e b r e w i n t r o d u c t o r y p h r a s e is f o l l o w e d b y , a n d i n t e g r a l t o , t h e A r a ­ m a i c n a r r a t i v e : all t h e p e o p l e f o l l o w e d h i m , b u t left h i m w h e n t h e y s a w S h e m a ' i a h a n d A b t a l i o n . T h e p e r i c o p e is g i v e n t h e r e d a c t i o n a l s u p e r ­ s c r i p t i o n , T N W R B N N , b u t t h a t is n o g u a r a n t e e t h a t t h e r e s t w i l l b e t o l d i n beraita-style. I n d e e d , TNW RBNN + Ma'aseh b + high priest came forth from sanctuary w o u l d h a r d l y b e sufficient f o r t h e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e r e ­ mainder of the story, f o r even the names of the heroes S + A are omitted.

7. Rabbi said, Three were humble: my father, the Bene Bathyra, and Jonathan b. Saul. (b. B.M. 85a) I n t h i s i n s t a n c e , t h e s t o r y is a l l u d e d t o , b u t n o t t o l d at all. T h e r e f o l l o w s a b r i e f a l l u s i o n , " T h e B e n d B a t h y r a , as a m a s t e r said, ' T h e y p l a c e d him at t h e h e a d and a p p o i n t e d him nasi o v e r t h e m . ' "

8. A master has said, Jesus practiced magic and deceived and led Israel astray. (b. Sot. 47a = b. Sanh. 107b)

AGGADIC

TRADITIONS

45

The lemma draws the moral of the Jesus-Joshua story, but does not allude to its substance. Brief allusions in Hebrew to stories then told in Aramaic, e.g., nos. 2,3, and 7, do not contain all important elements of the stories themselves and prove only that a tradition of some sort, but not the story in pretty much its present form, existed at the time of the allusion. No. 1 sets the stage for a story, but not the story that follows, which is irrelevant to it. Nos. 4 and 6 begin narratives; no. 4 might be regarded as an allusion to what follows, but no. 6 cannot. It is the first sentence of the story and does not stand by itself. No. 5 is not an appropriate subscription, for, as I said, Simeon is absent from the antecedent narrative; nor does the phrase supply a moral for the foregoing, unlike no. 8. All the examples relate to, but stand apart from, the narratives to which they are attached or allude. The narratives are then independ­ ent of the allusions. This suggests that traditional materials included tales not fully spelled out in the earliest strata, merely referred to or substantially taken for granted, e.g. no. 7. When the stories themselves were fully worked out, as in nos. 3 and 4, they were not limited to the details supplied by the allusions. 2. Short Biographical References A second intermediate unit of the aggadic tradition is a brief biograph­ ical reference, complete in a single sentence. This corresponds to short legal sentences of various kinds, precedents, e.g., At first... ordained..., Hillel would fold them, in days of Hillel no one trespassed, and the like: simple declarative sentences, which stand by themselves and convey a complete unit of thought but do not tell a story. There is no formal difference between brief legal precedents and aggadic biograph­ ical references. All consist simply of a subject, verb, and object and adverbs and adjectives as called for. One cannot regard these as forms. Short biographical references are as follows: 1. When Yosi + Yosi died, the grapeclusters ceased. (M. Sot. 9:9) T h e M$ + verb + subject f o r m o f M . S o t . is i m p o s e d o n discrete m a t e ­ rials, e.g. when multiplied poor disciples, multiplied disputes.

2. Some say it was Hillel the Elder, but he could not say, What my own hands have done. (Sifre Num. 123)

46

INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF

TRADITION

T h e l e m m a is i n t r u d e d i n t o t h e s t o r y o f Y o h a n a n a n d t h e disciples. I t is n o t a n i n d e p e n d e n t s a y i n g ; Hillel w a s n o t a p r i e s t . It is f o r m e d o f t h e m a t e r i a l s o f t h e s t o r y in w h i c h it o c c u r s .

3. Hillel came up from Babylonia aged forty, served sages for forty years, and sustained Israel for forty years. (Sifre Deut. 357) A s the foregoing, the lemma depends u p o n the 4 0 / 4 0 / 4 0 structure of the p e r i c o p e in w h i c h it o c c u r s a n d is n o t a n i n d e p e n d e n t s a y i n g .

4. When Gamaliel died, the glory of Torah ceased. (M. Sot. 9:15) See a b o v e , n o .

1.

5. When Gamaliel died, sickness descended on the world and they studied the Torah sitting down. (b. Meg. 21a) 6. When Hanina b. Dosa died, men of deeds ceased. (M. Sot. 9:15) 7. Hillel, Simeon Gamaliel, and Simeon ruled as patriarchs for century of Temple's existence. (b. Shab. 15a) 8. Jesus deceived and led Israel astray. (b. Sot. 47b = b. Sanh. 107b) 9. Yohanan the high priest officiated as high priest for eighty years and in the end became a min. (b. Ber. 29a) 10. Menahem went forth to the king's service, and eighty pairs of disciples dressed in silk went forth with him. (b. Hag. 16b) 11. Hillel had eighty disciples—30/30/20. (b. Suk. 28a) 12. When the disciples of Shammai and Hillel multiplied, who had not adequately served as disciples, disputes multiplied in Israel, and they became two Torahs. (Tos. Hag. 2:9) The short biographical references tend to depend upon the redactional or narrative framework in which they occur; redactional: nos. 1, 4, 6, and, secondarily, no. 5, on M. Sot., Sifre Num. 123, no. 2, and

AGGADIC

TRADITIONS

47

Sifre Deut. 357, no. 3; narrative: no. 8, 11, 12 (M$RBW- formula). Nos. 7, 9, and 10 are brief, self-contained sentences, more like halakhic ones, since they stand independent of context and are not shaped either within it or according to a larger narrative framework. 3. Biographical and Historical

Stories

The largest corpus of non-legal materials consists of stories of a biographical or historical nature. The two cannot be completely separated, for the historical stories always involve named masters. But the former focus upon the masters, the latter upon events in which masters play a subordinate rule. We have the following peri­ copae: 1. Simeon the Just heard, The decree is annulled which the enemy intended to bring on the Temple, and Qesgeleges has been killed, and his decrees have been annulled. (Tos. Sot. 13:7) 2. All the time that Simeon the Just was alive, the western light was continual. When he died, they went and found it had gone out. Afterward sometimes it went out and sometimes it burned strongly-f wood-offering, bread-loaves, and showbread. (Tos. Sot. 13:7) 3. All the forty years that Simeon the Just ministered + lot, crimson-colored strap, westernmost light, wood-pile, ^omer, two breads and showbreads. (b. Yoma 39a-b) 4. In the year in which Simeon the Just died, he said to them that in this year he would die. They said to him, How do you know? He replied... (b. Yoma 39a-b) 5. His brethren forbore to mention the Name. (b. Yoma 39b) N o . 4 is t h e s o l e b i o g r a p h i c a l s t o r y in t h i s g r o u p . It is c o m p o s e d o f d i ­ r e c t - d i s c o u r s e d i a l o g u e . N o s . 2 , 3 , a n d 5 a r e s t o r i e s o f c h a n g e s in t h e c u l t , for w h i c h S i m e o n supplies the occasion. T h e y contain n o discourse, but r a t h e r a r e b a l a n c e d sets o f n a r r a t i v e sentences. N o . 2 c o n t a i n s s e v e r a l s u c h sentences, f o l l o w e d b y when Simeon died - f changes. N o . 4 c o n s i s t s o f s o m e w h a t brief, m a t c h e d p e r i c o p a e : t h e l o t / s t r a p / e t c . would... from that time on, sometimes it would, sometimes it would not—the w h o l e c a r e f u l l y c o n ­ s t r u c t e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e s i m p l e p a t t e r n . N o . 1 has S i m e o n hear a m e s s a g e in n o w a y r e l e v a n t t o S i m e o n himself. It c o u l d as w e l l h a v e said in the days of Simeon they heard—no different f r o m n o s . 2 a n d 3 .

INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF

TRADITION

6. When he [Alexander] saw Simeon, he descended from chariot and prostrated before him, and they said to him, Will such a great king... He said to them, The image of this man conquers before me... (b. Yoma 69a) T h e S i m e o n - i n s e r t i o n consists o f a s t a t e m e n t o f t h e s e t t i n g , p l u s d i a l o g u e c o n v e y i n g t h e m e s s a g e , s i m i l a r t o n o . 4 a b o v e : in the year + he said to them + they said to him.

7. Yohanan the High Priest heard an echo: The young men... (b. Sot. 33a) Y o h a n a n is n o m o r e i m p o r t a n t h e r e t h a n is S i m e o n in n o . 1.

8. When Simeon died, he said, My son Onias...His brother Shime'i was jealous of him and said to him...He put on him a gown and said to priests...At this his brethren sought to kill him...etc. (b. Men. 109b) Simeon's death p r o v i d e s a date f o r the Onias-Shime'i story, w h i c h then is t o l d t h r o u g h d i a l o g u e .

9. Priest prayed too long. They went in after him. They said to him... He said to them...They said to him... + Forty years Simeon served as high priest, predicted death. (y. Yoma 5:2) N o f o r m a l differences f r o m s t a n d a r d s t o r y - f o r m .

10. Antigonus of Sokho had two disciples etc. They asked, Why did our ancestors...If our ancestors had known... They arose and with­ drew... And they used... (ARN Ch. 5) T h i s s t o r y is f o r m a l l y q u i t e u n l i k e t h e l o n g e r n a r r a t i v e s , f o r it c o n t a i n s substantial n a r r a t i v e m a t e r i a l a n d o n e l o n g p h i l o s o p h i c a l speech. T h e s u b s c r i p t i o n and they used d o e s n o t c h a n g e t h e p i c t u r e .

11. Yosi's son went and married daughter of wreath-maker of Yannai the king. (She gave birth to a son). He bought her a fish. He found a pearl in it. She said to him...He brought it, they assessed it. They said to him...He said to them... (b. B.B. 133b) T h e s t o r y , a p a r t f r o m its l e g a l s u p e r s c r i p t i o n , h a s a s o m e w h a t a r t i c u l a t e d i n t r o d u c t i o n , as g i v e n . T h e s o n is i r r e l e v a n t t o t h e s t o r y . T h e p e a r l in t h e fish c o u l d i n t r o d u c e t h e w h o l e , a n d f r o m t h e r e , t h e w h o l e is d i a l o g u e , j o i n e d w i t h w h a t h e d i d in r e s p o n s e t o h e r i n s t r u c t i o n s .

12. Yaqim of Serurot was Yosi's nephew. Riding on horse. Saw beam on which he was to be hanged. He said to him... (four times). He went and brought on self... (Gen. R. 65:27)

AGGADIC

TRADITIONS

49

T h e w h o l e is a c o l l o q u y a b o u t r e w a r d a n d p u n i s h m e n t , w i t h a d r a m a t i c setting p r o v i d e d b y t h e beam at t h e o u t s e t a n d t h e suicide at t h e e n d . T h e s u b s t a n c e o f ideas d o e s call f o r t h e d r a m a t i c setting.

13. When Yannai killed the rabbis, Simeon was hidden by his sister, and Joshua and Jesus fled to Alexandria, (a) When there was peace, Simeon sent...He arose and came back, (b) He found himself in a cer­ tain inn; they paid him honor; he said...Disciple said...He said...He excommunicated him. (c) He came before him many times. He said... But he did not...One day he tried to repent but thought himself repelled. He went and set up brick. He said to him... He answered... (d) A master had said... (b. Sot. 47a = b. Sanh. 107b) T h e s t o r y c o n t a i n s s o m e w h a t m o r e n a r r a t i v e . T h e s t a g e is set w i t h when Yannai; t h e n c o m e s S i m e o n ' s m e s s a g e . T h e s e c o n d u n i t is t h e s t a y i n t h e i n n a n d t h e w i c k e d n e s s o f J e s u s , e n t i r e l y i n d i a l o g u e . T h e t h i r d u n i t is t h e effort a t r e p e n t e n c e , t o l d i n b r i e f d e c l a r a t i v e sentences. T h e n c o m e s t h e c l o s i n g d i a l o g u e , a n e x c h a n g e i n w h i c h n o n a r r a t i v e is n e e d e d .

14. In the days of Simeon b. Shetah, in the days of Shelomsu the queen, rains came down in abundance... (Sifra Behuqotai 1:1) 15. They said to Honi...He said to them...He prayed but rain did not fall. What did he do? He drew a circle and said... Rain began...He said...It began to rain...He said...Then it rained properly...They went to him and said...He said...Simeon b. Shetah sent to him... (M. Ta. 3:8) T h e w h o l e story consists o f dialogues and m o n o l o g u e s , w i t h a m i n i m u m of narrative.

16. Three hundred Nazirites...He came to Yannai and said to him... He did so. Rumor said...Yannai heard and was angry. Simeon was frightened and fled. After days important men from Persia came. Sitting and eating, they said...He did so. He said to him...He said to him...And he cited concerning him the Scripture...He said to him... He said to him [ + Ben Sira]...He said...He took the cup and said... He said...He said...He said...They did so, he ate and said... (y. Ber. 7:2) 17. There were two pious men in Ashqelon; one died and was not properly mourned. Villager, tax-collector, died, and the whole town mourned him. Pious man troubled and said. Deceased appeared in dream and said... After few days, pious man saw fellow walking in heaven...He saw Miriam and said, Why is this so? They said to him...He said to them... They said to him...He said, Why?...He said to him, Because...He said to them...He said to him... N E U S N E R , The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70, III

4

INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF

TRADITION

He went and reported to him the incident. He wanted to do the sign, but he would not allow him to do so. He said to him, I know... Forthwith Simeon arose in severe rainstorm. He took eighty young men, put in their hands eighty clean garments, put them in, and put on their covers. He said to them... [Then comes the colloquy with the witches]. Finally, he whistled once and they put on their garments. He whistled a second time and they all came up at once. He said... The lifted them up and went and crucified them. (y. Hag. 2:2 = y. Sanh. 6:6) Here w e h a v e considerably m o r e narrative than before. O f particular i n t e r e s t is t h e e x c l u s i v e u s e o f n a r r a t i v e f o r e x p l a i n i n g b o t h S i m e o n ' s m a g i c a l p r e p a r a t i o n s a n d t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s ; at t h e s e p o i n t s n o d i a l o g u e intervenes.

18. (a) Yannai went to Kohalit and conquered sixty towns. When he returned he rejoiced and invited all the sages. (b) He said to them... So they did so. There was there a certain scoff­ er...He said to Yannai...He said to him...He said to him...He did so. (c) There was there a certain sage.. .He said to Yannai...(For people said that his mother had been taken captive)...The charge was investi­ gated and not sustained; sages departed in anger. (d) Eleazar then said to Yannai...He said to him (three exchanges). (e) The evil blossomed through Eleazar; all the sages were killed. (f) The world was desolate until Simeon came and restored the Torah... (b. Qid. 66a) T h e o p e n i n g s t a t e m e n t sets t h e stage, a n d certain sage supplies t h e t r a n s i ­ t i o n t o t h e m a i n e v e n t . For people said is a n e c e s s a r y e x p l a n a t o r y g l o s s . T h e n c o m e s t h e first c o n c l u s i o n , sages d e p a r t e d i n a n g e r , f o l l o w e d b y a s e c o n d set o f e x c h a n g e s , a n d t h e final d e n o u e m e n t : e v i l b l o s s o m e d , sages killed, w o r l d w a s desolate.

19. Hands of Simeon b. Shetah were heated. Conspiracy came and said... They did so and it happened. When he went forth to be executed, they said to him. His father wanted to bring him back. He said to him... (y. Sanh. 6:3) 20. Simeon b. Shetah was employed in flax. His disciples said to him... They did so. They came and told him...he said to them...they told him...(two more exchanges). (y. B.M. 2:5) 21. Yannai and queen ate together; he had killed rabbis, so no one could bless. He said to wife...She said to him...He did so and she did so (etc.—dialogue throughout). (b. Ber. 48a) 22. Slave of Yannai killed someone. Simeon sent to sages...They sent

AGGADIC

TRADITIONS

51

to him...He sent the slave for judgment. They sent to him...He did so. Simeon said to him...He said to him...He looked to right and they looked down, to left, likewise; he said to them... Forthwith Gabriel came and killed them and they died. (b. Sanh. 19a-b) T h e n a r r a t i v e details a r e s o m e w h a t m o r e f u l l y s u p p l i e d , b u t t h e y d o n o t dominate the story; they flow f r o m , and depend upon, the dialogue.

23. High priest left sanctuary; people followed him; when they saw Shema iah and Abtalion, they left him and followed S + A. When S + A visited him, he said to them...They said to him... (b. Yoma 71b) c

T h e s e t t i n g is s o m e w h a t through dialogue.

l o n g e r t h a n b e f o r e ; t h e p o i n t is

presented

24. Yohanan the high priest heard, The young men who went went out...and they noted that hour and it tallied that they had conquered... (Tos. Sot. 13:5) A s w i t h Simeon, so with Y o h a n a n , once he "heard," he drops out o f the s t o r y ; t h e n t h e m e s s a g e is g i v e n , a n d a n a r r a t i v e s u m m a r y o f t h e r e s u l t follows.

25. Honi and Ps. 126:1: One day he was journeying and saw a man planting a tree...He asked him...He said to him...Honi went to sleep, rock covered him, and he slept for seventy years. Saw man gathering fruit of tree and asked him... [The rest is in dialogue], (b. Ta. 23a) 26. Abba Hilqiah his grandson: story told first in narrative of a set of gestures and symbolic actions, then in dialogue explaining those ges­ tures and actions. (b. Ta. 23b) 27. Sages entered house of Guryo in Jericho and heard an echo: Man here worthy of holy spirit, but generation is not, and they set their eyes on Hillel. When he died, they said concerning him... Another time sitting in Yavneh, they heard an echo, There is a man here worthy of the holy spirit, but the generation is not, and they set their eyes...And when he died, they said about him... (Tos. Sot. 13:3) H e r e t h e d i a l o g u e c l e a r l y is s u b o r d i n a t e d t o t h e n a r r a t i v e . T h e s a g e s sayn o t h i n g o f t h e i r o w n ; first t h e y h e a r a m e s s a g e , w h i c h p r o d u c e s t h e g e s ­ t u r e , t h e n t h e y l a m e n t H i l l e l / S a m u e l t h e S m a l l . T h i s s t o r y differs f r o m the pattern o f longer narratives, particularly biographical ones.

28. Hillel had eighty students. Greatest: Jonathan, least Yohanan b* Z.

INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF

TRADITION

When he fell ill, they came to see him. Yohanan stood in courtyard. He said to them...They said to him...He said to them...He did so, and he said to them Prov. 8:21. (y. Ned. 5:6) 29. No one was ever crushed in the Temple court except on one Pass­ over in Hillel's time, on which an old man was crushed, and they called it the Passover of the crushed. (b. Pes. 64b) 30. Hillel used to work every day and earn one tropaic, half paid to tuition, half for family. One day he found nothing to earn, and guard at house of learning did not permit him to enter. He climbed up and sat on window to hear words of living God from S + A. It was eve of Sabbath in winter solstice, and snow fell. When dawn rose, S said to A, why dark? They looked up and saw figure of man in window. They went up and found him covered by three cubits of snow. They removed him and bathed and anointed him, placed him opposite fire and said, This man is worthy... (b. Yoma 35b) This s h o w s us h o w a s t o r y could d e v e l o p w i t h o u t reliance o n dialogue f o r t h e b u l k o f t h e n a r r a t i v e . H e r e t h e d i a l o g u e is i n t r i n s i c t o t h e n a r r a ­ t i v e , n e c e s s a r y at t h e d r a m a t i c t u r n i n g : W h y is it d a r k ? T h e c l o s i n g l e m ­ m a is a f o r m u l a i c s a y i n g .

31. Hillel and Shebna were brothers, Hillel in Torah, Shebna in busi­ ness. He said to him...Echo said Song 8:7 (b. Sot. 21a) 32. Hillel and disciples re bathing: Entirely told through dialogue in direct discourse. (Lev. R. 34:3) 33. Be gentle like Hillel, not impatient like Shammai. Two men made wager, saying... (b. Shab. 30b-31a) T h e w h o l e is t o l d in d i r e c t - d i s c o u r s e d i a l o g u e , w i t h o n l y a f e w n a r r a t i v e details, i.e. he robed and went out to him and said... he departed, tarried a while, returned, and said... [etc.]

34. Son of Gamaliel fell ill. He sent two disciples to Hanina b. Dosa to seek mercy for him. When he saw them, he went up to an upper chamber and prayed for him. When he came down, he said to them... They said to him...He said to them... They sat down and wrote and tallied the exact moment. When they came to Gamaliel, he said to them... (b. Ber. 34b)

AGGADIC

TRADITIONS

53

35. Simeon b. Gamaliel would dance with eight torches of gold and they would not touch each other, and when he would kneel, he would push his thumb in the ground and kneel down and forthwith straighten up. (y. Suk. 5:4, Tos. Suk. 4:4) 36. Simeon b. Gamaliel on a step on the Temple mount saw a gentile woman who was particularly beautiful and said Ps. 104:24. (b. A.Z. 20a/y. A.Z. 1:9) 37. Babylonian in Palestine: Boil me cow's feet—she boiled two lentils etc. (b. Ned. 66b) Tale a b o u t amusing ambiguities o f Palestinian and Babylonian A r a m a i c .

38. Herod and Baba b. Buta—told entirely in dialogue between Herod and Baba. (b. B.B. 4a) 39. Jeremiah, or Hiyya b. Abba: Targum of Prophets was composed by Jonathan b. 'Uzziel, and the land quaked, echo came forth and said, Who has revealed my secrets? Jonathan arose and said, I did... He further sought to reveal the Targum of the Hagiography, but echo said, Enough. (b. Meg. 3a) 40. Eleazar b. Harsom: His father left him a thousand cities and a thousand boats. Every day he would take a sack of flour on his shoul­ der and go from city to city and province to province to study Torah. One time his servants found him and seized him for the corvee. He said to them, I beg you, let me go and study Torah, They said, By the life of Eleazar b. Harsom, we shall not let you go. He had never gone and seen them, but was sitting all day and night, occupying him­ self with Torah. (b. Yoma 35b) L i k e t h e H i l l e l - s t o r y in t h e s a m e b e r a i t a , t h i s o n e s u b o r d i n a t e s d i a l o g u e to narrative.

41. Joshua b. Gamala betrothed Martha b. Boethus and consummated the union after the king had appointed him high priest. (M. Yev. 6:4) 42. Assi: Two qabs of denars did Martha b. Boethus give to King Yannai to nominate Joshua b. Gamala as one of the high priests. (b. Yoma 18a) 43. The mother of Ishmael b. Phiabi made him a tunic worth one

54

INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF

TRADITION

hundred minas, which he put on to officiate at a private service and then handed over to the community. (b. Yoma 35b) 44. Eleazar b. Harsom put on tunics worth two myriads and went up and offered at the altar, but his brothers the priests removed him because he looked naked. (y. Yoma 3:6) We may characterize narrative style as abbreviated and simple, con­ sisting of very short declarative sentences, e.g.: Yannai heard and was angry. Simeon was frightened and fled. More complex narrative structures are rare; in general, they are composites of simple structures, e.g. All the time Simeon was alive, light was continual; when he died, they went and found it had gone out; afterward, sometimes it went out, sometimes it burned strongly. That pattern is then carefully repeated for the other examples, woodoffering, bread loaves, show-bread, etc. Dialogue-style is somewhat more fully developed. We find long speeches, Scriptures, and sub­ stantial exchanges. That is to be expected, since stories generally are told through what is said, rather than through narration of what was reportedly thought or done. Descriptive material is minimal. A few stories are exceptional, displaying considerable narrative sophistication; these occur mainly in the beraita-strztum, e.g. the two in b. Yoma 35b. Long biographical stories in dialogue-form + brief declarative sen­ tences are in nos. 9,11,12,13,15,16,19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 28, 32, 33, 34, 37, 38, and 39. Apart from the dialogue, the narrative materials in all exempla consist of few, very brief declarative sentences. Some have more narrative than others. No. 15 is vastly expanded in later versions and supplied with numerous Scriptures and exegeses. By contrast, no. 26, not quite like the others, begins with the narration of a set of symbolic gestures, which only then provoke extended explanatory dialogue in direct discourse. Short biographical stories, in dialogue-form + brief declarative sentences, are nos. 4 and 6. The Alexander-Simeon story differs only in length. It contains a single exchange. Otherwise it is a model for the biographical story in dialogue form: setting, then colloquy. No. 4 is told through the exchange of Simeon and "them." Biographical narratives are nos. 26, 30, 31, 35, 36, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44. These differ from the brief biographical references not only in length, but also in purpose. They tell a story, while the brief references do not, with the possible exception of no. 10. As noted, no. 26 relies upon the narration of symbolic gestures, given at some length, before

AGGADIC

TRADITIONS

55

introducing the dependent dialogue. Nos. 30 and 40, in the same beraita, are well developed stories; in them dialogue not only is subordinate, but plays no role at all in the unfolding of the story. Nos. 35, 36 and 41-44 are little biographical tales, in which a brief sentence or two suffices to tell the story. They consist of subject + verb + predicate, much like the legal precedents. No. 35 is in the continuous tense, would do so-and-so; the gesture obviously is not meant as a legal precedent. No. 31 brings in the echo in place of Hillel's response to Shebna's invitation; its message is a Scripture. Historical stories in dialogue + brief declarative sentences are nos. 8, 17, 18, and 22. No. 17 contains a somewhat elaborate description of the situation, but the important dramatic elements are entirely in dialogue, excluding the narrative of what Simeon did to the witches. The story about Yannai (no. 18) is a model of a historical narrative told through dialogue. Excluding the moral (e), the setting (a), and the transition (c), no narrative is required for the unfolding of the story. No. 22 follows the same pattern. By contrast, Josephus tells no. 18 primarily through narrative and indirect discourse. Long historical narratives are nos. 2, 3, and 27. As we have observ­ ed, nos. 2 and 3 are constructed of simple declarative sentences, in a repeated pattern. No. 27 is an exception, in that the story is told with­ out reliance upon direct discourse. What they said concerning him is not central to the narrative and does not make the main point. Short historical narratives are nos. 1, 5, 7, 14, 24, and 29. Nos. 1 and 7 = 24 introduce named masters, but only so that they may hear the message. No. 7 = 24 is better articulated; there we are told that what Yohanan had heard actually happened at the very moment he heard it. But the stories contain no dialogue at all. No. 5 is a brief narrative. In nos. 14 and 29 Simeon merely provides a date; the story is then told without reference to the master and queen. The miraculous details are the center of interest. No. 10 formally is a singleton. The extended narrative introduces a direct-discourse saying, but no one is named ("they asked") and no response is given to their observation. Rather we are told what happened then, and a further saying is tacked on. B. Moral Sayings Non-legal sayings, introduced by Authority + either says, said, or would[used to] say (HYH >WMR), do not occur with reference to the Houses. Like standard legal sayings, non-legal ones normally are

56

INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF

TRADITION

brief. Many draw a simple contrast or depend upon an ironical obser­ vation, e.g. conditional contrast of balanced opposites: If you come to my house, I shall come to your house + Scripture + vice versa; irony: Woe to the man whom a lizard bites, woe to the lizard who bites Hanina b. Dosa. We find no complex sentences or elegant patterns. A long saying generally conforms to and repeats the original pattern, set forth at the outset, just as in the longer narratives above, e.g. All the days Simeon the Just was alive etc. Most moral sayings, except M. Avot 1 rl-18,, are assigned to Hillel. 1.

"I"-Sayings 1. Hillel the Elder says, To the place which my heart loves, there my feet lead me. If you will come to my house, I shall come to your house + vice versa + Ex. 20:24. (Tos. Suk. 4:3) 2. Hillel the Elder, when he used to rejoice at the Rejoicing of the Place of the Water-Drawing, said thus, If I am here, everyone is here. And if I am not here, who is here (+ no. 1). (b. Suk. 53a) 3. When Hillel saw them observing it in pride, he said to them, If we are here, who is here etc. (y. Suk. 5:4) 4. Hillel said, My self-abasement is my exaltation + vice versa + Ps. 113:5. (Lev. R. 1:5)

All "P'-sayings are attributed to Hillel. No. 2 in the singular seems to have Hillel speak in behalf of God; the revision, given in the plural, removes the mystical-theological tendency and replaces it with a thisworldly moral one. No. 1 begins with a 'secular' saying, to the place which my heart loves, and this then is theologized. No. 3 is a simple contrast saying: exaltation is really self-abasement, and vice versa. No. 2 has a narrative setting—when he used..., when he saw... 2. Sayings Not in Narrative Setting The M. Avot sayings come in lists of threes: 1. Men of Great Assembly: Be deliberate in judgment, raise up many disciples, make fence around Torah. (M. Avot 1:1)

AGGADIC

57

TRADITIONS

2. Simeon the Just: On three things world stands: Torah, service, deeds of lovingkindness. (M. Avot 1:2) 3. Antigonus of Sokho: Be not like slaves that minister for reward etc.... (M. Avot 1:3) 4. Yosi b. Yo'ezer: Let your house be meeting place of sages; sit in dust of their feet; drink in their words. (M. Avot 1:4) 5. Yosi b. Yohanan: Let your house be open wide, take in poor, do not talk too much with women. (M. Avot 1:5) 6. Joshua b. Perahiah: Make a master, get a fellow, and judge with balance in favor of accused. (M. Avot 1:6) 7 . Nittai the Arbelite: Keep far from evil neighbor and do not despair of retribution. (M. Avot 1:7) 8. Judah b. Tabbai: Do not try to influence judges; view accused as wicked, but, when they depart, as innocent. (M. Avot 1:8) 9. Simeon b. Shetah: Examine witnesses; speak cautiously. (M. Avot 1:9) 10. Shema'iah: Love work, hate mastery, do not become familiar with ruling power. (M. Avot 1:10) 11. Abtalion: Watch your words. (M. Avot 1:11) 12. Hillel: Be of disciples of Aaron. (M. Avot 1:12) 13. Hillel used to say: Name increase, you worldly

decrease; if you

use of crown, you

made great

do not learn, you

is name destroyed;

if you

are worthy of death; if you

do

not

make

perish.

(M. Avot 1:13) 14. Hillel used to say: If I am not for myself, who is for me? etc. (M. Avot 1:14) 15. Shammai: Study regularly; say little and do much; be cheerful. (M. Avot 1:15)

58

INTERMEDIATE UNITS O F TRADITION

16. Gamaliel: Acquire a master; keep far from doubt; do not tithe by guesswork. (M. Avot 1:16) 17. Simeon: All my days I have grown up among sages, and found silence is best; expounding is not the main thing, but doing is; do not talk too much. (M. Avot 1:17) 18. Simeon b. Gamaliel: On three things world stands: truth, judgment, and peace. (M. Avot 1:18) 19. Joshua b. Perahiah said, At first, whoever says to me, Go up, I should bind him and put him in front of the lion. Now, whoever says to me, Go down, I should pour over him a kettle of hot water. (b. Men. 109b) 20. Hananiah Prefect of Priests said, Pray for the peace of the govern­ ment, since but for fear of it, men would swallow each other up alive. (M. Avot 3:2) 21. Hillel said, Do not separate from congregation; do not trust your­ self until you die; do not judge your fellow until you are in his place; do not say a thing which cannot be heard etc.; do not say, when I have leisure, I will study. He used to say, Brutish man does not dread sin; ignorant man cannot be saintly; bashful man cannot learn; impatient man cannot teach; businessman cannot become wise; where no men, strive to be a man. He used to say, He who increases flesh/worms; possessions/care; women/witchcraft; slave-girls/lewdness; slaves/thieving; Torah/life; schooling/wisdom; counsel/understanding; righteousness/peace. If a man gains a good name, it is for himself; but words of Torah are for the world to come. (M. Avot. 2:5-7) 22. Hillel the Elder says, Do not be seen naked/clothed; standing/ sitting; laughing/weeping + Qoh. 3:4-5. (Tos. Ber. 2:21) 23. Hillel the Elder says, When they are gathering, scatter; scattering/ gather; Torah beloved—scatter + Prov. 11:24, Ps. 119:126. (Tos. Ber. 6:24) The M. Avot-sayings are generally brief, mostly in the imperative, the only sayings of either legal or non-legal character to use imperative verbs. The triplicates are all extremely terse, as observed earlier. The

AGGADIC

59

TRADITIONS

imperatives do not rely on contrast or irony to make their point. Only no. 17, Simeon b. Gamaliel, draws a contrast—expounding vs. doing. No. 20 follows the earlier pattern. No. 21 is an extended collection of Hillel-sayings. The used to j*y/-parts balance one characteristic against the next: Protasis: Brutishness Apodosis: Dread sin

ignorance saintliness

no men man

and so on. The increase{increase lemmas follow a simple formulaic pattern and may be endlessly multiplied. The concluding lemma returns to the more commonplace contrast \good namejself. vs. Torah\eternal life. Nos. 22 and 23 follow the same pattern.

3 . Apophthegms 1. Yosef b. Yo'ezer brought in one and his son took out six/seven (b. B.B. 133b) 2. If he does thus to those that anger him, how much the more to those that do his will. (Gen. R. 65:27) 3. Whoever sinned and caused others to sin is deprived of the power of doing penitence. (b. Sot. 47a = b. Sanh. 107b) 4. King does not judge and is not judged. (b. Sanh. 19b) 5. Hanina was standing and praying, and a lizard bit him and he did not stop. His disciples found it dead and said: Woe is the man whom a lizard bites, woe is the lizard that bites Ben Dosa. (Tos. Ber. 3:20) N o t e a l s o b. T a . 24b: E c h o p r o c l a i m e d , " A l l t h e w o r l d is f e d o n a c c o u n t o f H a n i n a m y s o n , a n d H a n i n a m y s o n subsists o n a w e e k l y b a s k e t o f carobs."

6. Hillel: Leave Israel alone. If they are not prophets, they are sons of prophets. (Tos Pisha 4:13) The Temple-dispute story supplies the n a r r a t i v e setting.

7. Also he [Hillel] saw one skull floating on the face of the water. He said to it, Because you drowned, they drowned you, and at last they that drowned you shall be drowned. (M. Avot 2:6)

60

INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF

TRADITION

8. Death scene: Where is Yohanan? In courtyard. Let him enter. When he entered, he said to them + Prov. 8:21. (y. Ned. 5:6) T h e " m o r a l s a y i n g " f o r t h i s d r a m a t i c s e t t i n g is P r o v . 8 : 2 1 .

9. When Hillel the Elder used to rejoice at the Rejoicing of the Place of the Water drawing, he said thus, If I am here, everyone is here. And if I am not here, who is here? He used to say thus, To the place that I love there my feet lead me. If you will come to my house, I will come to your house + vice versa + Ex. 20:24. (b. Suk. 53a) 10. When Hillel the Elder saw them observing in pride, he said to them, If we are here, who is here? Does he need our praises + Dan. 7:10. And when he saw them behaving properly, he would say, If we are not here, who is here + II Sam. 23:2, Ps. 22:3. (y. Suk. 5:4) 11. What is hateful to you = conversion story. (b. Shab. 30b-31a) 12. For two and a half years, the Houses disputed: It were better for man not to have been created than to have been created. Voted: Better not to have been created; but now that he has been created, let him examine... (b. <Eruv. 13b) Apophthegms, or sayings given a narrative setting, are not all of the same sort. Some come at the end of stories and spell out the moral, e.g. nos. 1,3, and 4. In these instances the saying is not integral to the story; the story certainly has not been invented to supply a setting for the saying. No. 2, by contrast, develops if he does thus into a story. No. 5 is a still clearer instance of the development of a narrative around a brief lemma. Here the contrast man\li%ard vs. li^ard\lianina readily produces the story of how Hanina was praying and a lizard bit him and died. That Hanina did not stop praying adds the lesson: likewise if others do not interrupt their prayer, they may enjoy divine favor. No. 6 depends upon a historical-legal, not moral, setting in the Temple-dispute story. Nos. 9-10 ( = "P'-saying no. 2) stand in a narrative setting. No. 7 is much like no. 5; a drowning-saying will produce a scene, in which Hillel, seeing a skull in the water, talks about drowning. No. 12 is not precisely similar to the others, for the dispute of whether or not it was better for man to have been created >

AGGADIC

TRADITIONS

61

does not depend upon a saying, Better for man that he was createa. Stand­ ing by itself, such a lemma does not appear as an independent saying. It rather is the apodosis of a saying, If a man does so and so—then // would have been better for him if he had not been created. The artificial 'dispute* is not accompanied by arguments; it is merely referred to, with the climactic conclusion, let him examine... A.

"Woe"-Sayings We have one woe-saying: Abba Saul b. Botnit in the name of Abba Joseph b. Hanan: Woe is me because of the House of Hanan. Woe is me because of their whis­ perings... (b. Pes. 57a = b. Ker. 28b)

The pattern is repeated two more times, Woe is me because of...woe is me because of.... Then comes the historical gloss: For they are high priests etc. We also note the lament for Hillel: Woe (HY) the hasid, etc. (Tos. Sot. 13:3) 5. Formulaic Sayings Some sayings are formed out of established, generative formulae, e.g. MRBH/MRBH (M. Avot 2:7), M$MT... BTL...(M. Sot. 9). Another group of formulaic sayings is built around KDY/R'WY: 1. The House of our God is worth (KDY)— a. that the priests should lose for it one immersion (y. Bes. 2:2) b. That one should lose an immersion once a year. (b. Ta. 13a) 2. Hillel is worth (KDY/R'WY)— a. that the Sabbath be profaned on his behalf (b. Yoma 35b) b. that the Shekhinah should rest on him. (b. Sanh. 11a) 3. Worthy that I should divide the sea for them is a. Faith of Abraham b. Faith of Israel (Mekh. Beshallah IV: 58-60) Other sayings, not based on formulae, but apparently cliches, include

62

INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF

TRADITION

and that day was as hard for Israel as the day on which the calf was made; the House of Shammai outnumbered the House of Hillel; they voted and decided (NMNW WGMRW), the wheat grains of Simeon b. Shetah, and the like. C. Aggadic Exegeses Scriptural citations in non-legal pericopae (p. 39) serve three purposes. First are mere references to adorn pericopae, Scriptures fundamentally external to the substance of the passage. Second, inte­ gral to the pericope are exegeses. Finally, proof-texts relate to the narrative but are not the focus of interest. These are as follows: 1. Scriptural

References

1. Prov. 23:25—M. Ta. 23:25—Simeon b. Shetah to Honi. 2. Qoh. 7:12, Is. 26:20 etc (y. Ber. 7:2) Yannai and Simeon b. Shetah.

3. Hab. 2:1, Job. 22:28, Ps. 126:1 (b. Ta. 23a-b) Interpolations in yoni-tractate.

4. Qoh. 10:20, Ex. 22:27, Prov. 6:23, Is. 2:2 (b. B.B. 4a) Dialogue of Baba b. Buta w i t h Herod.

5. Prov. 11:17—applies to Hillel (Lev. R. 34:3) 6. Ex. 28:4, Ex. 9:16, Num. 1:51, Ex. 4:22 (b. Shab. 31a) Hillel and proselyte.

2. Exegeses 1. Shema'iah says: Faith of Abraham is deserving—Gen 15:6 Abtalion says: Faith of Israel—Ex. 4:31 (Mekh. Beshallah IV: 58-60) 2. Exegeses of Ben He He: Deut. 14:26—b. Eruv. 27b Num. 28:2—b. Pes. 96a Ex. 13:13, 12:5—b. Bekh. 12a c

3. Num. 6:26: Hananiah Prefect of the Priests says, Andgiveyou peace in your house.

AGGADIC

TRADITIONS

63

4. Hananiah says, Great is peace for it is weighed against creation + Amos 4:13, Is. 45:7 (Sifre Num. 42) 5. Qoh. 1:15—Ben He He + Hillel Mai. 3:18—Hillel: Extra effort makes all the difference. (b. Hag. 9b) 6. Deut. 4:39, Jer. 2:13 (Mekh. R. Simeon b. Yohai to Ex. 20:5) Gamaliel and Agrippas: He is not jealous of one greater than himself. 7. Deut. 12:2-4 (Sifre Deut. 61) Gamaliel: Do not do like deeds of gentiles. 8. Deut. 21:5 (Sifre Deut. 351) Gamaliel: Two Torahs, one oral. 9. House of Shammai: Heaven made first, then earth + Gen. 1:1. House of Hillel: Earth, then heaven + Gen. 2:4 + Amos 9:6 vs. Is. 66:1. (b. Hag. 12a) 10. Houses: Three groups: One for eternal life, one for eternal shame, and the middle group + Zech. 13:9,1 Sam. 2:6, Ps. 116:1, Dan. 12:2 (Tos. Sanh. 13:3, b. R.H. 16b-17a) 3.

Proof-Texts \. Zech. 8:16—Simeon b. Gamaliel (M. Avot 1:18) 2. Is. 51:16—Simeon b. Gamaliel (y. Ta. 4:2, y. Meg. 3:6) 3. Deut. 33:3—Hillel: Uses crown (Mid. Tan., p. 211) 4. Qoh. 3:4-5—Hillel: Naked, clothed (Tos. Ber. 2:21) 5. Prov. 11:24, Ps. 119:126—Hillel: gather, scatter: re Torah. (Tos. Ber. 6:24) 6. Ex. 20:24—Hillel: Come to my house. (Tos. Suk. 4:3)

64

INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF

TRADITION

7. Dan. 7:10, II Sam. 23:2, Ps. 22:3—Hillel: If we are not here...if we are here... (y. Suk. 5:4) 8. Song 8:7—Hillel and Shebna. (b. Sot. 21a) 9. Ps. 113:5—Hillel: Self-abasement. (Lev. R. 1:5) 4. From Exegesis to Fable No exegesis of Scripture produces a non-legal story about an event or a master. In all moral apophthegmatic pericopae in narrative form, Scriptures are tangential, e.g. apophthegms nos. 9, 10. No. 8, in which Prov. 8:21 replaces a saying, is exceptional, but it does not compare with the equivalent legal-exegetical stories, in which an exegesis is given, then converted into a tale about a named master. i n . SUMMARY OF FORMS AND TYPES

We have isolated and catalogued the following forms and types of pericopae: I. Law 1.

Legal

sayings

a. Standard, dispute, and variations —260 Standard: X says + direct discourse Dispute: X says + direct discourse Y says + direct discourse +/— superscription b. Debate —28 (17 "authentic") X said to them + direct discourse Y [or, they] »

J> »

c. Testimony X testified concerning/that 2.

Legal

— 9

narratives

a. Epistles — 2 Authority + setting + he said to him Write + Address, salutation, content b. Ordinances — 8 At first + historical situation Ordained + authority That + rule c. Chains and lists — 2 X says to + infinitive X + Y decreed + uncleanness + on + object.

S U M M A R Y OF FORMS AND

TYPES

65

d. Precedents — 16 Subject + verb + predicate Generally: simple declarative sentences, little dialogue. e. First-person sayings and stories — 9 "I" + direct discourse, often in narrative setting f. Illustrations and proofs — 16 (Stories pertinent to law — 12) Stories generally told through dialogue g. Exegesis to story — 5 Scripture + exegesis + X would do/did II. Aggadic Traditions 1.

Short

biographical

references

—

12

Simple declarative sentences, no direct discourse 2.

Biographical

and historical

stories

a. Long biographical stories told through dialogue

—

44

— 18

Brief statement of setting + he said to him... he said to him... he did so and he said to him... b. Short biographical stories—told through dialogue c. Short biographical stories—told through narrative Simple declarative sentences.

— 2 — 10

d. Long historical stories-told through dialogue — 4 e. Short historical stories-told through narrative — 6 3.

Sayings

a. "P'-sayings Contain first-person statements or references — b. Sayings not in narrative setting — c. Apophthegms in narrative setting— contrasts — d. Woe-sayings — e. Formulaic sayings

4 23 12 2 3

III. Scriptures 1.

Law

a. References to Scripture b. Exegeses c. Proof-texts

— 8 — 35 — 4

NEUSNER, The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70, III

5

66

INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF

2.

TRADITION

Aggadah

a. References to Scripture b. Exegeses c. Proof-texts

— 6 — 10 — 9

Through 'types' of traditions we mean to categorize and catalogue the varieties of the materials before us. These come in two groups, legal and non-legal. The former are fully catalogued above, pp. 5-43. While the forms vary, the type—legal tradition—uniformly applies throughout. The non-legal types now require somewhat more detailed differentiation. One model for such classification is supplied by H. Gunkel, Legends of Genesis (repr. N.Y., 1964), pp. 13-36, who finds the following kinds of legends: etiological, ethnological, etymological, ceremonial, genealogical. Other sorts of Gattungen are poetry of various kinds, love-songs, wisdom-sayings, litanies, myths, sagas, and the like. Except for wisdom-sayings, none of these types applies to, or may be found in, the traditions before us. It would lead us far afield to specu­ late on whether we have myth', 'legend' or other genres of literature; the application of such terms raises questions not directly pertinent to our inquiry. Our catalogue of categories in a measure repeats items already listed in the non-legal forms: c

1. Moral Stories and Sayings 1. Against pride —Sifre Num. 22 (Simeon the Just) 2. Giving to Temple —b. B.B. 133b (Yosi and son) 3. Acquiring the world to come —Gen. R. 65:27 (Yosi's nephew) 4. Torah brings honor —y. Ber. 7:2 (Simeon b. Shetah and Yannai) 5. Honesty with gentiles —y. B.M. 2:5 (Simeon b. Shetah) 6. Descendants of gentiles who do the work of Aaron come to peace —b. Yoma 71b 7. Do not trust yourself until death —b. Ber. 29a (Yohanan the High Priest) 8. Companionship or death —b. Ta. 23b (Abba Hilqiah) 9. Holy spirit comes only to a worthy genera­ tion —Tos. Sot. 13:3 (Hillel) 10. Good man does not fear bad news —y. Ber. 9:3 (Hillel)

S U M M A R Y OF FORMS A N D

67

TYPES

11. Poor and rich must study Torah —b. Yoma 35b (Hillel, Eleazar) 12. According to painstaking is reward —ARN Chap. 12 (Hillel) 13. It is a misvah to bathe —Lev. R. 34:3 (Hillel) 14. Patience is better than impatience —b. Shab. 30b-31a (Hillel, Shammai) 15. Honor husband —b. Ned. 66b (Baba b. Buta) 16. Be circumspect —b. B.B. 4a (Baba b. Buta) Moral sayings are listed above, p. 56-59; apophthegms, p. 59-60. 2. Heavenly messages 1. Simeon the Just + Yohanan the High Priest —b. Sot. 33a heard decree annulled, young men victorious 2. Echo quotes Song 8:7—Hillel and Shebna —b. Sot. 21a 3. Echo praises Hillel —Tos. Sot. 13:3 4. Echo chooses Hillelites —b. Eruv. 13b (N.B. Tos. Nez. 1:1—Hillelites accept testimony of an echo) c

3. Philosophical stories 1. Is there reward and punishment (Antigonus of Sokho) 4. Biographical stories^ including miracles 1. Simeon the Just predicted death 2. Alexander saw visage of Simeon and con­ quered 3. Healing of Gamaliel's son by Hanina through prayer 4. Simeon b. Gamaliel juggled 5. Song 1. Woe is me

—ARN Chap. 5

—y. Yoma 5:2 —Lev. R. 13:5 —b. Ber. 34b (M. Ber. 5:5) —Tos. Suk. 4:4

—b. Pes. 57a

6. Biographical references Listed above, pp. 45-47 7. Historical stories and sayings 1. Kutaeans vanquished by Simeon the Just 2. Founding of Temple of Onias

—b. Yoma 69a —b. Men. 109b

68

INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF

TRADITION

3. Reproach against grapeclusters after the Yosi's 4. Jesus admired whore 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

—Tos. B.Q. 8:13 —b. Sot. 47a = b. Sanh. 107b Rained in days of Simeon b. Shetah —Sifra Behuqotai 1:1 Honi made rain —M. Ta. 3:8 Simeon b. Shetah and the witches —y. Hag. 2:2 End of jurisdiction in property litigation in —y. Sanh. 1:1 days of Simeon b. Shetah Yannai breaks with the Pharisees —b. Sanh. 19a-b Man crushed in Temple in days of Hillel —b. Pes. 64b Origin of disputes —Tos. Hag. 2:9 Hillel laid hands on whole offering —Tos. Hag. 2:11 Sword in schoolhouse —b. Shab. 17a

8. Non-legal historical

records and lists

1. Who prepared the red heifer—Simeon the —M. Par. 3:5 Just, etc. 2. Changes in Temple cult at death of Simeon —Tos. Sot. 13:7 the Just iv.

SOME COMPARISONS

We first compare the forms and types of Pharisaic-rabbinic pericopae with those of the first important rabbinic figure after 70, Yohanan b. Zakkai. Among Yohanan's traditions we find legal sayings in standard form, debates, epistles, ordinances, precedents, illustrations, proofs, and references to legal rulings, short biographical references, long biographical references told through dialogue, sayings both in a nar­ rative setting and otherwise, legal and aggadic exegeses, and of course a wide range of proof-texts and Scriptural references is scattered through his pericopae. Almost the entire repertoire of types and forms of Pharisaic-rabbinic pericopae recurs with reference to Yohanan b. Zakkai. The legal traditions occur primarily not in the standard form; in this respect, Yohanan appears more like the pre-70 masters than the post-70 ones, e.g. Eliezer and Joshua, whose legal sayings come chiefly in standard form. But from a literary and formal perspective, Yohanan marks no break whatever in the formation of traditions. It will now be instructive to compare briefly and in a general way both the types of rabbinic traditions about pre-70 Pharisees, and the forms in which those traditions are transmitted, with those of other groups in ancient Judaism. We shall see that the forms and types of rabbinic

SOME

COMPARISONS

69

traditions about the Pharisees bear slight relationship to the forms and types of traditions shaped by, or told about, other groups and masters in the period of which the rabbis speak. The first body of literature for comparison of forms and types is the Hebrew Scriptures. Here we find practically nothing in common. No important type of tradition, except for law and moral sayings, and no significant Pharisaic-rabbinic form, without exception, is to be discerned in the whole Tanakh. While Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphical writers imitate the style and forms of biblical history, psalms, and visions, make use of the names of biblical authorities in assigning authorship to their books, and sometimes try to represent their works as direct continuations of biblical writings, the rabbinic tradi­ tions about the Pharisees practically ignore all forms and types of He­ brew Scriptures. Excluding the reference to Scriptures as proof texts and the like—and these are remarkably few, given the range of law and lore of the Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition—we may say that the Hebrew Bible played no central role in shaping the literary forms and in the formulation of the agenda of types of materials before us. A convenient catalogue of the types of pericopae in biblical literature is supplied by Aage Bentzen, Introduction to the Old Testament (Copen­ hagen, 1957 ) I, pp. 102-251. Apart from the song quoted by Abba Hanan, I discern no Pharisaic pericope one might call poetry; certainly nothing exhibits the standard traits of biblical poetry, such as parallelismus membrorum (Bentzen, p. 119); nor do we find a disciplined rhythmic system applying to a complete pericope. Bentzen lists the following kinds of poetry in biblical literature, none of which has a Pharisaic-rabbinic parallel: workers' songs; mocking, drinking, and watchman's songs; wedding poetry; funeral songs (without Pharisaic equivalent, excluding the HY-sayings about Hillel and Samuel the Small, which do not compare to the dirges of Jer. 9:16, Amos 5:2, II Sam. 1:17ff., and other examples of biblical laments); war poetry; benedic­ tions and curses spoken by patriarchs, patriarchal words (Hillel's citation of Proverbs 8:21 hardly compares); psalms, hymns, thanks­ giving odes, lamentations, and other religious poetry, whether collec­ tive or individual, cultic or synagogual. In the category of Wisdom literature, we find nothing similar to popular proverbs, though later rabbinic literature is full of them. We do find wisdom-sentences. This is one of two important types of biblical literature that recur in rabbinic traditions about the Phari­ sees. But the form of the biblical wisdom-sentences does not seem to 3

70

INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF

TRADITION

have influenced that of the rabbinical moral sayings as it did Ben Sira's and the Gospels'. For example, Proverbs contains no consistent, itemized attributions ("Solomon says...") to authorities such as stand behind every moral saying before us in Pharisaic-rabbinic literature. The monotonous, but artful contrasts of Proverbs, e.g. a wise son makes a gladfather, but a foolish son is a sorrow to his mother (Prov. 10:1) hardly characterize Pharisaic sayings listed above. In general there we find the reversal of a statement, i.e. gather vs scatter, as in a legal con­ dition, which is not like the parallels of Proverbs. The redactional techniques are quite different, not only because of the inclusion of named masters, but also because of the construction in brief pericopae, by groups of three, something with no antecedent in Proverbs, where the pericopae are long and highly developed. The proverbial sentence, with its parallel sections, its rhythms, and its formal unity by and large is not replicated in the rabbinic-Pharisaic moral sayings, which tend to ignore parallelism, to exhibit no rhythmscheme, and to be discrete. As to the other sorts of wisdom literature, e.g. riddles, parables, fables of animals or trees, allegories, we find noth­ ing comparable in the materials before us. Bentzen alludes to priestly oracles, benedictions and curses, sermons and speeches of retirement, prophetic oracles and revelations, raptures, visions, audi­ tions, and reports of supernatural experiences, speeches of reproach and admonitions. None of these types of literature has a close equiv­ alent in the Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition. Biblical prose is divided by Eissfeldt (Bentzen, p. 203) into three headings: speeches, documents, and narratives. Bentzen supplies a "more differentiated register" (p. 203). As to speeches outside of the framework of narratives, we have nothing equivalent to substantial biblical speeches. Perhaps the closest is R. Yohanan's recreation of Yohanan the High Priest's speech to the Jews with reference to the tithes, "Come, my children and I shall teach you." Yet that "speech" is artificially constructed out of the agenda of the tithing laws set forth in M. M.S. 5:15; the listeners are ignored; without the rhetorical prelude, it is a set of laws. It hardly exhibits significant rhetorical interest. We find no Pharisaic-rabbinic equivalent to political speeches, sermons, and the like. As to documents, we have no copies of specific contracts or covenants, but we do have models of contracts of marriage, divorce, and the like—documents referred to, but not spelled out, in Deut. 24:1, Is. 50:1, and Jer. 3:8. For some biblical catalogues, e.g. genealogies, lists of officials,

SOME

COMPARISONS

71

heroes, towns, we have approximate equivalents, e.g. the reference of Joshua b. Hananiah to the marriages of certain Temple officials, the allusions to offices and their holders by Hananiah Prefect of the Priests, and of course the lists of legal rulings. We have two epistles, not like the biblical ones in form, to be sure. The "artificial letter" has no parallel in the Pharisaic-rabbinic literature. Etiological legends about origins of local phenomena are unavailable in the materials before us. Sanctuary legends obviously will be absent, but so too are legends describing the origins of usages in daily life and in the cult, unless one might want to regard the stories of masters' legal rulings and decrees as efforts to describe such 'beginnings.' The Simeon the Just-stories may be meant to account for the absence of cultic miracles. It seems to me the purpose of stories such as Hillel and the Alexan­ drians' Ketuvah is not to tell how it comes about that we interpret the language of documents of ordinary folk. The purpose rather is to justify that procedure by reference to Hillel's authority. We have remarkably few devotional legends (Bentzen, p. 327), though the materials about Hanina b. Dosa's praying, eating, and other habits, Honi the Circler's famous prayers, and Abba Hilqiah's gestures and prayers, may be compared to biblical 'stories with religious tendency and edifying form,' about holy persons. Legends of the prophets may be compared as a type to biographical narratives about rabbis, but only in a general way. The forms are entirely unrelated. One cannot maintain that legends of Samuel, e.g. I Sam. 7:2-8:22, 10:17-27, and the like, have shaped the ways in which stories about any Pharisaic master were told. On the contrary, we have no Pharisaic-rabbinic equivalent to such sustained narratives. The longer biographical narra­ tives are hardly the same as hero-legends. The more appropriate equiva­ lent to biblical hero-legends would be the brief apophthegms in narra­ tive settings, where things Hillel saw and said are set forth as models for behavior. But the biblical stories, which show heroes vis a vis the great events of history or in the process of working great wonders, or relate their religious and spiritual life, e.g. Elijah at Horeb, have no rabbinic-Pharisaic equivalent. Nor do we find fairy tales. If by myth one means a legend dealing with divine persons, then the Phari­ saic tradition before us contains no myth; indeed, the absence of epiphanies is accounted for ("generation unworthy"). Two important categories remain: history-narrative and law. As to the former, we have seen a number of interesting examples of historical narratives, two of them possibly based upon Aramaic materials used

72

INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF

TRADITION

by Josephus, the Simeon b. Shetah tales about the banquet of Yannai and the trial of Yannai's servant. But the kind of history preserved in biblical literature, in which events are described in full and with sustained interest, and stories are put into relationship with other episodes to tell a long story—this history is not available in the rab­ binic traditions about the Pharisees. At best we find a few brief historical and biographical references, and some, somewhat longer, narratives of episodes, always complete in themselves, and never related to a larger effort at the interpretation of the meaning and direction of history. In the sense that biblical history concentrates on larger questions, we may say that Pharisaic-rabbinic literature contains no history, only some historical stories. We find, moreover, nothing like the books of Ruth, Esther, and similar historical stories; they differ both as to length, and in their interest in personality and charac­ ter. Pharisaic rabbis never have motives or feelings. They say things and do things, but they do not emerge as individuals, carefully differentiated from other rabbis. They are not given inner thoughts or hopes, have no complicated schemes. They are one-dimensional, flat, frontal, and nearly all cut of the same model. The contrasts between Hillel and Shammai do not much change the picture. They are made merely to embody and typify virtues or vices. Biblical and Pharisaic-rabbinic traditions come together in the legal interests characteristic of both literatures, though not in equivalent proportions. Since Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition based itself upon bib­ lical law, it is astonishing that we find few literary traits or forms in common. Let us briefly compare laws on the same subject, the Sab­ bath, a themp that occurs in other legal materials we shall examine below. Biblical Sabbath laws occur in several ways, e.g. as stories, the story of the manna, Ex. 16:22-30, in which the law is given by Moses, primarily in imperatives: bake... boil...lay by...eat it today...; Ex. 20:8, Deut. 5:12-15, general rules about resting, with the reason for the law; Ex. 31:12-17,34:21, the same. By contrast, the Pharisaic-rabbinictradition is highly detailed and specific, phrased in descriptive parti­ ciples of continuous action, in the present tense: they do not soak, they do not place, they do not sell. One never finds the imperative. Biblical laws come in three forms: cases and hypotheses, beginning if or when; imperative or categorical commandments; and mixed forms. For the Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition, even where if or when is called for, it normally does not occur, e.g. an unclean seah of Terumah fell into a hundred seahs of clean lacks the required if. The hypothetical-law style,

SOME

COMPARISONS

73

introduced by means of participles, does of course predominate in the Pharisaic-rabbinic materials. The protasis of Lev. 20:11 The man who lies with his father's wife has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall be put to death is formally not distant from such legal sayings as rely on present participles. Much more is to be said in the comparison of biblical and rabbinic forms and types. These brief observations suffice to make clear, first, that the forms of the Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition differ from the forms of biblical literature even where the same types of material are under discussion; and, second, that the rabbinic traditions about the Phari­ sees have remarkably few types of materials in common with biblical literature. R. H. Charles (The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament [Oxford, 1913]) categorizes the predominant types of materials as follows: 1. Long historical books: I Esdras, I-III Maccabees, Letter of Aristeas 2. Historical books with a moral or legal purpose: Tobit, Judith, Jubilees 3. Apocalypses: I-II Enoch, II-III Baruch, IV Ezra, Testaments of Twelve Pa­ triarchs, Sibylline Oracles, Assumption of Moses, II Esdras 4. Additions to, and completions of, canonical books: I Baruch, Epistle of Jeremy, Prayer of Manasses, Prayer of Azariah, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Esther, Books of Adam and Eve, Martyrdom of Isaiah, etc. 5. Psalms: Psalms of Solomon 6. Wisdom Literature: Ben Sira, Wisdom of Solomon, IV Maccabees, Story of Ahikar. Charles's classifications do not much advance our inquiry. They per­ tain to whole books and are rather crude. They pay little attention to the genres or types of smaller units of tradition, no attention at all to forms. The fact is that almost nothing of a form-critical nature has been attempted with Pseudepigrapha. Nonetheless, we may observe that of these types of books, only the last is pertinent to our compari­ sons of types and forms. The rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees before 70 contain no types of pericopae congruent even to the broad categories listed by Charles, except for no. 6, let alone whole books or extended discussions comparable to any one of them. As to wisdom literature, IV Macca-

74

INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF

TRADITION

bees is a philosophical treatise on inspired reason, and nothing like it occurs in the Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition. The story of Ahikar "is a tale of ingratitude and its just judgment, much in the same ethical manner as Tobit is a tale of a grateful ghost..." (p. 715). It contains parallels to Proverbs, Ben Sira, Psalms, Daniel, etc. Following Syriac version A, we may observe that the extensive narrative setting for wisdom-sentences is without parallel in the Pharisaic-rabbinic tradi­ tion. At best we find a few sentences setting the stage for a saying, but nothing equivalent to the long, personal, first-person setting of Ahikar. The direct address of the wise sayings, e.g., "My son, lift not up thy eyes..." has no parallel, for the moral sayings we have examined are not in direct address to a hypothetical listener (Hillel said, "My son...") and generally do not use the imperative. The "hearer" is always anonymous. The Wisdom of Solomon, unlike M. Avot 1:1-18, is not merely a random stringing together of wise sayings, but a sustained essay composed of such sayings. It attends to philosophical and theological questions that lie far beyond the ken of the Pharisaic-rabbinic sayings. The theme of the Pharisaic sayings is generally practical: appropriate conduct for disciples, masters, judges. The theme of the Wisdom of Solomon is theological and philo­ sophical, i.e., the remorse of the ungodly at judgment, the bliss of the righteous and miserable fate of the ungodly, the hypostatization of wisdom, her attributes and value, the work of wisdom in history from Adam to Moses, and the like. The everyday, practical interest of the moral sayings noted above hardly recurs. Ben Sira in type and form stands closer to Job, Proverbs, Qohelet, and the Wisdom of Solomon than to the Pharisaic-rabbinic moral sayings. As we observed, the Pharisaic masters' wise sayings have little in common with Prov­ erbs. Ben Sira, by contrast, in style and spirit is a close continuator. The careful parallel of the parts of a saying, e.g. Be not a dog in thy house j rebuking and fearful in thy works, is not like the contrasting ele­ ments of the Pharisaic saying, which, as I said, tend simply to reverse the antecedent saying as in a legal contract: if all scatter, you gather, and if all gather, you scatter. While Ben Sira is quoted in rabbinic literature, the form of the sayings of Ben Sira exerted no more influ­ ence on Pharisaic sayings than did that of Proverbs. A substantial sample of Qumran scriptures, sufficient for our rapid survey of forms and types of ancient Jewish literature, derives from A. Dupont-Sommer, The Essene Writings from Qumran (Cleveland and N.Y., 1967, translated by Geza Vermes). Dupont-Sommer assembles

SOME

COMPARISONS

75

all the non-biblical scrolls and scroll fragments published up to 1960. For the Hebrew texts, I consulted A.M. Haberman, Megillot Midbar Yehudah (Jerusalem, 1959); Yigael Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness (Oxford, 1962, translated by Batya and Chaim Rabin); Y&'&qov L,icht,MegillatHahodayot( Jerusalem, 1957); and Chaim Rabin, The Zadokite Documents. L The Admonition. II. The Laws (Oxford, 1958 ). I also reviewed the following: Frank Moore Cross, Jr., The Ancient Library of Qumran (N.Y., 1961); J . T. Milik, Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness ofJudaea (London, 1959); Millar Burrows, The Dead Sea Scrolls (N.Y., 1955) and More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls (N.Y., 1958); P. Wernberg- Moller, The Manual ojDiscipline (Leiden, 1957); J . van der Ploeg, Le rouleau de la guerre (Leiden, 1959); Menahem Mansoor, The Thanksgiving Hymns (Leiden, 1961); Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave I A Commentary (Rome, 1966); James A. Sanders, The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll (Ithaca, 1967); C. Rabin and Y. Yadin, assisted by J . Licht, eds., Essays on the Dead Sea Scrolls in Memory of E. L. Sukenik (Jerusalem, 1961, in Hebrew), especially C. Rabin, "The Literary Structure of the War Scroll," pp. 31-48, in Hebrew; and Lou H. Silberman, "Unriddling the Riddle. A Study in the Structure and Language of the Habakkuk Pesher," Revue de Qumran 11, 1961, pp. 323-364. Only the last two items pertain directly to the literary analysis of the Scrolls. Rabin observes that the War Scroll is a collection of three books, the book of the war, the book of God's time, and the book of victory. The author of the third amplifies the preceding two books and quotes from them. Silberman treats the nature of early Jewish exegesis and its methods, the meaning of P§R, the Petirah, dream interpretation and the exegesis of the Habakkuk Pesher, and then supplies extensive notes on the Habakkuk Pesher (pp. 335ff.). Our interest is in categorizing by type the larger units of the Qum­ ran writings and to compare, where pertinent, the forms of materials relevant to the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees. These naturally are chiefly in the legal type of pericopae: 2

9

1.

Scroll

of the Rule ( M a n u a l o f

Discipline):

N o formal comparison t o a tractate o r collection; n o authorities men­ t i o n e d ; c o n c e n t r a t e s o n d o c t r i n e , n o t l a w : t h e t w o spirits a n d t h e i r s t r u g g l e . R u l e o f t h e c o m m u n i t y has n o Pharisaic e q u i v a l e n t , in s u b ­ stance o r in f o r m . T h e penal c o d e specifies p u n i s h m e n t s , w h i l e w e find n o specification o f penalties in P h a r i s a i c - r a b b i n i c legal p e r i c o p a e , m e r e l y guilty\not guilty. S i m i l a r l y , w e find n o d e s c r i p t i o n o f Pharisaic i n s t i t u t i o n s s i m i l a r t o t h e 'council o f t h e c o m m u n i t y . '

INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF

TRADITION

2. Damascus Document: Rabin divides into "admonition" and "laws." T h e f o r m e r has n o equi­ valent. The laws concern the oath, witnesses, the o r d e r of judges, w a t e r p u r i f i c a t i o n , t h e S a b b a t h , t h e o v e r s e e r , etc. T h e s t y l e is u n l i k e t h a t o f Pharisaic purification and Sabbath laws r e v i e w e d a b o v e . T h e imperative is u s e d t h r o u g h o u t , e.g.: >L Y T H R r a t h e r t h a n L> Y T H R . T h e S a b b a t h l a w s l i k e w i s e u s e i m p e r a t i v e s t h r o u g h o u t , as in t h e b i b l i c a l l a w s . T h e l a w a g a i n s t e m p l o y i n g gentiles o c c u r s as f o l l o w s : >L Y $ L H >T B N H N K R L ' S W T >T H P S W B Y W M H $ B T (XI:25) T h e similar Pharisaic rule concerns selling etc.: The House o f Shammai say: >YN M W K R Y N L N K R Y W ' Y N T W ' N Y N M G B Y H Y N
<MW W ' Y N

— t h a t is, d e s c r i p t i v e , p r e s e n t tense p a r t i c i p l e s o f c o n t i n u o u s a c t i o n , v s . i m p e r a t i v e s , as in biblical l a w s . Similarly, the p r o h i b i t i o n o f selling animals that w i l l be used f o r transgression: >L Y M K R >Y§ B H M H W < W P T H W R Y M L G W Y M B < B W R L> Y Z B H W M ( X I I : 4 7 ) House of Shammai say: L> Y M K R L W [ L G W Y B>RS W L Y S R ' L B H W S H L ' R S , f r o m preceding] PRH H H W R $ T B§BY Y K L L S H T H . M W K R L W P R W T > P Y L W B§; a d d i n g >Y§ w h e r e n o subject i s specified in M . S h e v . ; B ' B W R in p l a c e o f M P N Y ; a n d t h e specification o f t h e r e a s o n f o r t h e r u l e , n o r m a l l y a b s e n t in P h a r i s a i c - r a b b i n i c r u l e s . A s always, authorities are n o t named by the non-Pharisaic law. That the s u b s t a n c e o f t h e l a w s o f t e n differs f r o m e q u i v a l e n t P h a r i s a i c - r a b b i n i c r u l i n g s is o f n o c o n s e q u e n c e f o r o u r i n q u i r y . F o r u s t h e s i m p l e f o r m a l differences in t h e s a m e t y p e o f t r a d i t i o n s a r e o f c e n t r a l i n t e r e s t .

3. The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness: N o e q u i v a l e n t in t y p e o f f o r m . S R K d o e s n o t o c c u r in o u r Pharisaicrabbinic traditions.

4. The Hymn Scroll: N o e q u i v a l e n t in t y p e o r f o r m ; n o t h i n g s i m i l a r t o " I " p r a y e r s a n d m e d i t a ­ tions occurs in o u r materials.

5. Biblical commentaries: P $ R d o e s n o t o c c u r in o u r m a t e r i a l s , a n d n o exegesis o r S c r i p t u r a l citation c o n t a i n s an e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e " h i d d e n significance, a r e v e l a t i o n o f t h e secrets c o n c e a l e d in t h e d i v i n e b o o k s , w h i c h o n l y i n s p i r e d c o m m e n t a t o r s , p r o p h e t s , o r initiates w e r e a b l e t o d i s c o v e r " ( D u p o n t - S o m m e r , p. 2 5 5 ) . S o w h i l e t h e t y p e is r o u g h l y s i m i l a r , t h e f o r m s a r e u n r e l a t e d . T h e f o r m i s : citation of text—then P$R of this is that... o r . . . of this word concerns—

SOME

COMPARISONS

77

completely unlike the forms o f Pharisaic-rabbinic Midrash. M o r e o v e r , w h i l e t h e Q u m r a n c o m m e n t a r i e s a r e s u s t a i n e d a n d o r g a n i z e d b y biblical books, w e cannot reconstruct an equivalent Pharisaic-rabbinic c o m m e n ­ t a r y o n a s i n g l e c h a p t e r , e v e n D e u t . 1 5 , let a l o n e o n a w h o l e b o o k . T h e S c r i p t u r a l c o m m e n t s b e f o r e us a r e all e p i s o d i c a n d d i s c r e t e , n o t s u s t a i n e d . C o m m e n t s o n S c r i p t u r e s in H a b a k k u k , M i c a h , Z e p h a n i a h , P s a l m s ,

Ho-

sea, a n d N a h u m a r e f e w a n d f a r - b e t w e e n . O n l y t h e o v e r a l l t y p e is c o m m o n t o t h e t w o g r o u p s — a s t o all sects in a n c i e n t J u d a i s m , f o r n o n e fails t o r e f e r t o S c r i p t u r e s . B u t t h e differentiated t y p e s , all t h e m o r e s o f o r m s , s i m p l y d o n o t c o r r e s p o n d t o o n e a n o t h e r . N o r d o Q u m r a n materials summarized by D u p o n t - S o m m e r include com­ ments o n Pentateuchal law-codes. A s t o Genesis, the stories o f L a m e c h , E n o c h , a n d A b r a h a m elicit n o P h a r i s a i c - r a b b i n i c c o m m e n t s at all. B y c o n t r a s t , J u b i l e e s a n d t h e G e n e s i s A p o c r y p h o n e x h i b i t i m p o r t a n t affini­ ties; D u p o n t - S o m m e r observes, " . . . the t w o stories are often closely parallel, e v e n t o the point o f using the same t e r m s " (p. 2 8 1 ) . T h e "law concerning the Sabbatical year" ( D u p o n t - S o m m e r , p. 3 0 8 - 9 ) h a s n o t h i n g in c o m m o n w i t h Hillel's c o m m e n t o n D e u t . 1 5 : 1 - 3 . N o r a r e t h e r e e q u i v a l e n t s in t h e P h a r i s a i c - r a b b i n i c c o r p u s t o t h e A p o c a l y p s e o f Pseudo-Daniel, Prayer of Nabonidus, B o o k o f Mysteries, Angelic Litur­ g y , p r a y e r f o r t h e Feast o f W e e k s , a n d o t h e r f r a g m e n t s s u m m a r i z e d b y D u p o n t - S o m m e r (pp. 320ff.).

The remarkable thing is the independence of the sects from one another. While Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphic writings and the Qumran materials exhibit many of the same types (fragments of the former are found among the latter), the Pharisaic-rabbinic pericopae scarcely correspond to either in form or type. The most striking formal difference is the persistent attribution to living, immediate authorities, of the bulk of Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition, and the consistent failure of the Qumranian writers to do the same. We furthermore find a great deal of dialogue in the former, very little in the latter. The anonymous superscriptions of the latter are very brief. While Pharisaicrabbinic biographical and historical stories are told openly and explic­ itly, the equivalent materials, e.g. about the Teacher of Righteousness or relations to Maccabean rulers, are told indirectly, through hints and mysterious allusions, more like the historiography of Daniel than of Josephus. Pharisaic-rabbinic traditions contain few, if any, parables; no pre­ dictions of the future; no psalms, horoscopes, prayers (except for Honi's for rain, which hardly compares), and related liturgies; no references to angels, except Gabriel in the Yannai-trial conclusion; few allusions to the resurrection of the dead, the last days, the end of time, and other important eschatological issues. While Qumranian, Apocryphal, and Pseudepigraphic writers per­ sistently attempt to imitate biblical literary types and forms, the Phari-

78

INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF

TRADITION

saic-rabbinic writers actually ignore most of those types and all of those forms. In formulating laws, for example, the other groups rely primarily on imperatives, while Pharisaic-rabbinic laws seldom use the imperative for laws; it is chiefly in M. Avot 1:1-18 that we find the imperative, in moral sayings. To be sure, the three-things redactional formula occurs, e.g. in Ben Sira 25:1, but that is not a very important shared trait. The modes of midrash characteristic of the two groups have little in common, either in relationship to specific Scriptures or in the construction of whole collections of exegeses, of which, for the Pharisees, we have none. Pharisaic-rabbinic traditions exhibit little interest in philosophical questions, e.g. why is there sin and misery in the world? They present no comprehensive historical vision and relate no divine plan for the world. They tell stories, but not history; provide moral sayings, but no set of moral generalizations; offer de­ scriptions of how things are done, but no commands. The social and theological agenda of the one group has virtually nothing to do with that of the other, and this is reflected in the literary epiphenomena we have examined. The work of comparing forms and types of Pharisaic-rabbinic pericopae with those concerning Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels is made possible by Rudolf Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (Ox­ ford, 1963, translated by John Marsh). (I do not mean to neglect Martin Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel [N.Y., 1935, translated by Bertram Lee Woolf], but Dibelius's forms—sermons, paradigms, tales, legends—are too general for our purposes.) We follow Bultmann item by item. Some of the types of pericopae Bultmann sets forth do corre­ spond to the types found here, so the comparison is greatly facilitated. He distinguishes between sayings and stories, just as seemed appropri­ ate above. Included among sayings are units setting sayings of Jesus in a brief narrative context, which Bultmann calls apophthegms. Other sayings are "not in a particular framework." Conflict-sayings, e.g. Mark 3:1-6, Luke 13:10-17, are similar in type to legal debates, but generally do not follow the debate-form. The conflict-sayings develop the setting in great detail, and while the exchange of legal or theological principles takes place much as in the Pharisaic debate-form, the narrative framework is much more care­ fully worked out, so that the two forms do not closely compare to one another. Jesus gets both the first and the last lemma; the opposition is allowed only a single argument, then is overwhelmed. No effort is made to balance the arguments of the two parties. Moreover, the

SOME

COMPARISONS

79

Pharisaic-rabbinic debates only occasionally make use of proof-texts; these then are carefully balanced. Mark 12:18-27 is a good example of the formal differences. The Sadducees ask about an absurd case. Jesus answers that the case is pertinent. In the Pharisaic-rabbinic collections we should have characterized this as an "inauthentic" debate. We may conclude that the type is common to both traditions, but the forms tend to be separate in each. An important exception is Mark 10:2-10, on divorce. Jesus here is tested by the Pharisees. The narrative introduction is appropriately brief: the Pharisees came up and asked, Is it lawful...He answered them... They said... But Jesus said to them..., then a long speech. The argument rests on the assumption common to both parties that Scriptural rules do apply: one may write a certificate of divorce and put her away. Jesus is then constrained to explain the agreed-upon principle, and this he does through further Scriptural exegesis. For­ mally, the dispute differs in no significant respect from a standard Houses-debate. Here, therefore, the type and the form seem be identi­ cal in both traditions. It is noteworthy, therefore, that Bultmann re­ marks about the artificiality of the pericope, though his reasons are different from those we have adduced. He observes that the counterquestion is in no sense a counter-argument, and the Scriptural refer­ ence does not really answer the opponents, but is subject to their criticism (p. 27). But this is already familiar to us, for we in general expect the second party to the debate to accept the premises of the first, then to build a case upon the shared premises. Naturally, there­ fore, the Scriptures will be cited in common, then interpreted dif­ ferently. Other biographical apophthegms include Mark 9:34-40 and Luke 5:1-6. The former supplies a brief narrative setting for two sayings, first, to be first, one must be last; second, receiving children is the same as receiving Jesus, and receiving Jesus is receiving him who sent Jesus. The latter is the sort of secondary development we have observed, in which a condition will be reversed or fully spelled out. The sayings "could have circulated without any framework," and this is not infrequently the case with the Pharisaic-rabbinic apophthegmatic sayings as well. Bultmann holds (p. 30) that Luke 11:27-8, the blessing of Mary, follows a formula, blessed be the breasts..., blessed is the hour..., and the like; if so we have a formulaic saying similar to the wor thy-s&ymgs listed above (p. 61).

80

INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF

TRADITION

We hardly need to review all the pericopae analyzed by Bultmann to affirm that common to the Synoptic Gospels and the Pharisaicrabbinic tradition is the development of a saying into a biographical apophthegm, in which the saying is given a fully articulated narra­ tive setting. The only noteworthy difference is that the phenomenon is less common in the Pharisaic materials than in the Synoptic Gospels. But the history of the Synoptic apophthegms is difficult to compare to that of the Pharisaic ones. Bultmann assigns the starting-point of a controversy-dialogue to "some action or attitude which is seized on by the opponent and used in an attack by accusation or by question." The Pharisaic debate-form is not closely equivalent. Sometimes, to be sure, it relies upon a precedent held in common (e.g. Yohanan HaHorani's Sukkah), but, more commonly, it begins not in a particular action or saying, but rather in the alleged agreement of both sides on a particular principle ("Do you not agree..."). As we observed, however, on both sides the debate-situation is imaginary, and the Pharisaic debate-form may be described, just as Bultmann says, as "constructions giving lively expression to some idea," though not "in a concrete event." In general the "event" is merely "they said to them." In what life-situation do the Pharisaic-rabbinic debates begin? The answer must be, in later schools' analyses of the reasons to be assigned to the Houses for their opinions and in the effort to examine and spell out the underlying principles at issue. The concentration upon reasons, to the near-exclusion of the "historical" setting more common­ ly supplied in the Synoptic Gospels, may be accounted for by the quite different life-situation in which the debate-pericopae were shaped. Unfortunately, Bultmann's catalogue of rabbinic controversy and scholastic dialogues (p. 42) treats both sorts of materials together. The cited examples primarily are dialogues between masters and disciples, e.g. Hillel and the bath. But these have nothing to do with debates. I do not find among Bultmann's ten rabbinic examples a single debate. He has been misled by combining debates with scho­ lastic dialogues, which are in both form and type entirely separate, and therefore has not recognized the more appropriate equivalents. His conclusion is sound, however: one does find somewhat similar kinds of arguments among the rabbinic materials and in the Synoptic controversy dialogues. Likewise, Bultmann's analysis of Scriptural quotations in "rabbini­ cal discussion" (Marsh's bad translation of Rabbinendisput, Die Ge-

SOME

COMPARISONS

81

schichte der synoptischen Tradition [Gottingen, 1967, ed.], p. 47) ignores appropriate, comparable materials and concentrates on inappropriate ones. Bultmann alleges that "the origin of this rabbinic style is to be found not only in the discussion of the schools...It is also mani­ festly influenced by the oriental way of talking and discussing and by the primitive art forms such as the fairy-tale has preserved and developed." We may observe that that "oriental way" seems not to have made much impression on the biblical, Qumranian, Apocryphal, and Pseudepigraphic writers. Bultmann observes that the decisive saying in controversy dialogues would go back to Jesus, if anything there does. On the Pharisaic side we may reliably conclude that all debate-materials depend upon antecedent dispute-pericopae (except for the aggadic ones, which are inconsequential). But whether the disputes themselves historically derive from the Houses is not a simple question (Chapter Twenty). A further difference is in the development of debates or controversy-dialogues. Bultmann observes (p. 51) that there is a tendency to develop materials in the form of controversydialogues. It seems to me that tendency is not pronounced in the Pharisaic-rabbinic pericopae, which produce disproportionately few debates out of the substantial dispute-materials available for that purpose. As to scholastic dialogues, in which someone asks the master for information and he replies, we have only a few equivalents. Gamaliel (or Yohanan b. Zakkai) and Agenitos is one; and the attribution is not firm. I find no other similar stories, for the testing ofHillel\Shammaimaterials are not of the same order; still if the b. Shab. 30b-31a pericopae began in some sort of antecedent, separate accounts of Hillel and the proselyte ("Master, tell me the whole Torah while standing on one foot"), then those antecedent units would be comparable. The larger corpus of scholastic dialogues (even among those cited by Bultmann) belong to Gamaliel II, Joshua, Yohanan b. Zakkai, and other Yavneans. The Pharisaic masters are not given that sort of material. I do not know why. Biographical apophthegms (pp. 55ff.) introduce a Jesus-saying with biographical narrative; the saying and scene express the point together. An example is Mark 6:1-16: Jesus is not well received in his own country, so he says, "A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country." Similarly, Hillel sayings are given settings, e.g. b. Suk. 53a etc., "When he would rejoice, he said, If I am here"; likewise "Leave Israel alone" is assigned to HillePs rise to power. The PharisaicN E U S N E R , The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 7 0 , III

6

82

INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF

TRADITION

rabbinic equivalent is not the biographical stories (above, pp. 47-55), which are not always built around, or meant to supply a setting for, a pithy saying, but rather are shaped around a moral lesson to be derived from the story as a whole. One closer parallel is the develop­ ment of an exegesis into a chria, with the Scripture serving as the equivalent to the Jesus-saying, e.g. y. Ber. 9:3, If you hear an outcry, you say Ps. 112-7, then: Hillel once heard an outcry, and concerning him Ps. 112-7 is said. But this is not close to Bultmann's biograph­ ical apophtegms. Brief biographical references to Pharisaic masters have little in common, since they generally do not rest upon the basis of a fixed saying. Bultmann's parallels in rabbinic stories ("in profu­ sion," p. 57) mostly pertain to post-70 masters. He does refer, how­ ever, to the Hillel-bathing stories. But these are not built out of If the statues of kings are scoured and washed... Perhaps more pertinent is Lev. R. 34:3B, "Is not the poor soul a guest in the body..." But the details of the story do not pertain to the saying. The drowning-apophthegm is one immediately comparable exemplum: Hillel saw a skull in the water and said a drowning-saying. Hanina and the lizard is another, which, Bultmann observes, was constructed out of the proverb, and is a secondary expansion of the passage (p. 59). These are the only really close equivalents to the Gospels' biographical apophthegms, in which both type and form exactly coincide in both traditions. The apophthegm, Bultmann observes (pp. 61ff.), has a tendency to generate new materials, just as does the dispute. In this respect, also, the Pharisaic-rabbinic data tend to differ. Numerous moral sayings do not produce, or are not given, apophthegmatic-narrative settings. More striking still, the "moral" of the moral sayings very often is not spelled out or given a brief and pithy form. As I said, Woe to the lizard and Because you drowned others do not typify a great many biographical pericopae. Bultmann notes that the apophthegms produce variations of motif; here we discern no equivalent phenomenon at all. Bultmann observes further literary traits such as we repeatedly have noted. Situations of apophthegms are very economically and briefly described; few apophthegms contain specific references to place. These traits are noteworthy throughout Pharisaic-rabbinic narratives. In some longer narratives one may take for granted that the narrator assumed events took place in Jerusalem (e.g. Yannai's banquets), but in most we have no clear notion of when, where, or why an event took place, e.g. where was the stream in which Hillel saw the skull? When did he see it? Actions similarly are described only so far as

SOME

COMPARISONS

83

necessary to produce the dialogue (Bultmann, p. 66), and this is a commonplace narrative trait in Pharisaic-rabbinic stories. Personal characteristics are sparingly referred to, if at all. Bultmann observes, "This is where the development begins. As soon as the apophthegm is affected by an interest in history or developed story-telling we meet with more precise statements." In the case of the entire corpus of Pharisaic aggadic stories, it is difficult to locate such interest and develop­ ment. By contrast, some legal stories begin anonymously, then provide characters and a proliferation of details, e.g. Simeon b. Shetah and Judah b. Tabbai on the anomalies of the laws of testimony. Further, while in the Gospels' controversy dialogues, the questioners originally were unspecified persons, in the Pharisaic debates there is no develop­ ment at all. No particular person of the House of Shammai or Hillel stands forward to carry on the debate in a later version. I think the difference between the two is in the history of artificial construction behind the Pharisaic debates. Once built, these are not likely to change, though the arguments themselves may be further elaborated. Bultmann divides Jesus's dominical sayings (pp. 69ff.)—not sayings which constitute an essential part of the story as direct speech—into three parts: wisdom-sayings, prophetic and apocalyptic sayings, and laws and community regulations (for which division he supplies a charming midrash on Jer. 18:18, counsel from the wise, a word from the prophet, and law [Torah] from the priest). For all sayings he discerns three basic forms: principles: declaratory form; exhortations: impera­ tive form; and questions. As to the principles, he discerns impersonal formulation, that is, a rule states in the third person that such-and-such is the case; personal formulae; blessings; arguments a maiore ad minor. Bultmann notes that "the rabbis" offer relatively few proverbs of impersonal formulation. But if we correctly translate Bultmann's sachlich formuliert as "impersonal formulation," rather than Marsh's "material formulation" (that is, "some material thing is the subject," so March), then we have nothing more commonplace than impersonal formulations. That is, the whole of the legal corpus consists of thirdperson rules that such-and-such is the case. Here I am unclear as to Bultmann's meaning; he certainly knew that laws are nearly always formulated in an impersonal, descriptive, present-tense way. If he alleged that he found relatively few "proverbs" of that sort, then presumably he understood proverb quite separately from legal saying. We do not find blessings. Sayings built on the qal vahomer are typified by the wash-the-body story; there are many others. Exhortations, using

84

INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF

TRADITION

the imperative, seldom appear in the Pharisaic collections, apart from M . Avot 1:1-18. As to questions, we find a few, but generally the interrogative element is not the base of the saying, e.g. Hillel the Elder, "If I am here, everyone is here. And if I am not here, who is here?" The latter clause could have been, "no one is here." The ques­ tion intensifies the force of the saying, but to begin with has not shaped it, i.e., by pointing to some absurdity. The y. Suk. 5:4 version, "If we are here, who is here?" more closely corresponds. And HillePs "If I am not for myself, who is for me?" etc. is an exact example of the question-form. The Pharisaic sayings not in narrative setting do not seem to follow the model of Proverbs or Ben Sira, as we observed. They derive primarily from a single document, and that cannot be very early, and they do not exhibit the rich variations and full expres­ sion of the equivalent Jesus-logia. The redactional history is another matter. Bultmann observes that there is a tendency to combine different but similar sayings, e.g. Mark 8:34-7 combines three sayings which originally were certain to have been separate (p. 82), and this, of course, is transparently the tendency of rabbinic redactors of some pericopae. But most of the rabbinic sayings cited by Bultmann which admittedly are similar to the forms of Jesus-sayings derive from later strata or are attributed to later masters, many of them Babylonian. The type therefore has not produc­ ed such striking similarities as in exampla of the debate/dispute form. I think it not insignificant that Bultmann's most striking successes in the analysis of wisdom-sayings depend upon Ben Sira and not upon Pharisaic materials (e.g., pp. 97f). We have no Pharisaic-rabbinic equivalents to the prophetic and apocalyptic sayings of Jesus; no preaching of salvation; no minatory sayings (the Abba Hanan ^^-saying is not pertinent; it is woe to me because of, not woe on them because of, as in Luke 11: 43ff/Matt. 23:13ff); no admonitions; no apocalyptic predictions. As to legal sayings and church rules, a good pericope for analysis of a type common to Pharisaic-rabbinic traditions and the Synoptic Gospels is Matt. 6:1-34. The first thing we notice is the use of impera­ tives in successive pericopae: beware of practicing... when you give alms, sound no trumpet...and when you pray, you must not be like... and in praying, do not heap up...and when you fast, do not look dismal...do not lay up for yourselves...The eye is the lamp of the body...do not be anxious about your life. Some of these logia may not be regarded as equivalent to legal sayings of Pharisaic masters

SOME

COMPARISONS

85

at all. But if they are so regarded, then the use of the imperative, the development of metaphors ("the eye is the lamp..."), the extended explanations ("No one can serve... for either he will hate...or he will be devoted..."), the development of rules into homiletical expla­ nations ("lilies of the field"), and other literary traits set the whole quite apart from the form of any Pharisaic legal pericope. Likewise the use of rhetorical questions, "Why do you see.. .How can you say..." (Matt. 7:34) is not common. The use of antithetical forms is familiar from Pharisaic-rabbinic wise-sayings, but not from laws, which gener­ ally are simple declarative sentences and use present tense participles, as we have repeatedly observed. The If... then... form of Matt. 18:15-17 has no parallel. It is biblical, not Pharisaic-rabbinic. In this instance, therefore, the type is the same, but the forms exhibit no close relation­ ship to one another. Bultmann's general conclusion, that there was a stock of dominical sayings which was reshaped by editing, seems to me pertinent to the rabbinic sayings. These generally were attributed to Hillel, just as Christian redactors naturally assigned to Jesus pretty much everything worth remembering. But the development of legal sayings into a catechism, which, on the Pharisaic-rabbinic side, would be a little collection of legal sayings, has no equivalent for Hillel's moral logia, except M. Avot, 2:5-7. We have already reviewed the Pharisaic "I"-sayings (above, pp. 3335, 56), These diverge in form and spirit from the Jesus-equiva­ lents. What Bultmann means by an "I"-saying is not what we have meant. We simply gathered all sayings in which a person refers to himself. These in no way are similar to the Jesus-logia. There is no equivalent in either form ("I say to you") or type, i.e. sayings about "I" as judge, Messiah, one who was sent, his personal history, hopes, or intentions. In this respect the difference between the two religious communities accounts for the obvious difference in the form and type of the two groups of "I"-sayings. As to similitudes and similar forms, we find no equivalent. To be sure, we do see the use of paradox in some apophthegms, e.g. Hanina/ lizard; but paradox is not a dominant characteristic of the Pharisaicrabbinic sayings and does not occur in stories as the primary vehicle for narrative. Hyperbole and metaphors are not common. As to such similitudes as master/servant, tower/war, lost sheep/lost coin, the thief, faithful servant, children at play, leaven, seed growing of itself, treasure in the field, pearl of great price, fish-net, house-builder, fig

86

INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF

TRADITION

tree, returning householder, prodigal son, unjust steward, two sons, and the like—we have nothing of the same sort. It is true that later rabbinic materials make use of similitudes. But the materials before us do not. Bultmann's rabbinic "parallels" all are attributed to masters after 70. Bultmann quite properly differentiates between allegorical features of rabbinic similitudes and customary metaphors (e.g. for God, for man); but the issue to which he addresses himself (pp. 198ff.) has nothing to do with the Pharisaic-rabbinic stratum. Bultmann categorizes narrative materials as follows: miracles of healing, nature miracles, historical stories, and legends. We find two "miracles of healing," only with reference to Hanina b. Dosa and Gama­ liel's son (and, in the same place, Yohanan b. Zakkai's); and nature miracles come only in Honi's rain-making and the others assigned to his grandson. These do not play nearly so important a role in the Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition as do the equivalent stories in the Jesus narratives. We find no reference to demons or exorcisms (except Hanina and Igrath—Babylonian and late), lepers, paralytics, healing of the deaf, dumb, and blind, issues of blood, stilling of storms (ex­ cluding "Not for this sort of rain have I prayed," which is hardly comparable), no walking on water, no feeding miracles, no accursed fig trees; and the sheqel in the fish's mouth (Matt. 17:24-27) cannot be compared to the stories either of Yosi's nephew or of Simeon b. Shetah's pearl on the ass. Honi and Hanina stand outside of the legal tradition; to neither are attributed legal logia, Scriptural exegeses, or wisdom-sayings. Bultmann's observation (p. 219) is completely sound: They are told not just as remarkable occurrences, but as "miracles of Jesus." Here by contrast we have merely remarkable events. The Honi and Hanina stories do not verify other teachings of those miracleworkers, but merely testify to heaven's ability to recognize and reward merit—even through grace to disregard merit where it so chooses ("If you were not Honi..."). No faith in the masters is supposed to be elicited. The various Honi-stories are given a good conclusion, partic­ ularly the Abba Hilqiah-corpus, by contrast to the Jesus miraclestories, which lack a conclusion (p. 220). Among the characteristic aspects of the style of miracle stories pointed out by Bultmann, we find no striking counterparts: no references to the length of the sickness, to the dreadful character of the disease, to the ineffective treatment of physicians, to the contemptuous treatment of the healer, no disciples, no allusions to the difficulty of the healing or of making rain, or to gestures by touch or miracle-working words—

SOME

COMPARISONS

87

just prayers. We do find a healing at a distance (Mark 7:29, Matt. 8:13, John 4:50, like Hanina, b. Ber. 34b, as noted above). No crowd is present at either miracle, though there is, to be sure, an audience in the background—the people of Jerusalem, or Gamaliel. Nor do we have any resurrections of the dead. Except for Honi's rain-making, all the rabbinic nature-miracles referred to by Bultmann (pp. 234f) pertain to late masters. We may safely conclude that this type of narrative constitutes an inconsequential part of the Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition. The particular literary traits associated with it in the Gospels are absent. Historical narratives and legends are so described because "instead of being historical in character [they] are religious and edifying" (p. 244). The stories with a moral (pp. 66-67) would seem as a type to be an appropriate counterpart. Bultmann observes that the historical legends in the Synoptic Gospels often include something miraculous; this is not normally the case in the stories listed above. Bultmann observes that "the historical stories are so much dominated by the legends that they can only be treated along with them," a judgment that applies without qualification to the Pharisaic-rabbinic biographi­ cal and historical narratives (above, p. 65). As to the primary narrative technique, we may note that Matt. 4:1-11 (Luke 4:1-12), the Temptation, tells the story primarily through dialogue: Jesus was led to the wilderness, fasted, the tempter came and said to him...But he answered (citing Scriptures); then the devil took him...and said to him...Jesus said to him...Again the devil took him...and said to him...Then Jesus said to him...Then the devil left him. Thus a story relies primarily on dialogue to make its important points, no different in this regard from the Pharisaic-rabbinic story­ telling technique. Mark 9:2-8, the Transfiguration, makes use of consid­ erably more description, since a miracle is involved; then Peter speaks to Jesus, and voice comes from the cloud—a story in which dialogue is subordinate to the narrative and descriptive materials. Mark 11:1-10, the triumphal entry, falls somewhere in between. Jesus is first of all located, then sends out his disciples and tells them to do certain things, which they do; then Jesus enters the city and the people salute him and cry out... This recalls the gesture-part of the story of Abba Hilqiah and his wife; he comes home and does various gestures. But the interpretation-section is missing, presumably because Zech.9 is meant to supply the appropriate interpretation. The Passion Narratives cannot appropriately be compared to any-

88

INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF

TRADITION

thing in the Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition; nothing is so fully, dra­ matically, and carefully developed, related to various cultic and mythic aspects of synagogue life, and embellished in later versions. The dra­ matic intensity, the attention to feelings and emotions, the "heightened reality" of the Passion narratives have no counterpart. I suppose no single event in Pharisaic-rabbinic history played nearly so important a role in rabbinic theology and law. This obviously accounts for the formal difference. I can think of no story that originates in the worship of the synagogue or the cult. Liturgical, dogmatic, and novelistic motifs are not commonplace in the Pharisaic-rabbinic narratives, which, as we have seen, either tell about the authority behind a law or illustrate its application, on the one hand, or tell a story for the sake of making a (rarely articulated) moral point, on the other. As to story-telling techniques, Bultmann further observes (p. 307) that stories tend to be very concise, just as in the apophthegm: none covers more than two days' activity (unlike Joshua in Alexandria). The same observation generally, but not always, pertains to Pharisaicrabbinic stories. Second, the "law of scenic duality" operates. That is, while many people may appear on the scene, only Jesus and the interlocutor share the significant action. The same may be said of all rabbinic stories, which may be constructed out of he said to him...he said to him..., no matter how many people are involved in the back­ ground—e.g., Simeon b. Shetah and Yannai. Groups are treated as a unity, e.g. the Pharisees, the Disciples. The same trait characterizes some of the stories before us, e.g., the "Persian Embassy" said to him, "the rabbis" present at Yannai's trial all do the same thing. In the history of popular tradition, Bultmann observes, there is a tendency to differentation and individualization; in the Pharisaic-rabbinic ma­ terials we find such a tendency only occasionally, but we do not have significant amounts of materials available for comparisons. The synop­ tic tables make clear how and where these processes take place. They tend to be less pronounced than in the Synoptic Gospels. What we find instead is a tendency on the part of beraita-z&tots to add new elements to a story, as in Judah b. Tabbai's weeping, Hillel's not finding a slave to run before the pauper, and so forth. This is a different sort of phenomenon, but points toward the same tendency, namely, to embellish what is in hand. The use of direct speech (pp. 190f., 312f.) of course is extremely common in the Pharisaic-rabbinic narrative. In general, Bultmann says, indirect speech is put into direct discourse, though the contrary also happens. In our materials it is difficult to

SOME

COMPARISONS

89

find indirect discourse to begin with (except M. Hag. 2:2). Numbers play a special part in popular story telling (p. 314), e.g. three temptations of Jesus (Matt. 4:1-11), three denials of Peter; this seems to me not a striking characteristic in the Pharisaic-rabbinic story-telling technique. To be sure, the Simeon b. Shetah banquet-narrative has three elements. But numerous stories do not rely upon triads of action. Nor can we say that the number two is of special importance. On the other hand, in the legal materials, twojthree represent an important stock-opinion for the Houses, and other numbers occur repeatedly. These brief observations on types and forms of the pericopae of the Synoptic Gospels primarily are meant to prove only one fact: While the rabbinic traditions of the Pharisees exhibit only two types in com­ mon with biblical, Qumranian, Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphical literature, namely, laws and moral sayings, and have no form in com­ mon at all, the Pharisaic traditions by contrast do manifest both types and forms in common with the Synoptic Gospels. They are indeed so close at a few points as to present a remarkable congruence. Con­ flict sayings = debates, a type shared between the two bodies of tradition, sometimes make use of the same form. The narrative style has much in common. Biographical apophthegms are an identical type using identical form, though the materials are not abundant on the Pharisaic-rabbinic side. We find short biographical references, biograph­ ical and historical stories, sayings not in a narrative setting, apoph­ thegms in a narrative setting, numerous references to Scriptures, exe­ geses, and proof-texts. Practically the whole repertoire of types of Pharisaic-rabbinic aggadic materials finds a counterpart in the Synoptic Gospels. The contrary is not the case, that is, not all Synoptic types and forms occur in the Pharisaic materials. To be sure, we have noticed considerable differences in forms, and these tend to outweigh the similarities. But the contrast between the results of a brief comparison of Pharisaic and biblical, Apocryphal, Pseudepigraphic, and Qumranian types and forms, on the one side, and of Pharisaic and Synoptic types and forms, on the other, is striking. The former comparison proves the several literatures had practically nothing in common. The latter shows significant shared traits. This seems to me the firm result of our brief inquiry. v . HISTORY OF FORMS

In the synoptic tables and comments we have examined the evi­ dences of development and change in individual pericopae. Our prob-

90

INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF

TRADITION

lem here is to speculate on the history of forms characteristic of numbers of pericopae. The first, and unique, characteristic of rabbinic traditions of the pre-70 Pharisees is attribution to named authorities or to the Houses of Shammai and Hillel. As we have seen, other sects attribute pericopae to biblical heroes but not to known masters of the sects themselves, men who lived at a particular time and place, bore a particular name (not title, such as "teacher of righteousness"), and lived pretty much like other ordinary men, not miracle-workers (excluding Honi, Hani­ na), messiahs, visionaries, or prophets. Two exceptions require specification. First, the whole of the Church tradition of moral sayings in the Synoptic Gospels is assigned to Jesus; in this respect, the Pharisaic moral sayings exhibit a small measure of similarity, in giving most such sayings to Hillel. The comparison of the whole of the Pharisaic tradition to the whole of the Gospels-tradition shows the similarity to be unimportant, for Hillel merely receives more attributions of one kind of logia than do other masters, but hardly is the sole significant authority. Second, named authorities supposedly stand behind larger units of traditions, e.g. Gospels, Epistles. But in this respect the rabbinic tradition does not differ, for the larger collections, e.g. Mishnah, Tosefta, are likewise assigned to specific masters, e.g. Judah the Patri­ arch. The traditions of authorship on the rabbinic side persisted out­ side of the form and structure of the collection so assigned. No passage in the Mishnah corresponds to Luke 1:1-4 or John 21:24-5— but even these do not refer to Luke or John. Only Revelation proclaims its author. It did this as part of an attempt to be widely accepted at a time that apostolic authorship had become an important criterion for such acceptance. The attributions by the Church of Gospels to Mat­ thew, Mark, Luke, and John, and of the rabbinical movement to Judah the Patriarch, Yohanan, the schools of Aqiba, Ishmael, and other compilers, have in common the beginning in the mind of later continuators, who naturally wondered how the books of whose au­ thority they were acutely conscious actually took shape. Attribution of authorship depended upon the continued existence of the church and the rabbinical movement. Apart from the NT passages specified, the larger compilations are no more articulate about their authors than are the Manual of Discipline or Genesis. What therefore sepa­ rates the Christian and rabbinic compilations from the others is the later, historical continuation of their respective movements. By conc

HISTORY OF

FORMS

91

trast, the circles responsible for the Qumranian writings died out or were killed off; those responsible for composing and preserving important Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphic writings were assimilated into early Christianity and then blotted out in the mass of other Christians; and, of course, the continuators of the circles responsible for various biblical books even earlier had passed from the scene or had been assimilated into later movements, circles, or institutions. We may therefore affirm without significant reservation that the formal practice of assigning logia, traditions, and even whole pericopae to numerous specific, historical authorities is the unique characteristic of the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees. The problem of when that practice began is not difficult to solve. On the one hand, the first internal verifications of materials, in which a master refers to a tradition available from an earlier stratum, come at Yavneh. No Pharisaic master refers to the saying of another Phari­ saic master, except in the same pericope. While the Houses address themselves to one another's opinions, no Houses-logion explicitly re­ fers to a teaching of, e.g., Simeon b. Shetah, Yosi b. Yo'ezer, Hillel or Shammai. Indeed, it is often difficult to see how legal issues impor­ tant in one set of pericopae ever elicited discussion among other, later or different Pharisaic masters and circles. The Houses never refer to legal opinions of anyone before Shammai and Hillel, nor do legal issues important to, e.g., Yohanan the High Priest, Judah b. Tabbai, Joshua b. Perahiah, or even Shema'iah-Abtalion, ever provoke ex­ plicit comment on the part of Gamaliel I, or Simeon b. Gamaliel. Hillel's reference to Shema'iah and Abtalion is no exception, for it comes as a gloss late in the development of that story: the original reference is merely to "my masters", and it is in dialogue. By contrast, Gamaliel II does refer to teachings and practices of Gamaliel I; Eliezer, Joshua, Tarfon, 'Aqiba, and other Yavneans (except Yohanan b. Zakkai) do refer to Houses-materials, and while they (Joshua, Eliezer) may in fact be the Houses in some pericopae, in many others, e.g. Tarfon and the Shema , it is clear that a later authority makes ref­ erence to an extant, earlier teaching, for which he does not bear responsibility and to the authority of which he is subject. That sort of verification is strikingly absent in pre-70 materials. We may therefore conclude that assignment of traditions to named authorities certainly took place by, and perhaps slightly before, Yavnean times. It seems to me not unreasonable to push back the terminus ante quern to the times of the Houses, that is, mid-first century, if we assume that the Houses c

92

INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF

TRADITION

did indeed assign their traditions to the named authorities standing behind them, Shammai and Hillel. That assumption is not necessarily beyond doubt, for the Houses-lemmas never include, "So have we received from Shammai/Hillel" or other references to named authori­ ties before their time, though they do include references to precedents established by named masters. It is not Yohanan HaHorani said—though he obviously is an authority of importance—but Yohanan HaHorani sat... From attributing logia to the named Houses it was natural to proceed to assign them to named masters, and that was, as we observ­ ed, a practice important to Yavnean tradents. But what of a terminus a quo? It cannot come before Yosi b. Yo'ezer and Yosi b. Yohanan, for that is the point at which the named tradi­ tions begin. But the evidences on masters before Shammai and Hillel are not substantial and hardly demand much attention. More signifi­ cant still, the occurrences of named authority + says/said—not merely talked about—are few and far between for the whole pre-Shammai/ Hillelite tradition, as follows: 1. X says to lay/Y says not to lay (M. Hag. 2:2) T h e basis is t h e layjnot lay d i s p u t e , o n w h i c h a r e h u n g t h e n a m e s o f t h e a u t h o r i t i e s u p t o S h a m m a i / H i l l e l . T h e c o n s t r u c t i o n may b e e a r l y , o n t h e principle that indirect discourse tends t o c o m e before direct discourse.

2. Rabbi Simeon the Just said (Sifre Num. 22) S i m e o n ' s n a m e stands b e h i n d t h e s t o r y , t o l d in t h e first p e r s o n . In e v e r y w a y t h i s is a n a n o m a l o u s p e r i c o p e . c

3. Yosi b. Yo ezer of Seredah testified concerning... (M. <Ed. 8:4) 4. Joshua b. Perahiah says, Wheat that comes from Alexandria... (Tos. Maksh. 3:4) 5. Joshua b. Perahiah said, At first, whoever says to me, Go up... (b. Men. 109b> 6. Rabbi Simeon b. Shetah said, May I not see consolation... (b. Sanh. 37b) I n M e k h i l t a , t h i s is d i a l o g u e , p a r t o f t h e n a r r a t i v e , n o t a n i n d e p e n d e n t l e m m a ; a n d it c o n t a i n s n o legal t r a d i t i o n o r m o r a l l e m m a , b u t is m u c h like no. 1 above. c

7. Shema iah says/Abtalion says, The faith... (Mekh. Beshallah IV, 58-60) This is not a considerable list; excluding no. 1, only nos. 3-4 both are standard, or nearly standard, in form, and contain legal materials. The

HISTORY OF

FORMS

93

contrast to the scores of sayings of the Houses and of Shammai and Hillel is self-evident. As to Gamaliel I, Simeon b. Gamaliel, and others after Shammai and Hillel and not assigned to their Houses, we have the following: 1. Rabban Gamaliel says (Sifre Deut. 11) 2. Yo'ezer of the Birah asked Gamaliel, and he said, It never renders... (M.
94

INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF

TRADITION

masters were worthy of serious consideration as named, individual, historical authorities. It is a strange anomaly that while others had heavenly visions, made laws, gave revelations, wrote psalms, and com­ posed prayers to be said by others, only the Pharisees, in behalf of whom the rabbis made few such claims of heavenly revelations and of ability to see visions and work wonders, produced masters whose names, deeds and teachings were preserved openly and explicitly. In this regard Jesus may be seen as an intermediate figure, like an important rabbi in form but not in substance, and perhaps like the Teacher of Righteousness in substance but not in form. The nameless Teacher of Righteousness, the visionaries who signed the names of Enoch or the patriarchs to their writings, who added to the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezra, who composed psalms and moral treatises— all of these spiritually gifted authorities remained anonymous. 'Spirit­ ual gifts' imposed on them a loss of individuality. The Yosi's, Simeon b. Shetah and Judah b. Tabbai, and others in behalf of whom was claimed not heavenly authentication but merely accurate knowledge of the Torah of Moses, should have been set forth as uniform, anony­ mous links in a long chain of tradition, but were made the multiform subjects of sayings and the differentiated objects of stories. Obviously, characteristic reference to named authorities begins with the begin­ nings of the Pharisaic movement itself, so far as the rabbinic traditions portray it; but that tradition by itself cannot be called to testify about more than its own contents. Other writings attributed to, and testi­ monies concerning, Pharisaism must be taken into account. The history of the debate-form has already been alluded to. While the form itself is first attested in the Synoptic Gospels' dispute-pericopae (e.g., Mark 10:2-10), its use in Pharisaic-rabbinic materials depends upon, and must follow, the Houses-disputes, to which it is confined and for which it supplies elaboration and extension. Since those disputes derive from about the time of Yavneh, the debates come from the same period. This is virtually certain, for both 'Aqiban and Joshuan materials are later transmuted into the form of Houses-debates. Debates are further developed in the second century and afterward. Testimony-form, while not unique to M. 'Ed., seems to derive pri­ marily from the circle(s) responsible for the form of that tractate. That circle's work is explained (Tos. 'Ed. 1:1) by the theory that the redaction of materials took place "on that day" on which Gamaliel II was deposed—probative evidence that the process of redaction was completed long afterward and required historical explanation in terms

HISTORY

OF

95

FORMS

of events no one knew much about. My guess is that the testimonyform, and with it M. Ed., ought to be located sometime in the late second century, certainly not much earlier, for much of the material of M. Ed. consists of completed pericopae of Aqiban disciples, as Epstein demonstrated. Perhaps the roots of individual units go back to Usha. The form of the epistles is clear, but the paucity of examples—merely two letters—makes it difficult to analyze them from a form-historical viewpoint. Obviously, epistolary form in these instances is hardly unique to Pharisaism. Perhaps the fact that the letters pertain to the exercise of the duties of the patriarch, and may possibly derive from patriarchal archives, is significant. It may have been a standard, scribal form, which any scribe, like Nahum, would have followed. It certain­ ly is not limited to Pharisaism. The ordinance-form does not fit all materials on which it was imposed. We were repeatedly struck by the incongruity of the claim that at first matters were such-and-such, then Hillel ordained & change in the law. By contrast, in Yavnean times the ordinance-form invariably made good sense; at first, meaning in Temple times, matters were conduct­ ed in such-and-such a way, but now that the Temple has been destroyed, Yohanan b. Zakkai ordained an appropriate alteration in earlier pro­ cedures. Yohanan's ordinances pertain primarily to Temple, and other ritual and liturgical, matters. It seems to me likely, therefore, that the form originated in Yavneh, and was awkwardly applied to—or actual­ ly produced the proliferation of—"ordinances" of Hillel, Simeon b. Shetah, and Joshua b. Gamala. Gamaliel I's ordinances (in M. Git. 4:2-3) do exhibit the same difficulties as Hillel's, but his ordinance about the witnesses is not much different from Yohanan b. Zakkai's decree on the same subject. At first the witnesses did so-and-so; Gamaliel decreed otherwise. Here the legal change is minor and credi­ ble. Since Gamaliel allegedly participated in the Temple council, he might have done what the tradition said. If so, the form and the substance are congruent to one another. What is missing is the occa­ sion for the development of the form itself—and that occasion can be supplied only by the Destruction and Yavnean reconstruction. It seems probable that the report of Gamaliel's witness-ordinance in M. R.H. 2:5 has been set by the redactor into the Yavnean form predominantin the ordinances of Yohananb. Zakkai in M. R.H. 4:1-4. If the Gamaliel-ordinance comes from before Yavneh, then one may set back the first use of the form by about thirty years. But I think it c

c

c

96

INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF

TRADITION

more likely that the Gamaliel-rule of M. R.H. 2:5 has been reshaped and set into ordinance-form by the redactor of the composite pericope, perhaps shortly after Yohanan b. Zakkai's time. The chains and lists of cleanness-decrees all end with Shammai/Hillel, so must be assigned at the earliest to the middle of the first century. The Houses may be responsible, but whether the occasion was Yavneh or earlier times cannot be decided with much certainty. The form of the precedents is a far more difficult problem. Ma aseh b- + / - $ or IF certainly are all redactional materials, for they come and go, even in various versions of the same pericope. What is left is a simple sentence, subject, verb, predicate. It was because of the consistent function of such sentences that I regarded them as something like a fixed form. But, standing by itself, a simple declarative sentence cannot be regarded as a well-defined form. So the problem is, When do such sentences begin to function in a highly specialized way, as precedents for legal discussion? The terminus ante quern obviously is the Houses-stra­ tum, where they occur in some quantity. The Shema'iah-Abtalion precedent with Kharkemit may push the date back by a decade, to Shammai-Hillel. Before that point we cannot venture. But that merely means no simple sentences referring to masters before S + A are made to function as precedents in legal discussions presented by pre-70 rabbinic traditions about Pharisees—hardly a significant literary fact. The significance is for the study of the history of legal traditions, and especially, of the importance accorded to various authorities. S + A are important because they are followed by, and claimed as masters for, Hillel. Once again, therefore, the line starts with Hillel/Shammai. First-person sayings and stories, illustrations, proofs, and other stories pertinent to law, short biographical references, biographical and his­ torical stories, long and short, told through either dialogue or narra­ tive—none of these sorts of pericopae constitutes a clearcut form, in the same way that standard- or ordinance-pericopae follow well-defined forms. What seemed to me characteristic traits were primarily tech­ niques of narrative or storytelling, and these are not susceptible of assign­ ment to particular situations or groups. The process of developing an exegesis into a story about a named mas­ ter pertains only to Shammai and, chiefly, Hillel-materials. Sayings not in a narrative setting, apart from M. Avot 1:1-18, are mostly HillePs. Apophthegms given a narrative setting, except those that make explic­ it the moral of a story but are not integral to the story (apophthegms nos. 1, 3, 4), are HillePs, all but Hanina/lizard (no. 5). c

HISTORY

OF

FORMS

97

The forms of random citations of Scriptures, as glosses, interpolations, and proof-texts, seem to me difficult to assign to particular circles or specific times. Since citations of Scriptures tend to proliferate, e.g. Simeon b. Gamaliel is given a Scriptural proof for his M. Avot 1:18 saying, which stands without one, we should regard the phenomenon as a mark of a pericope in the later stages of its development. Further, the history of the forms of Scriptural citation, as proofs, illustrations, or embellishments, cannot be separated from the redactional conven­ tions of the various compilations in which they occur, and therefore begins long after the period under study. We have already observed that while one sort of collection, e.g. Sifra, Sifre, cites a Scripture, then comments on its elements, and finally tacks on a saying attributed to a named master, other compilations or strata, e.g. beraitas, will tie the same Scripture to the same story with WMR, SN'MR, KKTWB, and other redactional formulae. The purposes of Scriptural citations, moreover, other than merely as glosses or inter­ polations, clearly differ from those of Qumranian writings, as we have already observed. Scriptural pericopae are those in which Scriptures are not merely glosses or interpolations, but integral in the formation of the materials. We shall first specify groups and forms of Scriptural pericopae, then offer a theory as to their history. The first, and best defined form of a Scriptural pericope is the exegesis-to-fable, in which a Scripture is cited and commented on, then a story is told about a named master in terms of the substance, and sometimes even of the exact words, of the exegesis. These derive pri­ marily from the Hillel-materials, above, pp. 42-43. A second category, to be sure not a form, is defined by the tendency to supply historical settings, even narratives, to exegetical materials, as in the anonymous exegeses to which the subscription is added, on this account Hillel came up from Babylonia, or as in the extensive proofs about the Passover offering on the Sabbath which are set into a very elaborate debate-framework about Hillel (and later on, the Bene Bathyra). To a much smaller extent, Shammai-materials exhibit the same characteristics, e.g. Sifre Deut. 203. No other named masters are similarly treated, with the possible exception of Gamaliel, Mekh. deR. Simeon to Ex. 20:5, Sifre Deut. 61, 351, if this is our Gamaliel. A third category, closely related to the foregoing, is the formulation of a historical narrative around, but not out of the substance of, an exegesis. This is represented by the Simeon b. Shetah-Judah b. Tabbai N E U S N E R , The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70, III

7

98

INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF

TRADITION

story about the unacceptability of circumstantial evidence and the requirement that there be two perjured witnesses (Mekhilta Kaspa III, 31-41). The difference from the first and second categories is that the center of the story is not the Scriptural comments but rather their legal consequences. At the same time, the Scripture is important to the story, unlike Sifre Num. 22, Simeon the Just and the Nazir, in which the Scripture is tacked on at the end, concerning you is fulfilled Num. 6:2; b. Ber. 19a, Simeon and Honi, in which Prov. 23:25 is said of Honi; and b. Sanh. 19a-b, in which Ex. 21:29 explains the law cited by the rabbis in calling Yannai to court. Along the same lines is Sifra Behuqotai 1:1, an historical "illustration" of Jer. 5:25; here however Simeon b. Shetah is not integral to the story. By contrast, the references to Is. 26:20, Qoh. 7:12, and Ben Sira 11:1 (or, in Baby­ lonian versions, Prov. 4:8), have not provoked the Yannai-Simeon b. Shetah banquet story, but are subordinated to it; proof of their peripheral nature is the ability of later narrators to use other Scriptures than those originally specified. In this pericope, the Scriptures are not mere embellishments, but also are not formative and central. The same may be said of Qoh. 10:20, Ex. 22:27, Prov. 6:23, and Is. 2:2, in b. B.B.4a, Baba and Herod. Fourth, some Hillel sayings look like elaborations or paraphrases of Scriptures, especially Tos. Ber. 2:21, 6:24, where Qoh. 3:3-4 and Ps. 119:126 are spelled out in terms of laughing/crying, scattering/ gathering, etc. By contrast, Ex. 20:24, in Tos. Suk. 4:3, is merely an interpolation, neither integral to, nor formative of, the saying. Fifth, in Scriptural pericopae, the standard dispute form—X saysj Y says— applies only to Shema'iah-Abtalion, Mekh. Beshallah iv, 58-60. The standard form, Xsays, is used in Sifre Num. 42 for Hananiah Prefect of the Priests, with reference to Num. 6:26, Amos 4:13, and Is. 45:7. In each instance, a Scripture is cited, then explained by Hananiah; also we find standard form with Shammai in Mekh. deR. Simeon to Ex. 20:8, Part A. As to the exegetical principles involved in the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees, we have noticed a tendency of 'Aqibans to con­ tribute supporting exegetical materials for Hillelite opinions, even to formulate in the names of the Houses disagreements on the application of 'Aqiban principles, e.g. the meaning of >K. These pericopae obvi­ ously cannot date before Nahum of Gimzu- Aqiba, and they may come considerably afterward. Others, in which the exegesis is supplementary, may not be quite so late. A striking characteristic of the Hillel-rise-toC

HISTORY OF

FORMS

99

power materials is the specification of the types of exegetical devices used by Hillel to prove his case, which has no equivalent in the other bodies of tradition we have considered (e.g. Qumran). It would seem that these specifications, unique in the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees, come after the fact and are unrelated to it, since to Hillel are attributed exegetical principles which nowhere appear in Hillel-pericopae. The striking fact is that where we have a well-defined form for Scriptural pericopae, it applies primarily, but not solely to Hillelmaterials. To be sure, Shammai is sometimes the object of the same form, and we noticed Hillel-like forms in the name of Ben He He, I, p. 392, who is associated with the Hillel-tradition in such instances. As we review the list of exegeses for legal purposes (pp. 39-42), we find a remarkable preponderance of Hillel-Shammai-Houses-materials, thirty-three of the thirty-five exampla. Of aggadic exegeses (pp. 62-64), we have few from masters not associated with Hillel-traditions. Three are in the name of Gamaliel in Mekh. deR. Simeon and Sifre (as noted above). Two are in the name of Hananiah Prefect of the Priests, and the rest are Ben He He, Shema'iah-Abtalion, and the Houses. Proof-texts integral, or closely related, to sayings of masters are all HillePs, except two for Simeon b. Gamaliel, one a gloss in M. Avot 1:18, the other a later proof-text for Simeon's saying (y. Ta. 4:2). Clearcut forms for Scriptural materials thus primarily pertain toHillelite-traditions. Masters before his time have no Scriptural pericopae at all. Those after him are similarly unimportant in the attribution of Scripturally-centered pericopae. As we noted, the larger part of the legal exegeses derives from 'Aqibans. The point at which other Scriptural Houses-pericopae were worked out is very likely to have been early Yavneh. Of the aggadic Scriptural pericopae we can be less certain. They obviously cannot come before the first third of the first century, assuming HillePs death at ca. 20 A.D. I have no terminus ante quern, though Yavneh seems possible. It was then that the Hillelites came to power, and interest in Hillel himself was therefore keen. On that basis we may very tentatively conjecture that the development of the specified forms for Scriptural pericopae was related to the larger effort of Yavneans to work out the traditions of pre-70 Pharisaism in such a way as to set Hillel into the center of things. The effort was a complete success in this regard as in others. Hillel was made the single most prominent figure in the formation of Scriptural pericopae. Conclusion: Both the reference to a limited number of types of materi-

100

INTERMEDIATE UNITS OF

TRADITION

als pertaining to pre-70 Pharisaism and the imposition on them of a few clearcut forms characterize Yavnean tradents. Since the Synoptic Gospels, which make reference to the same types (among others) of stories and sayings, use some of the same well-defined forms, develop stories according to the same techniques of story-telling, and come from approximately the same period—assuming Mark at 60, the rest not much later—we notice an interesting fact. The Christian and rabbi­ nic tradents around the destruction of Jerusalem exhibit much the same literary and formal tendencies. What the former did for Jesus, the latter did for Hillel. The formation of the intermediate units of the respective traditions was carried out in not entirely dissimilar ways.

CHAPTER NINETEEN

SMALL UNITS OF TRADITION AND OTHER MNEMONIC PATTERNS i. INTRODUCTION

Small units of tradition are those fixed, recurrent formulae, cliches, patterns, or little phrases, out of which whole pericopae, or large elements in pericopae, e.g. complete sayings, are constructed. Small units of tradition, while constitutive of pericopae, do not generate new sayings or legal problems, as do apophthegmatic formulae. That is, MRBH—MRBH—produces numerous sayings; say unclean—say clean—does not; rather, it merely serves as apodosis for a random protasis. An example of part of a pericope composed primarily of small units of tradition is as follows:

A basket offruit intended for the Sabbath House of Shammai declare exempt And the House of Hillel declare liable. The italicized words are not fixed formulae. And is redactional; the formulation of the statement of the problem does not follow a pattern. The Houses-sentences, by contrast, are formed of fixed, recurrent phrases, which occur in numerous pericopae. Similarly: House of Shammai say...House of Hillel say... are fixed small units, whether or not the predicate matches; when it balances, we have a larger unit of tradition composed of two small units: 1 . House of Shammai say, 3. House of Hillel say,

2 . BKY YTN 4. Not BKY YTN.

In this pericope, only the statement of the problem or protasis, not given, would constitute other than a fixed, small unit; House of ShammaijHillel + say are complete units, and the opinions in the apodoses are others— thus, as I said, a pericope, the apodosis of which is com­ posed entirely of fixed, small units of tradition.

102

S M A L L UNITS OF TRADITION

AND

MNEMONICS

By definition these small units cannot be random, or they would not constitute formulae. Such small units are whole words, not syn­ tactical or grammatical particles. They also are not mere redactional devices used to join together discrete pericopae in the later processes of collection and organization, such as ma^aseh, SN'MR, LYK HKTWB WMR, and similar connecting-words, editorial conventions, for­ mulaic introductions to Scriptures, and other redactional cliches. Among the intermediate units of tradition we have already noted combinations of small units of tradition, of which the most important is: X says. Now it may seem that so routine a phrase cannot be regard­ ed as a formula. But its form, sense and function here are absent in all other Jewish literature. It obviously is not the only or best possible way of introducing a quotation of a named master. The use of the present tense participle with regard to a named master is unique and unnatural, being anti-historical. We find X says, but not X does, X writes, X decrees, X rules. We have already listed the occurrences of X says; to these we add the parallel use of authority + other present tense participles, each such use constituting a small unit of tradition. On the other hand, formulaic sayings, a few of which we have already noticed, are not such small units of tradition, for the little elements in them—KDY/R'WY—are submerged, not sufficiently artic­ ulated to be seen as independent cliches of composition. Cliches of tradition already noted in our study of intermediate units are as follows: 1. X testified concerning 2. He said to him, they said to them 3. X said 4. At first (BR'SWNH)...ordained... 5. Three things 6. Ma asehb...W/§ 7. They said concerning...that he 8. Until (>L> WMRYM) 17. M$MT/BTL C

J

c

INTRODUCTION

103

18. KL ZMN S/KL HYMYM S, etc. 19. X heard 20. >WY LY Among these, the following are redactional formulae and not small units of tradition: nos. 5, 6, 7, 10, 13. Somewhat analogous to X says, but routine and not formulaic or unique to Pharisaic materials, are nos. 1, 2, 3, 16, and 19. No. 1 is redactional, as we saw. No. 4. is integral to its form, indeed, its appearance will necessitate HTQYN X; it therefore is strictly formal, not capable of appearing in more than a single way. It is analogous to a redactional formula, with the difference that redactional formulae generally are the last embellishment of a pericope, meant to tie existing materials to a larger setting, while BR $WNH...HTQYN... comes at the beginning of the formation of an intermediate unit of tradition. No. 8 is a grammatical particle, along with such uncatalogued particles as M § , §, W, and the like. They play no substantive role in the formation of traditions. Temporal cliches, nos. 17 and 18, routinely establish a historical framework of reference. No. 14 shows the model of a rhetorical pattern, meant to add drama to a narrative. It is a technique of story-telling reduced to a recurrent formula. The same may be said of no. 11, which supplies a transition from the statement of an issue or a problem to its solution. No. 12 is an idiom. Nos. 15 and 17 constitute generative formulaic patterns, or models, for sayings. No. 20 ought to generate more sayings than it does; it is in the same category as KD Y/R'WY sayings, as I said. No. 9 is functionally analogous to no. 11, that is, it ties an antece­ dent, generally anonymous lemma to a historical cliche, e.g., Hillel tame up from Babylonia. While not a "small unit," a repeated construction is to be added to the list: 21. If you will do so-and-so, I shall do so-and-so, and if you will not do so-and-so, I shall not do so-and-so that is, a reversal of conditions. This morphological cliche contains no fixed formula, but as a pattern it cannot be completely distinguished from nos. 15 and 17, both of which rely on a repetition of wordpatterns. But while nos. 15 and 17 constitute verbal patterns, repeated in various sayings, no. 21 relies on a fixed change in word order, >

104

SMALL UNITS OF TRADITION A N D

MNEMONICS

or a reversal of conditions, most commonly through an affirmative, then negative formulation; thus the inclusion of U functions much like a repeated verb, e.g. RBW or HRBW +/— M§. Antonymic say­ ings, highly generative, follow much the same formula, e.g. bashful man cannot learn, impatient man cannot teach. We therefore observe the existence of cliches of construction, which are not articulately formulaic, in that they do not rely on fixed parts or particles of speech, but which may be considered as mnemonically analogous to small units of tradition. They differ in one important respect: small units of tradition do not exhibit the tendency of develop­ ment or reproduction. They are fixed and final. No further sayings are created on their model. By contrast, cliches of construction are capable of generating numerous exampla following a single model. When x died, y ceased, or when x multiplied, j multiplied, or he who multiplies x, multiplies y , or a person possessed of vice x cannot exhibit virtue x'—all of these are capable of producing an unlimited number of sayings in a single model. While x say, unclean may be attached to any number of cases, it does not yield new sayings in its model. Our interest is both in such fixed and non-generative formulae and in other mnemonically helpful patterns. Unlike the noun-epithet formula found by Milman Parry in the Iliad and the Odyssey ("Studies in the Epic Technique of Oral VerseMaking. I. Homer and Homeric Style," Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 41, 1930, pp. 73-148; and "II. The Homeric Language as the Language of an Oral Poetry," ibid., 43, 1932, pp. 1-50), the small units of tradition before us seldom exhibit a meter, nor is any fixed metrical value often an obvious formal consideration (except in Houses-pericopae), because of the plain fact that at the time of the rabbis people no longer used metric speech for prosaic purposes. But the Houses' syzygy supplies for the apodosis or predicate of the Houses* pericopae the same sort of balanced, therefore presumably easy to memorize, elements. Parry's description therefore applies without qualification: "Unless the language itself stands in the way, the poet... of the Homeric poems has...a noun-epithet formula to meet every regularly recurring need. And what is equally striking, there is usually only one such formula." Likewise, as we have seen in individual pericopae and now shall observe overall, the tradent of the Houses* pericopae has a standard syzygy available for the apodosis of every regularly recurring legal problem and sometimes even uses an availa­ ble syzygy where it does not closely fit the facts of the case.

INTRODUCTION

105

On the other hand, the syzygies appear solely in the apodoses; if the apodosis almost always is formulaic, the protasis never is. While "formulaic style' is characteristic of the one, it is nowhere to be discern­ ed in the other. So if the fixed epithet is a sign that the style is tradition­ al and formulaic—therefore oral, then the same may be said of the syzygous Houses' apodoses. But then one must add with equal cer­ tainty that the protases are not traditional, not formulaic, by Parry's reasoning therefore not oral. Nor are other elements of formal diction to be seen in the Houses' protases. So, as I said, if the apodosis is oral, the protasis cannot be. (Actually, I think the Houses-pericopae in the Mishnah were orally formulated and orally transmitted along with the rest of the Mishnah.) The larger question of oral transmission therefore requires consider­ ation. Until now it has been taken for granted by students of Phari­ saic-rabbinic literature, indeed of all aspects of Talmudic literature, that the written materials come at the end of a long process of oral transmission. The "Oral Torah" of Talmudic Judaism was handed on not in writing but from master to disciple by formulation for memorization and oral repetition. Various sayings in Talmudic litera­ ture claim exactly that. It is, to be sure, striking that no such claim occurs in the materials we have examined. While we have a routine reference (Sifre Deut. 351) to two Torahs, one oral and one in writing (and the attribution to Gamaliel I is not firm, as we have observed), nothing is said about how materials actually were shaped and handed on. A self-conscious concern for that issue did not characterize those who shaped the traditions about the Pharisees; or the way in which the materials came down was taken for granted. Rather than attempt to solve the problem at the outset by arguments and conjectures, we shall seek solutions in the texts themselves, and, if not the answer, then at least some facts may come before us. These then will permit further consideration of the theory of oral transmission. At the outset, however, we must emphasize that all we have for the consideration of the oral theory are literary data. The claim that such data in certain forms signify a history of oral formulation and transmission is a central element in theories of oral transmission, not a fact explicitly presented by the data themselves. Organization of materials for easy memorization says nothing about what lies in the historical background of the materials, only about what was intended for the future: from redaction onward, it may well have been planned that they would be learned by heart, therefore to begin with should be

106

S M A L L UNITS OF

TRADITION AND

MNEMONICS

constructed to facilitate easy memorization. The syzygous construc­ tion of the Houses' apodoses is a literary convention of written materi­ als. It constitutes a "small unit of tradition' in literature available to us only in written form. More than this cannot be granted as fact. II. PERICOPAE WITHOUT FORMULAE OR PATTERNS

We shall first catalogue pericopae that neither contain formulaic expressions and phrases, on the one hand, nor exhibit structural pat­ terns on the other. In this catalogue we find listed practically all materials pertaining to named masters, excluding Shammai and Hillel, and also materials of theirs as well as some of the Houses'. In none do we find a mnemonic pattern of some kind, either in individual phrases or in overall structure. We must, to be sure, distinguish between such mnemonic patterns, on the one hand, and traditions that may lie behind a pericope, on the other. If the former are absent, that does not mean the redactor made things up out of his own head. He might have had some ancient traditions in a form we cannot recover. A few pericopae seemed to be based on materials clearly antecedent to the time of redaction, e.g. the decree is annulled, the young men have conquered'(Tos. Sot. 13:7) occurs with reference to Simeon the Just and Yohanan the High Priest, and also in Josephus's narrative, as we noted (I, p. 35). Likewise, Simeon hung witches and similar brief allusions to stories (above, pp. 43-45) represent brief lemmas out of which long narratives may have been developed. Such allusions never exhibit a discernible mnemonic struc­ ture, Yet the traditions, e.g. on decree/young men, may come before their first occurrence in the rabbinic traditions of the Pharisees. Pericopae neither containing formulaic elements, nor built of small units of tradition, nor constructed according to manifest structural patterns, are as follows: 1. Simeon the Just and the Nazirite (Sifre Num. 22) 2. Simeon the Just and Alexander (b. Yoma 69a) 3. Simeon the Just announced death (b. Men. 109b) 4. Simeon the Just prayed too long (y. Yoma 5:2)

PERICOPAE

WITHOUT FORMULAE

OR PATTERNS

107

5. Antigonus of Sokho (ARN ch. 5) 6. Yosi's son gave money to Temple (b. B.B. 133b) 7. Yaqim of Serurot hung self (Gen. R. 65:27) 8. Joshua b. Perahiah says, Wheat from Alexandria is unclean (Tos. Maksh. 3:4) 9. Joshua b. Perahiah said, At first... (b. Men. 109b) 10. Joshua b. Perahiah and Jesus (b. Sot. 47a) 11. Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah re circumstantial evidence (Mekh. Kaspa III 31-41) 12. Rain in times of Simeon b. Shetah (Sifra Behuqotai 1:1) I n c l u d e s c l i c h 6 - s i m i l e — w h e a t l i k e k i d n e y s , b a r l e y l i k e o l i v e - p i t s , lentils l i k e denars

13. Simeon b. Shetah hung women in Ashqelon (Sifre Deut. 221, y. Sanh. 6:6) 14. Honi made rain (M. Ta. 3:8) 15. Simeon b. Shetah ordained

re

Ketuvah

(Tos. Ket. 12:1) (Variations) 16. Simeon b. Shetah, Nazirites, Yannai (y. Ber. 7:2) Triad o f actions, but n o pattern, either in actions, in phrases in w h i c h they are described, o r in dialogue.

17. In the days of Simeon b. Shetah property-litigations were remov­ ed (y. Sanh. 1:1) 18. Yannai asked to give up priesthood (b. Qid. 66a) Presumably follows Josephus.

19. Simeon b. Shetah executed son (y. Sanh. 6:3) 20. Simeon b. Shetah returned pearl (y. B.M. 2:5)

108

SMALL UNITS OF

TRADITION AND

MNEMONICS

21. Simeon b. Shetah tried Yannai's slave (b. Sanh. 19a-b) A s no. 1 8 .

22. Simeon b. Shetah threw Sadducees out of Sanhedrin (Meg. Ta., p. 342) 23. Two weavers report opinions of Shema'iah and Abtalion (M. <Ed. 1:3B) 24. S + A gave bitter water to Kharkemit (M. <Ed. 5:6) 25. Judah b. Dortai re Passover on Sabbath (b. Pes. 70b) 26. S + A and high priest (b. Yoma 71b) Formulaic saying: Descendents of priests.

27. Free bird tied by wings—S + A (b. Bes. 25a) 28. Yohanan the High Priest officiated eighty years and at the end became a min, (b. Ber. 29a) 29. Use of divine name in documents (Meg. Ta., p. 337) 30. Abba Hilqiah (b. Ta. 23a-b) Narrative pattern.

31. Menahem went forth to king's service (b. Hag. 16b, y. Hag. 2:2) 32. Daughter-in-law of Shammai had baby, etc. (M. Suk. 2:8) 33. Shammai: If times were propitious (Tos. Shev. 3:10) 34. Shammai did not want to hand food (b. Yoma 77b) c

35. Shammai and Jonathan b. Uzziel (b. B.B. 133b-134a) J o n a t h a n ' s l e m m a is m a d e u p o f a r e v e r s a l o f a t r i p l i c a t e o f c o n d i t i o n s , b u t t h e p e r i c o p e is n o t in a clearcut p a t t e r n .

PERICOPAE

WITHOUT FORMULAE

OR PATTERNS

109

36. Shammai: White of egg contracts (b. Git. 57a) 37. Shammai: Sender liable. (b. Qid. 43a) 38. Lev. 11:24 + Hillel, Even in midst of water (Sifra Shemini 9:5) Hillel r e p e a t s a n o n y m o u s exegesis.

39. Lev. 13:37 + comment + Because of this Hillel came up (Sifra Tazri'a 9:16) 40. Deut. 15:3 + not he who gives + Hillel ordained prosbul (Sifre Deut. 113) 41. And thus Hillel used to say... (M. B.M. 5:9 [Tos. B.M. 6:10] ) 42. HillePs rise to power (Tos. Pisha 4:13) T h e s t r u c t u r e is clear, as a n a l y z e d I, p p . 231-235, b u t n o m n e m o n i c p a t ­ t e r n e m e r g e s f r o m t h e w h o l e o r t h e i n d i v i d u a l p a r t s . S o m e fixed s a y i n g s , h o w e v e r , d o a p p e a r at t h e c e n t e r o f n a r r a t i v e s , m u c h l i k e H i l l e l - a p o p h t h e g m s , e.g. Leave Israel alone.

43. Hillel and Alexandrian

Ketuvah

(Tos. Ket. 4:9) T h e fixed e l e m e n t is t h e c i t a t i o n o f t h e Ketuvah, a r o u n d w h i c h t h e s t o r y is shaped.

44. Hillel and holy spirit (Tos. Sot. 3:13) N a r r a t i v e p a t t e r n a p p l i e d first t o H i l l e l , t h e n t o S a m u e l , b u t n o i n t e r n a l pattern in individual segments.

45. Seven things did Hillel expound (Tos. Sanh. 7:11) 46. Hillel: Coming from the way, what does he say + Ps. 112:7 (y. Ber. 9:3) D e p e n d s o n antecedent

Mishnah.

47. Hillel death-scene * (y. Ned. 5:6) P e r h a p s t h e citation b y Hillel o f P r o v . 8 : 2 1 w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o Y o h a n a n b . Z a k k a i lies at t h e basis o f t h e t r a d i t i o n . N o m n e m o n i c p a t t e r n a p p e a r s in t h e p e r i c o p e itself.

110

SMALL UNITS OF

TRADITION AND

MNEMONICS

48. No man crushed in Temple (b. Pes. 64b) 49. Hillel studied as a poor man (b. Yoma 35b) 50. No one trespassed through whole-offering (b. Ned. 9b) 51. Ben He He and Hillel (b. Hag. 9b) 52. Hillel and Shebna (b. Sot. 21a) 53. How much for wheat-apophthegm (ARN ch. 12) 54. Guest in body-apophthegm (Lev. R. 34:3) 55. Controversy for God's sake (M. Avot 5:17) 56. Hillel laid hands in Temple, Shammaites ganged up against him, Baba saved the day (Tos. Hag. 2:11) 57. Shammai silenced Hillel by force (b. Shab. 17a) 58. Agrippa and Gamaliel (Mekh. deR. Simeon to Ex. 20:5) 59. Gamaliel on Deut. 12:2-4 (Sifre Deut. 61) 60. Gamaliel on Deut. 21:5 (Sifre Deut. 351) 61. Gamaliel and Simeon of Mispah (M. Pe'ah 2:5-6) c

62. Gamaliel and Yo ezer (M.
PERICOPAE WITHOUT

FORMULAE

OR PATTERNS

111

64. Gamaliel's House's prostrations (M. Sheq. 6:1) 65. Gamaliel and Yohanan b. Zakkai eat in

Sukkah

(M. Suk. 2:5) 66. Gamaliel allowed wives to marry (M. Yev. 16:7) T h e fixed t r a d i t i o n of G a m a l i e l ' s r u l e d o e s n o t d e p e n d o n m n e m o n i c p a t ­ tern.

67. Gamaliel buried Targum of Job (Tos. Shab. 13:2) 68. Gamaliel married off daughter to Simeon b. Netanel (Tos. A.Z. 3:10) 69. Simeon b. Gode'a testified re RWQB* (Tos. A.Z. 4:9) 70. Hanina healed Gamaliel's son (b. Ber. 34b) 71. Simeon b. Gamaliel lowers prices (Sifra Tazri'a 3:7) 72. Gamaliel re father and

pe'ah

(Sifra Qedoshim 2:4) 73. Gamaliel re father,

min,

and

K

eruv

(M. <Eruv. 6:2) 74. Simeon b. Gamaliel juggled (Tos. Suk. 4:4) 75. Simeon b. Gamaliel admired gentile woman (b. A.Z. 20a) 76. Baba b. Buta and guilt-offering (M. Ker. 6:3) 77. Baba and Herod (b. B.B. 4a) 78. Jonathan b. 'Uzziel and

Targum

(b. Meg. 3a) D i a l o g u e uses cliches, i.e. it is fully revealed before you etc.

112

SMALL UNITS OF TRADITION A N D

MNEMONICS

79. Joshua b. Gamala and Martha (M. Yev. 6:4) 80. Ishmael b. Phiabi, Eleazar b. Harsom, and expensive tunic (b. Yoma 35b etc.) 81. Eleazar b. Harsom studied Torah (b. Yoma 35b) 82. Hananiah Prefect of Priests: Father rejected maimed beasts (Sifra Sav 1:9) 83. Hananiah Prefect of Priests: Priests never refrained (M. Pes. 1:6) 84. Hananiah Prefect of Priests et aL: Surplus of Terumah, etc (M. Sheq. 4:4) 85. Hananiah Prefect of Priests: Pray for government (M. Avot 3:2) 86. Hananiah Prefect of Priests: Never have I seen (M. Zev. 12:4) 87. Hananiah Prefect of Priests: Terumah impaired for human con­ sumption (Tos. Ter. 9:10) 88. Hananiah Prefect of Priests: House of our God is worthy (y. Bes. 2:2) 89. Hananiah Prefect of Priests: I myself have seen it (b. Yoma 21b) 90. Hananiah Prefect of Priests: Why does Prefect stand... (b. Yoma 39a) 91. Nahum the Mede and Nazirites (M. Naz. 5:4) 92. Zekhariah b. HaQassav testified (M. Ket. 2:9) 93. Hananiah b. Hezeqiah and Ezekiel (b. Shab. 13b) (Rav Judah-Rav) 94. Yohanan b. Gudgada ate hullin (M. Hag. 2:7)

PERICOPAE

WITHOUT

FORMULAE

OR PATTERNS

113

95. Yohanan b. GudgadYs sons were deaf and dumb (Tos. Ter. 1:1) 96. Joshua b. Hananiah and Yohanan b. Gudgada closed Temple doors (b. Arakh. l i b ) c

97. Limit to sisit—Houses

(Sifre Num. 115) 98. Lie down to read Shemcf

vs.

recite in his own way-Houses (M. Ber. 1:3)

T h e lemmas are g i v e n balancing exegeses, b u t d o n o t use the same, o r similar, w o r d s .

99. Almoners and demai—House of Shammai vs. sages (M. Dem. 3:1) N o balance.

100. Uncleanness of weasel—House of Shammai alone (M. Kil. 8:5) 101. Sell seventh year produce in bundles—Houses (M. Shev. 8:3) O n l y b a l a n c e is H o u s e . . . s a y . . .

102. Three groups—Houses debate middle group (Tos. Sanh. 13:3) H o u s e s - f o r m is e n t i r e l y l o s t .

103. Vow to give marheshet—Houses debate (b. Men. 63a) 104. Judah b. Bathyra on Trough of Jehu (M. Miq. 4:5) No. 9's at first comes close to the formula, at first...ordained, but at first here means no more than it says, a specification of time, and car­ ries no formulaic significance. No. 12 contains the cliche-simile, wheat like kidneys, etc. Such fixed similes do not contribute to the forma­ tion of traditions or pericopae, but are to be treated as composite parts of speech, in this case, an extended adjective, no different from big wheat. Another such cliche, this time formed of substantives, is wells, cisterns, caves of the Honi-rain stories, no. 14; likewise, no. 79: it is fully revealed before you etc. No. 26 may be built on a formulaic saying, in which Descendents of Aaron is turned around by who [really] do the work of Aaron. No. 30 follows a narrative pattern, but not a

114

SMALL UNITS OF TRADITION

AND

MNEMONICS

strongly articulated one: specification of gestures, followed by inter­ pretation of the gestures. That sort of narrative convention does not, however, depend upon three things or other sorts of clearcut narrative forms. In the foregoing pericopae we do not find either formative formulaic elements or a structure built of small units of tradition. The pericopae are not constructed according to a narrative pattern manifest to us. Possible exceptions to this view are listed below, p. 118.

i n . PERICOPAE WITH FORMULAE OR PATTERNS

Numerous pericopae, while not constructed out of small units of tradition, follow narrative or structural patterns or depend upon formulae, either cliches of expression or conventions of editorial form, which are functionally equivalent to small units. Some of these patterns are strikingly integral to the substance of the pericope, as in the Houses-debates, the apophthegms, and similar clearcut forms. Others are external to the substance of the pericope and constitute redactional conventions. Still others depend for formal structure on Scriptural citations; in these, a Scripture is broken into its elements, and comments are assigned to each. Such comments closely relate to the sense, and sometimes even to the form, of the Scripture. We shall catalogue all such pericopae in one list, then distinguish among them. 1-28. Houses-debates, itemized above, pp. 16-23. T h e d e b a t e - f o r m is c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y t h e u s e o f House + said + to them. T h e s u b s t a n c e o f t h e l e m m a s f r e q u e n t l y is b a l a n c e d i n c o n t e n t , r a r e l y i n f o r m . Sometimes, t o be sure, the citation o f Scripture f o l l o w e d b y c o m ­ ments will exhibit r o u g h balance in n u m b e r o f w o r d s , r h y t h m , o r s o m e other formal trait. T h e o n l y recurrent small unit o f tradition in the debate f o r m is as specified i n italics a b o v e .

29-30. epistles, itemized above, p. 25. T h e p a t t e r n is as d e s c r i b e d .

31-38. Ordinances, itemized above, pp. 25-27. B y c o n t r a s t , w e c a n n o t r e g a r d t h e precedent as s h a p e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e s a m e s o r t o f d i s c i p l i n e d s t r u c t u r e as t h e ordinance.

39-43. From exegesis to fable, itemized above, pp. 42-43. T h e p a t t e r n is c l e a r : S c r i p t u r e , t h e n s t o r y b a s e d o n S c r i p t u r e . T o s . Pe'ah 4 : 1 0 is t h e b e s t e x a m p l e o f t h e n a r r a t i v e f o r m , f o r t h e r e , t h e s t o r y m a k e s u s e o f t h e a c t u a l l a n g u a g e o f t h e exegesis. B u t it is difficult t o i n c l u d e s u c h i t e m s as y . B e r . 9 : 3 (ii, n o . 4 6 ) w h e r e t h e m n e m o n i c p a t t e r n is u n ­ clear a n d t h e n a r r a t i v e p a t t e r n s o m e w h a t g e n e r a l i z e d . T h e s e a r e n o t m u c h different f r o m ii. n o s . 6 0 , 6 1 . T h e s y n o p t i c h i s t o r y o b v i o u s l y e x -

PERICOPAE WITH FORMULAE OR PATTERNS

115

hibits a c o m m o n p l a c e p h e n o m e n o n , the transformation o f a saying o r r u l e i n t o a n a p o p h t h e g m . B u t t h e l i t e r a r y form at e a c h stage is d i s c r e t e a n d e x h i b i t s n o significant p a t t e r n .

44. To lay/not to lay + names (M. Hag. 2:2) 45. Names + GZR + TWM>H +
48. 40/40/40—Deut. 34:7 + Moses/Hillel, Yohanan b. Zakkai/ Aqiba etc. (Sifre Deut. 357) 49. M. Avot 2:5-7, Tos. Hag. 2:9, the more the more, or increased... increased...and other patterns—Hillel 50. Do not be seen naked/clothed + other paired opposites—Hillel ( + Apophthegmatic developments: When he saw them...) (Tos. Ber. 2:21, 6:24; Tos. Suk. 4:3, y. Ber. 9:5; Lev. R. 1:5 etc.) 51. Hillel himself used to prohibit (Tos. Ma. 3:2-4) Fixed sentence repeated in several rules.

52. 30/30/20—HillePs disciples (b. Suk. 28a) 53. BSR/MSQ—TWM'H/THRH, Hillel and Yohanan b. Zakkai (b. Pes. 3b) 54. Gentle like Hillel (b. Shab. 30b-31a) S u p p l i e s n a r r a t i v e s e t t i n g f o r s a y i n g s , e.g. Hateful to yourself. T h e n a r r a ­ t i v e is c o n s t r u c t e d a c c o r d i n g t o a s i m p l e p a t t e r n : Hillel d o e s g o o d t h i n g , S h a m m a i does bad thing. But t h e pericope does n o t depend u p o n small units o f tradition.

55. Hillel, Shammai, and Sabbath (b. Bes. 16a) S a m e p a t t e r n as a b o v e : N a r r a t i v e c o n t r a s t s b u t n o s m a l l - u n i t c o n s t r u c ­ tions.

56. I approve words of Admon-Gamaliel (M. Ket. 13:3-5) S e n t e n c e r e p e a t e d in clear p a t t e r n .

116

SMALL UNITS OF TRADITION A N D

MNEMONICS

57. When Gamaliel died, honor of Torah ended. (M. Sot. 9:15, b. Meg. 21a) 58. Gamaliel, King, and Queen (b. Pes. 88b) Narrative pattern.

59. Baba b. Buta and Babylonian (b. Ned. 66b) Narrative pattern

60. Joshua b. Gamala and schools (b. B.B. 21a) Narrative pattern characteristic o f R a v J u d a h - R a v histories.

61. Song of Abba Joseph b. Hanan (b. Pes. 57a) Woe-formula. 62. Hananiah Prefect of Priests et a/.: Leprosy signs—10/30/72 (Sifra Tazri'a Neg. 2:6 [Note also 3/3/3 vs. 1/1/1— M. Men. 10:1]) 63. All the time Simeon was alive—when he died—afterward (Tos. Sot. 13:7) Narrative pattern.

64. Throughout the forty years—from that time on (b. Yoma 39a-b) Narrative pattern.

65. When Yosis died, grapeclusters ceased (M. Sot. 9:9) Formula.

66. For perushim clothes of

*am ha'ares

count as

midras

(M. Hag. 2:7) A s c e n d i n g scale.

67. Yosi b. Yo'ezer re cleanness—three things + cleanness (M. <Ed. 8:4) 68. Simeon b. Shetah ordained + three things (y. Ket. 8:11) 69. Yohanan the High Priest did away + three rules (M. M.S. 5:15) 70. Three things that Shammai expounded (Sifre Deut. 203)

PERICOPAE

WITH

FORMULAE

OR

PATTERNS

117

71. This is the matter/one of the matters, on account of which Hillel came up (Tos. Neg. 1:16 [y. Pes. 6:1, etc.] ) 72. Three stringent rulings of Gamaliel/Simeon b. Gamaliel (M. Bes. 2:6) 73. Hanina (lizard) (Tos. Ber. 3:20) A p o p h t h e g m a t i c p a t t e r n , as i n o t h e r instances, relies o n s a y i n g t o g e n e r ­ a t e n a r r a t i v e details.

74. Hananiah Prefect of Priests testified concerning four things (M. <Ed. 2:1-3) Redactional pattern. Actual items are unrelated to one another.

75. Yohanan b. Gudgada testified (M. Git. 5:5) 76. Shammai—Remember, before, keep, when (Mekh. deR. Simeon to Ex. 20:8) 77. Shammai—Until it fall—even on Sabbath (b. Shab. 19a) 78. And give you peace (Num. 6:26)—Hananiah Prefect of Priests: In your house (Sifre Num. 42) 79. Ex. 12:6—House of Shammai: Included in evening etc. (Mekh. deR Simeon to Ex. 12:6) 80. Ex. 20:9 + Houses: All your work finished vs. you work six days (Mekh. deR. Simeon to Ex. 20:9, part G) 81. Deut. 24:1 + Houses: DBR vs.
82. Ex. 22:8 + Houses: Any trespass vs. put hand (b. B.M. 44a) The various formulae and patterns exhibited by the foregoing pericopae are of different sorts. Some are clearly defined and carefully followed. Others are constructed merely by the order or number of segments of a narrative. No formula or pattern is based upon what I have defined as a small unit of tradition. The types of formulae and patterns are as follows:

118

S M A L L UNITS OF TRADITION

AND

MNEMONICS

Redactional formula, e.g. three things, when died...ended...: 31-38

( o r d i n a n c e s ) , 46, 57, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74,

75.

I n all t h e s e p e r i c o p a e , t h e p a t t e r n is e x t e r n a l t o t h e s u b s t a n c e o f t h e s a y i n g o r s t o r y a n d f r e q u e n t l y s e r v e s t o u n i t e u n r e l a t e d sentences o r ideas.

Redactional pattern, e.g. 40/40/40: 1-28, 29-30, 48, 52, 62. I n different w a y s , t h e p a t t e r n o f t h e p e r i c o p e a n d t h e d i s c r e t e m a t e r i a l s s h a p e d w i t h i n t h a t p a t t e r n a r e c l o s e l y r e l a t e d , e.g. d e b a t e s , epistles, n u m ­ ber-patterns (years, leprosy-signs).

Narrative pattern: 54, 55, 58, 59, 60, 63, 64, 66 (ascending scale). These pericopae exhibit in c o m m o n the quality o f a clearcut repetition o f p a t t e r n s b y w h i c h a s t o r y is u n f o l d e d . T h e p a t t e r n m a y b e s i m p l y a r e p e a t e d s e n t e n c e , as in n o s . 63-64, o r i t m a y b e c o m p o s e d o f l a r g e r u n i t s , e.g. sets o f sentences r e p e a t i n g t h e s a m e o v e r a l l p a t t e r n , as in n o s . 54, 58, w h e r e t h e s a m e t h i n g r e p e a t e d l y h a p p e n s a n d p r o d u c e s t h e s a m e s o r t o f d i a l o g u e . T o t h i s list o n e m a y a p p e n d ii, 30, 44, 53, w h i c h a r e less exact.

Repeated sentence: 51, 56. Here a phrase o r w h o l e sentence recurs.

Substantive pattern: 39-43,44,45,47, 53 (BSR vs. MSQ, TM' vs. THR); 73 (apophthegmatic pattern); 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82 (Scripture supplies framework). U n l i k e t h e r e d a c t i o n a l t y p e s , in t h e s u b s t a n t i v e p a t t e r n t h e r e c u r r e n t p h r a s e s o r f o r m s a r e i n t e g r a l t o t h e p e r i c o p e . N o s . 39-43, e x e g e s i s t o f a b l e , f o l l o w a s i n g l e m o d e l , a n d t h e m o d e l a n d its p o i n t c a n n o t b e d i s ­ tinguished. B u t some o f these are formally ambiguous. N o s . 44, 45, a n d 47 a r e s h a p e d in a c a r e f u l l y w o r k e d - o u t f r a m e w o r k . T h e first t w o a r e lists, b u t t h e s u b s t a n c e o f t h e lists is c o n s i s t e n t , b y c o n t r a s t t o M , A v o t 1:1-18, w h e r e t h e f o r m is c o n s t a n t , b u t t h e s a y i n g s generally are n o t closely related t o one another. Here, h o w e v e r , a com­ m o n t h e m e is p r e s e r v e d t h r o u g h o u t . N o . 53 is c o m p a r a b l e t o a H o u s e s - d i s p u t e ; o n e m i g h t a r g u e t h a t t h e f o r m a t i v e elements constitute small units o f tradition. N o . 73 r e p r e s e n t s t h e a p o p h t h e g m a t i c f o r m . Its l i t e r a r y t r a i t s a r e w e l l d e f i n e d , b u t it e x h i b i t s n o fixed p a t t e r n , i n t h e n a r r o w sense h e r e e m ­ ployed. N o s . 76-82, t o w h i c h o n e m i g h t a p p e n d ii n o s . 38, 39,40, s e g m e n t s o f 42, 46, 47, 51, 53, 59, 60, 61, 99, a n d 103, all d e p e n d o n S c r i p t u r e s f o r their structure. I h e r e o m i t t e d t h e specified i t e m s l i s t e d i n p a r t ii b e c a u s e t h e y s e e m e d t o m e not to depend u p o n the parsing of Scripture, but rather o n merely c i t i n g it. T h a t is, Remember it, before it comes, keep it, when it comes, s e e m s t o m e t o f o l l o w a clear p a t t e r n , w h i l e m e r e l y a t t r i b u t i n g t o Hillel a n e s t a b l i s h e d l e m m a , as in i i , n o s . 38, 39, o r c i t i n g a n d d i s c u s s i n g a S c r i p ­ t u r e w i t h a t t r i b u t i o n t o , o r i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h , a n a m e d m a s t e r , as in ii, n o s . 46, 60, 61, a n d 103, d o e s n o t . P a r t ii n o . 99 is t h e m o s t a m b i g u o u s . I n a n y e v e n t it is a q u e s t i o n o f j u d g m e n t ; m a t t e r s a r e n o t s o clear as in t h e o t h e r instances.

PERICOPAE

Substantive

formula:

WITH

49,

50,

FORMULAE

OR

PATTERNS

119

61

A s I said, in t h e s e p e r i c o p a e w e n o t e a f o r m u l a w h i c h is i n t e g r a l t o t h e sayings themselves.

With the specified ambiguous exceptions, the eighty-two pericopae listed here differ from the one hundred-five listed above in one respect: all show the sign of some pattern one might call mnemonic, whether imposed for redactional reasons, or intrinsic to the substance of the pericope. To be sure, the line is not easy to draw. Apophthegms and other narrative materials exhibit disciplined form or conventional story-telling techniques, yet do not reveal mnemonic patterns such as we observe here. Part ii no. 46, alluded to in nos 39-43, and other pericopae in which Scriptures occur, yet do not predominate, seem to me equally difficult to categorize. But in the main, we can dis­ tinguish among forms, and assign to some a mnemonic character (nos. 1-28, 29-30, 31-38), while in others we are unable to discern the operation of similar mnemonic considerations, even in what seem clearly defined and disciplined forms. Further, mnemonic patterns are obvious in discrete pericopae, which formally, all the more so sub­ stantively, have nothing to do with one other, as in the redactional formulae and patterns listed above. With the noted formulaic excep­ tions, none of the one hundred eighty-seven pericopae thus far con­ sidered contains a small unit of tradition. i v . SMALL UNITS OF TRADITION

When we come to the Houses-pericopae, we enter a quite different world. Here all pericopae manifest order and balance and follow re­ dactional patterns, or, at the very least, formulae. We noted above some of the more elaborate redactional patterns, e.g. collections, composites, II, pp. 324-327. The comments on individual pericopae made reference to patterns formed by small units of tradition. We shall now catalogue the several types of small units of tradition and other mnemonic patterns and list the pericopae in which they occur. 1. Fixed Oppo sites Strictly speaking, we find small units of tradition only in the syzygies of the Houses-disputes' apodoses. The choices normally are con­ sistent within, and appropriate to, the tractates in which they occur, e.g., unclean in the cleanness-order. They are as follows:

120

S M A L L UNITS OF TRADITION A N D

MNEMONICS

a. Liable vs Free (HYB\PTWR, MHYYB YN\PWTR YN) 1. Thought of heart (Mekh. deR. Ishmael X V 49-55) [Speculative] 2. She who aborts on eve of eighty-first day—sacrifice (M. Ker. 1:6) 3. Sweet oil (M. Dem. 1:3 [Tos. Dem. 1:26-7] ) 4. Excess of

^omer

etc. (Tos. Dem. 1:28)

5. Hallah (y. Dem. 5:1) 6. Basket of fruit for Sabbath (M. Ma. 4:2) 7. Sift by hand (Tos. Ma. 3:10) 8. Flour paste, dumplings (M. Hal. 1:6) Unlike the Qumranian laws, we do not find the explication of the ref­ erence of HYB; what must be done is either implicit in context or ignored. Penalties are not specified. b. Unclean\Clean (JM* vs. THR, MTNPYN vs. MTHRYN) 1. Articles made of common nails (M. Kel. 11:3 [Tos. Kel. B.M. 1:2] ) 2. Bride's stool that lost seat-boards (M. Kel. 22:4) ( + Shammai with >P) 3. Scroll covers with figures (M. Kel. 28:4) (Reconstruction) 4. Outer surfaces of alum-vessel (Tos. Kel. B.Q. 2:1) (Reconstruction) 5. Peat in oven (Tos. Kel. B.Q. 6:18) 6. Shovel lost blade (Tos. Kel. B.M. 3:8) 7. Mustard-strainer with two holes (Tos. Kel. B.M. 4:16)

SMALL UNITS OF

TRADITION

121

8. Stool fixed inside baking trough etc. (Tos. Kel. B.B. 1:12) 9. Wrapper for garments (Tos. Kel. B.B. 4:9) 10. Girdle from side of garment (Tos. Kel. B.B. 5:7-8 [M. Kel. 28:7] ) 11. Bottle used as plug for grave (Tos. Ah. 15:9) 12. Cover up olives in cleanness vs. in uncleanness (M. Toh. 9:7) 13. He places from baskets with clean vs. unclean hands (M. Toh. 10:4) 14. Leaving vessels in public (Tos. Toh. 8:9B-10) 15. Types of liquid (M. Nid. 2:6) 16. Blood of gentile woman (M. Nid. 4:3A, Tos. Nid. 5:5) 17. If immersed self next day and had connection and suffered flux (M. Nid. 10:8) (Theoretical reconstruction) 18-19-20. Man shook tree etc. S u b j e c t t o l a w o f If water be put vs. n o t =

unclean, clean

(M. Maksh. (Three

1:2-4

[Tos. Maksh.

1:1-4])

examples)

21-22. Water leaked into trough S u b j e c t t o If water vs. n o t ( M . M a k s h . 4:5 (Two

[Tos. Maksh.

2:6])

examples)

23. Lyings and sittings (Tos. Zab. 1:3) 24. Song of Songs (M. Yad. 3:5 [M. <Ed. 5:3]) 25-26. Olives and grapes that turned hard (M.
122

SMALL UNITS OF TRADITION A N D MNEMONICS

c. Prohibit\Permit ('WfRYNvs.

MTYRYN)

1. Se*ah of unclean heave-offering in a hundred of clean (M. Ter. 5:4, Tos. Ter. 6:4) Better apodosis: Eliezer: Take u p and burned Sages:

Lost through

scantiness

2. Work on night of 13th of Nisan (M. Pes. 4:5) 3. Bringing back ladder (Tos. Y.T. 1:8) 4. Remove doors of cupboard (Tos. Y.T. 1:10B) 5. Empty vessels not on account of need (Tos. Y.T. 1:11 A) 6. Gifts on festival (Tos. Y.T. 1:12) (In M. Bes., all equivalents use negative + permit) 7. Substitutes for substitutes of vows (Tos. Nez. 1:1) 8. Harlot makes wheat into flour for altar (b. Tern. 30b) 9. Egg from bird's carcass (y. Bes. 1:1) d. Unfit/Fit (KSR VS. P$WU MKSYRYN VS. PW$LYN) 1. Old Sukkah (M. Suk. 1:1) 2. Man's head and greater part of body in Sukkah and table in house (M. Suk. 2:7) (Should be: YS> + / - L>) 3. Citron of demai (M. Suk. 3:5) 4-5. If performed halisah (M. Yev. 1:4) (Two examples) 6. Woman has intercourse with minor son, re priesthood (Tos. Sot. 4:7) 7. Sprinkled and poured out blood once (Tos. Zev. 4:9) 8. Slaughtered with reaping sickle KDRK HWLKTH (M. Hul. 1:2)

SMALL UNITS OF TRADITION

123

9. One who forgets etc. (M. Miq. 4:1) (Theoretical reconstruction) y

To this list we may add YS> vs. V YS , he has, has not, fulfilled his obligation: 1. Vowed without term and shaved on thirtieth (Tos. Nez. 2:10) 2. See above, M. Suk. 2:7, no. 2. We should have expected more extensive use of this syzygy. e. MidrasjTeme-Met 1. Trough for mixing mortar (M. Kel. 20:2) 2. Leather bag or wrapper for purple wool (M. Kel. 26:6) f. Insidej Outside; PastjFuture; Above/Below These are commonplace opposites of meaning. They occur as follows: Inside vs. Outside: 1. Flesh of holy of holies burned—inside/outside (Sifra Sav 8:6, M. Sheq. 8:6) 2. Produce not fully harvested passed through Jerusalem—eaten inside/ outside (M. M.S. 3:6-7) (Theoretical reconstruction) 3. Olive presses whose doors open inward and contained space out­ ward (M. M.S. 3:6, 7, 3:12; Tos. M.S. 2:12) 4. Second-tithe made unclean—redeemed and eaten inside vs. outside (M. M.S. 3:9; Tos. M.S. 2:16) 5. Measure chest (M. Kel. 18:1) C

Past vs. comingyear (L$ BR vs. DTYD

LB')

1. Pod (Tos. Shev. 2:6) Above vs. below: 1.

*Eruv

for cistern

c

(M. Eruv. 8:6)

124

S M A L L UNITS O F TRADITION A N D MNEMONICS

2. Balance

of

Meter

In some pericopae, the Houses' lemmas are balanced not only in the number of syllables of the introductory clause: House X say House Y say,—5 vs. 5—but also in the exact meter of the apodoses, whether or not the actual words correspond and contrast, as above. These are metrical syzygies, e.g. six syllables vs. six syllables. One may observe that TM'/THR, HYB/PTWR, and some other fixed opposites also are metrically balanced. y

1. TRWMT <SMN BHM vs. >YN TRWMTN TRWMH (M. Ter. 1:4) 6 vs. 6 ( ? )

2. See M. M.S. 3:6-7 part 3: BYRW$LM PS BKL MQWM 4 vs. 4 3. Who is a child? KL S'YNW YKWL LRKWB vs. KL S'YNW YKWL UHWZ


T h u s L R K W B
SUBYW

BYDW

SlJBYW

BYDW

pointing)

4-5-6. HLQ vs. HZQ—Yahaloqu vs. behezqatan (M. Yev. 4:3, M. Ket. 8:6, M. B.B. 9:8-9) 4 vs. 4 ( F o u r e x e m p l a ) — H L Q

vs. I I Z Q =

L w . Q

7. SLSYM VS. THYLH (M. Naz. 3:6) 3

3

8. (H)R$WT BYDW vs. (>YN) SWM'YN LW (Tos. Ket. 8:9) 4(5) vs. 4(5) 9. YHBZ, vs. YHBi? (M. Kel. 14:2 [Tos. Kel. B.M. 4:5]) 10. M§Y7^R vs. MSY£?R (M. Kel. 20:6) CAqiba: M S Y Q B ) c

11. WMDTtvj. SRWRH (Tos. Kel. B.M. 11:3) 3 vs. 3

12. KSYPTH VS. KSYTHYL (M. 4 vs. 4 ( N o t e : A g r e e m e n t uses b o t h r o o t s : P T H vs. T H L = P vs. L )

Oh.

7:3)

SMALL UNITS OF

TRADITION

125

13. >RB (M. Oh. 11:1) 3w.3 14. (MSYZY'W) Z
Another very close balance of words is as follows: 19. House of Shammai say, One might [say] YHWG >DM BYWM TWB TLMWD LWMR >K BMW D >TH HWGG W'YN >TH HWGG BYWM TWB House of Hillel say, One might [say] YHWG >DM BSBT TLMWD LWMR >K BYWM TWB >TH HWGG W YN TH HWGG B$BT (Sifra Emor 15:5) (

J

J

l

T h e difference is Y W M T W B vs. M W D a n d § B T vs. Y W M T W B — 4 vs. 4, o r , i n effect, M W ' D vs. § B T , 2 vs. 2.

In this connection, note also v. 2, reversal of word order\ nos. 9, 10, and viii. 23.

3. Balance of Meter and Change of Letter In the following pericopae, we find metric syzygies of word order and a single change of a letter: 1. HZR MQWM BRK vs. BRK MQWM ZKR = 1,2,3, vs. 3, 2, 1, (M. Ber. 8:7) H vs. Z.

126

S M A L L UNITS O F TRADITION

A N D MNEMONICS

2. HZR >KL BYRWSLM VS. PDH >KL BKL MQWM (M. M.S. 3:6-7) Thus: 1. HZR vs. PDH 2. >*KL = 'KL 3. 4 metres vs. 4 metres See also 2. nos. 3,4,9,10,15 above, and v. 3. nos. 8,10,11, below,reversals of word order, much like reversals of letter order, and metrically balanced. v . SYNTACTICAL AND MORPHOLOGICAL CHANGES EQUIVALENT IN FUNCTION TO SMALL UNITS OF TRADITION

Other mnemonic patterns, some of them very common, function like small units of tradition, in that they set up balanced opposites. But what is set in opposition is not the choice of words for the apodo­ sis, as in iv. 1. a-f, or balances of different words in identical meter, as in iv. 2, 3. Rather, first, the arrangement of words will be changed in a single detail, so that one needs merely to remember which of two words comes first in the lemma of which House; or, second, the words will be identical, but the syntactical elements will change, e.g. and vs. or; or, third, the Houses' opinions will be identical, except that one will have a negative; or, fourth, one will make a negative statements and the other will permit. Fifth, while 'P is frequently a redactional device, sometimes it functions much like a mnemonic, such as permit; or like a change in order order; or like and vs. or. 1. Tense + Number 1. Did create light vs. does create lights (M. Ber. 8:5) 2. Distinction vs. No. Distinction (And vs. Or) The difference between the Houses will be represented either by and vs. or(= not vs. and), with all elements repeated in each lemma; or by the statement of a distinction in the first lemma, followed by this and this... in the second; or one element will include only.. .not, the other (both)...cm/.

1. Leaven/olive, bread/date vs. all (ZH WZH) etc. (Sifre* Deut. 131, M. Bes. 1:1, Tos. Y.T. 1:4) 2. Water plants until the New Year—foliage and it drips on the root vs. both on foliage and on root (Tos. Shev. 1:5)

SYNTACTICAL AND

MORPHOLOGICAL

CHANGES

127

3. All ten vs. ten/eleven (M. M.S. 4:8) 4. Redeem with money vs. all same whether money or produce (BYN...BYN...) (M. M.S. 5:7) 5. Redeem produce with coins in Jerusalem: This and this are Second Tithe vs. coins as they were and fruits as they were (Tos. M.S. 3:14-15) 6. Grapes vs. wine, grapes and wine (Tos. M.S. 5:19) 7. Hot water, not food vs. hot water and food (M. Shab. 3:1) 8. Only in case of need vs. in case of need and not in case of need (Tos. Shab. 14:1) 9. Side-post and/or cross-beam (M. <Eruv. 1:2 [b. Eruv. 6a, y. <Eruv. 1:1]) c

10. Loosen and remove vs. loosen or remove (M. Suk. 1:7) 11. Immerse all vs. vessels before, men on Sabbath (M. Bes. 2:2) 12. Bring peace-offerings and not lay hands vs. bring and lay (M. Bes. 2:3) 13. Only betrothed vs. betrothed and married 14. Husband, not YBM vs. husband and YBM 15. In presence vs. in presence and not in presence 16. Before court vs. before court and not before court (M. Yev. 13:1) 17. Adolescent and not child vs. both 18. Three times vs. even four/five (M. Yev. 13:1) (Theoretical continuation) 19. Saw others eating figs: permitted and prohibited vs. both permitted (M. Ned. 3:2) 20. Three betrothe: two witnesses and one agent vs. all three agents (Tos. Qid. 4:1) 21. How long is novitiate of haver: Liquids, thirty days, garment, twelve months vs. both (ZH WZH) thirty days (b. Bekh. 30b)

128

S M A L L UNITS OF

TRADITION AND

MNEMONICS

22. YHBL and YHBR vs. YHBL or YHBR (Tos. Kel. B.M. 4:5, 11:7) 23-24-25. All become unclean vs. oven unclean and house clean (M. Oh. 5:1-4) (Three examples) 26. Increase and overflow vs. increase or overflow (M. Miq. 1:5 [Tos. Miq. 1:7, 10] ) 27. Set or left in forgetfulness—both invalid vs. only set invalid (M. Miq. 4:1)

3. Reversal of Word-Order Another common mnemonic pattern assigns all elements of the apodosis to both Houses, but then reverses the order of the elements, as follows: 1. Houses: Heave-offering vetches—soak, rub, give as food in clean­ ness (M. M.S. 2:4 [Tos. M.S. 2:1]) (Shammai and Aqiba out of balance) c

C

C

2. Re'iyyah—two silver, SMHH—M H vs. Re'iyyah—M H, SMHH— two silver (Sifre Deut. 143, M. Hag. 1:2) 3. Day/wine vs. wine/day (M. Ber. 8:1) 4. Wash/mix vs. mix/wash (M. Ber. 8:2) 5. Clean/wash vs. wash/clean (M. Ber. 8:4) 6. Wine/food vs. food/wine (M. Ber. 8:8) 7. Sweet oil in right hand and wine in left hand vs. wine in right hand and sweet oil in left hand (Tos. Ber. 5:27) 8. KL >HD vs. >HD [HD vs. >HD [ L] HKL—plots sown with g r a i n - P ^ (M. Pe'ah 3:1) (1, 2 vs. 2, 1) C

SYNTACTICAL

AND

MORPHOLOGICAL

CHANGES

129

11. [<Eruv] LKL >HD vs. >HD [L]KL[M] (M. <Eruv. 6:6) 12. Day/wine vs. wine/day (M. Pes. 10:2 [Tos. Pisha 10:2-3]) y

13. Measure of re iyyah greater than of hagigah vs. hagigah, than re'iyjah (Tos. Hag. 1:4) ( = No. 2 above) 14. Heaven/earth vs. earth/heaven (b. Hag. 12a) (Speculative) 4. Statements of Law +/~

Negative

The single most common matched pattern assigns all elements of the apodosis to both Houses and differentiates only by the inclusion of the negative—'YN or L*—in one House's lemma. 1. BWDQYN + / - >YN (Mekh. Pisha III 209-216) (Speculative) 2. Vintage for vat: HWKSR + / - >YN (b. Shab. 15a) [Should be: TM'/THR] 3. To lay (LSMK) + / - L> (M. Hag. 2:2) 4. Baby born circumcized—draw blood of covenant +/— 'YN (Sifra Tazri'a 1:5, Tos. Shab. 3:18) 5. Field prepared—eat fruit in Sabbatical year +/— 'YN (Sifra Behar 1:5A, M. Shev. 4:2) 6. Eat produce by favor +/— not by favor (Sifra Behar 1:5B) 7. Exempted what was cooked in pot +/— L> (y. Ber. 6:5) 8. Forgotten sheaf +/— >YN (twice) (M. Pe'ah 6:2-3) J

9. Ownerless vs. not ownerless unless also to rich = HBQR +/— YN (M. Pe>ah6:l) 10. Grapes of fourth-year vineyard—'YN Fifth + removal vs. Y$; Y$ gleanings + cluster vs. KLW LGT (M. Pe'ah 7:6, Tos. M.S. 5:17) (Not exact.)

130

SMALL UNITS OF TRADITION A N D

MNEMONICS J

11. He who plants row of five vines—vineyard +/— YN (M. Kil. 4:5) 12. Caperbush in vineyard—Mixed seeds +/— YN (Tos. Kil. 3:17) 13. Give heave-offering +/— >YN (Tos. Ter. 2:5) 14. Give heave-offering +/— >YN (Tos. Ter. 3:14) 15. Give heave-offering +/— YN (Tos. Ter. 3:16) (And Scriptural arguments, Num. 18:27 vs. Lev. 27:30) J

5

16. Doubtful heave-offering + burn +/— >YN (y. Pes. 3:6) 17. Heave-offering from several jars, open and empty +/— 'YN [= empty only] (M. M.S. 3:13, Tos. M.S. 2:18) 18. Cooked food: remove vs. it is as if already removed (Conjectural: development of do not remove) (M. M.S. 5:6) 19. Less than egg's bulk renders unclean +/— not (M. YN (b. <Eruv. 48b) 21. Prepare

*eruv

with wine for Nazirite etc. +/— *YN (b. <Eruv. 30a)

22. Convert on day before Passover: Not require sprinkling vs. requires (M. Pes. 8:8) (Theoretical formulation. Actual: immerses and eats vs. he that separates) 23. Burn piggul,

and unclean meat together +/— 'YN (b. Pes. 15b) 24. Return limbs +/— >YN (Tos. Pisha 7:2) 25. Egg laid on festival day— eaten +/— 'YN (M. Bes. 1:1) 26. Bring burned-offering for festival +/— 'YN (b. Bes. 19a [vs. M. Bes. 2:3] ) notar,

27. Scattered in enclosure, gathered in field—bring +/— 'YN (Tos. Y.T. 3:10 [M. Bes. 4:2] ) 28. Day for slaughtering is after Sabbath +/— >YN (M. Hag. 2:4)

SYNTACTICAL AND

MORPHOLOGICAL

CHANGES

131

29. Laying on of hands not in ordinary manner has been permitted (y. Hag. 2:3) 30. Marries and +/— 'YN takes Ketuvah (M. Yev. 15:3) 31. Co-wives went and married—are fit + progeny are fit +/— >YN (Tos. Yev. 1:7) 32. Woman inherits goods before betrothal—sell, give away, etc +/->YN (M. Ket. 8:1) 33. Absolution for oath +/— >YN (b. Ned. 28a) 34. Nazir + / - >YN (M. Naz. 1:2) 35. HQDS + / - >YN (M. Naz. 5:1-2) 36. Nazir + / - >YN (M. Naz. 5:5) (Slight variations) 37. Testify by echo +/— >YN (Tos. Nez. 1:1) 38. Bald Nazirite passes razor over head +/— >YN (b. Naz. 46b) 39. Man imposes vow on son +/— 'YN (Tos. Nez. 3:17) 40. All Nazirites vs. only Nazir who (Tos. Nez. 3:19) ,

,

(Variation: YN... L\..) 41. Takes Ketuvah and drinks +/— >YN (M. Sot. 4:2) (Compare no. 30.) 42. Divorce and changed mind—rendered wife ineligible to priest +/-L' 43. Divorce and spent night—need second Get +/— *YN (M. Git. 8:8-9) 44. Middle group goes down +/— **YN (Tos. Sanh. 13:3) (Theoretical reconstruction) 45. Piggul and Karet, piggul not Karet (Tos. Zev. 4:9) (Close to and/or) 46. Fowl comes up with cheese +/— L* (M. Hul. 8:1, Tos. Hul. 8:2-3)

132

S M A L L UNITS OF

TRADITION AND

MNEMONICS

47. Sanctifies property and intends to divorce wife—may bring her back +/->YN (Tos. YN (b. YN (M. Oh. 18:4) 55. Olives left to grow soft—MWKSRYN + / - >YN (M. Toh. 9:5) 56. Immerse vessels in rain-steam vs. >YN (M. Miq. 5:6b) J

57. Immerse hot water in cold +/— YN (M. Miq. 10:6) 58. Needs immersion at end of purifying +/— 'YN (M. Nid. 10:3) 59. Liable to offering +/— >YN (M. Nid. 10:7) 5

60-61. Serve as connector +/— YN (M. T.Y. 1:1) (Two examples) 62. Layer of jelly—connector +/— *YN (Tos. T.Y. 2:3) 63. Needs to broach +/— >YN (M. Maksh. 1:1) 5. Negative Statement -\- Permit A pattern closely related to the foregoing supplies a full, negative statement to one side, then has the other side permit, or vice versa: 1. Not sell ploughing heifer vs. permit (M. Shev. 5:8) 2. Not sell field vs. permit (Tos. Shev. 4:5B) 3. Not sell Seventh Year produce for coins vs. permit (Tos. Shev. 6:19)

SYNTACTICAL

4. Not change

A N D MORPHOLOGICAL

se/as vs.

CHANGES

133

permit (M. M.S. 2:7)

5. Do not plant vs. permit (Tos. M.S. 5:20) 6. Not soak ink etc. unless time to be wholly soaked while still day vs. permit 7. Not put bundles offlaxin oven etc. vs. permit 8. Not spread nets vs. permit 9. Not sell to gentile vs. permit 10. Not give hides to tanner vs. permit (M. Shab. 1:4-8) 11. Pharisee-Z^ not eat with outsider vs. permit (Tos. Shab. 1:14) 12. Not kill louse vs. permit (Tos. Shab. 16:21) 13. Send letter on Wednesday vs. permit (y. Shab. 1:9) 14. Not burn clean meat with unclean vs. permit (Tos. Pisha 1:6) 15. Do not remove ladder vs. permit (M. Bes. 1:2) 16. Not take off cupboard doors vs. permit 17. Not lift up pestle vs. permit 18. Not put hide before treading-place vs. permit 19. Not carry out child vs. permit 20. Not take dough-offering vs. permit (M. Bes. 1:3-6) 21. Not heat water vs. permit (M. Bes. 2:4) 22. Not bake thick bread on Passover vs. permit (b. Bes. 22b) 23. Permit co-wives to brothers

vs. prohibit

(M. Yev. 1:4) 24. Man divorces with old bill of divorce vs.

prohibit

(M. Git. 8:4) 25. Israelite not numbered with priest for firstling vs. permit (M. Bekh. 5:2, Tos. Bekh. 3:15-16)

134

SMALL UNITS OF

TRADITION AND

MNEMONICS

6. *P in Second Lemma *P normally serves redactional, not substantive purposes. Some­ times, however, it introduces an actual opinion, thus adding an item to a list, indicating a contrary opinion ( = permit) and the like. 1. >P adds the Shammaite opinion, with the Hillelite lemma out of balance (M. P M<SR (M. Hag. 1:3 [Tos. Hag. 1:4]) 7. Vow in all except oath vs. even oath 8. Not be first vs. even first 9. Only matter vs. even not (M. Ned. 3:4) 10. Also siphon is clean (M. Kel. 9:2) 11. Intention before vs. even after (M. Oh. 7:3) 12. Cover up in cleanness vs. *P in uncleanness (M. Toh. 9:7) 13. KMG< TM> MT vs. >P KTM> MT (M. Nid. 10:6) 14. >P porridge etc. (M. Maksh. 5:9) (>P here is connector) vi.

DIFFERENCES IN WORD-CHOICE

In a few instances, no real dispute seems to have separated the Houses. Juxtaposing their opinions, which use different words for pretty much the same thing, seems to suggest the presence of a dif­ ference where there is only a distinction in word choice, as in nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 12(?), and 24. In other instances, the differences in word-

D I F F E R E N C E S IN

WORD-CHOICE

135

choice evidently are significant and indicate a substantive dispute, as in nos. 3, 5, 7, 8, 9,10,11,13,14,15.16,17,18,19, 20, 21,22, and 23. In none of these does a metrical balance appear to have been a consid­ eration in the formulation of a dispute. 1. Hin vs. qab—Hillel/Shammai (M. <Ed. 1:3A) 2. ) (M. Yev. 3:1, Tos. Yev. 5:1) (Theoretical form: M'MR + QDS + / - >YN)

136

S M A L L UNITS OF

TRADITION AND

MNEMONICS

17. Two males vs. male and female (M. Yev. 6:6 [Tos. Yev. 8:4]) (Similar to distinction vs. no distinction) 18. When does husband inherit: womanhood vs. huppah (b. Yev. 89b) 19. Bride as she is vs. lovely etc. (b. Ket. 17a) 20. Inquired vs. vowed (Tos. Nez. 3:19) 21. DBR vs.
24. SMYM vs. GWYH (M. <Ed. 1:7) (+ Shammai) {Perhaps: 3 vs. 3) v i i . NUMBER-SEQUENCES

While number-sequences prove to be common, only 2 vs. 1 or vice versa tends to recur in a significant number of pericopae. Also a descending scale, e.g. 10, 9, 8, 7, or an ascending one, e.g., 2, 3, 4, appears more than episodically. The other sequences seem to come at random and to depend upon the substance of the laws under discussion, e.g., nos. 8 (derived from exegesis), 15, 16, 18, 33. Occasionally, we see opposed units of measurement, with the same number, e.g., no. 28. 1. 3 vs. 9—Hillel, Shammai (M. <Ed. 1:3A) 2. 12 vs. 36—Hillel, Shammai (Tos. <Ed. 1:3) 3. 1 vs. 2—Shammai, Hillel: qab for Hallah vs. two qabs (M. Ed. 1:3) c

4. 3/3/3 vs. 3/3/3 + 1/1/1—Hananiah Prefect of the Priests, Ishmael, and sages (M. Men. 10:1)

NUMBER-SEQUENCES

137

5. 16/36/72—colors of leprosy-signs—Hananiah Prefect of Priests, Dosa, 'Aqavya (M. Neg. 1:4) 6. 3 vs. A—how many tassels in sisit—House of Hillel, then House of Shammai (Sifre Num. 115, Deut. 234) 7. 4 vs. 3—how many tassels House of Shammai vs. House of Hillel (b. Bekh. 39b-40a, b. Men. 41b) 8. 2 vs. 5—sheep liable to fleece (M. Hul. 11:2, Sifre Deut. 166) 9. 10 vs. 9, 8 vs. 7—benedictions for New Year on Sabbath (Tos. R. H. 2:17, Tos. Ber. 3:13) 10. 2, 3 vs. 3, 4 (M. Pe'ah 1:5) 11. Vineyard patch—24 vs. 16; outer space of vineyard—16 vs. 12 (M. Kil. 4:1) 12. Sows within four cubits of vineyard forfeits—1 vs. 2 (M. Kil. 4:5) 13. Measurement of dirt—10 vs. 6 (Tos. Kil. 4:11B) 14. Measure of heave-offering—30/40/50 vs. 40/50/60 (M. Ter. 4:3) 15. When make vat unclean—after first vs. second [tithe is taken] (Tos. Ter. 3:12) (Not comparable to the others.)

16. Hanukkah—start with 8 vs. 1 (b. Shab. 21b) 17. *Eruv-tavshilin—2. vs. 1 (M. Bes. 2:1, Tos. Y.T. 2:4) 18. First vs. fifteenth of Shevat (M. R.H. 1:1) (Not comparable to the others.)

19. Overturn couch—3 vs. 1 (Tos. M.Q. 2:9) 20. Vow no intercourse—2 vs. 1 (M. Ket. 5:6) 21. Nursing mother remarry—24 vs. 98 (b. Ket. 60a-b) 22. How much blotted out—1 vs. 2 (y. Sot. 3:3)

138

SMALL UNITS OF TRADITION

AND

MNEMONICS

23. Placings in sin-offering: 2 vs. 1 (M. Zev. 4 : 1 ) 24. Length of shafts—7 vs. 8, 9 vs. 1 0 (M. Kel. 2 9 : 8 [Tos. Kel. B.B. 7 : 4 ] ) 25. How much lacking in backbone—2 vs. 1 (M. Oh. 2:3) 26. Uncleanness inside—vessels outside—how big split— 4 vs. any amount (M. Oh. 1 1 : 1 ) 27. Place for rod—any amount vs. one (M. Oh. 1 3 : 4 ) 28. Fore-court of tomb—4 amot vs. 4 tefahim (M. Oh. 1 5 : 8 ) 29. Its thickness vs. one tefah (Tos. Ah. 1 4 : 4 ) 30. 2 + 1 vs. 1 + 1 (Tos. Ah. 1 6 : 6 ) 31. From third row vs. from J ^ W row (Tos. Par. 5 : 1 ) 32. Come of age: 20 vs. 1 8 (M. Nid. 5:9) 33. Minor married— a) 4 nights vs. wound heals b) 1 ar. 4 (M. Nid. 1 0 : 1 [Tos. Nid. 9 : 7 : 9 ] )

34. Makes void—2 vs. 1 (M. Zab. 1:2) VIII. HOUSES-DISPUTES NOT IN PRECISE BALANCE

In the following pericopae, we discern no balance in the formula­ tions of the Houses-opinions. The lack of contrasting meter or syzygous word-choice in some instances is readily explained, however, for the subject-matter of the legal disputes or the substance of the opinions generally excludes the possibility of choosing words other than those before us, e.g., nos. 2 , 4 , 5 , 1 3 , 1 4 , 1 6 , 1 7 , 2 5 , 2 6 . Even here, however, we find fixed lemmas, e.g. after usualfashion does not contrast with pounded with pestle or pick pulse (nos. 6, 7), but it does constitute a cliche. Likewise, no. 1 depends upon a cliche for the Shammaite opinion; the rest of the opinions balance with one another. As we observed, one could not have phrased the Shammaite opinion in the fixed terms of the Hillelites or Aqiba's, because, to begin with, it is variable. Nos. 2 and 4 rely on Scriptures. Nos. 3 , 1 3 , 2 2 , and 2 4 are c

HOUSES-DISPUTES NOT

IN

PRECISE

BALANCE

139

examples of unbalanced disputes which might have been formulated in the more conventional way. Some of the Houses' lemmas are scarcely related to one another, though they address themselves to the same legal problem, e.g., nos. 15,19, 21. No. 2 is anomalous. All peri­ copae, however, do exhibit the standard structural balance, House X say vs. House Y say. 1. YLQH BHSR WYTR vs. K$
140

S M A L L U N I T S OF

TRADITION AND

MNEMONICS

16. Steal beam—take down vs. estimate value (Tos. B.Q. 9:5) 17. KML> MQDH vs. KDY SYNTL MN HHY WYMWT (M. Oh. 2:3) 18. KML> MQDH vs. BMQWM >HD ML' MQDH (M. Oh. 13:1) 19. How gather grapes in grave-area (M. Oh. 18:1) 20. What do they examine (M. Oh. 18:8) 21. Connective for uncleanness but not for sprinkling vs. if sprinkled on kettle, sprinkled on lid, not vice versa (M. Par. 12:10 [Tos. Par. 12:18]) 22. Blood of woman after childbirth—like spittle vs. conveys unclean­ ness wet or dry (M. Nid. 4:3B) 23. N$YM MTWT NDWT VS. NDH MTH NDH (M. Nid. 10:4) (See II, p. 302-307; six vs. six.) 24. Convey uncleanness vs. such a one is gluttonous (M. Nid. 10:8) 25. Like one that waits day vs. like one that has suffered pollution 26. Wholly Zab vs. conveys uncleanness to what he sits on etc. (M. Zab. 1:1) 27. He who anoints pure oil etc. (y. Ber. 8:3) 28. Tefillin in privy (b. Ber. 23a) T h e H o u s e s a r e n o t in b a l a n c e , b u t t h e Hillelites a n d ' A q i b a d o m a t c h : hand vs. garment.

i x . SUMMARY OF SMALL UNITS OF TRADITION AND OTHER MNEMONIC PATTERNS

We have isolated and characterized the following mnemonic phe­ nomena: 1. Pericopae without mnemonic-formulae or patterns—105 2. Pericopae with mnemonic formulae or patterns—82 a) Redactional formula (e.g. three things)—18 Formula external to substance of pericope, imposed to link discrete materials.

SUMMARY

141

b) Redactional pattern (e.g. epistles, debates)—33 Pattern internal to substance of pericope. c) Narrative pattern (repetition of sequences of actions or of sentences)—8 ( + 3?) d) Repeated sentence—2 e) Substantive pattern—17 ( + 13?) Apophthegms, some lists,fixedframework, e.g., supplied by Scripture. Recurrent phrases are integral to pericopae, not merely redactional. [ + ii. 38, 39, 40, 42, 46, 47, 51, 53, 59, 60, 61, 99, 103] f) Substantive formula—3 Formula integral to saying. 3. Pericopae containing small units of tradition or following other disciplined mnemonic forms 314 a) Small units 86 1. Fixed opposites 66 Liable vs. free 8 Unclean vs. clean 28 Prohibit vs. permit 9 Unfit vs. fit 10 Midrds vs. Teme-Met 2 Inside vs. outside (etc.) 7 2. Balance of meter 18 3. Balance of meter and change of single letter 2 b) Syntactical and morphological 142 changes functionally equivalent to small units of tradition 1. Tenses and numbers 1 2. Distinction vs. no distinc­ tion {and vs. or) 27 3. Reversal of word-order 14 4. Statements of law+/— negative 61 5. Negative statement + permit 25 6. >P in second lemma 14 c) Differences in word choice 24 d) Number-sequences 34 e) Houses-disputes not closely balanced 28 (Structural balance only: Xsay vs. Ysay

142

S M A L L UNITS OF

TRADITION AND

MNEMONICS

Pericopae exhibiting no clear mnemonic pattern pertain primarily to named masters other than Hillel, Shammai, and the Houses. Peri­ copae containing small units of tradition or following other mnemonic forms concern the Houses alone. Among the pericopae exhibiting mnemonic patterns of some sort, we find the following distribution: Houses: 31 +314 = 345 Hillel + Shammai: 19 Gamaliel + Simeon b. Gamaliel: 9 Chains ending with Shammai-Hillel: 2 Baba b. Buta: 1 Joshua b. Gamala: 2 Abba Joseph: 1 Hananiah Prefect of the Priests: 3 Simeon the Just: 2 Yosi's: 4 Yohanan High Priest: 1 Hanina b. Dosa: 1 Simeon b. Shetah: 2 Shema'iah and Abtalion: 1 In addition, the sayings in Avot follow a redactional pattern. As to the pericopae without mnemonic patterns, we find the following distribution: Simeon the Just: 4 Yosi's: 2 Joshua b. Perahiah: 3 Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah: 9 Shema'iah and Abtalion: 5 Shammai: 6 Hillel: 17 (Houses: 8 [All in structural balance, as noted]) Hillel and Shammai: 3 Gamaliel: 14 Simeon b. Gamaliel: 4 Baba b. Buta: 2 Hananiah Prefect of the Priests: 9 Rest scattered. The Houses' and Hillel-and-Shammai-pericopae normally exhibit mne­ monic patterns or are balanced in some way or another, and the peri­ copae of other named masters are apt not to be balanced or to exhibit mnemonic patterns. Since in the list of mnemonic pericopae are peri­ copae whose mnemonic pattern derives from redactional, and not substantive, considerations, the imbalance is more considerable than these figures suggest.

ORAL TRANSMISSION:

DEFINING THE

PROBLEM

143

We may assign to the Yavnean stratum both the forms listed above and, for obvious reasons (II, pp. 1-5), the mnemonic patterns considered here (though later tradents followed the patterns as well). Since it is virtually certain that Houses-materials and probably many other elements of the Hillel and Hillel-Shammai traditions derive from Yavnean times, we may conclude that both the development of welldefined forms for the transmission of data and the arrangement of materials within those forms in careful mnemonic sequences go to­ gether. Forms, small units of tradition, and other mnemonic patterns all serve the same purpose: the careful redaction and secure, accurate transmission of materials given normative status. This phenomenon seems to derive from early Yavnean times, and to have continued there­ after. x. ORAL TRANSMISSION: DEFINING THE PROBLEM

The rabbinic tradition claims as its authority Moses "our rabbi" and explicitly states that alongside the Scriptures, Moses revealed an Oral Torah, shaped not in writing to begin with, but by oral dictation, and orally transmitted in schools for centuries thereafter from master to disciple. The clearest statement of matters is as follows: Our rabbis taught: How [was] the Mishnah order [ed] (KYSD SDR M$NH)? A. Moses learned from the mouth of the Almighty. Aaron entered, and Moses repeated to him his [Aaron's] chapter (PRQW). Aaron departed and sat at the left hand of Moses. His sons entered and Moses repeated to them their chapter. His sons departed. Eleazar sat at the right hand of Moses and Itamar at the left of Aaron. R. Judah says, "Aaron surely sat at the right hand of Moses." Again the elders entered, and Moses taught them their chapter. The elders departed, and all the people entered, and Moses taught them their chapter. So it came out that in the hand of Aaron [were] four, in the hand of his sons three, and in the hand of the elders two, and in the hand of the whole people one. His sons taught them their chapter. His sons departed. The sages taught them their chapter. So it came about that in everyone's hand were four. B. On this basis (MK>N) R. Eliezer said, "A man is required to repeat to his disciple four times..." R. 'Aqiba says [sic], "How do we know that a man is liable to teach his disciple until he learns it? As it is said..." (b. <Eruv. 54b)

144

SMALL UNITS OF

TRADITION AND

MNEMONICS

Judah b. Ilai's interpolation supplies a firm terminus ante quern for the pericope: Usha. Eliezer's and 'Aqiba's lemmas are appropriately at­ tached (MK?N), but stand independent of the story, which conforms to Eliezer's view. Indeed, one might have formulated the story on the basis of the dispute of Eliezer and 'Aqiba, thus supplying a prece­ dent for the position of the former. We therefore have firm evidence that the pattern of oral formulation and transmission of traditions was well established, indeed taken for granted, by Usha (Judah). We may push the date back to middle-Yavnean times, ca. 100, and even earlier. Eliezer's and 'Aqiba's argument suggests that the procedures of oral instruction had not yet been fixed. Now it is one thing to follow such a story to the conclusion that even in Yavneh, it was customary to formulate and transmit materials mnemonically. That conclusion derives some support from the evi­ dence concerning Houses' apodoses, which are well attested at Yavneh, as I shall point out below (Chapter Twenty). It is quite another to allege that the same process of fixed oral formulation was underway from the time of Moses (or, remote antiquity) to 70 A.D. That allegation in fact finds its way into nearly every account of the formation and transmission of Pharisaic-rabbinic literature. For example, Alexander Guttmann writes (in "The Problem of the Anony­ mous Mishna," Hebrew Union College Annual 16, 1940, pp. 137-156, quotation on pp. 140-141): ... the Jewish schools differed from those of other peoples in that not only were the lessons taught orally, but also the entire material studied was transmitted in the same fashion. The existence of other religious writings alongside of Holy Writ was not countenanced [italics supplied]; nor was the use of either notes or books allowed in the oral teaching of the materials studied. [Here Guttmann refers to b. Git. 60b.] By virtue of this rule, the extra-biblical traditions were transmitted essentially by word of mouth, and no (official) fixing in written form of any of the material used in the teaching of religious law was possible. It is not difficult to discover from the literary-historical point of view the impression that such an oral method of teaching made upon style. While an authoritative written text takes on a static character with fixed norms and conventions, the method of oral transmission has a certain natural flexibility which remains with it even when later on it is reduced to writing. The notes which were prepared in secret and the traditional teachings which were collected and later written down clearly reveal the style of an oral discussion. The Midrash, Mishnah and similar sources of traditional Jewish literature were, in like manner, records of the work which developed in the schools. They lack the

ORAL

TRANSMISSION:

DEFINING

THE

PROBLEM

145

literary idiom of written works but, in place of this, they reveal certain phenomena which would hardly be noticed in the more usual works of literature. Two basic problems arise out of this oral transmission of teachings and statements. One is that of the origin of a teaching and the other is that of the quality of its transmission. It is quite clear that these two elements depend largely upon the memory of individuals or on the traditions of the schools. It is self-evident that the oldest component parts of traditional materials have their individual origins hidden in the darkness of the past and must depend upon their transmitters for their authority. Thus the trustworthiness and the authority of this mate­ rial rests upon the recognition which the transmitter of the traditions might command. Guttmann makes reference to b. Git. 60b (b. Tern. 14b), which is as follows R. Judah b. Nahmani, the Meturgeman of R. Simeon b. Laqish, ex­ pounded (DR§), "It is written, Write for yourself these words (Ex. 34:27), and it is written, For according to the mouth ( L PY) of these words (Ex. 34:27). How now [to reconcile writing with memorizing] ( L PH)? Things which are in writing you are not permitted to state from memo­ ry. Things which are memorized (DBRYM §B L PH), you are not permitted to state in writing..." R. Yohanan said, "God made a covenant with Israel only for the sake of things which are oral (DBRYM SB L PH), as it says, For by the mouth ( L PY) of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel^*. 34:27). C

C

C

C

C

The third-century Amoraic references thus are taken at face value by Guttmann as evidence of pre-70 practice ("long before the destruc­ tion..."). The exegetical tradition on Ex. 34:27 does not conform to Judah b. Nahmani's tendency. Judah the Patriarch derives from the Scripture the lesson, "Great is circumcision, for it outweighs all the other com­ mandments of the Torah" (b. Ned. 32a). Yosi b. R. Hanina proves from the same Scripture that the Torah was given only to Moses and his seed, but Moses generously gave it to Israel (b. Ned. 38a). R. Haggai in the name of R. Samuel b. Nahman sees in the Scripture the lesson that things orally transmitted are more beloved than things in writing. R. Yohanan and R. Yudan b. R. Simeon prove from it that one must observe oral as well as Scriptural traditions (both: y. Pe'ah 2:4, y. Meg. 4:1, y. Hag. 1:8). Late Amoraic and medieval compilations are of no interest here. Judah b. Nahmani's interpretation therefore is unique, moves far beyond the point made by Samuel and Yohanan, and possibly is new with him. All others understood the verse to N E U S N E R , The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 7 0 . I l l

10

146

SMALL UNITS OF TRADITION A N D

MNEMONICS

mean that oral traditions are especially beloved—standard rabbinic polemic against those Jews who did not accept the authority of Oral Torah (meaning, of the rabbis), and they were many. The allegation in connection with Ex. 34:27, that it is strictly forbidden to write down oral traditions in any form, is not found before his time. It therefore hardly seems warranted to extend the rule back to Moses (!). For our purposes it suffices to note that Guttmann regards as pro­ bative for unnumbered centuries the view of a third-century Amora that one must orally formulate and transmit extra-Scriptural laws. He might, to be sure, modify his judgment of "the Jewish schools" in the light of the production of written materials at Qumran, then not known, and in the Apocryphal, Pseudepigraphic and Zadokite docu­ ments, then quite well known. But he evidently means by "Jewish" merely "rabbinic." Guttmann's allegation that the method of oral transmission has a certain natural flexibility seems to me the opposite of the case. Materials meant to be handed on mnemonically are set into rigid forms for that purpose. The little account of b. 'Eruv. leaves no room for "natural flexibility." The most extreme claim in behalf of the view that the rabbinic traditions now in our hand comprise originally orally composed and orally transmitted materials comes from Birger Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript (Uppsala, 1961). But Gerhardsson merely repeats the views of nearly all scholars of Jewish literature of the past century, who routinely quote Judah b. Nahmani's and other sayings as entirely valid testimonies for the Second Temple period and even earlier. Gerhardsson, like those he quotes, relies upon unexamined allegations in the literature, put together into a grotesque composite ("the Talmudic-Midrashic view"), rather than on a close examination of internal evidence. If something is said about oral transmission, it is assumed that that saying not only was true when said, which is dubious, but also earlier characterized processes of redaction and transmission, which is unlikely. This reading of pertinent sayings seems to me conceptually primitive. It requires the assumption that the conditions for the forma­ tion and transmission of traditions were constant from remote antiq­ uity. The way in which the Mishnah was published is likewise the way in which everything before the Mishnah was given substance and form. The reliance of Aqiba and others to Judah the Patriarch on oral means for the formulation and transmission of the Mishnah, their occasional arrangement of materials to facilitate the mnemonic process, and, most important, the assumption that that is how the traditions c

ORAL TRANSMISSION:

DEFINING THE

PROBLEM

147

in their hands came down to them— these are deemed characteristic of the Pharisaic tradition from remote times. My teacher Morton Smith (in "A Comparison of Early Christian and Early Rabbinic Tradition," JBL 82, 1963, pp, 169-176) has said the last word on Gerhardsson's theory. He comments, "To read back into the period before 70 the developed rabbinic technique of...[the year] 200 is a gross anachronism." That very anachronism char­ acterizes nearly the entire corpus of scholarship cited by Gerhards­ son. We must on the basis of our survey second Smith's judgment that there was a general failure to preserve ipsissima verba of the early teachers, unless all they ever said was to lay or not to lay, perhaps a few purity-rulings, and the like, for we shall see that the antithetical Houses-materials, which constitute the best-attested corpus of all, cannot possibly contain the exact rulings of the respective Houses in the form and words originally supplied by those Houses. Smith further observes (in an oral tradition to the writer) that there is not adequate evidence to determine the methods of transmission used in the early churches nor even in pre-70 Pharisaism, and of what evidence there is, the most important is that to be found in the traces of transmission preserved in the surviving material. I have supplied definitive proof for that assertion. The large place assigned to memorization in ancient education seems to Gerhardsson similar in Judaism. But what students of classics memorized was the text, not the words of the teacher, Smith notes. He further comments, "Of course, all teaching hopes for remembrance. The question is, How accurate? Remembrance of the substance only, or remembrance of the exact wording? With respect to what the teacher said, classical education aimed at the former, [later] rabbinic at the latter." Smith's observations on Gerhardsson produce a most important distinction, between generalized traditions—stories, ideas, sayings— passed on orally, on the one hand, and tradition to begin with carefully formulated orally and then orally transmitted word for word, with the help of mnemonic schemes, and by that means only, until written down in exactly its earliest, "original", oral form many centuries later. The latter is what is alleged by the rabbinic tradition from ca. 80 on­ ward, and, by students of the literature, claimed in behalf of the Phari­ saic tradition before that time. The two propositions, that the materi­ als never were written down but framed at the outset without the medium of writing, and that they thereafter were handed on from mas-

148

SMALL UNITS OF

TRADITION AND

MNEMONICS

ter to disciple by the process described in b. 'Eruv. (and elsewhere), and within the restrictions stated by Judah b. Nahmani, until written down in exactly the words of the oral formulation—these are the foundations for Guttmann's allegations, and for those of practically every other student of the formation of Pharisaic and rabbinic litera­ ture. I therefore perceive no important conceptual distinction between the accounts of b. Eruv. and of such fundamentalist or pseudorthodox scholars as Guttmann and others down to Gerhardsson; and there probably is none, since all parties take as fact the story of b. 'Eruv. The issue is not whether there were traditions, or even oral traditions. We have no reason to doubt there were. The issue is, Do the written traditions before us contain meticulous reproductions of exactly the words originally spoken by the masters to which they were attributed in precisely the form given them by those very masters—ipsissima verba? That issue must forthwith be divided into two parts. First, did the masters originally say what now is attributed to them? This we cannot know. Second, does the present literature contain exact replications of materials originally formulated orally and transmitted orally? It is a fact that the majority of pericopae in the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees before 70, and nearly all of the corpus of Houses-ma­ terials within those traditions, do exhibit mnemonic patterns, some for­ mal, some of them substantive, precise, and striking. What inferences are to be drawn from that fact? Shall we conclude that the traditions were based upon orally formulated and transmitted materials? On the face of it, that conclusion is unwarranted. Clearly many traditions before us were formulated so as to facilitate their memorization. But whether or not the redacted pericopae derive from originally oral materials is a question that obviously cannot be settled, one way or the other, by the character of materials which we have only in written form. Since no reference to the way in which materials were formulat­ ed, except in Yavnean strata, lies before us, the contents of the tradi­ tions themselves supply no help, certainly no support of a theory of a history of oral transmission of data now written down for the first time. The theory of a dual Torah by itself is not pertinent, as I said. Qumranians, for one, had such a corpus of revealed materials external to Scriptures, and they wrote down at least part of those materials. But even if various sects had traditions, and if those traditions were oral, it would not solve the problem, unless it can be shown that in behalf c

ORAL

TRANSMISSION:

DEFINING THE

PROBLEM

149

of such traditions was claimed not merely essential accuracy but exact verbal correspondence with what was originally stated by the authority standing behind them. That is what is alleged of the Pharisees both by the rabbis and by their modern continuators. Let us briefly review the sorts of data and arguments advanced in behalf of theories of oral formation and transmission of other litera­ tures. We have already made reference to Milman Parry, who held: It is of course the pattern of the diction which, as in the matter of the authorship of the style, proves by its very extent that the Homeric style is oral. It must have been for some good reason that the poet, or poets, of the Iliad and the Odyssey kept to the formulas even when he, or they, had to use some of them very frequently. What was this constraint that thus set Homer apart from the poets of a later time, and of our own time, whom we see in every phrase choosing those words which alone will match the color of their own thought? The answer is not only the desire for an easy way of making verses, but the complete need of it. Whatever manner of composition we could suppose for Homer, it could be only one which barred him in every verse and in every phrase from the search for words that would be of his own find­ ing. Whatever reason we may find for his following the scheme of the diction, it can be only one which quits the poet at no instant. There is only one need of this sort which can even be suggested— the necessity of making verses by the spoken word. This is a need which can be lifted from the poet only by writing, which alone allows the poet to leave his unfinished idea in the safe keeping of the paper which lies before him, while with whole unhurried mind he seeks along the ranges of his thought for the new group of words which his idea calls for. Without writing, the poet can make his verses only if he has a for­ mulaic diction which will give him his phrases all made, and made in such a way that, at the slightest bidden of the poet, they will link themselves in an unbroken pattern that will fill his verses and make his sentences." (Parry in Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 31, 1930, p. 138; also cited by Albert B. Lord, "Homer, Parry, and Huso," Ameri­ can Journal of Archaelogy, 52, 1948, p. 36). The question, who is the author, is therefore false: "An oral poem undergoes two kinds of creation, that of the man who first makes it and that of the man who sings it each time" (Lord, p.38). As I stressed earlier (p. 104), Parry's argument about the oral composition and transmission of poetry bears no relationship to the materials before us. The reason is that the formulaic patterns, partic­ ularly those exhibiting affinities with the characteristics referred to by Parry, do not characterize whole pericopae, but only apodoses. At best we may suppose that the careful arrangement of the Houses-

150

SMALL UNITS OF

TRADITION AND

MNEMONICS

apodoses was intended to ease the burden of decision-making. Once someone knew the protasis ([If] a seah of unclean Terumah falls into a hundred seahs of clean), and also knew that the Houses discuss the matter, he would need no great effort to rule: "House of Shammai prohibit. House of Hillel permit." The apodoses of Houses-lemmas do, there­ fore, tend to be fixed, but also are apt to be moved from one protasis to another, as in the Ushan stratum. This seems to me to signify that the small units of tradition were memorized with precision—it was easy enough. But the cases to which they were to be assigned were entirely fluid and not set forth with equal precision. And mnemonic patterns in which the Houses-apodoses are carefully arranged look to be the creation not of poets or other literary figures in the dim past, but of the tradents at Yavneh, Usha, and even later, who followed a simple form for the codification only of legal traditions. Certainly no literary evidence before us consistently conforms to the pattern of oral formation and transmission of materials described by Parry, and most of it does not conform at all. On the contrary, if the redactors needed to make up legal pericopae by the spoken word, then that need did not extend to the whole of the pericope, but only to the last part of it. Formulaic sayings, particularly those generative of varied materials, seem to me another matter. There we may imagine that a saying was orally framed, then orally handed on—if no other explanation for the formulaic character of the saying intervenes. But in the case of some such sayings, e.g. in M. Sot. 9, we have a fairly clear idea of where and when the materials were redacted, and it was not in the dim past of Pharisaism, but in the circle of Judah the Patri­ arch. M. 'Ed., likewise, seems to be the work of the last fifty years of the second century, certainly not earlier, since it is dominated by the disciples of Aqiba. Some of the sayings assigned to Hillel, partic­ ularly the more...the more... pattern and the balanced opposites stated like conditional contrasts, if you do this, I will do that, if you will not do this, I will not to that, ignorant cannot study, and the like—these do give every indication of the traits referred to by Parry. But they are brief, not long or poetic; they are not particularly artful (—who can com­ pare the intricate metric patterns of Homer with the more...the more...!). And formulaic structure does not carry with it formulaic diction. Many of the mnemonic elements, moreover, pertain to the form and struc­ ture of pericopae, not to the contents. Thus knowing that a master said three things would not tell us what he had said. The ordinanceform is external to its substance. The lists of M. Ed. depend upon c

c

ORAL

TRANSMISSION:

DEFINING THE

PROBLEM

151

antecedent, fully formulated individual pericopae, or, at least, lemmas. None of these is to be compared to metric schemes. So if Parry's reasoning and conclusions are accepted (and it is not our business to raise that question), then his reasoning points to the opposite conclusion for the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees. Scholars of Buddhism take for granted that the earliest traditions of Buddha were shaped and transmitted orally. They have the support of Buddhist traditions, which refer to the calling of councils for the purpose of fixing orally the text of the sacred canon (Raymond B. Williams, "Historical Criticism of a Buddhist Scripture: The Mahaparinibbana Sutta," Journal of the American Academy of Religion 38, 2, 1970, pp. 156-167). A carefully formulated oral canon was preserved for centuries, it is alleged. Modern scholars, while reluctant to accept the traditional Buddhist picture, nonetheless envisage a not-dissimilar process. Williams observes that Buddha certainly gave rules, and "there must have been many discourses known by heart to the disci­ ples, and they may have been collected and recited in a... chanting together even during Buddha's lifetime." He clearly formulates the sort of claim made in behalf of rabbis, that they "must have" formulat­ ed teachings and given them to the disciples orally, and that the disci­ ples then "must have" preserved and accurately handed on the very words of the master himself. Some have suggested that Buddha taught in a form with synonyms and repetitions so that the teaching could be easily learned by his disciples (Walpola Rahula, What the Buddha Taught [N.Y., 1962], cited by Williams, p. 158, n. 3). So, Williams continues, "After the death of the Buddha this collection and recitation must have become more important...In oral transmission mnemonic convenien­ ces play a large part. All sorts of aids to memory—set words, fixed phrases, familiar conventional descriptions in stereotyped terms and other memoria technica—became characteristic of the tradition." These materials were then organized into loose collections by form or con­ tent (Williams, p. 159). I take Williams' repeated use of must have been and must have become to mean that the evidence permits no more definitive conclusions. There can be no doubt that the Sutta discussed by Williams exhibits striking mnemonic patterns, formed of various short units and trans­ mitted independently. The narrative framework is apt to be less reliable than the logia. One finds stock phrases and formulae, summaries arrang­ ed for easy memorization, serving merely as "key phrases intended to bring to mind the major teachings of the Buddha." At the end

152

S M A L L UNITS OF

TRADITION AND

MNEMONICS

Williams concludes, "All of this gives evidence of the shaping of the material for ease in oral transmission. The verse form, the numerical sequences, repetitions, stock phrases and paragraphs and formalized encounters were probably shaped by the monks in the transmission, though it is possible that the Buddha's teaching methods included repetition and stylized formulae to aid memorization." The Buddhist problem thus differs from ours only in degree, for, from Williams' remarks, one may conclude that even a greater propor­ tion of the materials is mnemonically arranged than is the case of the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees. It is not only that the Housespericopae are not consistently so structured, but that in many of the other pericopae, where we do find some sort of mnemonic pattern, we observe that the pattern tends to be external to the substance of the pericopae themselves, e.g. there are no rhythms or formulaic say­ ings characteristic of apophthegms, debates, or brief biographical references. The lists of three's or four's have been arranged for easy memorization, to be sure, but the items on the lists do not match. The exception to this rule are the lists of laying-on's in M. Hag. 2:2 and of uncleanness decrees in b. Shab. There we do indeed find something equivalent to Williams' data: disciplined form and correspondingly fixed substance {to lay\not to lay; or X + Y decreed uncleanness on...) leaving only the objects to be put to memory. Here we must again observe that if such lists exhibit mnemonic affinities with the Buddhist suttas, then the bulk of the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees do not. In the end, the major question is unresolved: how to convert must have been to was? What solid evidence do we have that the materials originally were oral, that is, never written down at all, but formulated by a master and taught to disciples through repetition of formulae or other means. Not a single story or saying before us suggests that a pre-70 Pharisaic master ever did any such thing. We do not have tales of how they taught, nor do we even have internal evidence that they organized circles of disciples. Perhaps they did; we cannot claim they "must have" done so. One of the prerequisites for the development of oral materials is the presence of a class of professionals or an institution, such as the Tanna of second century times, devoted to the task. In Parthian civili­ zation, such an institution existed, the gosan, a professional minstrel. Mary Boyce ("The Parthian Gosan and Iranian Minstrel Tradition," Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1957, pp. 10-45) observes of the old minstrel tradition that Armenian tradition establishes, "These tales were

ORAL

TRANSMISSION:

DEFINING THE

PROBLEM

153

in verse, were sung, and were not written down" (p. 13). Mgosani regularly appear in Georgian evidence as well (p. 15). They were minstrels, entertainers, eulogists, singers of laments, always spoken of in the plural, as forming a group (p. 16). Miss Boyce continues, "The cumulative evidence suggests that the gosan played a considerable part in the life of the Parthians and their neighbours, down to late in the Sasanian epoch: entertainer of king and commoner, privileged at court and popular with the people...eulogist, satirist, storyteller, musician; recorder of past achievements and commentator of his own times" (p. 18). She observes that the gosan must have had to learn many traditions by memory, in addition to learning how to compose and recite. She further brings evidence to show that professional minstrelsy flourished under the Achemenids as well as under the later Sasanians. By contrast, we nowhere hear of a professional memorizer, let alone a class or group of minstrels, in all the materials before us. The Tanna first occurs in Aqiban times. The characteristic medium for the preser­ vation of Jewish traditions, furthermore, was writing, not oral formu­ lation and transmission and preservation by memory. Palestine was a literate society. The Qumran community wrote its traditions. Indeed, it had a library and had a large room for the purpose of writing down its documents (Cross, op. cit., pp. 66-7). Josephus wrote his histories, and assumed the Aramaic version would be read, not recited. The Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphic books seem to have been written down at the outset. So the authors apparently expected to be read. The opposition whom Jesus called hypocrites were scribes and Phari­ sees. A scribe appears in Gamaliel and Simeon b. Gamaliel's stories. When the Persian embassy wishes to be entertained, it calls (according to the narrative of Simeon b. Shetah and Yannai, y. Ber. 7:2) not for minstrels—there is no word for memorizer or minstrel in the materials before us—but for the rabbi, who said, not sang, wise things. Nowhere is the rabbi characterized as an entertainer, a memorizer, a singer. In pre-70 writings we do not find memorizers or minstrels. We do find scribes. We have no evidence on the oral composition of materials. We have, as I said, the Qumran writings as very good evidence for the written composition of materials. So why should anyone have resorted to "oral composition"? To be sure, like the Pharisees described by the rabbis, Qumranian scriptures occasionally refer to secret doctrines, which were not written down, but were transmitted with great care. Similarly, Jesus c

154

SMALL UNITS OF

TRADITION AND

MNEMONICS

is alleged to have taught his disciples a secret tradition, not to be publicly revealed until the proper time. But these are traditions and do not constitute the whole literature or apparently a significant part of it. The main point, however, is that we do not find traces that such secret sayings were redacted for easy oral transmission—that would have defeated their purpose to begin with. If Paul's allusions to Jesus came to him not by a "revelation of Jesus Christ" (Galatians 1:11), but in some sort of fixed oral formulation which was orally transmitted, he gives no hint of it. He alleges it is not man's gospel. He may have had traditions, but of ipsissima verba he gives no unambiguous testi­ mony, except from his own visions. And Paul handed on his traditions in writing. The Gospels originally were written, according to the testimony of two of them, Luke and John. What traditions lie behind them, if originally composed and fixed not in writing but in the various forms of oral story-telling and in the disciplined formation of sayings, hardly gives significant evidence, because of the poor state of their preservation. But even if traditions were handed on orally and not in writing, they would have been passed on in oral transmission for all of forty years. That hardly gives significant evidence for the institu­ tionalization in the Church of an oral literature, or for the availability of trained, suitably qualified and officially certified memorizers, of whom we hear nothing. Obviously, one cannot draw on evidence for the existence of such an institution, for no such evidence exists. Perhaps the most striking evidence is the written Gospels themselves, not to mention Paul's letters: no one was prepared to rely for long upon any medium other than writing for the formulation, preservation, and transmission of anything that really mattered. To be sure Paul drew on tradition, even on oral tradition, e.g., I Cor.l5:3-5, I Thess. 4:1-8, etc. But Paul uses tradition very freely, and the exact verbal formulation is not important to him. Early Christian tradition is quite fluid and variable, even when the content is of crucial importance. By contrast, in Parthian and later Sasanian civilization, as Miss Boyce shows, people were prepared to do just that. Things were not written down because there were other, secure, perhaps socially more useful means for the preservation of traditions. Strikingly, ChristianSyraic writers consistently give as the excuse for the writing down of the Avesta the fear that the memorizers would die out (F. Nau, "fitude historique sur la transmission de l'Avesta," Revue de Phistoire de religions 95, 1927, pp. 149-199). Whether or not they were right

ORAL

TRANSMISSION:

DEFINING THE

PROBLEM

155

2

(A. Chris tensen, Ulran sous les sassanides [Copenhagen, 1944 ], casts serious doubt on Nau's conclusions), they took for granted earlier reliance on just such a class of people, and not on scribes. To be sure, the Gaonic historians of Talmudic times, relying on the pertinent sayings in Talmudic literature itself, drew the same picture: persecu­ tion threatened the continuity of the Oral Torah, so it had to be writ­ ten down. But the sayings on that subject are taken for granted as accurate historical records of procedures followed in all periods, rather than in the places and times of which they may accurately give evidence. Biblical scholarship on the oral composition and transmission of traditions is full of animadversions to the "Semitic mind" and similar imprecise ideas. In general it rests on the assumption that when few people can read and write, oral recitation of traditions will be impor­ tant—which says nothing about oral formulation and transmission, merely oral presentation. Carroll Stuhlmueller, "The Influence of Oral Tradition upon Exegesis," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 20, 1958, pp. 299-326, and Hans-Joachim Kraus, "Zur Geschichte des Oberlieferungsbegriffs inderalttestamentlichen W i s s e n s c h a f t , " ^ ^ ^ / / ^ ^ Theologie 16, 1956, pp. 371-387 provide useful summaries, along with A. Bentzen, cited above. Stuhlmueller claims that the "practical slant of Semitic mentality" (p. 304) plays a role: "It was the present moment which preoccupied the Jewish mind. Surrounded by pressing hard­ ships and urgent problems that left little or no leisure for cultural endeavors, the Israelites wanted to know the relevance of the past to their own day... What does this passage really mean...right here and now?" (p. 304). Oral tradition comes along to "rescue past events from the dusty book of history." While on the order of GunkePs invitation to the fireside of the ancient Israelite to hear the old and beautiful stories of the tribe recited before eager listeners ("we enter and listen with them" etc.), Stuhlmueller's colorful fantasy is even more gross. What evidence is there to support his reification of "the Jewish mind"? If the "Jewish mind" at one period required orally recited materials, then why in that very same period, all the more so later on, did it also require written documents? How did that "Jewish mind" so change as to produce written materials? Oral recital likewise allowed Israelites to relive the past, and "a final reason can be touched upon to emphasize the importance of oral transmission over the written medium. This was the Hebrew understanding of Yahweh as 'the living God/ dynamically active here

156

S M A L L UNITS OF TRADITION A N D

MNEMONICS

and now." The connection between the two sentences is hardly selfevident, nor is it any more manifest when one learns, "Oral tradition enabled the divine message to participate more fully in Yahweh's property of being a 'living God/ by giving a continuous existence to the past in each present and future." I do not argue that we have no evidence of oral formation and transmission of data. I merely allege that if the interpretation of such data as seems to give evidence of an oral fundament, that is, of original oral composition and forma­ tion for oral transmission, rests upon the sorts of arguments adduced here, then we may as well take it as a matter of faith. Eduard Nielsen {Oral Tradition. A Modern Problem in Old Testament Introduction, with a Foreword by H. H. Rowley [Chicago, 1955]) sup­ plies another account of the biblical problem. He stresses that oral tradition is not merely a pre-literary stage ( = tradition), as I shall sug­ gest later on in reference to some of the materials before us. The allegation rather is that, as Mowinckel said (Nielsen, p. 13), "The prophets were men of the spoken word and... their books were compositions based on oral tradition. We owe it to oral tradition, for instance, that the prophecies of Amos and Hosea were preserved until the exilic age, which was also the age when the prophecies were com­ mitted to writing." We again note that no distinction is to be made between oral tradition—merely the pre-literary stage—and oral compo­ sition and oral transmission. All are one: the orator spoke, his words* it is claimed, were not written down but instantly memorized at the very outset. Only much later did anyone bother to write them down (presumably explained along the lines of a theory that the memorizers were thought to be dying out, as in the oral theory of the Avesta and the Babylonian Talmud). We may bypass arguments adduced from the extent of oral tradition in the ancient Near East, the contempt for oral tradition in modern Europe, the sociology of writing and schooling, and the importance of religious and epic texts in general. Nielsen himself observes that one cannot "give an answer that applies equally to the Old Nordic,, the Hellenic, the Persian, the Indian, and the Semitic worlds." Of greater interest is the mode of argumentation undertaken in behalf of Nyberg's thesis that "The written Old Testament is a creation of the post-exilic Jewish community; of what existed earlier undoubtedly only a small part was in fixed written form" (Nielsen, p. 39). Nielsen's important arguments are, first, writing was subordinated in pre-exilic Israel; second, the Scriptures give direct evidence of oral transmission.

ORAL

TRANSMISSION:

DEFINING THE

PROBLEM

157

The former is not pertinent to our problem, since, as I said, it is diffi­ cult to argue that writing was subordinated to oral formulation and transmission of materials in the century or so before 70 A.D. Nielsen observes that while writing was institutionalized in scribes in Davidic times, these were not widespread. The culture as a whole did not tend "to a written fixation of its traditions" (p. 49). The contrary was the case later on. Nielsen's "positive evidence for the existence of an oral tradition" is drawn in part from various references in Scriptures themselves, e.g. Deut. 1:5, 31:11. It is assumed that the father will orally teach his household: "The home is a miniature national community." Better proof derives from Psalms: "Since we are so fortunate as to possess parallel psalms in the book of Psalms, and these are not quite identical in their present textual form, we can by examining these variants establish errors of hearing [italics supplied] and thus prove that the oral tradition played its part in the composition of the Israelite psalms." That seems to me the most pertinent argument. That sort of argument and proof is nowhere undertaken by proponents of the oral theory of Pharisaic traditions before us. Because of the explicit evidence of Jer. 36, Nielsen devotes consid­ erable effort to explain why it does not mean Jeremiah wrote his book. The book itself reveals "words in metrical form as well as prose speeches based on words of Jeremiah" (p. 77). Oral traditions are frequently revised. Micah 4-5 reveals a "complex...neatly framed by two sayings with related contents" (p. 86). The rest of the argument depends upon the organization and structure of the passage and bears no obvious relationship to its allegedly oral beginnings. The discus­ sion of Gen. 6-9 produces the following conclusions: the author tries to compose traditions into a definite chronological scheme; the author is not merely a redactor, but an artist. These conclusions, alas, have nothing to do with uniquely oral formulation and transmission of materials. The distinction between oral composition and transmission, on the one hand, and oral traditions on the basis of which materials are composed, on the other, is lost. Marcel Jousse, in Etudes de psjchologie linguistique. Le style oral rythmique et mnemotechnique che% les Verbo-moteurs. Archives de philosophie, II, iv (Paris, 1925), and in Les rabbis d Israel. Les Recitatifs rythmiques par alleles. I. Genre de la Maxime (Paris, 1930), and R. Pautrel, in "Des abreviations subies par quelques sentences de Jesus dans la redaction synoptique," Recherches de science religieuse, 24, 1934, pp. 344-365, and 9

158

SMALL UNITS OF

TRADITION AND

MNEMONICS

"Les canons du mashal rabbinique," Recherches de science religieuse 26, 1936, pp. 1-45, have examined materials nearer to our interest. Jousse's Etudes concentrate on the psychology of recitation, oral style, and similar issues. Jousse's theory is that universal laws permit us to detect originally oral materials. Whatever the text, wherever it is found, it will obey certain formal rules, some of them based upon the structure of the larynx, and on various psychological responses to particular noises(!). Here we do not find the precision in metrical analysis of Parry, who formed his ideas in approximately the same time and setting, but concentration on the allegation of psychological founda­ tions of oral style—a more general inquiry, but still, hermeneutically less deductive than the proponents of oral transmission of biblical materials. Remarks on the relationships between sound and meaning (pp. 44ff.) need not detain us. Nor are plays on words uniquely perti­ nent to oral formation of traditions (pp. 81ff.). Parallelism (pp. 95ff.) is not a trait unique either to the formation or to the transmission of oral materials. The presence of rhythm and rhyme-schemes may signi­ fy poetry, but it does not necessitate the hypothesis of an oral founda­ tion. While one may grant that the power of memory is strengthened by each and every mnemonic characteristic adduced by Jousse, one still is not compelled to follow him to the starting point of his inquiry: mnemonic characteristics must signify beginnings in oral composition. To repeat what I have already said: they certainly may signify that a composition would be transmitted orally, but not necessarily that some sort of antecedent oral tradition lies at the foundations of the material. Allegations of oral style generally carry with them the assertion, or assumption, that the original composer (artist) never wrote down his ideas, but dictated them for memorization (e.g. pp. 195f.). That is alleged and not proved, time and again. Jousse's study of rabbinic maxims makes use of the results of his psychological and ethnic researches in the analysis of the oral style of ancient Palestine. He stresses the memorization of materials (pp. xvff.), balanced parallels (pp. xviiff.), cliche-parallels (e.g. poor, rich), parallel rhythmic schemes (pp. xxi) and so on. He states (p. xxiii): En general, deux Schemes rythmiques paralleles se balancent a la suite Pun de Pautre dans une meme Improvisation. Ainsi en est-il dans les exemples donnes ci-dessus. Cependant, tout Scheme rythmique qui a fait danser un Geste propositionnel sur les muscles laryngo-buccaux d'un Improvisateur ou d'un Recitateur, acquiert par la une tendance a danser de nouveau. Un Geste propositionnel, identique ou analogue au premier, s'es-

ORAL TRANSMISSION:

DEFINING THE

PROBLEM

159

quisse-t-il tot ou tard dans le "compose humain" de Plmprovisateur et cherche-t-il a s'exprimer sur les muscles laryngo-buccaux? De par les lois de Pautomatisme et du moindre effort, ce Geste propositionnel— simplement esquisse et, pour ainsi dire, a la recherche de sa forme definitive—va s'amplifier et se danser selon le Schema verbal et rythmique qui s'offre spontanement a lui. And further (p. xxxi): Un Scheme rythmique qui, meme isolement, a danse une seule fois sur les muscles laryngo-buccaux, acquier ainsi une tendance a se rejouer spontanement, chez Plmprovisateur, quand une attitude mentale, identique ou analogue, cherche ensuite a s'exprimer oralement. C'est la, nous l'avons vu plus haut, l'origine psycho-physiologique des Schemas rythmiques-types et des Cliches propositionnels. Or, ce phenomene d'automatisme et de moindre effort se reproduit, a plus large echelle, pour les Recitatifs rythmiques eux-memes. L'Instructeur, ayant a improviser une Recitation sur tel ou tel sujet, analogue a un sujet traditionnellement stereotype, trouve tout prepare sur ses muscle laryngo-buccaux, melodiquement et rythmiquement, un Module schematique de Recitatifs dans lequel se coule, comme d'elle-meme, la nouvelle Instruction. Pautrel produces similar sorts of analyses, though his NT texts are all quoted in Latin (!), and his stress is on images and parallels, rather than on internal characteristics of Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew. His analysis of the canons of the rabbinic mashal stresses internal parallel­ isms, the construction of the mashal, the clearcut evidence of narrative techniques and forms, and other matters which do not settle the question of oral composition one way or the other. But the real point is that "oral materials were accurately preserved by oral means, and this must mean 'the ipsissima verba of Christ have been preserved' " (Streeter, quoted by Pautrel, p. 45), surely an adumbration of the argu­ ment of Gerhardsson. Were that not the object of the argument, I doubt anyone would have bothered to construct the argument itself. One discipline does not have to rely on mere conjecture about unavailable evidence, or at best extrapolation from known to unknown patterns of formulation and transmission of data, and that is anthropo­ logy. There one may actually witness the oral formulation of materials and trace their transmission without the medium of writing, much as Parry followed the oral composition and transmission of Serbo-Croat poetry (described most conveniently by Lord). Jan Vansina {Oral Tradi­ tion, A Study in Historical Methodology, translated by H. M. Wright, London, 1965, from De la tradition orale. Essai de methode historique, 1961) supplies the best account known to me of anthropological

160

S M A L L UNITS OF

TRADITION AND

MNEMONICS

thought on oral tradition. His primary interest, however, is in the evaluation of the accuracy of such traditions. Vansina defines oral traditions as "historical sources of a special nature. Their special nature derives from the fact that they are 'unwritten' sources couched in a form suitable for oral transmission, and that their preservation depends on the powers of memory of successive genera­ tions of human beings" (p. 1). Such tradition characterizes non-literate cultures, "and even among peoples who have writing, many historical sources, including the most ancient ones, are based on oral traditions." Vansina's work is based on traditions still alive among peoples without writing, where "oral tradition continues to exist at the very heart of the environment that give rise to it." The analogy to a Palestine therefore cannot be exact. Vansina analyzes a tale by use of the following concepts: "episode, plot, motif, setting, and theme." These concepts, he says, can be ap­ plied to all oral texts to discover its internal structure. But the same may be done with written texts. Vansina's typology of oral traditions (pp. 142ff.) is of special inter­ est. He finds five such categories: formulae, such as titles, slogans, didactic formulae, ritual formulae; poetry, both official and private, such as historical, panegyric, religious, and personal; lists, such as place names and personal names; tales, including historical, didactic, artistic, and personal; and commentaries (to which one may add codes of law), including legal precedents, explanatory remarks, and occa­ sional comments (p. 144). Among these categories, we find in the rab­ binic traditions of the Pharisees few formulae, no slogans, but many didactic formulae, by which Vansina means proverbs, sayings, epi­ grams, and the like, "the storehouse of ancient wisdom," which may contain historical information. We have no ritual formulae or poetry, with the noted exceptions. We do have lists of persons. But Vansina here observes, "Lists are usually preserved by specialists belonging to some institution and pronounced on the occasion of some public ceremony, such as the death or the accession of a chief" (p. 151). We have no evidence of an institution, rite, or public ceremony in connection with the lists speci­ fied above. The lists of personal names are not genealogies, nor are they in an obvious way supposed to "vindicate rights." As to tales, Vansina's categories are of some interest. He refers to tales concern­ ing local history, of which we have none; tales concerning family history; myths; and the like. All the tales we found are short historical

ORAL

TRANSMISSION:

DEFINING

THE

PROBLEM

161

or biographical accounts of brief episodes. They do not compare to the materials presented by Vansina. While Vansina's studies are suggestive, they do not directly illumi­ nate our problem. For one thing, none of the traditions before us is represented as first-hand. All are anonymous. We do not know the name of any independent authority responsible for our materials be­ fore Yavneans, then Ushans. We know, for example, that Meir and Judah stand behind the tales of the succession of Simeon the Just (b. Men. 109b). Then, by Vansina's very reasonable standards, we shall have to discount both versions of that event. The rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees generally are anonymous as to authorship. Chains of traditions do not begin, R. Aqiba said that R. Gamaliel said that Hillel said. As we noted, not one of those masters assigned as disciples to Hillel, e.g., Yohanan b. Zakkai, or as his own son and grandson, ever says something he has heard from Hillel, or reports something he has seen Hillel do. But Yavneans do refer to things they have heard from Yohanan b. Zakkai and have seen Gamaliel do. The standards proposed by Vansina for the assessment of the reliability of oral traditions are not only not met by the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees; they are scarcely relevant. K

Summary: We have now reviewed the problem of oral transmission and some approaches to its definition and solution. The rabbinic view is clearly portrayed in b. Eruv. 54b. The rabbis claimed to possess not merely traditions handed on from remote antiquity, but exact words orally dictated by Moses to Aaron and onward, and orally transmitted thereafter. That is a very different allegation from the mere claim of possessing traditions. We noted that the rabbinic view is taken over without much qualification by representative modern scholars and projected backward to the period "long before the destruction of the Second Temple." We further discerned the operative assumptions in the minds of such scholars, primarily, that the content of sayings is to be taken at face value; secondarily, that the presence of mnemonic patterns in itself signifies a background of oral transmission. I argued that mnemonic patterns may testify about intent concerning the future transmission of a text set forth according to such a pattern, but cannot tell us anything about what the author of that text drew upon in preparing his text and making his arrangement. We observed that traditions external to Scriptures among other Jewish sects were written down. We do not know whether all such traditions were preserved c

N E U S N E R , The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 7 0 , III

11

162

S M A L L UNITS OF

TRADITION AND

MNEMONICS

in writing, but it suffices to note that considerable materials were so transmitted. That shows no environmental or technological barriers stood in the way of writing down traditions. In examining allegations that mnemonic patterns signify oral com­ position and transmission, we reviewed the results of Milman Parry and found that while those results may be pertinent to apodoses of Houses-pericopae (but little else), they do not relate to the protases. This would mean, following Parry's reasoning, that the opening state­ ments of Houses-pericopae were not orally transmitted, and the clos­ ing ones were. The argument from mnemonic evidences therefore does not greatly advance the solution of the problem. We then noted that scholars in other fields have been unable defini­ tively to demonstrate the originally oral formulation and transmission of materials. That materials were transmitted orally seems beyond question. That the master to whom they are attributed dictated them in exactly their present form is beyond proof at this stage. We further noted that in cultures in which materials apparently were shaped with­ out the aid of writing and certainly thereafter transmitted primarily by memory, experts with significant social tasks carried on the work. The Iranian gosan presented a viable model. While from 'Aqiba on­ ward we hear of the existence of the Tanna, who served the schools as a 'living book' in much the way the gosan served the Parthian and Sasanian court as a minstrel, we have no evidence of the existence of such an institutionalization of the pattern of oral transmission for the period before 70, and we do have much evidence of another means of preservation and handing on materials, namely, the scribe, as well as sufficient evidence of his work. The allegation of biblical scholars that originally oral traditions have been transcribed and are now before us, separated from the theological claims brought in evidence, seemed to yield the same sort of problems that face the scholars of Buddhism. But the exact definition of what is claimed did not become clear. That some kind of oral traditions lie behind elements of biblical literature seems beyond cavil. To claim that the literature before us preserves, in their original form, oral formulations which were for a long time orally transmitted seems to me to exceed the limits of evidence. One may suppose some things were intended to be memorized, particularly where one finds metrical forms and other apparently mnemonic patterns. That seems to me all one may conclude with much certainty. We turned, finally, to theories deriving from psychology and an-

ORAL

TRADITIONS

163

thropology, but found little help. Jousse's theory seems to me to go far beyond his data. But since he uses Latin and French translations in his discussion of biblical and rabbinic sayings, it is not always easy to follow precisely what he thinks to prove. Vansina's evidence is superior to anything available to historians, and his analysis of it seems to me impeccable. Unfortunately, while his discussion is illumi­ nating and suggestive, the facts that he can demonstrate precisely how and where materials were first shaped orally and then handed on orally, and that we cannot, make it difficult to come to insight signifi­ cant for our purposes.

x i . ORAL TRADITIONS

We have reason to suppose the Pharisees possessed traditions apart from Scriptures. The testimonies of two independent sources, Jose­ phus and the Gospels, as well as of the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees, are clear on that point. If for the moment we make the unlikely assumption that the b. Shab. 30b-31a story about Shammai and Hillel accurately reports what Shammai and Hillel actually said to the potential converts, we may grant that the theory of two Torahs, one in writing, the other oral, was held by both masters. Gamaliel (or Yohanan b. Zakkai) explains to Agenitos that there were two Torahs. Josephus's evidence is more credible and quite unequivocal: the Pharisees did possess traditions apart from Scriptures. In War II, 162-3 (Antiquities XIII, 171-3), the Pharisees are referred to as the most accurate interpreters of the laws. Here we find no reference to orally transmitted or other external traditions. But in his later story of John Hyrcanus and the Pharisees, Antiquities XIII, 293ff., Josephus adds a reference to traditions, although without specifying oral transmis­ sion, let alone oral formulation of ipsissima verba: For the present I wish merely to explain that the Pharisees had passed on to the people certain regulations handed down by former genera­ tions and not recorded in the Laws of Moses, for which reason they are rejected by the Sadducean group, who hold that only those regula­ tions should be considered valid which were written down [Marcus adds: in Scripture], and that those which had been handed down by former generations need not be observed.... (Antiquities XIII, 297-8, trans. Ralph Marcus, p. 377) If we had no preconception about oral tradition, this passage would not have led us to such an idea. It could as well pertain to a document

164

SMALL UNITS OF

TRADITION AND

MNEMONICS

like the Manual of Discipline as to to lay/not to lay. But even if Josephus meant to refer to traditions not written down at all, from his saying that the Sadducees did not observe the traditions of the fathers (legon ekiena [the Sadducees] dein hegeisthai nomina ta gegrammena, ta d ek paradoseos ton pateron me terein), one cannot forthwith derive the picture of formulation and transmission given by b. Eruv. and similar narratives, or by modern scholars such as Gerhardsson. I must stress: / / is one thing to allege that the fathers had handed on traditions external to Scriptures, even not writing them down at all. It is quite another to claim that the extra-Scriptural traditions of the Pharisees are in substance and also in form precisely the ones laid down by Moses, in the very language of Moses himself. This Josephus does not allege. But if he did, we should have to point out that he wrote Antiquities at, or shortly after, the very time that the Yavnean Pharisees were arranging and transmitting Mishnah in conformity with the picture he would have drawn. In Antiquities XVIII, 12-15, we find no reference to a doctrine handed on orally, merely stress on belief in Pharisaic foresight, pre­ destination, and the like. The Sadducees, he stresses (XVIII, 16) follow no observance outside of the laws. In Life 2, he refers to the Pharisees as having points of resemblance to the Stoic school; in Life 38 he speaks of the Pharisees as experts in "their country's laws." That is the whole picture (note Emil Schurer, A History of the Jewish People in the Time ojJesus Christ [Edinburg, 1885, trans. Sophia Taylor and Peter Christie] II, ii, pp. 2-5). Interestingly, the Mishnaic materials on the Perushim and Sedduqim (assuming that Perushim means Pharisees) are equally reticent about the existence of an oral tradition as a point of difference between the sects. M. Yad. 4:6 concerns the uncleanness of Holy Scriptures; M. Yad. 4:7 pertains to cleanness rules; M. Yad. 4:8 is about the use of the name of the governor in bills of divorce; M. Hag. 2:7, about the gar­ ments of the Perushim as midras for those who eat heave-offering; M. 'Eruv. 6:2 concerns the Sadducean disbelief in the eruv; M. Mak. 1:6 relates a dispute about executing false witnesses; M. Par. 3:7, about the burning of the red heifer; and M. Nid. 4:2 says Sadducean women who follow the ways of their fathers are therefore like Samaritans, but if they follow the ways of Israel, they are like Israelites—a saying in present form by the time of Yosi. The references of the Synoptic Gospels to "the tradition of the elders" (Mark 7:4, Matt. 15:2) are consistent with Josephus's picture. What characterized the Pharisees was firm belief in paradosis ton y

c

l

ORAL

165

TRADITIONS

presbuteron (Mark 7:4); Josephus similarly refers to nomima polla tina paredosan to demo hoi Pharisaioi ek pateron diadoxes, haper oiik anagegraptai en tois Mouseos nomois. Paradosis in NT means tradition "only in the sense of what is trans­ mitted, not of transmission," so F. Buchsel, in G. Kittel, ed., Theologi­ cal Dictionary of the New Testament, translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, 1964), p. 172.1 am not clear on what is being excluded by not of transmission. Buchsel seems to say that paradosis means the content of tradition without specific reference to the method of trans­ mission. This would agree with the view that it was claimed the Pharisees have a tradition in addition to Scripture, not that the tradi­ tion was transmitted in a peculiar way. Josephus thus does not say the Pharisees have a non-literary tradition. They have a tradition, but this is not the law of Moses. It is beside the law of Moses. We not only do not have a reference to oral transmission, we do not even have an unequivocal Pharisaic reference to an oral Torah or to two Torahs. Guided by Josephus and the Gospels, we should have concluded the Pharisees claimed they possessed traditions from olden times. We should not have supposed such traditions were alleged to have been orally formulated and transmitted. We should not even have called such traditions the Oral Torah (Torah shebe al peh). In this respect, the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees can scarcely be said to differ. The theory of Louis Finkelstein is that some traditions about early times were available in the form of brief allusions or catchwords. Finkelstein states (in "The Transmission of the Early Rabbinic Tradi­ t i o n s , " / / ^ ^ Union College Annual 16, 1940, pp. 115-136; quotation on pp. 115-117): c

As is well known, the Rabbinic traditions were handed down orally for many centuries. It was thought a sacrilege to put them into writ­ ing, for that was considered an attempt to add to the Scriptures. Only when the mass of tradition grew to such proportions as to tax even the most prodigious memory, did the ancient Sages agree to commit the oral traditions to writing. Before that time the Mishnah, the Tosefta, and the Tannaitic Midrashim, as well as the vaster Talmudic discussions, were studied by rote in the academies and quoted from memory. Never­ theless, they were preserved with precision and accuracy; evidence of the love bestowed on the Torah, as well as the mental prowess and diligence of the ancient students. There is reason to think that as an aid to memory, students developed the habit of formulating certain phrases in each tradition, which served as pegs on which the unformulated portion depended. In later times

166

SMALL UNITS OF

TRADITION AND

MNEMONICS

these formulated phrases were reduced to writing and formed the shorthand notes, by which much of our tannaitic tradition was pre­ served during the centuries before it was completely edited and put into writing. Such notes were perhaps not used in the study of the Mishna, which was the basic text of the academies, and which everyone was supposed to know. The notes were employed for the baraitot, the traditions which had been compiled by the older scholars as parallel studies to the Mishna. And apparently the notes were used more fre­ quently for informal aggadic study, than for that of the more formal halaka. Elsewhere I have shown that the variant versions of the aggadic texts, which have been preserved in the tannaitic midrashim, frequently have some written texts at their base. This can be seen from the fact that errors which could only have arisen in written copies are found in both versions. But at the same time the variant forms of the text show a certain fluidity which indicates that while part of the text— the catch­ words—were written down, the major part was left to be reconstructed from memory by the person reciting the passage. In certain instances...the catchwords were fixed, before they were reduced to writing. While the texts of the various versions of the baraitot differ from one another considerably, they all contain these fixed catchwords. Yet other evidence proves conclusively that in these instances, the fixed catchwords were transmitted orally rather than in writing. Thus there emergefiveforms in which traditions were handed down: I. T h e a n e c d o t a l f o r m . T h i s is t h e p r i m i t i v e t r a d i t i o n , n o p a r t o f w h i c h is f o r m u l a t e d in fixed w o r d s o r p h r a s e s . T h e t r a d i t i o n is d e t e r m i n e d o n l y s o f a r as t h e b a s i c idea o r s t o r y is c o n c e r n e d . I I . T h e s e m i - n o r m a t i v e f o r m . T h i s is t h e stage in w h i c h t h e t r a d i t i o n h a s a s s u m e d fixed f o r m in r e g a r d t o c e r t a i n c a t c h w o r d s , w h i c h a p ­ p e a r in all its v e r s i o n s . It still r e m a i n s a n o r a l t r a d i t i o n , n o p a r t s h a v e been committed to writing. III. T h e f u l l y f o r m u l a t e d o r a l t r a d i t i o n o r n o r m . I n t h i s stage, a n e d i t o r o r t e a c h e r h a s d e c i d e d t o t r a n s m i t t h e o l d e r idea o r s t o r y in a fixed f o r m , his s t u d e n t s a c t u a l l y m e m o r i z e t h e w o r d s i n w h i c h h e expresses t h e idea o r tells t h e s t o r y . I V . T h e earliest w r i t t e n f o r m . T h i s d e r i v e s n o t f r o m III b u t f r o m I I . Instead o f b e i n g s u b m i t t e d t o final f o r m u l a t i o n , in a n o r m a t i v e f o r m , t h e t r a d i t i o n is h a n d e d d o w n t h r o u g h t h e c a t c h w o r d s i n d i c a t e d u n ­ d e r I I ; b u t t o assist t h e m e m o r y f u r t h e r , t h e s e c a t c h w o r d s a r e c o m ­ mitted to writing. V.

T h e w r i t t e n text. T h i s m a y emerge either o u t o f III o r o u t o f I V .

It seems to me that some of the allusions to stories listed above (pp. 43-45) may have been handed on for a long time before the stories themselves were actually worked out, in some small measure in accord with those allusions. For instance, Yosef b. Yo'e^er had a son who did not behave properly alludes to a story about, let us

ORAL

TRADITIONS

167

suppose, disinheritance. But the story that is told has little to do either with Yosi or with disinheritance. Joshua b. Perahiah thrust one of his disciples away with both hands could, in a general way, have led to the formulation of a story about Jesus, or stories about Jesus already circulating independently could have been assigned to Joshua. More striking still, Simeon's hanging women in Ashqelon is attested at early Yavneh by the comment of Eliezer b. Hyrcanus. There we have verification for a number of not very central elements in the long narrative: the name of Simeon b. Shetah, Ashqelon, eighty, and hang­ ing. The rest comes later. These are the sorts of traditions that could have come down from ancient days (though the one about Jesus and Joshua is not one of them). They would represent what Finkelstein calls "the primitive tradition, no part of which is formulated in fixed words or phrases." But even here, we cannot hold that the tradition has reached final form even so far as the basic idea or story-line is concerned. As to the "semi-normative" form and the rest, we can say nothing. We now must reiterate as clearly as possible the central issue. It is not whether there were traditions or whether they were handed on in some form, perhaps oral. All evidence points toward the exist­ ence of a claim of possessing extra-Scriptural traditions among all parties of ancient Judaism, Essene-Qumranian, Pharisaic, and Saddu­ cean. Some were in writing; others probably were not. The issue is not whether we find terms like 'tradition,' 'to pass on as tradition,' and 'to receive as tradition' (paradosis, paradidonai, paralambanein). These terms are adequately attested. In this reply to Smith's review {Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity [Copenhagen, 1964] p. 7) Gerhardsson satisfactorily phrases the real issue: We might ask a simple and purely historical question: What was meant in this particular milieu by 'tradition' and how, practically speaking, did they set about transmitting this tradition—practical tradition (not expressed in words) and verbal tradition (articulated: oral or written?) / / is with verbal tradition that we shall be chiefly concerned here. [Italics supplied]. It is alleged not merely that traditions of one sort or another existed, whether set down in writing or not. The claim is that materials were formulated "verbally," meaning without being written down, and then transmitted only orally. To his credit Gerhardsson thus accepts Smith's distinction and recognizes its force: transmission, and not merely tradition, of the exact words of a teacher just as he spoke them

168

S M A L L UNITS OF

TRADITION AND

MNEMONICS

or formulated them orally, and not merely of a general recollection of his message. Gerhardsson's allegation is that, "When we have determined what the situation was at this particular time [from Aqiba onward] and in this particular sphere, we can trace a course backward in time to the Palestinian milieu of the first century A.D. and then to early Christianity and Jesus." This seems to me dubious. The evidence on Yavneh, middle and late but not early, is unequivocal, as I shall sug­ gest (p. 171). But we are able to propose a theory to explain that evi­ dence in its own place and time. Any effort to infer from the data that practices well-established at Yavneh applied before that time will have to depend upon the formulation of some other theory to account for the same facts differently. And such a theory cannot, for the reasons adduced above, simply point to the admitted presence of mnemonic patterns (which Gerhardsson and others ignore) as evidence of what lay before, and behind, those patterns, for, as we have noted and shall again stress, mnemonic patterns prove only that the persons who fram­ ed them intended that they should be the means for learning tradi­ tions. In fact, they come at Yavneh and no earlier. They do not prove that the person who wrote them down drew upon an antecedent oral tradition. Literary evidence is written, not oral, and the facts it supplies are about how people wrote things down, not about what they drew upon in their writing. We cannot allege without any support whatever that what Aqiba and his contemporaries did was not new and may readily be assigned to any earlier time—even (!) to the "Scriptural sources themselves" (Gerhardsson, Tradition and Transmission, p. 12). c

c

Gerhardsson's allegation of continuities between Yavnean and ear­ lier "pedagogical" practices seems to me unsupported by the data, and the arguments consequently are not conclusive. Pedagogical con­ servatism in general tells us nothing about pedagogical innovation in particular situations and for particular reasons. There is no evidence that, as he claims, it was part of the "conscious program [of Pharisaism] to preserve the words and customs of the fathers inviolate." Hillel's words in M. <Ed. 1:3 are explained as identical to those of his masters, yet the very same passage in which that is alleged shows quite the contrary: Shema'iah and Abtalion are given different words from Hillel's. That would seem to me to prove the very opposite of what is alleged in the subscription. Such proofs by themselves mean little. But when such a passage is used to demonstrate "verbal tradition,"

ORAL

TRADITIONS

169

it becomes important to point out it may demonstrate tradition, but not "verbal" tradition. Gerhardsson claims that rabbinic pedagogics "have a long history, which can be traced far back into Old Testament times" (p. 15). That seems to me to beg the question. We are supposed to assign to the Pha­ risees and later rabbis practices for which OT antecedents are claimed. But the Pharisaic traditions of the rabbis persistently, and nearly uniquely for their time, ignore nearly the whole range of types of biblical literature, and bypass every form in which biblical materials are shaped. That again points to the opposite conclusion, namely, that the rabbis' Pharisees paid slight attention to the forms of biblical tradition, which calls into question allegations of other sorts of continuity as well. The first allegation that someone has a tradition formulated and transmitted orally in precisely the language in which that tradition now is repeated pertains to Yohanan b. Zakkai, via Eliezer b. Hyr­ canus and Joshua b. Hananiah. The pertinent passages are as follows: R. Joshua said, "I have received as a tradition from Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai, who heard from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher, as a halakhah given to Moses from Sinai, that Elijah will not come to declare unclean or clean, to remove afar or to bring nigh, but to remove afar those that were brought near by violence, and to bring near those that were removed by violence." (M. <Ed. 8:7) The antecedent tradition is as follows: R. Joshua and R. Judah b. Bathyra testified that the widow of one who belonged to an I sab family was eligible for marriage with a priest... Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said, "We accept your testimony, but what shall we do, for Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai decreed that courts may not be set up concerning this. The priests would hearken to you in what concerns putting away, but not in what concerns bringing near." (M. <Ed. 8:3) The latter is specific, legal, and credible; it would pertain to Yavneh. The former is aggadah and has nothing to do with a legal question. But it is the first reference to exact words supposedly orally formulated by a master (Moses), then orally transmitted, and now set down in writing. Joshua likewise alludes to words of Yohanan b. Zakkai (M. Sot. 5:2, 5), but in that instance those words in fact were not formulated in a fixed, oral lemma; indeed Yohanan's statement was either lost or suppressed, or it was not given any sort of official formulation

170

S M A L L UNITS OF TRADITION A N D

MNEMONICS

at all. So when Joshua heard something along the lines of what Yoha­ nan had allegedly said to him, he referred to the tradition, but not to a fixed lemma in which the teaching was formulated. The same allegation concerning Yohanan derives from Eliezer: On that day...they voted and decided that Ammon and Moab should give Poorman's Tithe in the Sabbatical Year. And when R. Yosi the son of the Damascene came to R. Eliezer in Lydda, he said to him, "What new thing did you have in the house of study today?" He said to him, "They voted and decided that Ammon and Moab give Poorman's Tithe in the Sabbatical Year." R. Eliezer wept and said, The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him, and he will show them his covenant (Ps. 25:14). Go and tell them, Be not anxious by reason of your voting, for I have received a tradition from Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai, who heard it from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher, as a halakhah given to Moses at Sinai, that Ammon and Moab give Poorman's Tithe in the Sabbatical Year." (M. Yad. 4:3) 66

Eliezer's assertion, in the same words as the decision, comes in ref­ erence to the on that /^-traditions concerning Gamaliel's deposition. This case is better evidence than those deriving from Joshua's circle that to Yohanan were attributed orally formulated and orally trans­ mitted traditions, and that those traditions were alleged to have deriv­ ed in exactly their present form from Sinai. But the very sayings of Moses through Yohanan never survived in their original form! We should not have known them had not Eliezer and Joshua quoted them. And Eliezer quoted his only when able to do so, after Gamaliel II was out of power. So if Yohanan's saying had earlier been given fixed form, and if this was done orally, and if it was thereupon taught to Eliezer for memorization and oral transmission, then that saying none­ theless was not published, for only Eliezer knew about it. The others were in the dark, so had to vote. This pericope hardly conforms to the picture of the oral formulation and transmission of a public tradi­ tion, the Oral Torah. Furthermore the allegation itself is incredible. The imposition of a modified form of Palestinian land-taxes on Ammon and Moab implies the claim that they should be dependencies of the land of Israel. Perhaps we here have territorial claims of the Jewish regime, claims which could only be realized over the dead bodies of the now predominantly gentile inhabitants of Ammon and Moab. So thirty years after his death Yohanan is discovered to have been a crypto-revolutionary. The con-

ORAL

TRADITIONS

171

tent of the saying is as suspicious as its form. Both probably are fraudulent. Eliezer himself was in excommunication and never had an opportunity to deny the purported revelation at the actual consistory. So the story is apt to come not from Eliezer, but from the consistory of ca. 100 or thereafter. It does indeed give good evidence that at that time the words of masters were believed to be formulated orally and transmitted through the memories of disciples, and I take it as fact that that was the case. Perhaps it was alleged by Yohanan, on the basis of Joshua's citation, that he possessed the exact words revealed by Moses at Sinai. The evidence is not very persuasive, but one cannot routinely dismiss it. So the first claim, possibly coming around the time of Yohanan, very likely among his disciples, is that one has accurate traditions of the essential content of the ancient Torah. Certainly, among the next generation of Yavneh comes the further, and directly consequent, claim, that these accurate traditions are not merely of the content, but of the exact words orally formulated and handed on earlier. The third stage then is the effort to replicate that mnemonic process in the formulation and transmission of Yavnean materials. As we saw, the picture of Moses' oral formulation and transmission of traditions certainly characterized rabbinic masters by the time of Judah b. Ilai, hence ca. 150. So between ca. 100 and ca. 150 the process described in b. Eruv. 54b probably took shape. The Yavneans from Eliezer b. Hyrcanus and Joshua b. Hananiah onward do make reference to the oral formulation and transmission of teachings. Eliezer and Aqiba in b. Eruv. 54b leave no doubt on this question. R. Tarfon refers to hearing a tradition: "I heard but I could not explain." R. Joshua says, "Thus have I heard plain ($TM)" (M. Par. 1:1). R. 'Aqiba (Mekhilta de Ishmael to Ex. 21:1, Lauterbach, III, p. 1 = b. Eruv. 54b), teaches that one must repeat a tradition until it has been learned. I see no reason to doubt that to Yavneans it was important to claim the Oral Torah was orally formulated and preserved, and not in writing. These sayings moreover are quite congruent to the literary data we have examined, all of which point toward Yavneh for the beginnings both of those forms that seemed clearly defined, and for those mnemoni­ cally structured and balanced pericopae that seemed susceptible to dating at all. While the beginnings of the process may be with Joshua and Eliezer, it probably was 'Aqiba who most fully developed them, c

c

c

c

172

S M A L L UNITS OF

TRADITION AND

MNEMONICS

for it was he who set forth the foundations of the Mishnah, and it was in his time that the institution of the Tanna, memorizer and reciter, is first referred to. Thus, as I said, from the claim of exact verbal tradition, which may have been made by Yohanan b. Zakkai, but certainly was made by his disciples, the rabbis progressed to the claim of imitating Moses* actual procedure. This, by all accounts, was the achievement of 'Aqiba and his contemporaries. The procedure was, from our perspective,, anachronistic. It obviously did not accord with the technological attainments of the day or with long-established procedures. Saul Lieberman describes the process of formulating and transmiting the Mishnah in "The Publication of the Mishnah" {Hellenism in Jewish Palestine. Studies in the Literary Transmission, Beliefs, and Manners of Palestine in the I Century B.C.E.—IV Century CE. [N.Y., 1950], pp. 83-99). He asks, Was the Mishnah published? That is, either did professional copyists hear it dictated and write it down? Or did an authentic original take written form, and was it then deposited in an archive? Some Jewish books were published in the second way, that is, they were written and deposited. However, Lieberman notes, "Since in the entire Talmudic literature we do not find that a book of the Mishnah was ever consulted in case of controversies or doubt concerning a particular reading, we may safely conclude that the com­ pilation was not published in writing." Rabbis did possess written halakhot and comments, but they were private notes without legal authority, with no more authority than an oral assertion (p. 87). The Mishnah was published in a different way: "A regular oral.. .edi­ tion of the Mishnah was in existence, a fixed text recited by the Tan­ naim of the college. The Tanna (repeater, reciter) committed to memory the text of certain portions of the Mishnah, which he subsequently recited in the college in the presence of the great masters of the Law...When the Mishnah was committed to memory and the Tannaim recited it in the college it was thereby published..." The authority of the college-Tanna ("a word apparently first used for college-reciter in the time of'Aqiba," Lieberman, p. 88, n. 39) was that of a "published book" (p. 89). What was the nature of that living book? "How was the mass of diverse material arranged and systematized before it was delivered to the Tanna, before he memorized it?" (p. 90) At the time of'Aqiba, the body of the Mishnah comprised only the opinions of the represent­ atives of the Houses of Shammai and Hillel and their precedessors (p. 93). 'Aqiba organized matters, sifting through the whole and crys-

ORAL

TRADITIONS

173

tallizing it in an exact and definite shape. His work resulted in the compilation of a new Mishnah (p. 93). Then the procedure was as follows: "The Master taught the new Mishnah to the first Tanna; afterwards he taught it to the second Tanna" and so on. After the Mishnah was systematized and the Tan­ naim knew it thoroughly by heart, they repeated it in the college in the presence of the master, who supervised the recitation and corrected it and give it its final form (p. 93). The disciples of 'Aqiba continued the work, adding comments, and developed a large number of differ­ ent versions of the Mishnah. Judah the Patriarch then undertook a new edition. His Mishnah was virtually canonized, the rest were declar­ ed external, with only secondary authority in comparison with the Mish­ nah of Judah. I think it significant that Lieberman nowhere in the article alludes to the form of the materials used by 'Aqiba or claims that the antecedent materials had come down via oral traditions of mnemonically and orally formulated lemmas. Since the evidence of what lay before 'Aqiba is insufficient, Lieberman apparently pre­ ferred to express no opinion on that question. So here we have the picture of the way in which a tradition was formulated orally. Someone made up a sentence and dictated it to memorizers, who then mastered the tradition and constituted its tes­ timonies. For that purpose, it was necessary to formulate matters in the mnemonic patterns we have isolated (among others), and we may account for such mnemonics as those of the Houses, possibly also (but this is far less clear) for the well-defined forms, within the theory herein presented. Now the picture of b. 'Eruv. 54b conforms to an isolable situation. We may draw on it for evidence of practices before the time of Judah b. Ilai. Why should 'Aqiba and his successors have adopted such an unwieldy means for the formulation and transmission of Mishnah? One can hardly argue that technical limitations played a role; as I said, writing was sufficiently commonplace for the Qumranians and Christians to transmit materials through that medium. It seems to me the likelier explanation derives from the claim laid forth by the early Yavneans: the law of the Pharisaic party, now applied with Roman support in Jewish Palestine by the patriarchal-rabbinic courts, but formerly unknown to, or ignored by, the masses of Jews, is not simply sectarian fiat. Jewry now for the first time is called to live by the Torah of Moses, the whole Torah of Sinai, and is taught to do

174

S M A L L UNITS OF TRADITION A N D

MNEMONICS

so by men who possess the authentic traditions revealed at Sinai. No one ignored Scriptures. But to those Sadducees who adhered to the view that all Moses had revealed was a Written Torah, to those rem­ nants of other groups that had had their own written traditions in addition to Scripture, and above all, to those ordinary folk who knew nothing other than Scriptures and local customs, elements of the rabbinic Torah must have proved alien. The authority of the new class of judges and bureaucrats surely rested on little more than Roman fiat. The claim of Mosaic "authorship" for the rabbinic Torah and the authentication of the rabbis, through their master Moses, of that Torah, in the very manner and oral forms in which it was originally given—these allegations must have represented powerful propaganda. Acting out Moses mode of formulating and transmitting his Torah was even more persuasive. The outsider, made aware that what rabbis said was memorized, and that the rabbis memorized just as had Moses, Aaron, and all the elders, prophets, and sages from Sinai to the present day, perhaps would not have been unimpressed. The Roman support for patriarchal-rabbinic government thus was made to seem incidental und unimportant. The authority of the rabbis derived from Moses, not from Rome. When 'Aqiba later on supported the anti-Roman movement culminating in the Bar Kokhba revolution, he would not have compromised his position by collaboration with Rome. So it seems to me plausible that what the early Yavneans did in formulating traditions in mnemonic patterns and teaching them in the manner described in b. 'Eruv. was to act out that part of the Torah-myth most pertinent to their political needs. The processes of formulating and handing on the law were ritualized: one repeats so and so many times, no fewer, no more; one arranges traditions to facilitate memorization, which by this time (if not long before) was an unnatural means of composition and transmission of materials. What seems to us its anachronism constituted part of its appeal. One nonetheless wonders, To whom would such a set of rituals based upon the rabbinic Torah-myth have appealed? People not part of the schools could not have known a great deal of what went on in them, and we know of only a few schools, none in Galilee, before 140. Sadducees and Essenes such as had survived could not have been any more persuaded by what the rabbinic heirs of Pharisaism now did than by the claims of the sect before 70. The common folk cannot be supposed to have known from mere observation just what the rabbis'

ORAL

175

TRADITIONS

gestures meant, or how they had received the laws they enforced in courts. So it seems to me the imitation of Moses's pedagogy was impor­ tant primarily to the rabbis themselves. In that case Aqiba and those around him may have proceeded along the lines described in b. Eruv. on account of considerations essentially internal to the rabbinic move­ ment itself, rather than for the consumption of outsiders. This theory attempts to account for several sets of facts. First, early Yavneans referred to oral traditions. Second, they formulated teachings of the Houses in obvious mnemonic patterns. Hence it was important to them that the traditions of the Houses thenceforward be memorized, not allowed to depend only upon written materials. Third, other sorts of traditions seem to have been set forth in disciplin­ ed forms created in Yavnean times. It may be possible to account for these facts in other ways. As we shall see in the next chapter, while we do have pre-70 traditions in abundance, we have almost no rem­ nants of pre-70 traditions in their exact pre-70 formulation, so it will be hard to invent a great many new facts. Gerhardsson formulates for us still another widespread claim: One may verify as early some rabbinic traditions, attributed either to the Pharisees or to later rabbis, by parallel assertions in earlier literature: c

c

It is possible to grasp the fundamentals in the oldest 'layers' of the Rab­ binic tradition and to find correspondences in older literature, often in the Old Testament. We are able to fix dates—at least to some extent— by referring to Josephus, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the remaining 'intertestamental' literature (p. 16). We indeed find in rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees, and, still more commonly, in later rabbinic and medieval traditions, sayings, ideas, themes, and stories similar to materials in earlier, but not Phari­ saic or rabbinic, compilations. In data we have considered, examples are the Yannai/Simeon b. Shetah materials, some of which seem based on Josephus-narratives—but then not involving Simeon b. Shetah— and some legal correspondences between Qumranian and Pharisaic law. Hunters after parallels have come up with numerous examples of sayings and stories, Scriptural comments, and other sorts of tradi­ tions, which occur in Apocryphal, Pseudegraphical, and Qumranian writings, Philo, New Testament and Patristic literature, and the like, on the one side, and, in somewhat similar ways, in Targumim, or in rabbinic collections of midrashim, early, late, and medieval, on the other. The inference usually drawn from such parallels is that the

176

SMALL UNITS OF

TRADITION AND

MNEMONICS

late rabbinic materials are thereby "verified as early," as Gerhardsson states. And indeed, that is the case. So we must concede that if a comment on a biblical figure occurs in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs or Philo, on the one side, and in a late Talmudic or medieval compilation of rabbinic sayings, on the other, then the substance of that comment has already occurred to someone long before late Talmudic or medieval times. We must now ask, What conclusions are to be drawn? One conclusion, routinely reached, is that congruence or similarity proves in this instance the antiquity of the rabbinic 'tradition.' That invariably is forthwith interpreted (whether articulately or otherwise) to mean that the ancient Pharisees, five or ten centuries earlier, had said such a thing, that the writer of the Patriarchal Testament, or Philo, heard it from Pharisees, and in writing it down, exhibited his affinity with, or even dependence upon, rabbinic authority or tradition. Such an interpretation is possible because it is further assumed (but rarely made explicit) that everything in Pharisaic-rabbinic compila­ tions, early and late, is quintessentially Pharisaic, then rabbinic, and nothing has been taken into that compilation and retroactively Pharisaized and rabbinized. The pan-Pharisaists hold that mere occurrence in a rabbinic document signifies the presence of Pharisaism-rabbinism, and this by definition. What is not defined, however, is what one means by Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition, or what will characterize some­ thing as uniquely Pharisaic in origin or essence. A second, closely related, and equally ubiquitous assumption is that similarities show parallels, parallels reveal sources, and sources demonstrate dependence. The source of all sources is Pharisaic-rabbi­ nic tradition. Therefore if a saying appears early in Philo, and late in a medieval compilation of midrashim (whether attributed to an early master or anonymous, and pseudepigraphical considerations are rarely attended to), then Philo presumably has borrowed from Pharisaicrabbinic tradition. Less defensible still, it is assumed that Christian exegetes, philosophers, and tradents always borrowed from Jewish ones, never contrarywise. One might readily suppose, for instance, that since Mark 10:2-10 looks much like a Pharisaic-rabbinic debate in form, the Christian tradent has borrowed a form from Pharisaic-rab­ binic literary conventions; therefore we have another instance of early Christian dependence upon rabbinic Judaism. But a similarity is just that; parallel lines do not meet. The fact of a parallel form or idea, standing by itself, may prove only that two

ORAL

TRADITIONS

177

men in the same country and social class reached a similar aesthetic or religious conclusion, at much the same time, about much the same literary or theological problem, normally a difficulty provoked by the same Bible. That one borrowed from the other on the face of it is not a necessary and uncontingent conclusion. But if a late rabbinic compilation does contain an idea found in a pre-Christian sectarian document, one may more reasonably suppose that the compiler of that collection knew the pre-Christian sectarian document, than that the pre-Christian sectarian writer knew the late rabbinic compilation. The implications of the oral theory of the formulation and transmis­ sion of Pharisaic-rabbinic traditions thus lead to the unnatural con­ clusions that everything was floating into the Pharisaic-rabbinic "air," and appearance in a particular collection edited at a particular time implies nothing about the origins or provenance of that particular tradition. I think the opposite on the face of it is more congruent to probabilities. Summary: The Pharisees certainly possessed traditions external to the written Scriptures. The evidence of Josephus and the New Testa­ ment is consistent on this point: Pharisees claimed to have paradosis, tradition. But Josephus's discussion lends little support for the theory that the Pharisees claimed to possess the Oral Torah dictated by Moses and handed on thereafter in the memories, but not in the writings, of prophets and sages. They have a tradition, but this is not described as part of the law of Moses. Josephus makes no reference to a Pharisaic claim that that tradition derives from Moses. He says it is from "the fathers." He makes no reference either to an oral Torah or two Torahs. And all the allegations about traditions from the fathers come only in Antiquities, written after the process of formulation in the Oral Torah had begun at Yavneh, in part in order to persuade the Romans of the Pharisees' merits as rulers of Jewish Palestine. We found ourselves able to follow part of the allegation of Louis Finkelstein that some rabbinic traditions, in primitive form, may have been handed on in fixed words or phrases, which conveyed the basic idea or story. But the specific items available in the materials before us do not add up to much. We then reviewed Gerhardsson's assertion that a "verbal" tradition was handed on and that materials were formulated without being written down and then were transmitted only orally. We observed that Ger­ hardsson explicitly claims the pattern clear in 'Aqiba's time was not

178

SMALL UNITS OF

TRADITION AND

MNEMONICS

new, but derived even from biblical times. We looked in vain for evidence in support of this view. The evidence we do have points toward beginnings at Yavneh of the claim that people possessed verbatim traditions framed by ancient authorities and handed down orally from then on. While such tradi­ tions are assigned to Yohanan b. Zakkai, they seem in the end to belong not to his disciple Eliezer, but to Eliezer's contemporaries. In the case of Joshua matters are not so clear. His allegation concerns aggadah. When we find the aggadic teaching translated into legal terms, it is Simeon b. Gamaliel, certainly the second one, who does it. But he refers simply to a decree, not to ipsissima verba. Nonetheless, impor­ tant Yavnean masters give evidence of a tendency to refer to oral teachings, of the discipline of oral transmission through mnemonic means to disciples, and, one need hardly add, of belief in the Oral Torah. These evidences conform to the picture earlier adduced from an examination of forms and the shape of the Houses-apodoses. This suggests that both the forms of pericopae and the mnemonic elements in Houses-materials come at the latest from Yavneh in the times of Eliezer, Joshua, Tarfon, and 'Aqiba., We further found in Saul Lieberman's account of the publication of the Mishnah definitive proof that the Mishnah began with 'Aqiba, that it was not published or even written down, but that it was to begin with dictated to disciples, thus orally formulated, and then orally transmitted, primarily by professional memorizers present in the rabbinic schools, secondarily in unofficial notes. The picture drawn in b. 'Eruv. 54b therefore con­ forms to the realities described by Lieberman. The use of mnemonic patterns surely testifies to the intentions of the redactors. No claim is made for ancient origins for the whole corpus of materials, still less for its present form. The present form derives from Yavneh. I proposed a theory to account for the facts that Yavneh supplies us with our earliest evidences of oral formulation and transmission of materials, and that the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees con­ forming to what we suppose to be mnemonic patterns likewise derive from Yavneh. Finally, I observed that the tendency of scholars is to find verifica­ tions for the antiquity of traditions first appearing on the rabbinic side in late Talmudic and medieval compilations, in the sectarian literature of Second Temple times, Josephus, Philo, or New Testament and Patristic literature. What is verified is only that someone, long

ORAL

TRADITIONS

179

before the medieval compiler, came to the same conclusion. It may further be alleged that that view is very old. But on that basis one cannot prove that pre-70 Pharisees held or did not hold the same opin­ ion. One moreover cannot claim that the ancient writer who stated an opinion later on appearing in a rabbinic compilation learned it from a Pharisaic master, or even that when he said it, he viewed it as an opinion held by Pharisees. The opposite seems more likely. It may be more reasonable to suggest that some time between the first writing down of a tradition, in, e.g., Qumranian writings, or Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, or Philo, or Josephus, a rabbi heard the tradition from someone familiar with such literature (excluding the Qumranian instance), or learned it himself in its original location. But that sort of suggestion, while on the face of it more reasonable than its opposite, is meant merely to propose a possible line of reflection and inquiry.

CHAPTER TWENTY

VERIFICATIONS i. INTRODUCTION

By verification is meant the effort to find a terminus ante quern for the substance, form, and wording of a pericope in some evidence, in general, outside of the structure of the pericope itself, and, if possible, external even to the collection in which it appears. Verification refers to the determination of the time and circle in which a pericope reach­ ed the condition in which we have it. What is verified is the form and wording of the pericope, not the contents, all the more so not the traditions that may lie behind it. There are three ways in which it may be shown that a pericope has reached its present form and phrasing. First, it may be cited by an authority entirely external to the rabbinic tradition. That sort of veri­ fication is unavailable to us. The Houses of Shammai and Hillel are never referred to in the other extant contemporary documents, e.g., New Testament, Qumranian writings, Apocrypha-Pseudepigrapha, and Josephus. Some of the named masters occur in Josephus's narra­ tive, in particular John Hyrcanus/Yohanan the High Priest, Honi = Onias, Simeon the Just, and Simeon b. Gamaliel; Gamaliel I is men­ tioned in Acts. But these external references indicate knowledge of only two items of the rabbinic materials we have examined: the heav­ enly message to John Hyrcanus and the story of the break between Jannaeus and the Pharisees. The references merely show these tradi­ tions were widespread, not very much older than the date of the attestation, nor accurate, nor originally Pharisaic. Second, the final date of compiling a collection in which a story first occurs commonly supplies the final date for the present form of all the materials in that collection; subsequent changes will be limited to textual corruption (minor) and interpolations (probably rare). Hence Mishnah-Tosefta, which we may for convenience assign to ca. 200-250, supplies the terminus ante quern for the bulk of the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees. The summary-tables for the named masters show the growth of the traditions about them; Houses-mate­ rials appearing in Mishnah-Tosefta are listed (II, pp. 344-353).

INTRODUCTION

181

Third is the internal evidence in the rabbinic traditions, mainly the attribution to named masters after 70 A.D. of comments or say­ ings about pericopae of pre-70 Pharisees. If a later master refers to the substance and language of the pericope itself, but evidently stands outside of both, we may suppose that the pericope was known to him, therefore comes before, or in, his time in pretty much its present form and wording. If a Yavnean—e.g. 'Aqiba—actually participates in deciding the issue of a Houses-dispute, the pericope in its present form probably did not arise much before his time. An earlier form may have been available to him, but the fact that he appears in the structure of the dispute supplies a firm terminus post quern: the dispute in its present state cannot come before 'Aqiba. But it also suggests that the dispute derives from a circle of 'Aqiban disciples, and that circle frequently turns out to be either later Yavneans or early Ushans, thus suggesting a date of ca. 100 to 150 A.D. In my lists of verifications, I have assigned both pericopae in which named masters actually participate, and those on which named masters comment, but from which they stand apart, to the same master's stratum, unless evidence for a more precise estimate was available. Therefore, for instance, both 'Aqiba's appearance in the structure of a pericope and his comment on an apparently completed pericope, or on one which he himself evidently completed, for purposes of verification are interpreted the same way. The pericope belongs to the 'Aqiban part of the Yavnean stratum. That is an imprecision to be specified at the outset. My reasoning for this sort of internal verification is based on a num­ ber of unproved assumptions. First, I assume that later masters com­ monly tried to assign sayings to the man who said them, not to some earlier and more prestigious authority. If, e.g., something is attributed to Gamaliel II, I assume that either Gamaliel II actually said what is attributed to him, or, at least, the tradents of his circle with his ap­ proval assigned that saying to him—for our purposes it comes down to the same thing. But that assumption demonstrably is not always reliable. For instance we have found Gamaliel II-lemmas coming from Eleazar b. R. Sadoq, and there are many instances in which the Mish­ nah attributes to a man words which the Tosefta says a later authority made up. But the limited number of such instances of pseudo-attribu­ tion suggests that in the main attributions of traditions are reliable. Hence it is merely an assumption that if Gamaliel II is said to comment on a Houses-pericope, it was known to him. If the comment takes

182

VERIFICATIONS

into account the actual language of the pericope, it is a further as­ sumption that the pericope in its present form was available to him. Without further evidence I shall not suppose that a later tradent made the language of the earlier Houses conform to the comment of the later master. To be sure we have seen the fabrication of Housesdisputes out of opinions of later masters about the opinions of the Houses. Moreover, such fabrications have involved direct attributions to the Houses of specific statements. For instance, Simeon's saying in M. Yad. 3:5 produces a spelled-out Houses-dispute in M. Ed. 5:3. In such a case the probability is ever present that the later master not merely supplies the terminus ante quern, but was the actual creator of the pericope. It seems to me impossible that the whole literature is pseudepi­ graphic in an extreme sense: that it is the product only of the final circle of redactors and theirs alone. I take for granted that Yavnean materials were shaped at Yavneh, then handed on to Usha, primarily through 'Aqiban disciples; Ushan materials were shaped at Usha, then handed on to Rabbi's circle. So I take very seriously indeed the attri­ bution of a saying to a named authority in a particular school and time. While no one can show the named authority actually said such a thing, it seems to me beyond reasonable doubt that circles of his disciples believed he did, and they themselves moreover assumed what he said was true. The redactional process described in b. 'Eruv. 54b and elsewhere seems to me to allow the assumption that, if not the man, then the circle of his disciples is accurately to be regarded as the source of sayings attributed to the man. Hence by "'Aqiba" or "Joshua" we may mean the 'Aqiban circle or the Joshuan circle. That may make biography difficult, but it permits other kinds of reasonably accurate historical inquiry. Those circles presumably did redact and hand on what now is in their master's name, and what they handed on reflects what they believed about law and history. What they be­ lieved may or may not accurately reflect historical reality, but it is likely to reflect their own situation. An example of the consequences of this reasoning is as follows: If Rava and Abbaye discuss the identity of the Hasmonean king who troubled the Pharisees, e.g., b. Qid. 66a, or produce an interpolation in a pericope, then we may suppose the pericope lay before them in something like its present condition. To be sure, a still later editor may have revised the pericope to conform to the opinions of those masters, and this is not infrequently the case, as was manifest in the c

INTRODUCTION

183

synoptic tables. A second example, already alluded to, comes in a reference of a Yavnean or later Tanna to the present formulation of legal issue in a Houses-dispute. This tells us, first, that the issue was debated at Yavneh or later; second, that it was believed the Houses had faced the same problem and ruled on it; third, that Yavneans, Ushans, or circles around Judah the Prince had materials before them in pretty much their present form and did not thereafter revise them; finally, that they decided the law and gave the decision to the Hillelites. I certainly cannot claim that this sort of verification is definitive. It seems to me the best we now can hope for. To be sure, some argue that the essential content of a pericope, not merely the form and wording, may be said to be verified if we find reason to believe the content accurately reflects the conditions of the time of which it speaks. Thus Josephus's stories of the later Hasmoneans' relations to the Pharisees may be alleged to verify the rabbinic stories of tension between Yannai the King and Simeon b. Shetah, Joshua b. Perahiah, Judah b. Tabbai, Jesus, and others in the first century B.C. who fled to Alexandria. It seems to me undeniable that Josephus and the rabbinic tradents possessed traditions about tension between Yannai and Pharisees. But those traditions are not before us. All we have are two quite separate sets of stories. We cannot claim that the detailed Talmudic version is verified because of similarities to Josephus, for the similarities (excluding b. Qid. 66a) are only in generalities. The details, that is, the actual course of events which the talmudic pericopae report, remain unsupported. The portraits of some masters, Simeon b. Gamaliel in particular, are not entirely dissimilar in Josephus and in the rabbinic traditions. But the emphases of the respective literatures are entirely different. Ben Sira, Josephus, and the rabbinic traditions agree Simeon the Just was a famous priest. That does not supply verification for any partic­ ular item in the third-named corpus, or in the others for that matter. No detail of the rabbinic traditions of Simeon the Just seems to me confirmed by Ben Sira and Josephus, other than the obvious one that he was high priest. Certain sorts of internal evidence prove less than at first glance they may seem to. If a story takes for granted that the Temple is still stand­ ing, it would be foolish to conclude that it was actually written before 70, for that conclusion ignores the ability of a later narrator to avoid obvious anachronism, as any modern story-teller does. If people believed Hillel flourished in Temple times, they obviously did not make up stories

184

VERIFICATIONS

about how Hillel walked through the Temple ruins. Verisimilitude cannot be confused with authenticity. Internal evidence, particularly that deriving from what the narrator set out to tell us, cannot be regarded as decisive. Other kinds of internal evidence, which no narrator intentionally made available to us, are of greater probative value. But they not in­ frequently prove the opposite of what the narrator intended. Thus a Houses-dispute about the limiting force of K cannot have arisen before 'Aqiban times, when the limiting force of >K was first accepted as a normative hermeneutical principle. The historical Houses cannot have debated that problem before 70 A.D., when the subject-matter of the debate (the pilgrimage to the Temple) actually conformed to conditions of everyday life. On the other hand, the reader will have noticed laws that must stand in an orderly sequence. Thus M. Pes. 1:6 (R. Hanina Prefect of the Priests said that the priests burned flesh made unclean from a derived uncleanness together with flesh made unclean from a primary uncleanness) must precede a dispute of the Houses on the question of whether that burning takes place within the court or outside it. The Houses' dispute about whether or not one may burn unclean flesh with clean flesh must logically come before the debate as to where the burning should take place—unless we sup­ pose the two traditions were at first entirely separate, come from different circles of tradents, only later were preserved together, and still later required the harmonization of the legal scholars of Amoraic and later times. We thus cannot absolutely prove that Hanina's state­ ment must come between the two Houses-disputes on whether the unclean and clean meats are burned together, on the one side, and on where they are to be burned, on the other. y

Similarly we may suppose that lists ending with particular authori­ ties most often reached their present form, at least in respect to the names of the authorities, not much later than the last named. Had they remained open, later names would have been added to them. I cannot suggest whether the lists were composed all at once, or were augment­ ed every twenty or thirty years; on the face of it, the former alter­ native seems to me more probable. Hence the following lists may derive in their present, or nearly present form, from before 70 A.D.: 1 . To lay/not to lay (M. Hag.

2:2)

T h e list e n d s w i t h S h a m m a i / H i l l e l , s o c a n n o t b e p r i o r t o ca. 2 0 A . D . B u t it m a y h a v e b e e n f o r m u l a t e d n o t m u c h after t h a t t i m e . T h e H o u s e s - f o r m

185

INTRODUCTION

f o l l o w s t h e m o d e l a n d c a n n o t c o m e m u c h after 7 0 , w h e n it is w e l l a t ­ t e s t e d ; t h i s s u g g e s t s t h e list is f o r m e d s o m e t i m e b e t w e e n ca. 2 0 a n d ca. 7 0 A . D . T h e Hillel-stories o n t h e s a m e issue a r e u n v e r i f i e d .

2. X + Y decreed uncleanness on (b. Shab. 14b = y. Shab. 1:4 etc.) T h e s a m e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s p e r t a i n h e r e . T h e list is c o n s t r u c t e d o f different e l e m e n t s , b u t t h e f o r m p o i n t s t o t h e p e r i o d f r o m ca. 2 0 t o ca. 7 0 A . D . , c e r t a i n l y n o t e a r l i e r , p o s s i b l y n o t l a t e r . B u t Y o s i b . Halafta d i d n o t k n o w t h e t r a d i t i o n , w h i c h m a y m e a n it c o m e s c o n s i d e r a b l y l a t e r t h a n ca. 1 5 0 . S o formal considerations are n o t

decisive.

What I think is verified is the protasis: the names themselves. The apodoses are another matter. And even the names of M. Hag. 2:2 may have been reworked in Yavnean times; Meir and Judah supply the earliest firm terminus ante quern (I, pp. 11-13). We omit Hananiah Prefect of the Priests from our catalogues. Veri­ fications of sayings of Hananiah Prefect of the Priests are part of the study of the formation of Yavnean materials. He occurs with Yavneans as follows: 'Aqiba (Sifra Sav 1:9, M. Pes. 1:6, M. Zev. 9:3, 12:4, M. <Ed. 2:1-3) Dosa b. Harkinas, 'Aqavyah b. Mehallel (Sifra Tazri'a Neg. 2:6 = M. Neg. 1:4) Ishmael and 'Aqiba (M. Sheq. 4:4) Ishmael (M. Men. 10:1) Nathan (Sifre Num. 42) Yosi (M. Par. 3:1) II. PERICOPAE WITHOUT VERIFICATIONS BEFORE CA. 200

A.D.

(MISHNAH-TOSEFTA)

Our first catalogue lists pericopae for which we find no evidence before their occurrence in Mishnah-Tosefta or later compilations. In some instances we may be reasonably sure that the pericope derives from after ca. 200. For example, sayings in M. Avot 1:1-18 attributed to Hillel are also said by Sadoq; presumably, had Sadoq heard them in HillePs name, he would have said so, given the impor­ tance of Hillel at Yavneh and afterward. Since he did not attribute

186

VERIFICATIONS

them to Hillel, he presumably did not hear them as Hillel's. Nor did anyone else, for the tradition was uncorrected, and no one commented on Sadoq's saying what Hillel had said. It therefore seems that the first attribution of such sayings to Hillel came long after Sadoq. In­ deed, as we observed, not a single saying in M. Avot. 1:1-18 is ever referred to in the antecedent Tannaitic strata of traditions. Since numerous traditions pertaining to pre-70 Pharisees are referred to in the strata between ca. 70 and ca. 200, it stands to reason that, had they been redacted in their present form, important traditions such as these would have made some impression and produced some sort of gloss or allusion, as some of HillePs sayings in Tos. Ber. appear to have been alluded to by Simeon b. Yohai. The absence of such allusions or other sorts of verifications suggests the sayings first appeared about the time of the final stages of the redaction of the list itself. The same reasoning does not seem to me to apply to other materials before us. They may not have been alluded to simply because they were unimportant, or not relevant to materials under discussion—the historical pericopae, for example—or they simply were not known in the circle responsible for the earlier formation of Yavnean and Ushan traditions. But they were known elsewhere and eventually were taken over by Judah the Patriarch and his circle. Even for M. Avot 1:1-18 the arguments stated above cannot be regarded as decisive; they are merely suggestive. We have no evidence earlier than Mishnah-Tosefta for any of the following. In some instances, we do have evidence of Amoraic origin, and this is specified: 1. M. Avot 1:1-18 S o m e o f t h e H i l l e l s a y i n g s o c c u r in t h e n a m e o f S a d o q . N o n e is r e f e r r e d t o b y T a n n a i m . T h e earliest v e r i f i c a t i o n s c o m e in A m o r a i c s a y i n g s o f t h e third century.

2. X + Y decreed uncleanness on... (b. Shab. 14b, y. Shab. 1:4, etc.) M a y c o m e in A m o r a i c t i m e s , f o l l o w i n g a u t h o r i t i e s l i s t e d i n y . S h a b . , since Y o s i b . Halafta k n e w n o t h i n g o f t h e t r a d i t i o n .

3. Simeon the Just and the Nazirite (Sifre Num. 22) 4. When Simeon the Just died, supernatural events ceased to happen in the cult (Tos. Sot. 13:7)

PERICOPAE

WITHOUT VERIFICATIONS

187

5. Simeon the Just and Alexander of Macedonia (b. Yoma 69a) 6. Simeon the Just prayed too long; predicted his own death. (y. Yoma 5:2) Earliest reference: R. A b b a h u

7. Simeon the Just was high priest for forty years, Yohanan for eighty (b. Yoma 9a) R . Y o h a n a n is earliest a u t h o r i t y .

8. Samuel re Lev. 26:44 (b. Meg. 11a) 9. Antigonus of Sokho (ARNa Chap. 5) 10. Yosef b. Yo'ezer was most pious in priesthood, yet his garments were susceptible of ^/V/rar-uncleanness (M. Hag. 2:7) 11. Yosi's son found pearl in fish, gave money to Temple (b. B.B. 133b) 12. Yaqim of Serurot killed himself (Gen. R. 65:27) Perhaps alludes t o ' A q i b a n m a r t y r d o m - s t o r i e s ?

13. Joshua b. Perahiah: Wheat from Alexandria (Tos. Maksh. 3:4) 14. Joshua b. Perahiah: Hard to leave office (b. Men. 109b) 15. Joshua b. Perahiah and Jesus in Alexandria (b. Sot. 47a) A f t e r ca. 100

A . D . , b u t n o firm e s t i m a t e is p o s s i b l e .

16. Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah re false witnesses (Mekh. Kaspa) N o firm e v i d e n c e p e r m i t s a n e s t i m a t e o f a terminus post quern. T h e fact t h a t t h e d i s p u t e o f M e i r a n d J u d a h o n t h e p r e c e d e n c e o f S i m e o n / J u d a h is paralleled b y the several versions does not allow assigning the story to t h e i r t i m e — o r b e f o r e , o r after, it f o r t h a t m a t t e r .

17. Rain in days of Simeon b. Shetah/Shelomsu the Queen (Sifra Behuqotai 1:1) Omits J u d a h b. Tabbai.

18. Simeon b. Shetah and Honi's rain-making (M. Ta. 3:8) 19. Simeon b. Shetah and the marriage-contract (Tos. Ket. 12:1)

VERIFICATIONS

20. Simeon b. Shetah and Yannai's banquet (y.

Ber. 7:2)

21. Judah b. Tabbai in Alexandria (y. Hag. 2:2) 22. Simeon b. Shetah and the witches (y. Hag. 2:2) 24. In days of Simeon b. Shetah propertv-litigations were removed (y. Sanh. 1:1) 25. Yannai breaks with the Pharisees (b. Qid. 66a) 26. Simeon b. Shetah and son's trial (y. Sanh. 6:3) 27. Simeon b. Shetah returned pearl to Saracen (y. B.M. 2:5) 28. Simeon b. Shetah judged Yannai's slave (b. Sanh. 19a-b) 29. Shema iah and Abtalion re dividing sea (Mekh. Beshallah IV 58-60) c

30. Shammai, Hillel, Shema'iah, Abtalion re ritual pool (M. <Ed. 1:3) 31. Kharkemit, Shema'iah, and Abtalion (M. <Ed. 5:6) B u t y . S o t . 2:5

c

is A q i b a n .

32. Judah b. Dortai re

Hagigah

on Sabbath (b. Pes. 70b)

T a n n a i t i c a t t r i b u t i o n b u t n o estimate o f s c h o o l o r m a s t e r r e s p o n s i b l e f o r it is p o s s i b l e .

33. Shema'iah and Abtalion and high priest (b. Yoma 71b) 34. Shema'iah and Abtalion descend from Sennacherib (b. Git. 57b) c

35. Shema iah and Abtalion re tying bird by wings (b. Bes. 25a) 36. Abrogations of Yohanan the High Priest (M. M.S. 5:15) 37. Yohanan the High Priest turned

tnin

at the end of his life (b. Ber. 29a)

38. Honi slept seventy years (b. Ta. 23b) Attributed to Yohanan b. Nappaha

39. Abba Hilqiah (b. Ta. 23b)

PERICOPAE WITHOUT VERIFICATIONS

189

40. Menahem went forth to king's service (b. Hag. 16b) 41. Shammai re Ex. 20:8 (Mekh. deR. Simeon, p. 148 Is. 29-30) 42. Shammai re three days before Sabbath (Sifre Deut. 203, Tos. <Eruv. 3:7) 43. Houses and Shammai re examining

tefillin

(Mekh. Pisha III 209-216) 44. Less than egg's bulk conveys uncleanness—Houses, Dositheus of Kefar Yatmah, Shammai the Elder (M.
47. Field that has been improved may not be sown in Seventh Year —Shammai (Tos. Shev. 3:10) 48. Jonathan b. 'Uzziel and Shammai (b. B.B. 133b-134a) Terminus is R. Yosi b. R. Bun.

49. Baba b. Buta—Shammai re white of egg (b. Git. 57a) 50. Shammai in name of Haggai re sender's liability (b. Qid. 43a) 51. Shammai forced to feed child on Day of Atonement (b. Hul. 107b = b. Yoma 77b) 52. Hillel would fold together herbs and bread (Mekh. deR. Simeon, p. 13, 1. 12) 53. Hillel Lev. 11:24 (Sifra Shemini 9:5) 54. Hillel and redemption of property (Lev. 25:29-30) (Sifra Behar 4:8) 55. Hillel and disciples re garments (Sifre Num. 123) Gloss on Yohanan b. Zakkai story.

56. Hillel and Prosbul (Sifre Deut. 113) No Tannaitic discussion of nos. 54, 56.

VERIFICATIONS

57. Hillel came from Babylonia at forty etc. (Sifre Deut. 357) L i n k s Hillel t o ' A q i b a ; possibly U s h a n .

58. Hillel: Use crown (M. Avot 1:13) 59. Hillel prohibits futures (M. B.M. 5:9, Tos. B.M. 6:10) Setting: Ushan.

60. Do not separate self from congregation (M. Avot 2:5-7) 61. Hillel: Do not be seen naked etc. (Tos. Ber. 2:21, 6:24) Possibly alluded t o b y Simeon.

62. Hillel purchased house and slave for poor man >

(Tos. Pe ah4:10) 63. Hillel: If you will come to my house (Tos. Suk. 4:3) 64. Hillel expounded language of Ketuvah (Tos. Ket. 4:9) 65. HillePs exegetical middot (Tos. Sanh. 7:11) 66. Hillel came up on account of this matter (Tos. Neg. 1:16) 67. Hillel: Coming from the way—say Ps. 112:7 (y. Ber. 9:3) 68. HillePs eighty disciples (y. Ned. 5:6) 69. Hillel: Passover of crushed (b. Pes. 64b) 70. Hillel and Eleazar b. Harsom studied despite poverty, wealth (b. Yoma 35b) 71. Hillel had people bring whole-offerings in unconsecrated form, then sanctify them (b. Ned. 9b = b. Pes. 66b) 72. Hillel: Tefillin of grandfather (y. <Eruv. 10:1) 73. Three things + Lev. 13:17, Deut. 16:2-Ex. 12:5, Deut. 16:8-Ex. 12:15 (y. Pes. 6:1) 74. Hillel and Ben He He (b. Hag. 9b) 75. Hillel and Shebna (b. Sot. 21a) D i m i is a u t h o r i t y .

PERICOPAE

WITHOUT VERIFICATIONS

191

76. Hillel: How much a se'ah (ARN Chap. 12) 77. Hillel: Self-abasement/exaltation (Lev. R. 1:5) 78. Hillel: Took bath (Lev. R. 34:3) 79. Shammai + Hillel: Time vs. examination; dough; ritual bath (M. <Ed. 1:1, 3-5) 80. Controversy for God's sake: Hillel and Shammai (M. Avot 5:17) 81. Hillel and Shammaites in Temple (Tos. Hag. 2:1) 82. Vintage for vat—Shammai vs. Hillel (b. Shab. 15a, b. A.Z. 39b, etc.) 83. Hillel and Simeon Gamaliel and Simeon were century before de­ struction of Jerusalem (b. Shab. 15b) 84. Sword in school-house (b. Shab. 17a) 85. Gentle like Hillel, not impatient like Shammai (b. Shab. 30b-31a) 86. Shammai vs. Hillel re Sabbath (b. Bes. 16a) 87. Agrippas and Gamaliel re Deut. 4:39 (Mekh. deR. Simeon, p. 147, Is. 24-5) 88. Gamaliel on Deut. 12:2-4 (Sifre Deut. 61) 89. Agenitos and Gamaliel re Deut. 21:5 (Sifre Deut. 351) 90. Sows field in two kinds of wheat and makes one threshing-floor, grants one pe*ah—Nahum the Scribe to Gamaliel and Simeon of Mispah (M. Pe'ah 2:5-6) 91. Yo'ezer of the Birah and Gamaliel re forbidden substance and leavening dough (M.
E l i e z e r a n d sages i n M. O r l . 2:11 discuss t h e s a m e i s s u e . T h e s a g e s say w h a t G a m a l i e l says, in t h e s a m e w o r d s , b u t m a k e n o a l l u s i o n t o G a m a l i e l . T h i s s e e m s t o m e t o m e a n t h a t t h e G a m a l i e l - t r a d i t i o n w a s n o t k n o w n at Y a v n e h , at least n o t in this f o r m , o r it w o u l d h a v e b e e n cited.

92. House of Gamaliel gave sheqel (M. Sheq. 3:3)

192

VERIFICATIONS

93. House of Gamaliel's prostrations (M. Sheq. 6:1) 94. Gamaliel and Yohanan b. Zakkai ate in Sukkah (M. Suk. 2:5) 95. Gamaliel's ordinance re witnesses (M. R.H. 2:5) 96. Gamaliel re Admon (M. Ket. 13:3-5) 97. When Gamaliel died, glory of Torah ceased (M. Sot. 9:15) 98. Gamaliel's ordinances (M. Git. 4:2-3) 99. Gamaliel's letters (Tos. Sanh. 2:6) A t t e s t e d i n y. M . S . 5:4:

Judah.

100. Gamaliel married daughter to Simeon b. Netanel (Tos. A.Z. 3:10) D i s p u t e o f M e i r a n d sages u s e s s a m e l a n g u a g e , m a k e s n o r e f e r e n c e t o story.

101. Hanina b. Dosa heals son of Gamaliel (b. Ber. 34b) 102. Gamaliel, king and queen (b. Pes. 88b) 103. After Gamaliel, Torah studied sitting down (b. Meg. 21a) 104. Simeon b. Gamaliel lowers price of doves (Sifra Tazri'a 3:7, M. Ker. 1:7) 105. Simeon b. Gamaliel juggled (Tos. Suk. 4:4) 106. Simeon b. Gamaliel praised pretty gentile woman (b. A.Z. 20a) 107. Baba and Babylonian (b. Ned. 66b) 108. Herod and Baba (b. B.B. 4a) 109. Jonathan b. Uzziel and Targum of writings (b. Meg. 3a) c

Tradents are Jeremiah o r Hiyya b. A b b a .

110. Woe to the lizard that bites Hanina (Tos. Ber. 3:20) 111. Joshua b. Gamala and Martha b. Boethus R. A s s i .

(b. Yoma 18a)

PERICOPAE WITHOUT

VERIFICATIONS

193

112. Joshua b. Gamala and schools (b. B.B. 21a) Rav Judah-Rav.

113. Ishmael b. Phiabi, Eleazar b. Harsom, and expensive tunic (y. Yoma 3:6) 114. Nahum the Mede and Nazirites (M. Naz. 5:4) 115. Yohanan b. Gudgada ate hullin (M. Hag. 2:7) 116. Yohanan b. Gudgada-testimonies (M. Git. 5:5) 117. Joshua b. Hananiah and Yohanan b. Gudgada fastened Temple doors (b.
evening

is time after noon—House of Shammai

re

(Mekh. deR. Simeon, p. 12 Is. 4-5) J u d a h t h e P a t r i a r c h , M e k h . d e R . Ishmael I , p . 4 2 , says t h e s a m e t h i n g , b u t d o e s n o t cite H o u s e o f S h a m m a i .

119. Houses re sisit—how long, how many tassels, etc (Sifr6Num. 115) Unanimous agreement in upper chamber o f Jonathan b. Bathyra w o u l d c o m e after dispute (?).

120. Houses: Leaven vs. leavened bread (Sifre Deut. 131, M. Bes. 1:1) 121. Houses: Fringes for linen cloak (Midrash Tannaim to Deut. 22:12, ed. Hoffmann, pp. 138-9) 122. Benediction of savory: House of Shammai (M. Ber. 6:5) 123. Houses: Dispute re meal (M. Ber. 8:1-8) (Except M. Ber. 8:5.) 124. Houses: Benedictions for New Year coinciding with Sabbath, 10, 9, 8, 7 + Honi the Little (Tos. Ber. 3:13, Tos. R.H. 2:17) 125. Houses: In house of study, one blesses for all vs. all for each (Tos. Ber. 5:30, b. Ber. 53a) 126. Houses: Plots sewn with grain between olive-trees (M. Pe'ah3:l)

194

VERIFICATIONS 127. Houses: Ownerless to poor/rich; forgotten sheaf, etc. (M. Pe'ah6:l, 3, 5) 128. Houses: Grapes of Fourth Year vineyard—do they have Fifth and burning, etc (M. Pe>ah7:6, M. M.S. 5:3) T o s . M.S. 5:17: This is J u d a h t h e P a t r i a r c h . 129. Houses: Demai to almoners (M. Dem. 3:1) 130. Houses: Selling olives to haver (M. Dem. 6:6) Simeon b. Gamaliel—Tos. Ma. 3:13. 131. Houses: He who would lay out field in plots with different crops— how much space between furrows (M. Kil. 2:6) M e i r , sages, a n d E l i e z e r b . J a c o b i n M . K i l . 2 : 9 discuss a s i m i l a r issue w i t h o u t reference to Houses.

132. Houses: Single row of five vines—is it a vineyard or not (M. Kil. 4:5) 133. Houses: Caperbush re mixed seeds in vineyard (Tos. Kil. 3:17) 134. Houses: Until what time d o they plough a tree-planted field in Seventh Year (M. Shev. 1:1) 135. Houses: Thin out olives in Seventh Year—uproot or raze (M. Shev. 4:4) 136. Houses: When is it forbidden to cut down tree in Seventh Year (M. Shev. 4:10) 137. Houses: How dig up arum in Seventh Year (M. Shev. 5:4) 138. Houses: Sell to the non-observant person articles with which he can violate Seventh Year (M. Shev. 5:8, Tos. Shev. 4:5B) 139. Houses: Sell in bundles in Seventh Year (M. Shev. 8:3) 140. Houses: Sell produce of Seventh Year for coins (Tos. Shev. 6:19) 141. Houses: Heave-offering from olives instead of oil (M. Ter. 1:4) Yosi provides terminus for one version of above.

PERICOPAE

WITHOUT VERIFICATIONS

195

142. Houses: Proper measure of Heave-offering (M. Ter. 4:3, Tos.Ter. 5:3) 143. Houses: Basket of fruit for Sabbath (M. Ma. 4:2) 144. Houses: If he set aside one issar of Second Tithe redemption-money tenth, eleventh, etc. (M. M.S. 4:8) 145. Houses: Removing cooked food (M. M.S. 5:6) 146. Houses: Produce at this time (M. M.S. 5:7, Tos. M.S. 3:14-15) Tos.: Shammaites give same opinion as Leazar in y. M.S. 4:8. 147. Houses: Flour paste re Hallah (M.Hal. 1:6) N.B. Epstein assigns dispute to Yosi and Meir. 148. Houses: Mixture of Heave-offering, 'Orlah, etc. can convey un­ cleanness, etc. (M.
153. Houses: Search wine-vault (M. Pes. 1:1) 154. Houses: Work on night of 13th Nisan (M. Pes. 4:5) 155. Houses: Wine/day vs. day/wine (M. Pes. 10:2) 156. Houses: Old Sukkah (M. Suk. 1:1) 157. Houses: Rays of sun in Sukkah (b. Suk. 22b) 158. Houses: Citron of demai (M. Suk. 3:5)

196

VERIFICATIONS

159. EchoatYavneh (y. Ber. 1:4, b. <Eruv. 13b) S a m u e l is terminus.

160. Houses: Slaughter on festival, etc. (M. Pes. 1:3-6,9) 161. Houses re cover up blood with dust (b. Hul. 88b) 162. Houses: Cover blood (M. Pes. 1:2) 163. Houses: Immerse vessels for festival coming after Sabbath (M. Bes. 2:2-3) 164. Houses: Heat water for feet (M. Bes. 2:5) 165. Houses: Who is child (re pilgrimage) (M. Hag. 1:1) 166. Houses: Value of offerings (M. Hag. 1:2) 167. Houses: Heaven/earth created first (b. Hag. 12a) 168. Houses: Woman awaiting Levirate marriage disposes of property (M. Yev. 4:3) 169. Houses: Exercising right of refusal—collection (M. Yev. 13:1) 170. Houses: Pishon (b. Yev. 107b) 171. Houses: Woman testifies husband dead (M. Yev. 15:2-3) 172. Houses: Vow not to suckle child (b. Ket. 59b = y. Ket. 5:7) 173. Houses: How to please bride (b. Ket. 17a) 174. Houses: re vows (M. Ned. 3:2, 4) c

Aqiba follows Hillelite position, M. Ned. 9:6.

175. Houses: Substitutes for substitutes for vow; testify by echo (Tos. Nez. 1:1) 176. Houses: Does bald Nazirite have to shave head (b. Naz. 46b) 177. Houses: Impose vow of Nazirite on son (Tos. Nez. 3:17) 178. Houses: How much of scroll is blotted out (y. Sot. 3:3) Hanin supplies Houses-apodosis.

PERICOPAE

WITHOUT VERIFICATIONS

197

179. Houses: Half-slave, half-free (M. Git. 4:5) 180. Houses: Old bill of divorce (M. Git. 8:4) 181. Houses: Divorce, then changed mind (M. Git. 8:8) 182. Houses: Betrothe byperufah vs.

denar

(M. Qid. 1:1) 183. Houses: Does middle group go to Gehenna (Tos. Sanh. 13:3, b. R.H. 16b-17a) 184. Houses: Slaughter with reaping sickle (M. Hul. 1:2) 185. Houses: Rinse mouth between milk and meat (b. Hul. 104b) 186. Houses on rule of haver (b. Bekh. 30b) 187. Houses: Marheshet—vow (b. Men. 63a) 188. Houses: Added Fifth etc. (Tos.
c. B a b y l o n i a n ) a t t r i b u t e s t h e o p i n i o n s t o t h e H o u s e s . T h e

c

exegesis is A q i b a n .

190. Houses: Abortion on night of eighty-first (M. Ker. 1:6, Tos. Ker. 1:9, Sifra Tazri'a 3:6) 191. Houses: Trough for mixing mortar (M. Kel. 20:2) 192. Houses: Length of shaft of householder's trowel (M. Kel. 29:8) 193. Houses: Passage of uncleanness through light-hole (M. Oh. 13:1, 4 [Tos. Oh. 14:4]) 194. Houses: Forecourt of tomb (M. Oh. 15:8) 195. Houses: Gather grapes in grave-area, etc. (M. Oh. 18:1, 4, 8, Tos. Ah. 17:9, 17:13) 196. Houses: Putting grapes into baskets (M. Toh. 10:4) 197. Houses: Immersion in rain-stream (M. Miq. 5:6B) 198. Houses: Immersion of hot water in cold (M. Miq. 10:6) Possibly: Y o s i b. R. J u d a h .

198

VERIFICATIONS

199. Houses: Unclean bloods (M. Nid. 2:6) 200. Shammaite House: Porridge, etc. (M. Maksh. 5:9) 201. Houses: One issue of flux, etc. (Tos. Zab. 1:1, 1:2) 202. Houses re connective in Dough-offering (M. T.Y. 1:1) 203. Houses: Olives and grapes that have hardened (M. ), 26, 27, 28, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 39, 40, 49, 50, 51, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76 (ARN), 77, 78, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 101,102,103,106,107,108,113,117,150,151,157,161,167,172,173, 176, 185, 186, 187. We observe, therefore, that of the 204 unverified pericopae, 13 definitely are Amoraic in origin; 60 first occur in Amoraic collections, sometimes marked as beraitot to be sure; and 131 first occur in Tan­ naitic collections. All other verifications pertain to Tannaim before or in the circle of Judah the Patriarch. Some of the items first occurring in Amoraic or later collections are attributed to Tannaim, and others, e.g. items in ARN, no. 25, etc., also may belong in the Tannaitic stratum. Included in the Houses-pericopae are nearly all materials in classic form; omitted are primarily later Amoraic discussions of Houses

VERIFICATIONS

OF

YAVNEH

199

materials. We may therefore conclude that the greater part of the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees is to be assigned to the Tan­ naitic stratum. Apart from some of the historical narratives, stories about named masters before Shammai-Hillel, and the like, practically all important pericopae of the rabbinic traditions about pre-70 Pharisees were shaped before, and included in, the early third century collec­ tions, Mishnah-Tosefta. The general tendencies and themes of the rabbinic traditions must be regarded as substantially the product of Tannaitic times. This makes all the more interesting the verifications of pericopae in Yavnean, Ushan, and later patriarchal circles.

i n . VERIFICATIONS OF YAVNEH

Nearly all Tannaitic verifications, before first occurrences in Mish­ nah-Tosefta, pertain to Houses-materials. Obviously, absence of at­ testation in the name of a master of Yavneh or Usha does not mean a pericope necessarily took shape afterwards. We cannot attribute to Rabbi and his circle the formation of all pericopae not listed here and in section iv. We shall first catalogue the verified pericopae, afterward attempt to exploit the available verifications for historical purposes. Our list begins with the disciples of Yohanan b. Zakkai; Yohanan himself never refers to a pre-70 Pharisee, to the Houses, or to mate­ rials contained in a pericope either of the named masters or of the Houses. 1. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus 1. Simeon b. Shetah hung women in Ashqelon (Sifre Deut. 221, M. Sanh. 6:4) D o e s n o t v e r i f y all o f y. S a n h . 2 : 2 .

2. Baba b. Buta and suspensive guilt-offering (M. Ker. 6:3) y

3. Houses: If one se ab of unclean Heave-offering fell into a hundred of clean (M. Ter. 5:4, Tos. Ter. 6:4) Eliezer/sages correspond to Houses, using m o r e appropriate language.

4. Houses re giving Heave-offering of grapes and eventually makes the rest into raisins—do you make new offering or not? (Tos. Ter. 3:16) Eliezer supplies apodosis, p r o b a b l y also t h e debate.

200

VERIFICATIONS

5. Judah in name of Eliezer re Houses: How much to drink on Day of Atonement to be liable (b. Yoma 80a) 6. Eliezer re overturning couch before festival in b. M.Q. 20a is a Houses-dispute for Eleazar b. R. Simeon in Tos. M.Q. 2:9 7. Houses: Vow not to have intercourse (M. Ket. 5:6) 8. Houses: When does husband inherit wife if she dies while minor (b. Yev. 89b) Eliezer rules in same pericope. Related to M. Ket. 8:6; M. Yev. 4:3 takes those rulings for granted. 9. Houses: Signs of adulthood (M. Nid. 5:9) Eliezer's saying presupposes existence of Houses-dispute. 10. Houses: Blood of woman who has given birth and not immersed (Tos. Nid. 5:5-7, M. Nid. 4:3) 11. Two lenient rulings: M. Nid. 4:3, M. Yev. 3:1 If this

(M. 'Ed. 5:5) is Eliezer and not Eleazar; it is hard to be certain. 2. Joshua b. Hananiah

1. Letters of Simeon b. Gamaliel and Yohanan b. Zakkai (Mid. Tan. ed. Hoffmann pp. 175-6) 2. Cites Zekhariah b. HaQassav (M. Sot. 5:1) 3. Houses: Road in public domain re making *eruv (b. 'Eruv. 6a) Hananiah nephew of Joshua is cited authority. 4. Hananiah:

for separate kinds of food (b. Bes. 17b, compare b. 'Eruv. 30a-b) 5. Houses: Levirate rules (M. Yev. 1:4, Tos. Yev. 1:7-14) They asked Joshua: Children of co-wives—what is their status? 'Eruv

6. Houses: Quarter-^ of bones, etc. (Tos. Ah. 3:4, M. 'Ed. 1:7) Joshua comments on Houses-dispute. M. Oh. 2:1 and 2:3 refer to no dispute; presumably none was transmitted, because of

VERIFICATIONS

OF

YAVNEH

201

Joshua's harmonization, as the Mishnaic version. But M. 'Ed. 1:7 has the dispute. 7 . Houses: Woman kneading dough (Tos. Ah. 5:11, M. Oh. 5:4, M. 'Ed. 1:14) Joshua, "I am ashamed of your words, House of Shammai." Shammaite disciple explains. M. Oh. 5:4 has reversion of the Hillelites, here meaning Joshua. 8. Houses: Test rags for each act of intercourse vs. all night (M. Nid. 2:4) In b. Nid. 16b, Joshua refers, and rules according, to the House of Sham­ mai. 9. Houses: If man shook tree (M. Maksh. 1:2-4) Joshua's saying explains Hillelite position, so Epstein. Yosi occurs; the latest possible verification is Usha. 3. Eliezer + Joshua 1. Houses: Sanctifies property and intends to divorce wife (Tos. 'Arakh. 4:5) H o u s e s a r e e q u i v a l e n t t o E l i e z e r + J o s h u a , a n d t h i s is m a d e e x p l i c i t . I n t h i s i n s t a n c e , t h e a n t e c e d e n t i s s u e is e r r o n e o u s c o n s e c r a t i o n s , o f w h i c h t h e present dispute concerns a concrete example, a n d t h e identification o f t h e H o u s e s ' v i e w s w i t h t h o s e o f t h e e a r l y Y a v n e a n s is o n a c c o u n t o f t h e c o r r e s p o n d e n c e o f t h e i r o p i n i o n s as t o t h e issue.

4. Eliezer + ''Aqiba 1. Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah testifies re uncleanness of liquids (Sifra Shemini 8:5) V e r i f i e d b y r e f e r e n c e o f E l i e z e r b . H y r c a n u s . ' A q i b a is i n t h e s a m e p e r i ­ c o p e ; a l s o M.

l

Ed.

8:4.

2. Second Tithe in Jerusalem or flesh of the highest degree of holiness: Eliezar vs. 'Aqiba (Sifra Sav 8:6, M. M.S. 3:9, M. Sheq. 8:6) H o u s e s : i n s i d e vs. o u t s i d e . E l i e z e r : T h e i m p o r t a n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n is w h e t h e r source o f uncleanness w a s p r i m a r y o r secondary. ' A q i b a : T h e i m p o r t a n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n is w h e t h e r u n c l e a n n e s s w a s c a u s e d o u t s i d e o r inside. Original Houses dispute p r o b a b l y : F l e s h o f h o l y o f h o l i e s m a d e u n c l e a n , all b u r n e d — i n s i d e v s . o u t s i d e . A n d t h i s r u l e t a k e s f o r g r a n t e d H a n a n i a h P r e f e c t o f P r i e s t s ' r u l e i n M. Pes. 1 : 6 .

202

VERIFICATIONS

M e i r a n d J u d a h f o l l o w E l i e z e r in t h e i r r e v i s i o n s , b e l o w . B u t i n T o s . M . S . 2 : 1 6 E l e a z e r (Leazar) a n d ' A q i b a d o n o t m a k e u s e o f t h e H o u s e s form for framing their opinions.

3. Render alley-way valid (M. 'Eruv. 1:2) Eliezer disagrees w i t h h o u s e s ; student b e f o r e ' A q i b a in n a m e o f Ishmael: Houses did n o t dispute. Concerning w h a t did they dispute... They disputed about b o t h . . .

'Aqiba:

N . B . : E p s t e i n h a s J u d a h b . Ilai as a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e w h o l e .

5. Abba Saul 1. Houses: Laying on of hands concerning which Houses differ (M. Bes. 2:4, Tos. Hag. 2:10, M. Hag. 2:2-3) Abba Saul would say it in different language in name of House of Hillel. Abba Saul's reference to the Hillelite clause in the debate tells us the whole issue was worked out in debate-form before his time. 2. Houses: Brothers-sisters (M. Yev. 3:1, Tos. Yev. 5:1) Abba Saul and Simeon (!) differ on which House has the lenient position. 6. Gamaliel II 1. Gamaliel II cites Gamaliel I re drinking wine from barrel used by gentiles (Tos. A.Z. 4:9) Parallel: Gamaliel did so, in b. A . Z . 32a. Tradent: Simeon b. Gode'a/Gudda'. y

2. House of Father used to give pe ab re olives and carobs (Sifra Qedoshim 2:4) [3. Sadducee lived with us in same alley (M. 'Eruv. 6:2)] In fact, the responsible tradents are M e i r - J u d a h

4. Gamaliel: Father's house never made large loaves but only thin cakes, following Shammaite ruling (M. Bes. 2:6) 5. Houses: Order of blessing, oil vs. myrtle (b. Ber. 43b) G a m a l i e l : I s h a l l d e c i d e in f a v o r o f t h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i .

6. Houses: Pick pulse, etc. Gamaliel: he even swills. (M. Bes. 1:8)

VERIFICATIONS

OF

203

YAVNEH

7. Gamaliel rules like Shammaites re covering hot food, putting to­ gether candlesticks, and baking large loaves (M. Bes. 2:6-7 [b. Bes. 22b]) 8. Houses: Uncleanness of scroll-wrappers (M. Kel. 28:4) G a m a l i e l : "In e i t h e r case, a r e n o t u n c l e a n . . . " H e c o m e s after, a n d r u l e s o n , a n t e c e d e n t d i s p u t e . M . K e l . 2 8 : 2 m a k e s A q i b a = Hillelites, E l i e z e r = S h a m m a i t e s , s o t h e Y a v n e a n v e r i f i c a t i o n is firm. c

9. When do olives receive uncleanness? Houses + Gamaliel (M. Toh. 9:1, 5, 7) Y o s i a n d S i m e o n a l s o o c c u r ; S i m e o n i n M . T o h . 9 : 1 differs f r o m b o t h t h e H o u s e s a n d G a m a l i e l . Y o s i s t a n d s in t h e s a m e r e l a t i o n s h i p t o M . T o h . 9 : 7 . I n T o s . T o h . 1 0 : 1 - 2 it is S i m e o n b . G a m a l i e l i n s t e a d o f G a m a l i e l . T h e n e t i m p r e s s i o n is t h a t it is a n U s h a n p e r i c o p e , b u t w e c a n n o t b e cer­ tain.

7. Eleazar b. R. Sadoq 1. Houses did not differ on uncircumcized male re Pesah. Concerning what...concerning convert... (Tos. Pisha 7:14) E l e a z a r b . R . S a d o q s u p p l i e s a firm terminus f o r M . Pes. 8 : 8 = 5:2.

M.

c

Ed.

2. Since Eleazar b. R. Sadoq studied with Yohanan HaHorani, he supplies the terminus ante quern for M. Suk. 2:7, story about Houses' debate re Yohanan's Sukkah (M. Suk. 2:7, Tos. Suk. 2:3) 3. Houses did not dispute concerning mustard strainer etc. (Tos. Kel. B.M. 4:16) E l e a z a r says t h e y a g r e e d , a n d M . K e l . 1 4 : 8 p r e s e n t s a g r e e m e n t o f H o u s e s without mentioning them.

c

8. Eleazar b. A%ariah 1. Houses: Brothers-sisters (M. Yev. 3:1, Tos. Yev. 5:1) Eleazar: In name of Shammaites.

2. Houses: Levirate rules (M. Yev. 1:4, Tos. Yev. 1:7-14) E l e a z a r : E v e n t h o u g h H o u s e s differed, t h e y a g r e e t h e c h i l d is n o t mam?er.

204

VERIFICATIONS

c

9. Eleazar b. At(ariah and Joshua 1. Forgotten sheaf near wall, stack, oven, or implements (M. Pe'ah 6:2) T o s . Pe'ah 3 : 2 : J o s h u a a n d E l e a z a r b . ' A z a r i a h discuss s u p e r s c r i p t i o n , a s r e p o r t e d b y I l a i . M . Pe'ah 6 : 2 l o o k s l i k e J o s h u a ' s o p i n i o n f o r t h e s u p e r ­ s c r i p t i o n . H o u s e s ' o p i n i o n s a r e a g r e e d o n b y all p a r t i e s .

10. Eleazar b. ^A^ariah and Ishmael 1. Re lying down to say Shema* (Sifre Deut. 34) F i r m terminus f o r M . B e r .

1:3.

11. Jar Jon 1. y. Shev. 4:2: Tarfon followed Shammaite view and tried without permission to eat own produce which was guarded, thus firm terminus for M. Shev. 4:4. 2. House

re

how to recite

Shema'

(M. Ber. 1:3) T h e s t o r y in M . B e r . 1:3B is a f i r m terminus.

3. Houses: Change Second Tithe money in Jerusalem—iela vs. coins (M. M.S. 2:9) Tarfon and S h a m m a i occur, also Ben Z o m a and Ben Azzai.

4. I would marry co-wife of daughter (Tos. Yev. 1:7-13 = Shammaites, M. Yev. 1:4) 5. Houses: Erroneous consecrations (M. Naz. 5:1, 2, 3, 5) Tarfon comments on Houses-dispute in M. Naz. 5:5, and since the issue is worked out through various examples, he supplies a useful terminus for the Houses' dispute on the issue underlying the whole set. In Tos. Nez. 3:19 Judah is authority for Tarfon's lemma. 12. Tarfon +
VERIFICATIONS

OF YAVNEH

205

l

13. Aqiba 1. Khorkemit drank bitter water (y. Sot. 2:5) Qted by sages in dispute with 'Aqiba. 2. Heave-offering vetches— Houses + Shammai + 'Aqiba (M. M.S. 2:4) Aqiba is intrinsic to the pericope, as the opposite of Shammai.

c

3. Change tela of Second Tithe money in Jerusalem Houses + 'Aqiba vs. Shammai + Tarfon (M. M.S. 2:9) 'Aqiba and Tarfon are intrinsic to the pericope. They may represent a second stage in its development. 4. Hillel re Lev. 13:37 re itch (Sifra Tazri'a 9:6) Aqiba explains HillePs exegesis, following view of traditional commen­ taries. c

5. Gamaliel the Elder allowed wives to remarry on testimony of one witness (M. Yev. 16:7) Attested by Aqiban story in part A; also by Gamaliel II in part B. Aqiba cites Nehemiah of Bet Deli. l

c

c

6. Recompense for damaged bailment: Houses+ Aqiba; Hillelites and Aqiba are balanced (Sifra Vayiqra 13:13, M. B.M. 3:12) c

7. Houses: How many sheep to be liable for first of fleece (Sifre Deut. 166) Then 'Aqiba supplies proof for Hillelite opinion. 8. Houses: Grounds for divorce. 'Aqiba extends Hillelite position. (Sifre Deut. 269, M. Git. 9:10) c

9. Tefillin in privy: Houses + Aqiba (b. Ber. 23a) 'Aqiba's opinion balances Hillelites'. c

10. Aqiba picked etrog on first of Shevat and treated it according to words of both Houses (Tos. Shev. 4:2) Supplies terminus for M. R.H. 1:1.

206

VERIFICATIONS

11. Change selas of Second Tithe money for golden

denars

(M. M.S. 2:7) 4

A q i b a : I c h a n g e d s i l v e r f o r g o l d , etc.

12. Olive presses in walls of Jerusalem (M. M.S. 3:7) Y o s i : T h i s is M i s h n a h o f ' A q i b a .

13. Epstein assigns M. Shab. 1:5-7 to 'Aqiba, on basis of b. Shab. 18b. 14. Houses: Burn clean and unclean meat together (Tos. Pisha 1:6) Y o s i : ' A q i b a is a u t h o r i t y b e h i n d Hillelites.

15. 'Aqiba: I saw Gamaliel and Joshua, re Houses: Where shake Lulav (M. Suk. 3:9) 16. Houses: Dividing estate where order of death is unclear (M. Yev. 4:3, M. Ket. 8:6, M. B.B. 9:8-9) ' A q i b a i n T o s . B . B . 1 0 : 1 3 , "I a g r e e i n t h i s i n s t a n c e w i t h Hillelites t h a t p r o p e r t y r e m a i n s i n p o s s e s s o r s ' h a n d s . " ' A q i b a cites Hillelite a p o d o s i s verbatim, o c c u r r i n g in all t h r e e M i s h n a i c p e r i c o p a e , t h u s t h e p r o t a s e s m a y h a v e been w o r k e d o u t later, in one f o r m o r another, but the apodosis m u s t h a v e b e e n fixed b y h i s t i m e .

17. Houses: Israelites re first-born (M. Bekh. 5:2, Tos. Bekh. 3:15-16) ' A q i b a r u l e s i n T o s . B e k h . a n d t h e H i l l e l i t e r u l e i n M . B e k h . is g l o s s e d t o i n c l u d e it.

18. Houses: When does sheet become insusceptible (M. Kel. 20:2) ' A q i b a r u l e s o n t h e issue a l o n g w i t h t h e H o u s e s . E p s t e i n says t h e t r a d i t i o n is Y o s i ' s i n M . K e l . 2 7 : 9 .

19. Houses: Baking oven overshadowed (M. Oh. 5:1-4, M. Kel. 9:2) ' A q i b a r u l e s a l o n g w i t h H o u s e s . Hillelites r e v e r t t o S h a m m a i t e o p i n i o n , a n d h e r e J o s h u a c e r t a i n l y is r e p r e s e n t e d i n M . O h . b y " H o u s e o f Hillel," b y c o n t r a s t t o b . H a g . 2 2 a . T h e passage a l s o m u s t v e r i f y M . K e l . 9 : 2 . T h e w h o l e c e r t a i n l y is Y a v n e a n .

20. Houses: How much to search (Tos. Ah. 16:6) ' A q i b a a n d sages d i s p u t e H o u s e s - a p o d o s e s . M . O h . 1 8 : 4 , 8 c o n t a i n s n o c o u n t e r p a r t , b u t m n e m o n i c is t h e s a m e t h e r e .

VERIFICATIONS

OF

207

YAVNEH

21. Suffered issue of semen on third day (M. Zab. 1:2, Tos. Zab. 1:4) ' A q i b a , I s h m a e l , a n d H o u s e s all r u l e . ' A q i b a cites H o u s e s . I n T o s . Z a b . 1:4, ' A q i b a c o r r e c t s H o u s e s - p r o t a s i s : D i d n o t d i f f e r . . . c o n c e r n i n g w h a t d i d t h e y differ, etc. T o s . Z a b . 1:5-8 contains definitive evidence o f ' A q i ba's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r M. Z a b . 1:2. S i m e o n a n d a disciple o f Y a v n e h c e r ­ t a i n l y r e p r e s e n t t h e p o i n t o f final r e d a c t i o n .

22. When does fish become unclean? Houses + 'Aqiba (M. 'Uqs. 3:8) 14. 'Aqiban Exegeses in Houses-Disputes 1. For every thought of trespass—Shammaites re Ex. 22:8 (Mekh. deR. Ishmael XV 49-55) G l o s s ; p r e s u m a b l y t h e d i s p u t e itself c o m e s e a r l i e r .

2. Every male (Ex. 23:17)—to include the children—Hillelites (Mekh. deR. Simeon, p. 218, Is. 28-9, Sifre Deut. 143) 3. Or for a daughter (Lev. 12:6-7)—to include liability for sacrifice for one who aborts on eve of 81st day (Sifra Tazri'a 3:1-2, M. Ker. 1:6) E x e g e s i s s u p p o r t s H i l l e l i t e p o s i t i o n . T h i s is s e c o n d a r y d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e v e r s i o n i n M. K e r . 1:6, t h e r e f o r e d o e s n o t v e r i f y M. K e r . , listed above.

4. A l l their fruit (Lev. 19:23-4): Grape-gleanings and defective clusters are included in Scripture—House of Hillel. House of Shammai: Laws do apply. (Sifra Qedoshim 3:7) E x e g e s i s s u p p o r t s Hillelite p o s i t i o n . w i t h o u t exegesis.

M.

' E d . B 4:5

spells o u t

dispute,

y

5. K (Lev. 23:29) excludes festival vs. Sabbath—Houses debate exclu­ sion according to 'Aqiban exegetical principle. (Sifra'Ernor 15:5) 6. Them but not their issue, Deut. 23:19—even includes products (b. Tern. 30b) 'Aqiban proof for Shammaite

position.

See above, pp. 39-43, 98-99, for further discussion.

208

VERIFICATIONS

15. Yohanan b. Nuri 1. Houses: Measuring from root of vines re mixed seeds (M. Kil. 6:1) M . K i l . 6 : 1 C : Y o h a n a n b. N u r i c o m m e n t s o n H o u s e o f Hillel's o p i n i o n . ' A q i b a f o l l o w s i n D . I n T o s . K i l . 4:1, G a m a l i e l a n d his c o u r t m a k e a d e c r e e i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h Y. b. N.'s v i e w o f t h e H i l l e l i t e o p i n i o n .

2. Houses: Levirate rules (M. Yev. 1:4, Tos. Yev. 1:7-13) 16. Jonathan b. Bathyra 1. Houses met in upper room of Jonathan b. Bathyra and voted no limit for sisit (Site Num. 115) b . M e n . 4 1 b h a s Yohanan b . B a t h y r a

17. Abba Yosi b. Hanan 1. b. Pes. 57a only 18. Ilai 1. Houses: Heave-offering from black and white figs (Tos. Ter. 2:5 [b. Hul. 136b]) Ilai, cited b y Isaac, g i v e s H o u s e s - d i s p u t e a f t e r a n o n y m o u s r u l e c o n f o r m ­ i n g t o Hillelite p o s i t i o n .

19. Dosa b. Harkinas 1. Houses:

Rival of daughter may m a r r y brothers (M. Yev. 1:4, b. Yev. 16a) 20. Ishmael

Ishmael occurs in some stories, but never as an independent author­ ity similar to 'Aqiba, Gamaliel, Eliezer, or Joshua. In M. 'Eruv. 1:2, we find a disciple of Ishmael before 'Aqiba, "Houses did not dispute... concerning what did they dispute..." Then 'Aqiba holds they disputed about both cases. We also have a story about Eleazar b. 'Azariahand Ishmael with respect to how to say the Shema Sifre Deut. 34, thus verifying M. Ber. 1:3 (along with Tarfon). Ishmael likewise occurs in M. Zab. 1:2, this time not through a disciple, as in M. 'Eruv. 1:2. c

9

VERIFICATIONS

OF

209

YAVNEH

It is as follows: House of Shammai, House of Hillel, Ishmael, 'Aqiba— then, "for the House of Shammai used to say..." and "the House of Hillel used to say..." The 'Aqiba-Ishmael dispute must logically come after the Houses. Ishmael thus never stands by himself in relationship to a Housesdispute, never comments on a Houses-dispute in the manner of'Aqiban masters, and never appears as the authority for a Houses-tradition. The absence of Ishmaelean verifications, except in the setting of Aqiban ones and the story about Eleazar b. 'Azariah and Ishmael, does not prove the school of Ishmael did not possess Houses-materials. It does suggest that the use of the Houses-form was limited to 'Aqiban circles, unless the later 'Aqibans obliterated the record of Ishmaelean dis­ cussions of Houses' and other pre-70 Pharisaic materials. At any rate the Houses-materials in our hands do not derive from Ishmaelean circles. We have in all 80 verifications, some of which serve for the same pericope, e.g. M. Ber. 1:3, M. Yev. 1:4. Of these, more than a third are 'Aqiban. i v . VERIFICATIONS OF USHA

We find in the names of Ushan authorities verifications for 104 pericopae, some of which duplicate items listed earlier. 1. Usha in General 1. Simeon the Just heard, Decree is annulled; Yohanan the High Priest heard, Young men have conquered (Tos. Sot. 13:7A [y. Sot. 9:13]) T h e c o n t e x t s u g g e s t s a final U s h a n r e d a c t i o n o f t h e w h o l e p e r i c o p e , i n ­ v o l v i n g Hillel, S a m u e l t h e S m a l l , a n d , l a t e r o n , J u d a h b . B a b a . T h e r e f e r e n c e t o "and h e h e a r d t h e s e t h i n g s in A r a m a i c " c o m e s n o e a r l i e r t h a n R . Y o h a n a n (d. ca. 2 7 9 ) a n d R a v J u d a h . I t is an i n t e r p o l a t i o n .

2. Hillel came up from Babylonia at forty etc. (Sifre Deut. 357) L i n k s Hillel t o M o s e s , ' A q i b a t o Y o h a n a n b . Z a k k a i . P r e s u m a b l y l a t e r t h a n ' A q i b a . Perhaps U s h a n s h e r e m a r k t h e effort t o l i n k t h e p a t r i a r c h t o Hillel.

3. Hillel and futures (M. B.M. 5:9) S e t t i n g o f s a y i n g is e n t i r e l y U s h a n .

4. Hillel and redemption of property (M. NEUSNER, The Rabbinic Traditions about Pharisees before 70, I I I

'Arakh.

9:4) 14

VERIFICATIONS

Setting in M. 'Arakh. is entirely Ushan: Meir, Judah, Simeon; but there is no reference to Hillel on their part. 5. Since Rabbi Judah the Patriarch refers to Bene Bathyra in connec­ tion with HillePs rise to power, that gloss, absent in Tos. Pisha 4:13, comes before his time, and Tos. Pisha's version is still earlier. That would place Tos. Pisha 4:13 at Usha at the latest. Rav Judah-Rav is a firm terminus ante quern. 6. Among authorities who expound the language of common people are Meir and Judah. (Tos. Ket. 4:9) 7. When insufficiently trained disciples of Shammai and Hillel multi­ plied, disputes multiplied (Tos. Hag. 2:9) This is interpolated in Yosi b. Halafta's description of the court system before 70. It may come before 150. [8. Grapeclusters (M. Sot. 9:5)]

2. Judah b. Baba 1. Grapeclusters end/start with the Yosi's (M. Sot. 9:9, Tos. B.Q. 8:13) A f t e r Y o s i ' s u n t i l J u d a h b . B a b a it is/is n o t p o s s i b l e t o set a r e p r o a c h . Based o n M . Hag. 2 : 2 .

2. Hillel-Samuel the Small—Judah b. Baba—would have received holy spirit but generation was unworthy (Tos. Sot. 13:3) 3. 'Aqiba says Gamaliel II rejoices at finding a colleague for Judah b. Baba in Nehemiah of Bet Deli (M. Yev. 16:7)

3. Judah b. Bathyra 1. Story of trough of Jehu and act of Shammaites (M. Miq. 4:5) T o s . M i q . 5:2 tum.

has J u d a h o n same subject, so Usha seems the right stra­

VERIFICATIONS

OF

USHA

211

4. Eliezer b. Shammifa 1. Yosi b. Kifar in name of Eliezer: Houses re watering plants until New Year of Seventh Year (Tos. Shev. 1:5)

5. Elieyer b. Jacob 1. Houses: Two sprinklings vs. one (M. Zev. 4:1, Tos. Zev. 4:9) 6. Dosetai b. R. Yannai 1. Houses: Vessels before 'am ha*ares (Tos. Toh. 8:9B-10)

7. Yosi b. Halafta 1. Yosi testifies in name of Shema'iah and Abtalion re Israelite woman eating Terumah (b. Yev. 67a) 2. Yosi comments on Shammai-Hillel re dough for hallah (M. 'Ed. 1:3) 3. Gamaliel orders Targum of Job to be hidden (Tos. Shab. 13:2) Y o s i tells s t o r y o f h i s f a t h e r , Halafta, w h o r e m e m b e r s G a m a l i e l t h e E l d ­ er.

4. Yosi: House of Shammai say, Olive's bulk of weasel conveys un­ cleanness (M. Kel. 8:5) 5. Houses: Heave-offering of oil for crushed olives (Tos. Ter. 3:14) Y o s i g i v e s H o u s e s - o p i n i o n s a f t e r a n o n y m o u s r u l e . E p s t e i n : Y o s i differs f r o m Meir, y. Ter. 1 : 5 .

6. Houses: Produce not fully harvested passed through Jerusalem (M. M.S. 3:6-7) S i m e o n b . J u d a h in n a m e o f Y o s i : H o u s e s d i d n o t d i s p u t e w h a t w a s n o t f u l l y h a r v e s t e d etc. A b o u t w h a t d i d t h e y d i s p u t e ? P r o d u c e t h a t was f u l l y h a r v e s t e d etc.

212

VERIFICATIONS

7. Houses: Olive presses in walls of Jerusalem (M. M.S. 3:7) Y o s i : T h i s is t h e M i s h n a h o f ' A q i b a . F i r s t M i s h n a h etc.

8. Yosi supplies terminus for Zekhariah in Tos. Shab. 16:7, therefore for Houses in M. Shab. 21:3, re clearing table on Sabbath 9. Houses: Proselyte on day before Passover (M. Pes. 8:8) M . ' E d . 5 : 2 : A u t h o r i t y is Y o s i .

10. Houses: Burn clean and unclean meat together (Tos.

Pisha

1:6)

Y o s i : T h e s e a r e w o r d s of ' A q i b a in b e h a l f o f Hillelites.

11. Yosi supplies terminus for M. Shab. 1:7 in b. Shab. 18b, Tos. Pisha 1:6 12. Houses on erroneous Nazir vow (Tos. Nez. 3:19) Y o s i supplies terminus f o r M . N a z . 5 : 4 - 5 .

13. Houses re lewdness with minor son (Tos. Sot. 4:7) Y o s i comments o n dispute, takes Shammaite position.

14. Houses re cheese and chicken (M. Hul. 8:1, Tos. Hul. 8:2-3) E l e a z a r b. R . S a d o q r u l e s l i k e t h e S h a m m a i t e s ( T o s . H u l . 8:3) b u t d o e s n o t p h r a s e his o p i n i o n in t h e n a m e o f t h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i . T h i s w o u l d suggest the dispute o n the l a w antedates attribution o f the dispute t o the H o u s e s , a n d places t h e attribution in U s h a a n d t h e substance o f t h e d i s p u t e in Y a v n e h .

15. Houses: Measure chest (M. Kel. 18:1) Y o s i : "They a g r e e . . . " also Simeon Shezur, Tos. K e l .

18:1.

16. Houses: Split in roo (M. Oh. 11:1-8) Y o s i g i v e s Hillelite t r a d i t i o n .

17. Houses: Gather grapes (M. Oh. 18:1, 4, 8) Y o s i qualifies t h e i s s u e : I f a v i n e y a r d has b e e n t u r n e d i n t o a c e m e t e r y .

VERIFICATIONS

OF

USHA

213

18. Houses: Split in roof (Tos. Ah. 12:1) Y o s i g i v e s Hillelite m e a s u r e m e n t f o r split i n r o o f , t h u s again v e r i f y i n g M. Oh. 1 1 : 1 .

19. Houses: Lid-chain connector (M. Par. 12:10, Tos. Par. 12:18) Y o s i h a s a v e r s i o n different f r o m M . P a r .

20. Yosi: Six lenient rulings: M. Hul. 8:1, M. Ter. 1:4, M. Kil. 4:5, M. Hal. 1:6, M. Miq. 5:6, M. Pes. 8:8 (M. 'Ed. 5:2) 8. Yosi b. Halafta and Judah b. Ilai 1. Houses: Re taking gifts on festival (Tos. Y.T. 1:12-14, M. Bes. 1:9) F o r m : A g r e e . . . concerning w h a t did they differ... concerning... f o r + debate.

2. Houses agree re cohabitation with mother-in-law—differ re wife's sister (b. Yev. 95a) 3. M, Maksh. 1:4 is verified in Tos. Maksh. 1:4: Judah cites Eliezer; Yosi in own name. Joshua and 'Aqiba speak in their own names. 9. Yosi b. Halafta and Meir 1. Houses: Vessels under waterspout (M. Miq. 4:1) M e i r a n d Y o s i d i s a g r e e o n final r u l i n g f o r t h i s d i s p u t e . M e i r : T h e y v o t e d , S h a m m a i t e s w o n . Y o s i : M a t t e r u n d e c i d e d . T h e difference is t h u s o v e r t h e i n c l u s i o n o f t h e s u b s c r i p t i o n , voted and...

2. Houses: Water leaking from roof dripped into jar (M. Maksh. 4:4-5) T o s . M a k s h . 2 : 6 h a s M e i r a n d Y o s i d i s p u t e t h e case t o w h i c h t h e H o u s e s ' r u l e a p p l i e s ; t h u s t h e p r o t a s i s is a t issue. Y o s i : I t is a l l t h e s a m e . M e i r : Under w h a t circumstances...

10. Yosi b. Halafta and Simeon b. Yohai 1. Uncleanness of Qohelet (M. Yad. 3:5)

214

VERIFICATIONS

Y o s i and Simeon dispute w h e t h e r Houses disagree o n Qohelet o r S o n g c

o f Songs. M . E d . 5 : 3 constructs the dispute according t o Simeon.

11. Simeon b. Yohai 1. Hillel: Scatter-gather (y. Ber. 9:5) S i m e o n s e e m s t o g l o s s Hillel's s a y i n g a n d t h e a p p e n d e d S c r i p t u r e — P s .

119:126. His

s a y i n g a p p a r e n t l y reflects k n o w l e d g e o f Hillel's.

2. Simeon b. Judah in name of Simeon: Houses on demai re 'orner and other cultic edibles (Tos. Dem. 1:28) 3. Simeon b. Judah in name of Simeon—Houses: Hallah subject to demai (y. Dem. 5:1) 4. Houses: Return Pesah whole, not in pieces (Tos. Pisha 7:2 [M. Shab. 3:1]) S i m e o n : Houses did not dispute... Concerning w h a t did they dispute. Concerning limbs...

5. Houses: Re coins for Sheqel (M. Sheq. 2:3) S i m e o n specifies t h e r e a s o n i n M . S h e q . 2:4,

a n d Epstein assigns t o h i m

the w h o l e pericope.

6. Houses: Re tying pigeon (Tos. Y.T. 1:8, M. Bes. 1:3) 7. Houses did not refrain from doubtful matters (M. Yev. 1:4, Tos. Yev. 1:12) 8. Houses: Uncleanness of girdle (Tos. Kel. B.B. 5:7-8) Simeon b. J u d a h in name o f S i m e o n : Houses did n o t dispute, etc... M . K e l . 28:7

has ' A q i b a , J u d a h .

9. M. Par. 5:1 re removing pot for Heave-offering—Simeon vs. Yosi. In Tos. Par. 5:1, Simeon is cited by Simeon b. Judah as giving a Houses-apodosis. 10. She who has difficulty in giving birth—Eliezer: From time to time. Simeon b. Judah in name of Simeon: House of Shammai say, Three days. House of Hillel: From time to time. (Tos. Nid. 5:7) I n M . N i d . 4:4

the Houses do not occur.

VERIFICATIONS

OF

215

USHA

11. Three lenient rulings: M. Yad. 3:5; sin-offering water that has fulfilled its purpose; M. Uqs. 3:6 (M. <Ed. 5:3) c

12. Meir 1. Who prepared heifer-sacrifices (M. Par.

3:5)

Issue is number of offerings prepared by Simeon the Just and Yohanan the High Priest.

2. Houses: Change silver and produce (M. M.S. 2:8) 3. Houses: Egg laid on festival (M. Bes. 1:1-2) Epstein assigns to Meir. Note also b. Bes. 4a: Judah in name of Eliezer.

4. Houses: Spices, salt with pestle on festival (Tos.

Y.T.

1 : 1 5 - 1 7 , M. Bes.

1:7)

5. Houses: How much lacking in skull (M. Oh. 2:3) Meir glosses Shammaite saying: Of what kind of drill did they speak?

6. Houses: Girl married who had not yet suffered flow (M. Nid. 10:1, 4 , 6-8 [b. Nid. 72a]) Tos. Nid. 9:7-9: In all of them, Meir would rule according to Sham­ maites. Simeon b. Gamaliel refers to M. Nid. 10:1. Judah refers to M. Nid. 10:8. The Ushan setting is firm. c

N.B. Epstein assigns all cases of M. Ed. Chap. 4 to Meir, thus: M. Bes. 1:12, M. Pe'ah 6:1, 2, 5, M. Pe'ah 7:6, M. M.S. 5:3, M. Maksh. 1:1, y. Ber. 8:3 (anoint self with clean oil—Judah is cited and differs), M. Qid. 1:1, M. Git. 8:4, 9, M. Yev. 1:4, 3:5, M. Ket. 5:6, M. Ker. 1:6, M. Ma. 4:2, Mid. Tan. to Deut. 22:12 (linen garment/fringes), M. Naz. 3:6-7, M. Oh. 11:3. Some of these have been listed among unverified pericopae.

13. Meir and Judah b. Ilai 1. To lay/not to lay (M. Hag. 2:2, Tos. Hag. 2:8) Meir supplies a firm terminus ante quern for the whole list, Judah for the Judah b. Tabbai-Simeon b. Shetah clause.

2. Founding of Temple of Onias (b.

Men.

Meir and Judah tell different stories about Onias and Shime'i.

109b)

216

VERIFICATIONS

3. Meir-Judah's dispute about Simeon b. Shetah-Judah b. Tabbai is reflected in Mekh. Kaspa III, 31-41, re false witnesses, but the story is not commented on by the Ushan authorities. On the other hand, the redactor of y. Hag 2:2 alludes to the dispute without naming the Ushan masters. Then b. Hag. 16b explicitly ties the dispute to the false-witness story. 4. M. 'Eruv. 6:2 is Meir's version of Gamaliel II re Simeon b. Gama­ liel's instructions about 'eruv with Sadducee; b. Eruv. 68b gives Judah's version. c

5. Flesh of holy of holies—Houses: Inside vs. outside (Sifra Sav 8:6, M. M.S. 3:9, M. Sheq. 8:6) Sifra's v e r s i o n s a r e M e i r vs. J u d a h ; t h e y f o l l o w E l i e z e r ' s v i e w in d i s p u t e w i t h A q i b a . T h e y m u s t be later t h a n T o s . P i s h a 1:6. Hillelites in M . S h e q . 8:6 f o l l o w J u d a h . c

6. Houses: Order of Meir and J u d a h

Havdalah

dispute

(M. Ber. 8:5, Tos. Ber. 5:25-30) the order and l a n g u a g e of the Houses-lists.

7. Houses: Heave-offerings of fenugreek—used in cleanness etc. (M. M.S. 2:3-4) ' A q i b a o c c u r s in 2:4,

b u t t h e w h o l e is a t t e s t e d by M e i r a n d J u d a h , T o s .

M.S. 2:1. 8. Houses: What do they put on stove/remove, put back (M. Shab. 3:1) T o s . S h a b . 2:13

supplies J u d a h and M e i r . M . Shab. f o l l o w s J u d a h .

9. Houses: Timber-roofing in

Sukkah

(M. Suk. 1:7) Judah-Meir dispute

Houses-apodoses.

10. Nursing mother whose husband died—Meir vs. Judah, 24/18. Jonathan b. Joseph rephrases as Houses-dispute (b. Ket. 60a-b, y.Sot. 4:3, Tos. Nid. 2:2) 11. Houses: When is tube clean (Tos. Kel. B.M. 4:5, M. Kel. 14:2) M e i r and

Judah give

Houses-apodoses.

12. Houses: When is sheet clean (Tos. Kel. B.M. 11:7) M e i r and

J u d a h d i s p u t e H o u s e s - a p o d o s e s for

M. Kel.

20:6.

VERIFICATIONS

OF

217

USHA

13. Houses: Stool on baking-trough (M. Kel. 22:4, Tos. Kel. B.B. 1:12) Meir and J u d a h dispute appropriate protasis. Y o s i then comments o n the a p o d o s i s . E v i d e n t l y t h e H o u s e s - t r a d i t i o n w a s k n o w n at U s h a .

14. Houses: Menstrual blood of gentile woman (M. Nid. 4:3) Meir and J u d a h dispute appropriate apodoses,

Tos. Nid. 5 : 5 - 7 .

14. Judah b. Ilai 1. Quarter-^ of bones conveys uncleanness by overshadowing— Houses + Shammai (M.<Ed.l:7) V e r s i o n o f J u d a h b . Ilai i n M i s h n a h ; c o m p a r e T o s . O h . 3 : 4 .

2. Food for Sabbath—Houses + Hillel. Judah: Hillel himself used to prohibit [twice] (Tos. Ma. 3:2-4) 3. Letters of Gamaliel and Elders to Diaspora—Judah is tradent (y. M.S. 5:4, y. Sanh. 1:2) B u t not i n T o s . S a n h . 2:6,

b. Sanh. l i b .

4. Yohanan b. Gudgada's sons were deaf and dumb, and all ritually pure objects of Jerusalem were prepared under their supervision (Tos. Ter. 1:1) 5. Field that has been prepared—do you eat its fruit in Seventh Year (Sifra Behar 1:5, M. Shev. 4:2, M. <Ed. 5:1) J u d a h reverses the Houses' opinions.

6. Houses: Vineyard patch (M. Kil. 4:1) I n M . K i l . 4:3, J u d a h d i s p u t e s g l o s s a t o r ' s definitions f o r M . K i l . 4:1, t h e d i s p u t e a n d t h e g l o s s c o m e b e f o r e his t i m e .

so

7 . Houses: When make vat unclean (Tos. Ter. 3:12) J u d a h refers t o Houses-debate in present f o r m .

8. Judah: Houses did not disagree concerning clean Heave-offering, prohibited to burn, and unclean, permitted to burn. Concerning what did they dispute? Doubtful—burn vs. not burn. (y. Pes. 3:6) 9. Houses: Pick pulse on festival (Tos. Y.T. 1:21, M. Bes. 1:8)

218

VERIFICATIONS

10. Houses: Betrothed woman disposes of goods (M. Ket. 8:1) Judah

reports

Gamaliel's

rulings

on

same

subject.

Gamaliel's

and

Houses' lemmas are closely related. Gamaliel seems t o recognize and c o r ­ r e c t difficulty o f H i l l e l i t e r u l i n g , a c c o r d i n g t o J u d a h ' s t r a d i t i o n .

11. Houses: Vow in error re Nazir (M. Naz. 2:1-2) J u d a h c o m m e n t s o n H o u s e s ' o p i n i o n s , in t h e i r p r e s e n t f o r m u l a t i o n .

12. Houses: Nazirite vow for longer spell etc. + Helene (M. Naz. 3:6-7) 13. Houses: Erroneous consecrations (M. Naz. 5:1-3) E p s t e i n has J u d a h as a u t h o r i t y b e h i n d M. N a z . 5:1-3. 14. Houses: Open hole to let out uncleanness (Tos. Ah. 8:7, M. Oh. 7:3) J u d a h s u p p l i e s w h o l e H o u s e s - p e r i c o p e . M.

O h . 7:3

is t h u s v e r i f i e d a t

Usha.

15. Houses: Anoint self with clean oil etc. (M. 'Ed. 4:6) J u d a h cites H o u s e o f Hillel.

16. Judah: Six lenient rulings—blood of carcass, egg of carcass (M. 'Ed. 5:1-2) 17. Six lenient rulings—blood of gentile woman (M. Nid. 4:3, M. 'Ed. 5:4) 18. Six lenient rulings—Seventh Year fruit by favor etc. (M. Shev. 4:2) 19. Six lenient rulings—water-skin (M. Kel. 26:4, M.'Ed. 5:5) 15. Simeon b. Gamaliel 1. Young shoot passes over stone—how much dirt etc. Meir vs. Yosi, then Simeon b. Gamaliel reports a Houses-dispute using measure­ ments different from those of Meir-Yosi (Tos. Kil. 4:11B) 2. Simeon b. Gamaliel: Houses did not dispute that what is complete is assigned to past year, and incomplete, to coming year. Con­ cerning what did they differ? Concerning pod (+ past vs. com­ ing) (Tos. Shev. 2:6)

VERIFICATIONS

OF USHA

219

3. Simeon b. Gamaliel: Houses agree man sells large quantities only to haver (Tos. Ma. 3:13) Terminus f o r M . M a . 5 : 4 , p r o b a b l y a l s o M . D e m . 6 : 6 .

4. Houses: Fruit of Fourth-year vineyard—Added Fifth and Removal (Sifra Qedoshim 3:8) J u d a h t h e P a t r i a r c h ' s v e r s i o n is a b o v e . S i m e o n b . G a m a l i e l says t h e dis­ p u t e c o n c e r n s all y e a r s o f S e p t a n n a t e , n o t m e r e l y t h e S e v e n t h .

5. Simeon b. Gamaliel refers to Gamaliel IPs practices re Houses' rules on Sabbath (M. Shab. 1:9) Verification f o r law o n g i v i n g w o r k t o gentile launderer. But the saying is E l e a z a r b . R . S a d o q ' s — h e n c e Y a v n e a n a c c o r d i n g t o all t r a d e n t s .

6. Simeon b. Gamaliel: House of Shammai: Do not distribute charity etc. on Sabbath vs. Hillelites (Tos. Shab. 16:21-2) 7. Houses: 'Eruv for cistern (M. <Eruv. 8:6) S i m e o n b. Gamaliel supplies Houses-apodosis.

8. Simeon b. Gamaliel re moving vessels on account of need (Tos. Y . T . 1:11) 9. Houses: Steal beam, restore beam vs. value (Tos. B. Q. 9:5, Tos. Ket. 8:9) S i m e o n b . G a m a l i e l s u p p l i e s H o u s e s - a p o d o s i s in T o s . K e t .

10. See Gamaliel no. 9, M. Toh. 9:1, 5, 7 11. Houses: When is ritual pool deemed clean (M. Miq. 1:5) S i m e o n b . G a m a l i e l differs f r o m b o t h H o u s e s . T o s . M i q . 1:7, Simeon also.

1:10

has

16. Nathan 1. Houses: Sweet oil re demai laws (M.

Dem.

N a t h a n defines d i s p u t e o f M . D e m . in T o s .

1:3, Tos.

Dem.

1:3)

Dem.

2. Houses: H o w many children must o n e have before desisting from marital relations (M. Y e v . 6:6, T o s . Y e v . 8:4) N a t h a n defines H o u s e s - p o s i t i o n s a n d s u p p l i e s S c r i p t u r a l p r o o f f o r e a c h .

220

VERIFICATIONS

3. Houses: Annulling daughter's vows (Tos. Ned. 6:3-4) N a t h a n is a u t h o r i t y .

4. Houses: Three betrothe woman—two witnesses and one agent (Tos. Qid. 4:1) Nathan gives the

apodosis.

v . VERIFICATIONS OF THE CIRCLE OF JUDAH THE PATRIARCH

We find in the name of the circle of Judah the Patriarch verifications for 30 pericopae, few of which duplicate verifications of items listed earlier. 1. The Circle of Judah the Patriarch in General 1. Hillel and Passover offering on Sabbath (Tos. Pisha 4:13) Clearly dated by Judah the Patriarch's reference to Bene Bathyra. Since they are absent from Tos. Pisha, the stories had to come before Rabbi's time, to have been glossed in his day. But the interpolations look anti-patriarchal. 2. Yohanan b. Zakkai before Hillel, or Yohanan before Rabbi (b. Pes. 3b) D r a m a t i z a t i o n o f H i l l e l vs. S h a m m a i (b. S h a b . 1 7 a ) o n t h e s a m e issue is ignored.

2. Simeon b. Eleazar 1. Baby born circumcized—Houses: Circumcision overrides Sabbath (Sifra Tazri'a 1:5) Simeon b. Eleazar: N o dispute concerning Sabbath, rather concerns circ u m c i z i n g g e n t i l e p r o s e l y t e w h o is a l r e a d y c i r c u m c i z e d . T h u s : (1) B a b y b o r n circumcized: D o y o u need t o d r a w d r o p o f f o r e Usha (?) (2) D o e s h i s c i r c u m c i s i o n o v e r r i d e S a b b a t h — U s h a ( ? ) (3) P r o s e l y t e — S i m e o n b . E l e a z a r , T o s . S h a b . 1 5 : 9

blood—Be­

2. Houses did not dispute concerning one who sifts on ground, that he is free, or one who sifts with vessel, that he is liable. Concern­ ing what did they differ? Concerning one who sifts by hand ( T o s . M a . 3 : 1 0 , M . B e s . 1:8)

THE

CIRCLE OF J U D A H

THE

PATRIARCH

221

3. Houses: Second Tithe made unclean in Jerusalem etc. (M. M. S. 3:9) Simeon b. Eleazar contributes t o reformulation o f Y a v n e a n and Ushan v e r s i o n s o f t h i s d i s p u t e . J u d a h t h e P a t r i a r c h i g n o r e s his v e r s i o n , f o l l o w s Judah's.

4. Houses: Give Heave-offering from jars (M. M.S. 3:13) S i m e o n b. Eleazar (Tos. M . S . 2 : 1 8 ) : Houses did n o t disagree etc... C o n ­ c e r n i n g w h a t d i d t h e y differ? C o n c e r n i n g h i m w h o t r a m p l e s . . .

5. Houses: Pharisee Zab eat with outsider Zab (Tos. Shab. 1:14) S i m e o n b . E l e a z a r is n a m e d a u t h o r i t y .

6. Houses: Carrying and need (Tos. Shab. 14:1) S i m e o n b . E l e a z a r is n a m e d a u t h o r i t y , S i m e o n b . G a m a l i e l stands b e h i n d him.

7. Simeon b. Eleazar supplies Houses-dispute on killing louse on Sabbath (Tos. Shab. 16:21) 8. Simeon b. Eleazar: Houses did not differ about burned offering which is not for festival (b. Bes. 19a) 9. Simeon b. Eleazar: Houses did not differ re ladder (Tos. Y.T. 1:8, 1:10, M. Bes. 1:3) 10. Simeon b. Eleazar: Houses did not differ re birds (Tos. Y.T. 1:10, M. Bes. 1:3) 11. Houses: One or two Vr//^-dishes (Tos. Y.T. 2:4, M. Bes. 2:1) 12. Houses: Scattered in field vs. gathered in enclosure (Tos. Y.T. 3:10, M. Bes. 4:2) 13. Houses: Funds for hagigah of festival day Simeon: Did not disagree...concerning what did they disagree... (M. Hag. 1:3, Tos. Hag. 1:4) 14. Simeon b. Eleazar: Houses did not differ on Nazir for thirty days who shaved on thirtieth—differed on one who vowed without term (Tos. Nez. 2:10) S i m e o n b . E l e a z a r s u p p l i e s terminus f o r M . N a z . 3 : 1 .

222

VERIFICATIONS

15. Houses: Do not drink/'receiveKetuvah (M. Sot. 4:2) Epstein assigns pericope to Simeon b. Eleazar. 16. Simeon b. Eleazar: Houses did not differ re divorce, then spent night together in inn, but only re actual intercourse (Tos. Git. 8:8, for M. Git. 8:9) 17. Houses: Vessels of alum-crystal (Tos. B.Q. 2:1) Simeon b. Eleazar revises language of Houses. 3. Others a. Eleazar b. Judah 1. Houses: Issue of flux (M. Zab. 1:1) Eleazar: House of Shammai agree... about what did they differ... b. Yosi b. R. Judah 1. Houses: Re Bag (Tos. Kel. B.Q. 11:3) Yosi reverses rulings. See M. Kel. 20:2, M. <Ed. 5:1. 2. Houses: Man shook tree (M. Maksh. 1:2-3) Tos. Maksh. 1:1-4: Yosi b. R . Judah: Houses did not dispute... con­ cerning what did they dispute... + debate. c. Jonathan b. Joseph 1. Houses: Shovel lost blade (Tos. Kel. B.M. 3:8) Jonathan supplies Houses-apodosis. d. Ishmael b. R. Yosi 1. Houses: Cask of Heave-offering wine (b. Pes. 20b, b. B.Q. 115b-116a) Ishmael comments on pericope. e. Eleazar b. R. Yosi 1. Houses: Uncleanness of common nails (M. Kel. 11:3, Tos. Kel. B.M. 1:2)

THE

CIRCLE OF J U D A H

THE

PATRIARCH

223

2. Houses: Purple-wool bag etc. (M. Kel. 2 6 : 6 , Tos. Kel. B.B. 4 : 9 ) Eleazar: Houses did not dispute... concerning w h a t did they dispute...

f. Ishmael b. R. Yohanan b. Beroqa 1 . Houses did not differ re divided testimony of two groups of wit­ nesses, but of two witnesses (Tos. Nez. 3 : 1 ) I s h m a e l s u p p l i e s terminus f o r M . N a z . 3 : 7 . b . S a n h . 3 1 a = b . B . B . 4 1 b h a s S i m e o n b. Eleazar.

2. Layer of jelly on hallowed flesh (Tos. T. Y. 2:3) Ishmael supplies Houses-apodosis.

g. Eleazar (Eliezer) b. R. Simeon 1. Houses: Unclean peat in oven (Tos. Kel. B.Q. 6 : 1 8 ) Eleazar gives Houses-apodosis.

2. Houses: Botde as stopper for grave (Tos. Ah. 1 5 : 9 ) Eleazar supplies Houses-apodosis a n d debate. M . O h . 1 5 : 9 omits Houses.

In all we are able to verify approximately 2 1 4 pericopae; some verifi­ cations serve the same pericope. To this we may add 1 3 1 unverified pericopae first occurring in Mishnah-Tosefta, for a total of 3 4 5 peri­ copae definitely of Tannaitic origin. This compares to 1 3 pericopae which definitely first occur in Amoraic times, as verified by named Amoraic masters. Of the 6 0 first occurring in Amoraic or later col­ lections, an undeterminable number may be of Tannaitic origin. If we assign the whole lot to Amoraic times, however, we find that 345 pericopae are of Tannaitic origin, and no more than 7 3 of Amoraic origin. The great bulk of the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees therefore were given pretty much the form in which we now have them by the time of the redaction of Mishnah-Tosefta and related compilations, and most evidences for their existence and form derive from 'Aqiba, his disciples, and their successors and continuators. v i . THE PRE-70 PHARISEES AT YAVNEH

Since the Houses-form, terse, disciplined, and balanced, character­ ized the formation of traditions at early Yavneh, we may assign as

224

VERIFICATIONS

an important trait of Yavnean tradents an interest in formulating materials for easy memorization. Obviously that does not mean all Yavnean materials were memorized; some may have been written down, particularly when left out of the 'Aqiban Mishnah. But it does mean that materials concerning, or attributed to, Yavnean authorities that exhibit other, quite different literary traits and appear in late col­ lections, e.g., the later Midrashim, would seem on the face of it not to derive from Yavnean tradents responsible for the Houses-pericopae. The same tradent who carefully worked out a protasis + Houses -f- de­ clare unclean\W&z#-pericope would not seem to be the one who told a long discursive story. With reference to Yohanan b. Zakkai-materials, collected in Development, pericopae occurring in earlier collections are apt to be attributions of brief sayings. The narration of long stories does not predominate in the earlier collections. The claim that such long stories may go back to Yavneh cannot be definitively evaluated. On the one side, traditions behind long stories may stand in some the­ matic connection with tales told much earlier. On the other, that such stories in late Midrashic compilations in their present form were told and redacted at the same time as the brief pericopae occurring in Mishnah-Tosefta seems unlikely, if stylistic considerations important to some early Yavnean tradents were shared by most of them. Thus, for instance, the sophisticated narrative about Yohanan b. Zakkai and the gentile in the Temple ("The corpse does not render unclean... but my father in heaven...," Development, p. 168, 172) does not look like a pericope formulated at the same time as the at first... ordained... materials, the Houses-disputes, and the exegetical pericopae occurring in the Tannaitic Midrashim. Criteria of style are not decisive. But they cannot be ignored, especially when, as in this instance, we can confi­ dently attribute to a given circle pronounced stylistic preferences and can explain the transmissional importance of those preferences. The Yavnean verifications are by far the most important in helping us to estimate the condition, by ca. 100 A.D., of the traditions con­ cerning the Pharisees. Pericopae verified later on and those without verification before compilation in Mishnah-Tosefta may occasionally derive from the period before 70. We have no way of coming to a reliable opinion about them. But materials known to Yavneans may be presumed to have come into being and formed part of the normative tradition before, or by the time of, authorities that refer to them. Thus, for example, such pericopae as M. Ber. 1:3 and M. Yev. 1:4, subjected to repeated verifications by Yavnean masters, must

THE

PRE-70 PHARISEES

AT

225

YAVNEH

have been in something like their present form before the masters referred to them. M. Yev. 1:4 preserves a Houses-dispute on basic Levirate rules. Joshua, Aqiba, Tarfon, and others knew about the dispute and discussed it. Similarly, M. Ber. 1:3, which contains the Houses' dispute on the proper way of reciting the Shema', generates stories involving Tarfon, Eleazar b. 'Azariah, and Ishmael. In these instances, the fact that the Houses disputed such a point of law is satisfactorily attested. To be sure, the actual form of the present pericope is not necessarily attested. Tarfon does not say, "The House of Shammai say... The House of Hillel say..." Joshua likewise does not cite M. Yev. 1:4 verbatim, but he does make clear reference to its substance, so that anyone familiar with the standard form might easily reconstruct the dispute as we now have it. And the existence of the Houses-form seems to be adequately attested in earliest Yavnean times (II, pp. 1-5). So while we cannot claim that the exact words of the pericopae in the Mishnah before us derive from early Yavneh, we may aver that both the substance and the form of the pericopae are attested at that early period, and that both, surely the former, are quite likely to come from that time. It comes down to much the same thing. Let us now review the Yavnean verifications. We shall attempt to reconstruct the Houses-traditions that were known by ca. 100-120 A.D. We shall next add laws for the first time attested in the Ushan stratum. c

A .

History

1. Names—M. Hag 2:2 (Possibly Yavnean, certainly fixed by Usha) 2. Simeon b. Shetah hung eighty women in Ashqelon (Eliezer b. Hyrcanus) 3. Baba b. Buta, Shammaite disciple, offered daily suspensive guilt offering (Eliezer b. Hyrcanus) 4. Yohanan b. Zakkai and Simeon b. Gamaliel wrote epistles to outlying regions re agricultural taboos (Joshua) 5. Name: Yosi b. Yo'ezer of Seredah (Eliezer b. Hyrcanus + Aqiba) c

B.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Temple Law,

Jerusalem,

Pilgrimage,

and Priestly

Dues c

Burning unclean with clean meat of Temple altar (Eliezer + Aqiba) Laying on of hands (M. Hag 2:2) (Abba Saul) Bitter-water ritual ( Aqiba) Israelites eat first-born with priests ( Aqiba) Children make pilgrimage ( Aqiba) c

c

c

226

VERIFICATIONS

C. Agricultural Tithes, Offerings, and Taboos 1. Unclean Heave-offering mixed with clean (Eliezer b. Hyrcanus) 2. Giving Heave-offering of grapes and the remainder is eventually made into raisins (Eliezer b. Hyrcanus) 3. Removing old produce at Nisan (Joshua b. Hananiah) 4. Pe ah from olives, carobs—how given (Gamaliel II) 5. Forgotten sheaf-rules (Eleazar b. 'Azariah, Joshua b. Hananiah) 6. Seventh-year produce rules (Tarfon) 7 . Second-tithe money in Jerusalem (Tarfon, Ben Zoma, Ben Azzai,
c

c

c

c

D. Sabbath-law 1. 'Eruv in public domain (Hananiah nephew of Joshua) 2. 'Eruv for separate kinds of food (Hananiah nephew of Joshua) 3. 'Eruv for alley (Eliezer b. Hyrcanus + Aqiba + Disciple of Ish­ mael) 4. Gentile/Sadducee in alley re 'Eruv (Gamaliel II = Meir + Judah) 5. Work started before Sabbath ('Aqiba) c

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

E. Festival Law How much does one drink to be liable on the Day of Atonement (Eliezer b. Hyrcanus) Large cakes re Passover (Gamaliel II) Pick pulse on festival (Gamaliel II) Other festival rules (Gamaliel II) Size of Sukkah (Eleazar b. R. Sadoq) F. Liturgy Order of blessing: Oil vs. myrtle (Gamaliel II) Proper position for saying Shema' (Eleazar b. 'Azariah, Ishmael, Tarfon) How far recite Hallel at Seder (Tarfon, 'Aqiba) Tefillin in privy ('Aqiba) Where shake Lulav ('Aqiba, re Gamaliel, Joshua) Limit re sisit (Jonathan b. Bathyra) Circumcision of child born circumcized (Eleazar b. R. Sadoq)

G. Uncleanness Laws 1. Quarter-^ of bones in 'tent' (Joshua b. Hananiah)

THE

PRE-70

PHARISEES

AT

227

YAVNEH

c

2. Woman kneading in 'tent' ( Aqiba, Joshua b. Hananiah) 3. If man shook tree—preparation for uncleanness by reason of water (Joshua b. Hananiah) 4. Uncleanness of liquids—Yosi b. Yo'ezer (Eliezer b. Hyrcanus +
c

c

c

c

H. Civil Law, Torts, and Damages 1. Damaged bailment ( Aqiba) c

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

I. Family Law and Inheritances Vow not to have intercourse (Eliezer b. Hyrcanus) Husband's inheritance when wife dies as a minor (Eliezer b. Hyrca­ nus) Signs of adulthood (Eliezer b. Hyrcanus) Levirate rules re brothers married to sisters (Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, Eleazar b. 'Azariah, Abba Saul) Levirate rules re co-wives (Tarfon, Eleazar b. Azariah, Aqiba, Joshua b. Hananiah) Test rags for each act of intercourse (Joshua b. Hananiah) Sanctifies property and intends to divorce wife (Joshua b. Hananiah) c

L a r g e r issue, e r r o n e o u s c o n s e c r a t i o n s , v e r i f i e d a l s o b y T a r f o n .

8. 9. 10. 11.

c

Wife remarries on testimony of one witness ( Aqiba, Gamaliel II) Grounds for divorce ( Aqiba) Dividing estate where order of deaths is unclear ( Aqiba) Blood of woman who has given birth and not immersed (Eliezer b. Hyrcanus) J. Miscellany 1. Taboo against drinking gentile wine (Gamaliel II) 2. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus re overturning couch before festival, b. M.Q. 20a, is given by Eleazar b. R. Simeon as Houses-dispute, Tos. M.Q. 2:9 c

c

The bulk of the Houses-disputes relate to three major sorts of law: agricultural tithes, offerings, and taboos; uncleanness laws; and Sab­ bath and festival laws. A fourth, somewhat less important area of law pertains to family life and estates. Now we see that roughly the same proportions apply to the Yavnean verifications.

228

VERIFICATIONS

We may reliably allege that by Yavnean times the names of the pre-70 Pharisees were fairly well established in the lists represented in M. Hag. 2:2. We have additional verification of the names of Yosi b. Yo'ezer, Simeon b. Shetah, Baba b. Buta, and Simeon b. Gamaliel. Simeon b. Shetah's hangings at Ashqelon are attested very early. So are the epistles of Yohanan b. Zakkai and Simeon b. Gamaliel, and Yosi b. Yo'ezer's uncleanness rulings. That constitutes the whole of the historical record indubitably known at Yavneh. Clearly, the ear­ liest Yavneans had only a modest interest in Pharisaic history. They exhibit no claim to begin something new, but rather they take for granted their continuity with the antecedent Pharisees. It simply can­ not be maintained that early Yavneans were aware of a fundamental break between themselves and earlier generations. Further, since no one makes a point of denying any sort of break with the past, we assume that it was unnecessary to do so. The continuity between Temple and post-Temple times evidently was a fixed element in the self-understanding of early Yavneans. There is no evidence that the work of writing the history of what had gone before was undertaken at Yavneh. That seems to have been an Ushan project. We have no considerable evidence of special interest in Temple laws, the Jerusalem pilgrimage, priestly dues, and the like. While it is alleged that some of the earliest tractates were formed for the purpose of preserving records of the Temple rites, the evidence before us would not seem to contribute much support for that thesis. Neither, however, does it refute it, since Temple practices before 70 were presumably settled by priestly law and were not matters about which disputes between the Houses were likely to arise, or, if they arose, to be either important or remembered. The absence of any considerable record of such disputes implicitly contradicts the later rabbinic claim that before 70 the Pharisees settled questions of Temple procedures. Apart from the laying-on-of-hands dispute, which is surely old and pertinent primarily to the inner life of the party, the laws of none of the verified Temple pericopae required Pharisaic adjudication at just this time. Clearly the rule on burning unclean with clean meat, the question of whether Israelites join with priests in eating the first-born animal, the law on children's making pilgrimages, and the bitter water ritual—all these were matters of fact. Asking any Temple priest should have produced an authoritative answer. They are random and do not exhibit a single pattern of relationships or common underlying themes. The considerable list of laws about agricultural tithes, offerings,

THE

PRE-70

PHARISEES

AT

YAVNEH

229

and taboos points toward a more extensive corpus of law than is actually attested. It is taken for granted that the tithes and offerings are given and agricultural taboos observed. The particular problems under discussion in the very earliest period do not leave the impression that early Yavneans had to settle fundamental issues about giving tithes and offerings and observing agricultural taboos. On the contrary, only minor details remained to be worked out. For example, the rule that one gives Heave-offering only for the same species, e.g. grapes for grapes, but not wine for grapes, must lie far in the background, if the question now is asked, What about grapes that eventually are made into raisins? Some of the other issues evidently are brought up by legal logic, rather than by the exigencies of daily life; the olive-press in the walls of Jerusalem is one obvious example. Sabbath and festival laws are not sufficiently numerous to justify an equivalent opinion. Clearly, the 'eruv was accepted in Pharisaic law and may have formed a point in sectarian debate before 70. The rule about making an 'eruv for an alley-way seems to be a genuine Houses-dispute of pre-70 times. The masters debate whether the Houses had said one had to do both, or either, of the required pro­ cedures. Some of the liturgical laws, on the other hand, form a striking contrast because of their elementary character. Is it possible that it was only in early Yavneh that rabbinic Jews recited the Shema'?To be sure, the problem of where to shake the Lulav now first faced Jews who had formerly observed the pilgrim festivals primarily in Jerusalem. So the inquiries on such matters seem to pertain to fundamental litur­ gical problems. But the number of verified laws is small, and we can­ not draw significant conclusions from them. Similarly, Jews, including Pharisees, presumably had observed the Passover Seder for genera­ tions before Tarfon and Aqiba referred to the Houses-dispute on how far one recites the Hallel. From the content of such laws we cannot derive reliable conclusions. It is only the contrast between the ele­ mentary problems of liturgy and the far-fetched issues faced by the Houses with reference to agricultural and uncleanness laws that is suggestive. The uncleanness-pericopae likewise take for granted a very consider­ able corpus of antecedent rulings. For example, the rule about convey­ ing uncleanness by a "tent" underlies many Houses-disputes with early verifications; the uncleanness of liquids, the rule If water be put on, the question of when various objects cease, or begin, to receive c

230

VERIFICATIONS

uncleanness—these rules are secondary and peripheral to the peri­ copae in which they stand. One does not receive the impression that the early Yavneans were engaged in the process of shaping a consider­ able corpus of new laws concerning ritual cleanness. By contrast, we have only one verified pericope concerning civil law, torts, and damages—that about the compensation for a damaged bailment. On that basis, one can hardly imagine the later Pharisees had left a considerable corpus of laws dealing with civil affairs. Further there is the remarkable paucity of pericopae, with or without verifica­ tion, in the whole of Seder Net(iqin. Later rabbis presumably took over and refined and developed whatever civil laws survived the Destruc­ tion, but they did not attribute them to the Houses of Shammai and Hillel. This seems to me to suggest two things. First, the pre-70 Houses did not hand over a substantial corpus of laws concerning civil matters, torts, and damages. They did not do so probably because they did not have much occasion to develop such a corpus of laws. The civil courts were in the hands of Temple priests, not sectaries, and the Pharisees concentrated their attention on those sorts of law of immediate sectarian interest, specifically agricultural, cleanness, Sab­ bath and festival, and, in a smaller degree, family laws. If this sugges­ tion is accepted, then the second conclusion closely follows. The at­ tributions of laws and disputes to the pre-70 Pharisees are apt in the main to be reliable, for the later rabbis evidently did not assign to pre-70 Pharisees, or to the Houses, disputes or laws on subjects about which the pre-70 Pharisees in fact did not hand on traditions. Family and inheritance law is of several kinds. Part of family law pertains to the division of property, e.g. the sanctification of property in connection with a divorce, dividing estates, and the like. The other part deals with sexual taboos, such as the laws of menstrual purity, the prohibition of marriage among various relationships and the like. The former leaves the impression of the development of relatively new types of rules. Thus Gamaliel's saying, that 'we are having difficulty in rationalizing one rule, so do not raise a problem in connection with another,' suggests that the early Yavneans took over a considerable corpus of law, partly from the Pharisaic party, partly from common law, and had to work out and rationalize the whole. On the other hand, the Houses-dispute about Levirate marriage-rules seems to me firmly attested, and that the pre-70 Houses debated the matter appears be­ yond reasonable doubt. The attestations of J . l , 2 are not strong.

THE

PRE-70

PHARISEES

AT

USHA

231

vii. THE PRE-70 PHARISEES AT USHA

The Ushan verifications, while chronologically less decisive than the Yavnean ones, require specification in terms of the sorts of law and traditions pertaining to pre-70 Pharisees attested within less than a century after the destruction of the Temple. A. History 1. Echo to Simeon the Just and Yohanan the High Priest (Judah b. Baba) 2. Echo to Hillel, Samuel the Small etc. (Judah b. Baba) 3. Hillel came up at 40 (Post- Aqibans ?) 4. Rise of Hillel (Tos. Pisha 4:13 version) 5. Hillel expounded language of common folk (Meir + Judah?) 6. Disputes come from poor (Yosi) 7. End of Grapeclusters (Judah b. Baba) 8. Trough of Jehu (Judah b. Ilai) 9. Hillel: Scatter/gather (Simeon b. Yohai) 10. Who prepared heifer-sacrifices (Meir) 11. Lay/not lay (Meir + Judah) 12. Temple of Onias (Meir + Judah) 13. Simeon b. Shetah vs. Judah b. Tabbai as Nasi (Meir + Judah) 14. Letter of Gamaliel to Diaspora (Judah) 15. Yohanan b. Gudgada's sons (Judah) 4

B. Temple Law, Jerusalem, Pilgrimage, and Priestly Dues 1. Two sprinklings of sacrificial blood (Eliezer b. Jacob) 2. Coins for sheqel (Simeon b. Yohai) 3. Burn flesh inside/outside (Meir + Judah)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

C. Agricultural Tithes, Offerings, and Taboos Watering plants until New Year of Seventh Year (Yosi b. Kifar, or Eleazar b. R. Sadoq) Israelite woman eats Terumah (Yosi) Dough for Hallah (Yosi) Heave-offering of oil for crushed olives (Yosi) Produce not fully harvested passed through Jerusalem (Yosi) Olive-presses in walls of Jerusalem (Yosi) Demai re 'omer (Simeon b. Yohai) Demai re Hallah (Simeon b. Yohai) Change silver and produce (Meir) Heave-offering of fenugreek (Meir + Judah) Fruit of prepared field in Seventh Year (Judah) Vineyard patch (Judah) Burn doubtful Heave-offering (Judah) Young shoot over stone (Simeon b. Gamaliel, Yosi + Meir)

232

VERIFICATIONS

15. Assigning produce to past/coming year re pod (Simeon b. Gamaliel) 16. Fruit of Fourth Year vineyard re Fifth, Removal (Simeon b. Gama­ liel) 17. Demai re sweet oil (Nathan)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

D. Sabbath Law Clearing table on Sabbath (Yosi) Work started before Sabbath, completed on Sabbath (Yosi) 'Eruv with Sadducee (Meir + Judah) Put back on stove (Meir + Judah) Food for Sabbath (Judah) Work to gentile launderer before Sabbath (Simeon b. Gamaliel) Charity on Sabbath (Simeon b. Gamaliel) 'Eruv for cistern (Simeon b. Gamaliel)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

E. Festival Law Proselyte on day before Passover (Yosi) Gifts on festival (Yosi + Judah) Return pesah whole (Simeon b. Yohai) Tying pigeon (Simeon b. Yohai) Egg laid on festival (Meir) Prepare spices, salt on festival (Meir) Timber-roofing of Sukkah (Meir + Judah) Pick pulse on festival (Judah) More vessels on account of need (Simeon b. Gamaliel)

F. Liturgy 1. Order of Havdalah (Meir + Judah)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

G. Uncleanness Laws Vessels before 'am ha*ares (Dosetai b. R. Yannai) Uncleanness of weasel (Yosi) Burn clean and unclean meat together (Yosi) Measure chest (Yosi) Split in roof (Yosi) Gather grapes in grave-area (Yosi) Lid-chain connector (Yosi) Place water (M. Maksh. 1:4) (Yosi + Judah) Vessel under waterspout (Yosi + Meir) Water from roof leaked into jar (Yosi + Meir) Uncleanness of Qohelet (Yosi + Simeon) Uncleanness of girdle (Simeon b. Yohai) Removing pot for Heave-offering (Simeon b. Yohai) Uncleanness of her who has difficulty giving birth (Simeon b. Yohai) Sin-offering water that has fulfilled its purpose (Simeon b. Yohai)

THE

16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.

PRE-70

PHARISEES

AT

USHA

233

How much lacking in skull (Tent) (Meir) When is tube clean (Meir + Judah) When is sheet clean (Meir + Judah) Stool on baking-trough (Meir + Judah) Menstrual blood of gentile woman (Meir + Judah) Quarter-^ of bones in tent (Judah) When make vat unclean (Judah) Open hole to let out uncleanness (Judah) Anoint self with clean oil (Judah) Blood of carcass (Judah) Water-skin (Judah) Sell food to haver (Simeon b. Gamaliel) When is ritual pool deemed clean (Simeon b. Gamaliel)

H. Civil Law, Torts, and Damages 1. Hillel and futures (usury) (Meir, Judah, Simeon) 2. Restore beam or value (Simeon b. Gamaliel) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

I. Family Law and Inheritances Lewdness with minor son (Yosi) Cohabitation with mother-in-law (Yosi + Judah) Girl married before flow (Meir, Simeon b. Gamaliel, Judah) Nursing mother remarries (Meir + Judah) Betrothed woman disposes of goods (Judah) How many children before desisting from marital life (Nathan) Annuling daughter's vows (Nathan) Three betrothe woman—witness/agent (Nathan)

1. 2. 4. 4.

J. Miscellany Targum of Job (Yosi) Nazir: Erroneous vow (Yosi; Judah) Chicken and cheese (Yosi) Nazirite vow for longer period (Judah)

In general, the pattern discerned in Yavnean attestations persists, but with one important change. Ushans clearly were involved in the development of a history of pre-70 Pharisaism. Nearly all historical pericopae for which we could suggest verification derive from Us­ hans, in particular Judah b. Baba, Meir, and Judah. Clearly, important elements of the rabbinic history of Pharisaism were given approxi­ mately fixed form in Ushan times. Otherwise, the earlier proportions are not greatly revised. We find no important increase in Temple, Jerusalem, pilgrimage, and priestly laws. Agricultural tithes and related matters and uncleanness rules continue to constitute by far the largest part of Ushan attestations.

234

VERIFICATIONS

Those sorts of law concerning which we found few rules remain the same; we observe no tendency to shape in the names of the Houses laws on civil and family affairs. We therefore cannot hypothesize that the Houses serve as a mere literary convenience for the formation of laws in easily remembered patterns. Had there been such a convenience, it should have served for civil laws no less than cleanness ones. Since it does not, I suppose that the tradents of Yavneh and Usha did not invent in the names of the Houses pericopae dealing with laws on which they had no tradi­ tions from the Houses. They clearly reworked both protases and apodoses of various sorts of Houses-materials. But, as I said, they apparently did not fabricate laws according to the Houses-pattern concerning matters about which the historical Houses had left them no traditions whatever. This seems to me very persuasive evidence of the fundamental authenticity of the rabbinic traditions about the pre70 Pharisees. It was not likely that later tradents invented of whole cloth something without any foundation whatever in earlier traditions. It may now be suggested that the pre-70 Houses handed on tradi­ tions concerning three areas of law: agricultural tithes, offerings, and taboos; Sabbath and festival law; and cleanness rules. It is entirely possible that a few family-laws were formulated, in particular with relationship to Levirate marriage. Whether the details of the laws attributed to the Houses actually derive from the pre-70 masters of course is a more difficult question. Our earlier studies have shown a tendency to revise both protases and apodoses, though never in the same pericope. So it would seem that the thematic substance, but not the details, of the pre-70 traditions, particularly those deriving from the Houses, in considerable measure lies before us.

v n i . CONCLUSION

If, as is alleged, elements of the rabbinic traditions about the Phari­ sees before 70 accurately portray the themes of laws of the pre-70 Pharisaic sect, we must then ask, Do those traditions derive in their present form from before 70? Let us consider the evidence of two of the best attested pericopae, M. Ber. 1:3 and M. Yev. 1:4. Neither contains signs of pre-70 wording. Both are in the standard Houses-dispute form and give us no idea of how the individual Houses, when not juxtaposed in an artificial, antonymic structure, actually formulated and preserved their legal tradi-

CONCLUSION

235

tions. So both seem to me to depend upon the Mishnaic setting in all respects. The Houses-dispute on reading the Shema' is attested by Tarfon, Eleazar b. 'Azariah, and Ishmael, which means that by ca. 90 A.D. it was well known at Yavneh that the Houses had disputed how the Shemcf was to be read. Behind the dispute lay a difference in whether the literal sense of Scripture must predominate, as is often the case in Shammaite rulings, or not, as is often the case in Hillelite exegeses, all the more so in the subsequent 'Aqiban ones. The pericope follows in logical sequence upon discussions of when one must read the Shemcf night and morning, in which Eliezer, Gamaliel and Joshua appear. The next set of pericopae deals with other matters. So the primary issue pertaining to the Shemcf in early Yavnean discourse concerned when, then how the Shemcf was to be read. Obviously, all parties assumed one does indeed read the Shema' morning and night. No one bothered to say so. But the issues of when and how one does it ought also to have been settled a long time ago, if it were a routine private devotional practice, and if it was supposed that all details of religious life were to be determined precisely by law. To teach, "It is your duty to recite the Shemcf night and morning; just how and when you do it is to be settled by your own piety and common sense" was probably the prac­ tice of the 'am ha ares. And the separation of the Pharisees from the practices of common piety was almost certainly a long and gradual process—it had to be, since new, precise laws in all details of religious life could not be invented at once. So this common but unspecified pious practice is to be supposed as the general background against which the Houses' disputes may be seen as genuine points of precise definition and differentiation. Among them, again, the manner in which one recites the Shema' does not look like an issue faced for the first time in early Yavneh. The issue facing the early Yavneans and that addressed by the Houses are closely related. The absence of ex­ perience in the matter raises the possibility that the Houses and the early Yavneans, in close sequence, were working out what was to them a fundamentally new liturgical practice, new not in fundamentals but in precise definitions. In taking over the governance of cultic life, just as they apparently took over the pilgrim festivals formerly centered in the Temple and preserved them after the destruction of the Temple, the early Yavneans had to work out rules for what earlier was primarily in the hands of priests. This accounts for some of their innovations, but more are accounted for by the determination to exy

236

VERIFICATIONS

tend the rule of precise laws to all those areas of life formerly left to the judgment of the pious individual. M. Yev. 1:4, well attested by nearly all major authorities of early Yavneh, has the Houses disagree on whether the co-wives of deceased brothers may marry surviving brothers. The House of Shammai say that while the wives do not enter Levirate marriage with the surviving brothers, the co-wives do so. The House of Hillel forbid it. The rest of the pericope simply spells out the obvious consequences of such marriages, and ends with the report that the Houses nonetheless inter­ married. M. Yev. 1:1 ignores the position of the Shammaites. Its introductory clause conforms to the Hillelite opinion, holding that the women listed among the fifteen categories do free their co-wives from halisah and from Levirate marriage. Since the Houses dispute the very point of the introductory clause of M. Yev. 1:1, we may take for granted that that clause was supplied by an editor of Hillelite persuasion. Of the materials in M. Yev. 1:1, all that can have come from the time of the Houses is the list of fifteen. The rest is Hillelite explanatory material, which serves as a kind of internal gloss. M. Yev. 1:2-3 supplies still more such internal glosses, explaining the contents and consequences of M. Yev. 1:1. So the chapter as a whole looks like a composition developed out of M. Yev. 1:1, the list of fifteen being the only "very old" part of it. The Houses-dispute then is tacked on at the end. The Hillelite and 'Aqiban redactors did not hesi­ tate to preserve Shammaite opinions, generally in the context of Houses'" disputes, but occasionally by themselves. From these analyses of M. Ber. 1:1-3 and M. Yev. 1:1-4 it is difficult to see how extant elements of either pericope, apart from a generalized tradition of a dispute, derive in present form from the period before 70 A.D. M. Ber 1:1-3 clearly is an early Yavnean set of materials. The appearance of the Houses is not unexpected. But we have no reason to believe that the language originally formulated by the respective Houses is now before us. The Houses-form presumably derives from early Yavneh, perhaps even from a few years before the destruction of Jerusalem, for reasons stated earlier (II, pp. 1-5). But what lies before, and behind, the attributions to the Houses of opinions now preserved primarily in the context of antonymic disputes, seems to me no longer available. The bare fact of a dispute is reported in M. Yev. 1:4. M. Yev. 1:1-3 ignores the Shammaite position altogether,, as I said, since it is the work of Hillelites and their successors. Sowhatever comes before the Houses-dispute of M. Yev. 1:4 is not now

CONCLUSION

237

present. We have not a hint as to how the Houses earlier preserved those respective positions outside of the dispute-form. We do not see traces of the Houses' own records of their rules, e.g. simple rules, ar­ ranged in lists by themes, such as one finds in the Qumranian lawpericopae, the abrogations of Yohanan, and the Yosi-uncleanness decrees, to name three reasonable models. It seems to me that the dispute-form, deriving from early Yavneh, possibly a few years earlier than that, has simply ignored the form and possibly also the wording of whatever traditions each House preserved individually, and not in relationship to those of the corresponding party. Since all materials on Pharisees had to pass through the crucible of the Houses, it is no wonder that masters before Shammai/Hillel are scarcely known in the earliest strata. As the lists of the early Pharisees were abstracted from the Houses-disputes, other areas of interest in pre-70 Pharisaism came to the fore, and with new interests came the tendency to develop new sorts of historical materials and to assign them to names on that early list. This looks to be an Ushan enterprise. What of the superscriptions? If the Houses-disputes depend upon the apodoses for the respective rulings, then the protases, supplying the legal agenda of pre-70 Pharisaism according to the later rabbis, also had to be agreed upon. We observed that the apodoses of Houses-dis­ putes exhibit striking mnemonic traits; but they also mean practically nothing without the protases. One could never have reconstructed the substance of a law out of House of Shammai declare unclean, House of Hillel declare clean, and similar cliches. So the whole corpus of the law, with remarkably few exceptions, relies upon the protases. With them one could readily reconstruct the decisions. Without them he would have no idea as to the subject, let alone the substance, of the law. The protases have no mnemonic traits in common. No one has attempted to standardize the length, form, or rhythm of the protases. That does not mean they were not memorized. But it also does not mean that literary characteristics can help us in estimating the earliest formal traits of the Houses-protases. If, furthermore, we add up all the protases of Houses-disputes, we do not come out with a coherent legal code, but merely with elements which might be used in such a code. These elements entirely depend for coherence upon Mishnah-Tosefta in its present form. We scarcely have an outline of a legal agenda congruent to the whole of MishnahTosefta, even to the three parts in which the Houses-disputes are abundant. The Houses-disputes tend to appear episodically, not uni-

238

VERIFICATIONS

formly. As observed, they frequently deal with relatively secondary details of law, the primary aspects of which are well-established. Now this may mean that much of rabbinic law rests upon antecedent Phar­ isaic or popular foundations. But it must mean that in their present condition, the Houses-disputes do not convey a picture of the con­ figuration of that pre-70 law. The Houses-disputes thus constitute part of the literature of the Mishnah-Tosefta. In every respect they are subordinated to the structure, frequently also to the form, of Mishnah-Tosefta. Even though we have been able to suggest reasons for thinking those disputes accurately convey relatively early tradi­ tions about the themes of Houses-disputes, we cannot at this stage propose that either the form or the substance of the pericopae accurately represents the Houses-disputes of pre-70 times, all the more so the Houses-traditions, not set into dispute-form, of that period.

CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE

HISTORY OF THE TRADITIONS i. THE MISSING TRADITIONS

Nearly all pre-70 traditions were thoroughly revised at Yavneh and afterward. We observed slight evidence of what the respective Houses' materials looked like except when set in antithetical juxtaposition, in the Yavnean dispute- and related forms. We cannot imagine how one might reconstruct either House's laws, for instance, in the model of Qumranian legal collections. Obviously, in the original form a House's laws were not joined with the contrary opinions of the opposition. They must have been constituted of more explicit statements than "liable," "unclean," and "two." Having no such fully articulated law codes, we are left with the apparently accurate record of the themes on which the Houses legislated, but not their exact words. Further, as I just said, the forms of the Houses-traditions depend entirely on the protases for meaning, and those protases are an integral part of the structure of Mishnah-Tosefta and are not, except perhaps in content, the remnants of an antecedent set of coherent laws. Since MishnahTosefta from a formal and literary viewpoint begins with 'Aqiba, we can hardly maintain that the present forms of the protases reflect the literary characteristics of pre-70 law-collections. Therefore the whole of the rabbinic Houses-tradition, while thematicallyaptto be authentic, is very likely in the first instance the creation of early Yavneh. It seems to me to have been so thoroughly reworked at Yavneh that the form does not come much earlier than that point. If we now construct the agenda of Pharisaic traditions we should have expected on the basis of external descriptions of the sect, we discern a remarkable disparity. The traits of Pharisaism emphasized by Josephus, their principal beliefs and practices, nowhere occur in the rabbinic traditions of the Pharisees. The issues important to other sects of the period before 70, those problems that occupied the at­ tention of the authorities and a central place in the traditions of the Christians and Qumranians, and of the writers of Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphic literature and related collections, simply do not come to the surface in the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees. It

240

HISTORY OF

THE

TRADITIONS

serves no good purpose to allege that the early Yavneans suppressed what we do not now find. We simply do not know what they did not hand on, only what they did. Nonetheless, it will give an illuminating perspective on what we do have to reflect on what is missing. The focus of interest of the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees is the internal affairs of the Pharisaic party itself. The primary partisan issues center upon Shammai's and his House's relationship to Hillel and his House. The competing sects, by contrast, are ignored. Essenes and Christians make no appearance at all. The Sadducees are first mentioned by Yohanan b. Zakkai. The Romans never occur. The Hasmonean monarchy is reduced to a single name, Yannai the King, for Yohanan the High Priest, so far as the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees are concerned, was a good Pharisee. In all, the tra­ ditions give the impression of intense concentration on the inner life of the party, or sect, whose intimate affairs take precedence, in the larger scheme of history, over the affairs of state, cult, and country. The state is a shadowy presence at best. The cult is of secondary importance. The country's life and the struggle with Rome as a whole are bypassed in silence. What we have, therefore, are the records of the party chiefly in regard to the life of the party itself. Yet even here, the records exhibit puzzling lacunae. Josephus's stories of the slaughter of Pharisees, of their striving for power over the whole state, of their active participation and influence in govern­ ment—those recurrent themes of his narrative produce at best a faint echo in a few Simeon b. Shetah-pericopae. It is as though the party really begins with Shammai, Hillel, Shema'iah, Abtalion, and the others in that circle of masters. The most striking silence is the ab­ sence of significant records concerning the century and a half before Hillel. Excluding Simeon the Just and Yohanan the High Priest, who were not Pharisees, we hear remarkably little from, or about, the named masters from the Yosi's to Simeon b. Shetah and Judah b. Tabbai. The record begins in effect with Hillel and Shammai, or, more really, with their Houses. Simeon is exceptional, but the more impor­ tant pericopae involving him with Yannai either are spun out of the relationship with Yannai itself ("Torah honors the sage") or look like rough approximations of Josephus-narratives. So the rabbinic tradi­ tions about the Pharisees may accurately reflect at most the situation prevailing in the last seven or eight decades of the party's life, down to 70 A.D. It would thus seem that the first considerable revision of Pharisaic materials took place in the period of Hillel and the formation

THE

MISSING

TRADITIONS

241

of the Houses. Then whatever existed about pre-Hillelite Pharisees was simply obliterated. The second major revision apparently began at early Yavneh, and was completed by Ushan times. The antecedent traditions evidently were given completely new form, but the sub­ stance, at least in regard to legal themes, was carried forward. Having recognized, as the largest corpus of missing traditions, nearly the whole record of pre-Hillelite Pharisaism—that is, the period in which the Pharisaic party constituted an important force in Hasmonean politics, we now review the specific references of Josephus to Pharisaism. In War l:110ff., Josephus describes the Pharisees as a body of Jews "with the reputation of excelling the rest of their nation in the observances of religion and as exact exponents of the laws." Alexandra listened to them, and they took advantage of her to become the real administrators of the state: "If she ruled the nation, the Phari­ sees ruled her." They therefore put to death a man who had advised the king to crucify eight hundred victims, and "proceeded to kill whomsoever they would." In War 1:571, a court intrigue includes the accusation that someone had "subsidized the Pharisees to oppose him." In War 2:119, 162 ff., we find the first extended description of the Pharisees as a party. The Pharisees attribute everything to fate and to God. They are considered the most accurate interpreters of the laws. They hold that right action mostly rests with men, but Fate cooperates. The soul is imperishable, but the soul of the good alone passes into another body, and the souls of the wicked suffer eternal punishment. By contrast, the Sadducees do not believe in Fate; man has free choice of good or evil; the soul does not persist after death; nor is there punishment or reward. "The Pharisees are affectionate to each other and cultivate harmonious relations with the community. The Sad­ ducees... are... rather boorish" etc. In Antiquities 13: 171-2, we have the second version of the fore­ going discussion. The Pharisees say certain events, but not all, are the work of Fate; the Essenes have Fate as mistress of all things; the Sadducees do away with Fate—a neat pattern. In 13: 288, the Pharisees are discribed as highly influential. Then comes the banquet of Hyrcanus (I, pp. 172-176). Josephus concludes (297f.) by explaining that the Pharisees have regulations passed down by former generations and not recorded in the Laws of Moses, "for which reason they are rejected by the Sadducean group, who hold that only those regulations should be considered valid which were written down [in Scripture] and that

242

HISTORY OF

THE

TRADITIONS

those which had been handed down by former generations need not be observed" (above, p. 163). The Pharisees are supported by the masses, the Sadducees by only the rich people. In Antiquities 13:401, Josephus repeats that the Pharisees are very influential; in 405ff., he tells a story to illustrate their popular influence. The passage corresponds to War 1:11 Off. Antiquities 15:3, refers to Samaias and Pollion. Like Hyrcanus, Pol­ lion was able to foretell the future, "and this turned out to be so, for God fulfilled his words." In 15:370, Herod shows favor to the same men. In Antiquities 17:41-6, the Pharisees are described as influential, possessing foresight, "for they were believed to have foreknowledge of things through God's appearances to them." In Antiquities 18:11-23, we find the most coherent statement (trans. Louis Feldman, pp. llff.): The Pharisees simplify their standard of living, making no concession to luxury. They follow the guidance of that which their doctrine has selected and transmitted as good, attaching the chief importance to the observance of those commandments which it has seen fit to dictate to them. They show respect and deference to their elders, nor do they rashly presume to contradict their proposals. Though they postulate that everything is brought about by fate, still they do not deprive the human will of the pursuit of what is in man's power, since it was God's good pleasure that there should be a fusion and that the will of man with his virtue and vice should be admitted to the council-chamber of fate. They believe that souls have power to survive death and that there are rewards and punishments under the earth for those who have led lives of virtue or vice; eternal imprisonment is the lot of evil souls, while the good souls receive an easy passage to a new life. Because of these views they are, as a matter of fact, extremely influential among the townsfolk; and all the prayers [vows] and sacred rites of divine worship are performed according to their exposition. This is the great tribute that the inhabitants of the cities, by practising the highest ideals both in their way of living and in their discourse, have paid to the excellence of the Pharisees. By contrast the Sadducees have no belief in life after death. "The soul perishes along with the body. They own to no observance apart from the laws." The Sadducees furthermore disagree with their teach­ ers. They accomplish "practically nothing," because the Pharisees force them to do their will, since "otherwise the masses would not tolerate them." In Life 197, finally, Josephus repeats that the Pharisees "have the reputation of being unrivalled experts in their country's laws." So Josephus.

THE

MISSING

TRADITIONS

243

The first thing we notice is that Josephus says next to nothing about the predominant issues in the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees. Shammai and Hillel are not explicitly mentioned, let alone their Houses. Above all, we find not the slightest allusion to laws of ritual purity, agricultural taboos, Sabbath and festivals, and the like, which predominate in the traditions of the Houses. In the detailed account of the reign of Alexander Jannaeus, Simeon b. Shetah does not occur. Apart from the banquet of John Hyrcanus, we could not, relying upon Josephus, recover a single significant detail of the rab­ binic traditions about the Pharisees, let alone the main outlines of the whole. And the contrary also is the case: from the rabbinic-Pharisaic materials we could not have envisaged the picture drawn by Josephus, with the same exception noted above. The allegation, to be sure, that the Pharisees "excel the rest of the nation in observances of religion and as exact exponents of the laws" may be taken for granted in the rabbinic materials, but it is never spelled out. The rabbis never alluded to competing groups in Pharisaic times; the Sadducees occur only in Yavnean materials. Strikingly, the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees never alleged that the Hasmoneans listened to what they said. As we noticed, the rabbis never imagined that the Pharisees were "the real administrators of the state." What they claimed to "administer" was the recitation of Grace at the king's table. The rabbis' Pharisees engaged in no court intrigues. They surely never told the king to put anyone to death. They were beyond "subsidy." Josephus's agenda of Pharisaic doctrine hardly coincides with that of the rabbis. We have no illusion to "fate" in the whole corpus. While Josephus seems to paraphrase Aqiba's saying, that all is in the hands of heaven yet man has free choice, that saying is nowhere attributed to pre-70 Pharisees, certainly not to the Pharisees who would have flourished in the period in which Josephus places such beliefs. We find no references to the soul's imperishability, all the more so to the transmigration of souls. The Houses' debate on the intermediate group comes closest to Josephus's report. As to Josephus's allegation that the Pharisees are affectionate to one another, we may observe that is not how the Hillelites report matters. Josephus knows nothing of the Shammaites' slaughter of Hillelites, their mob-action against Hillel in the Temple, and other stories that suggest a less than affectionate relationship within the Pharisaic group. So, for Josephus, the three chief issues of sectarian consequence are belief in fate, belief in tradic

244

HISTORY OF

THE

TRADITIONS

tions outside of the Laws of Moses, and influence over political life. The Pharisees believe in fate, have traditions from the fathers, and exercise significant influence in public affairs. The Sadducees do not believe in fate, do not accept other than Mosaic laws, and have no consequence in public life. For the rabbinic traditions about the Phari­ sees, the three chief issues of sectarian consequence are ritual purity, agricultural taboos, and Sabbath and festival behavior. It is not our purpose here to speculate about the "historical Phari­ sees." For all we know, all reports are correct. The Pharisees indeed differed from the others in their belief in fate (a little bit), in their con­ viction of an imperishable soul, in their public influence, in their ob­ servance of ritual purity outside of the Temple, in their careful keeping of agricultural taboos, and in their manner of behavior on the Sabbath and festivals. The first three do not exclude the second. Our purpose is merely to gain a better perspective on the sorts of traditions the later rabbis preserved about, and assigned to, the pre-70 Pharisees. That perspective illumines the characteristics of the rabbis and of Josephus, respectively. We learn that what interested the one was of no concern to the other. From that fact it does not follow that stories absent in the one or the other actually never happened. No one main­ tains that what Josephus ignores never existed. Nor is it a necessary inference that stories present in both must assuredly have in fact taken place. When we survey the references to Pharisees in the Synoptic Gospels, we observe close correspondences. While the Synoptic writers have no knowledge of the Houses of Shammai and Hillel, which ought to have been important in the period with which they deal, but assuredly were important in the period in which they wrote, they do lay emphasis on matters already familiar in the rabbinic traditions. We shall review the more important references to Pharisees. Matt. 3:7 has Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism. Matt. 9:14 refers to fasting on the part of Pharisees and the disciples of John. Matt. 12: Iff. represents the Pharisees as criticizing Jesus's dis­ ciples for picking grain on the Sabbath, and Sabbath observance recurs as a sectarian issue, with the apophthegm "the son of man is Lord of the Sabbath" forming the heart of the matter. The Sabbath-pericope is complex and highly developed. It certainly makes Sabbath-observance an important issue in Christian-Pharisaic relations. Matt. 12:38 has the Pharisees ask for a sign from Jesus. Matt. 15: Iff. raises the issue of ritual uncleanness: "Why do your disciples transgress the tradition

THE

MISSING

TRADITIONS

245

of the elders, for they do not wash their hands when they eat?" The Pharisees are then represented (15:13) as not the creation of God, as blind guides, and so on. Again, in Matt. 16:Iff., the Pharisees and Sadducees ask for signs from heaven. Matt. 16:6-12 describes the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees as leaven—the two are seen as one group (!). This is peculiar to Matt., who did not understand Mk.'s "leaven of Herod." In Matt. 19:3, the Pharisees ask whether it is lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause. In the Pharisaic pericope of Matt. 22:15ff., the repertoire of arguments pertains to paying taxes to Caesar, resurrection of the dead (Sadducees), the laws of Levirate marriage (tied to the foregoing), the great commandment in the law, the Messiah (whose son is he?), and then follows the condemnation of the Pharisees: They do not practice what they preach. They demand too much of ordinary folk. They flaunt their piety, wear long fringes and broad tefillin, sit in places of honor, and enjoy being called rabbi. The woe-sayings condemn the scribes and Pharisees for making converts (23:13), for oath-taking and consecrating objects to the Temple, for tithing mint, and dill and cummin, and neglecting weight­ ier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and faith; for paying attention to the cleanness of the outside of the cup and of the plate, but "inside they are full of extortion and rapacity. You blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and of the plate, that the outside also may be clean." This leads to a second reference to cleanness laws, this time for allegorical purposes: "You are like white-washed tombs, outwardly beautiful but inside full of bones." "So you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but within you are full of hypocrisy" etc. Then comes the "brood of vipers" and related abusive sayings. The ethicization of purity laws recurs as a Synoptic theme. Mark 2:15ff. has the "scribes of the Pharisees" condemn Jesus for eating with sinners and tax collectors; again, "why do John's and the Pharisees' disciples fast, and your disciples do not"; then the story of the Sabbath violation involving picking ears of grain on the Sabbath, with the Lord of the Sabbath saying, and healing on the Sabbath—the whole repertoire. Mk. 7: Iff. has the Pharisees criticize the disciples for not washing their hands before eating, "for the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands, observing the tradi­ tion of the elders, and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they purify themselves, and there are many other tradi­ tions which they observe, the washing of cups and pots and vessels of bronze." Mk. 7:5 further has the Pharisees ask why the disciples

246

HISTORY OF

THE

TRADITIONS

do not "live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands." Jesus then says the famous "nothing outside a man... can defile him..." etc. The Pharisees demand a sign (Mk. 8:11); the lawfulness of divorce occurs (10:2ff.). The Sadduceans debate the resurrection of the dead, along with the Levirate issue (13:18ff.), and this is followed by the scribes' question on which commandment comes first of all. Mark's scribes (13:38) become Pharisees and scribes for Matthew, as we observed. Luke's Pharisees raise the issue of Jesus's forgiving sins and healing (5:17ff.), the authority of the son of man being at issue. The associa­ tion with tax collectors and the failure of Jesus's disciples to fast are further discussed (Lk. 5:29ff.), then comes the Sabbath-pericope (6: Iff.), healing on the Sabbath, and the like. The authority of the son of man and baptism are reviewed (7:28ff.); eating with sinners is explained (7:36). The Pharisees wash the outside of the cup, but inside are full of extortion (11:37). The Pharisees tithe mint, rue, and every herb, and neglect justice (11:42ff.), choose the best seats in synagogues and salutations in the market places. They are compared to unseen graves. They overburden the people. Healing on the Sabbath is introduced, but not with reference to Pharisees (13:1 Off.); the Pharisees later recur in the same issue (14: Iff.). Eating with sinners is mentioned in Lk. 15:Iff. The Sadducees-and-resurrection pericope recurs (20:27ff.). John's Pharisees raise the question of the baptism of one who is neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet, with reference to John the Baptist (1:24). Nicodemus the Pharisee asks for a sign (31: Iff.). The primary concern of John's Pharisees is Jesus's messiahship (e.g. 8: Iff.). Healing on the Sabbath recurs (9:13ff.). That Jesus is not from God because he does not keep the Sabbath (9:16) is the claim of the Pharisees. As we review the recurrent themes in the Gospels' accounts of the Pharisees, we find the following: Sabbath-observance, in particular, picking food and healing the sick; cleanness laws, in particular the view that cleanness-laws are less important than ethical command­ ments, and in the same context, eating with people who do not keep either cleanness-laws or ethical commandments (tax-collectors and the like); consecrating objects to the Temple and oath-taking; stress on tithing little things and (again) neglecting ethical matters; fasting; and lawful divorce. To the legal agenda, we may add doctrinal questions: the character and power of the son of man; the value of baptism; signs as authenti-

THE

MISSING

TRADITIONS

247

cation of the messiah; relations to the Roman government; the resur­ rection of the dead, tied to a Levirate-pericope; and the relative value of the respective commandments. The third category consists of the abuse of Pharisees; this is of no concern here. The legal agenda at every point has a counterpart in the rabbinic traditions of the Pharisees. Moreover, the stress of the Gospels seems just about right: cleanness laws, agricultural taboos, Sabbath and festival observance, family laws. We further observed attention to Temple-consecration and oaths. Only fasting seems to play no significant part in the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees. The doctrinal issues are quite another matter. We have seen no pericopae dealing with any of these issues, excluding Hillel on "the whole Torah." We have no rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees con­ cerning the Messiah, his powers, rights, and obligations. Were we to construct a picture of first-century Palestinian Judaism entirely on the basis of the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees, we should not have known that the Messiah was a significant element. Indeed, we should not have heard of the messianic expectation at all. Baptism in the sense of the Gospels' discussions has not come before us, although baptism in another sense, primarily for the purification of ritual un­ cleanness, not in relationship to the forgiveness of sin, is of course well attested. But these look like different baptisms; the one is primarily ritual, the other moral. The Gospels' tendency to ethicize both bap­ tism and purity-rules and to set tithing into opposition with moral behavior is polemical; but it is not without precedent in biblical prophecy. No echo of that attitude toward ritual comes before us in the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees. As we observed, the Romans nowhere make an appearance. Whether or not one should pay taxes is never raised in materials we have reviewed. We now see that a wide range of issues important in the traditions concerning other groups, and of other groups concerning the Phari­ sees, is either entirely absent or strikingly subordinated in the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees. Questions to which we find no ans­ wers in the rabbinic materials include the following: What was the canon of the Scriptures? How did the Pharisees view other groups? Did the Pharisees believe in the immortality of the soul? What was the Pharisees' attitude to the Temple? to sacrifice? to the priesthood? What were the interpretations of baptism supplied by Pharisees? How did the Pharisees view heteropraxy and heterodoxy? Was the claim of being the Messiah taken seriously? Was it considered punish-

248

HISTORY OF

THE

TRADITIONS

able? What were the Pharisees' expectations concerning the Messiah? What were their attitudes to apocalyptic visions, ideas, and personal­ ities ? What was the attitude of the party toward Hellenistic society in general? Toward Greek-speaking Jews in particular? To what degree did the Pharisees at various stages in their history before 70 involve themselves in the politics of the country? When and why did they pursue an independent course, and when did they withdraw entirely from political life? What was the inner institutional structure of the Pharisaic party? How were people admitted and expelled? One could formulate a substantial agenda of questions, problems, and concerns important either to other sects, or to Jewish Palestine and its social and religious life as a whole. That agenda is unattended to by the rabbinic tradents, who, as I said, tell us about what primarily interested them. The shape of those interests, on the one side, and the configguration of the historical Pharisees, on the others, do not seem entirely congruent to one another. II. THE RABBINIC HISTORY OF PHARISAISM: THE EARLY MASTERS

Having recognized that the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees chiefly concern the inner life of their party—to which they do not even give a name—its internal tensions, its rules for its own affairs, and the relationships of its dominant personalities and segments to one another, we may now trace outlines of that history. While, as I said, we cannot recover from the rabbinic traditions about the Phari­ sees a considerable amount of information on the historical Pharisees and their place in Jewish Palestine, we are able to claim that the party's own traditions about the Pharisees supply some interesting infor­ mation about the life of the party and somewhat more information about the schools of Yavneh and Usha as well. Concerning the century and a half before Hillel, we have little more useful facts than names of leading masters, and of these, only a few: the two Yosi's, Joshua b. Perahiah and Nittai the Arbelite, Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah—six names for the period, one may guess, from the Maccabees' rise to power to the time of Herod, ca. 160 to ca. 40 B.C. Concerning these masters we may have accurate thematic traditions, that is, some sort of stories or vague recollections standing behind the detailed narratives before us. In our discussion (p. 165) of oral formulation and transmission of traditions, we ob-

THE

RABBINIC

HISTORY

OF

PHARISAISM

249

served that Finkelstein's claim seems reasonable. He distinguished between detailed stories, on the one hand, and themes or generalized story-lines, on the other. The latter may go back before 70; we do not know for sure. The most important such story-line obviously concerns the flight of masters to Alexandria, generating stories about Joshua b. Perahiah, Judah b. Tabbai, and Simeon b. Shetah. The details of the Joshua/Judah stories cannot have been shaped much before the formation of an anti-Christian polemic, toward the end of the first century A.D. In this regard, the Simeon b. Shetah's-hanging-of-witches-story probably cannot come in its present form before the same time, since Eliezer b. Hyrcanus's reference to the story leaves out its crucial element, the use of magic to overcome witches. We of course cannot estimate how much later than the end of the first century the actual story was given its present form and substance, but that hardly matters. What comes before that time may be a generalized tradition about the flight of masters, on the one side, and hanging women, on the other. These tradi­ tions thematically relate, or correspond, to Josephus's references to Alexander Jannaeus's persecution of the Pharisees and the Pharisees * murders of their opponents. Whether or not the rabbinic narratives were provoked by Josephus's stories we cannot say for certain. Since Josephus explicitly says he wrote for a Jewish audience, we cannot automatically exclude rabbis from that audience: I...propose to provide the subjects of the Roman empire with a narrative of the facts, by translating into Greek the account which I previously composed in my vernacular tongue and sent to the barba­ rians in the interior... I thought it monstrous...to allow the truth in affairs of such moment to go astray, and that, while Parthians and Babylonians and the most remote tribes of Arabia with our countrymen beyond the Euphrates and the inhabitants of Adiabene were, through my assiduity, accurately acquainted with the origin of the war, the various phases of calamity through which it passed and its conclusion, the Greeks and such Ro­ mans as were not engaged in the contest should remain in ignorance of these matters, with flattering or fictitious narratives as their only guide. (War 1:2-6 [trans. H. Thackeray, pp. 305]) The War was written almost immediately after the war under the patronage of Vespasian (Thackeray, p. x ) ; the Greek version comes later. No one has doubted the fact that an original Aramaic edition was published. Why rabbis could not have known it, in Palestine, as

250

HISTORY

OF

THE

TRADITIONS

well as, later on, in Babylonia, I cannot say. Obviously, we cannot prove they did know it, except for the apparent dependence of the story of b. Qid. 66a on Josephus's version for facts crucial to the nar­ rative, yet omitted in b. Qid. 66a—the punishment decreed by the Pharisees. But that omission is susceptible of more than one explanation. It cannot conclusively demonstrate that Abbaye copied and slightly revised Josephus's version of the incident. It merely suggests that the complete independence of rabbis of some period or other from Josephus's War cannot be taken for granted. This further produces the inference, as I said, that we cannot automatically exclude rabbis from Josephus's audience. But if rabbis knew the War, they did not take much from it. The medieval Scholion to Megillat Ta anit, which shows considerable interest in Pharisaic-Sadducean relationships, relies for perspective, if not for facts, upon other than Talmudic traditions, which subordinate the Sadducean question, and certainly not on the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees, which omit it altogether. The ARN pericope about Antigonus of Sokho, which focuses upon life after death and reward and punishment and accounts for the rise of Sadducees/Boethusians out of the bosom of Pharisaism, shows in­ terests otherwise absent in the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees. It is formally and stylistically unlike anything else in those traditions. And its theological concern is unique among them. On that basis we may regard it merely as an anomaly. The date of the collection in which it appears cannot be settled upon the basis of these sorts of observations. Simeon the Just of Pharisaic-rabbinic memory marks an important turning in the party's view of the history of the cult. The party took for granted that until his time the cult was graced with supernatural blessings. Afterward, sometimes it did, and sometimes it did not, enjoy heavenly favor. Toward the end of the Temple, the rabbis later claimed, the Pharisees rejected the cultic caste altogether; this claim is put into the mouth of Yohanan b. Zakkai, who announced that the heavenly hosts had left the Temple, as in the time of Ezekiel. But the Pharisaic-rabbinic materials contain no equivalent rejection of the Temple cult, merely the admission that some priests were worthy of office, others were not, and finally all were unworthy, except those later on Pharisaized. The Simeon-corpus contains important, if oblique, information on what a worthy priest might expect to experience: the epiphany of c

THE

RABBINIC

HISTORY

OF PHARISAISM

251

God in the holy of holies. The assertion that Simeon was the last of the old virtuous priesthood stands alongside the allegation that the Yosi's were the last of the grapeclusters. It reflects the tendency of Tannaitic historians to attempt to periodize the history of pre-70 times and to locate the significant turning points in that history. Similarly, the effort to reconstruct the cultic history, e.g. who prepared the heifer? seems to characterize the Ushan historians (of which more below). The heavenly message about the annulled decree seems to echo Josephus's report, but the tradition could have come down in­ dependently; we do not know. Since the present version reflects the view of R. Yohanan concerning the ability of angels to understand Aramaic, it may have been doctored after the compilation of Tosefta. Yosi b. Yo'ezer's uncleanness decrees represent another tradition attested at early Yavnah. Eliezer and 'Aqiba refer to it. The little list has not been revised to conform to Mishnaic conventions; it is kept in Aramaic, for one thing, and does not use the terms nearly everywhere predominant: TM'/THR. I think we here have something more than a merely generalized tradition that Yosi issued uncleanness rulings with respect to the Temple cult. It may be a tradition formulat­ ed with some precision and deriving from the earliest, pre-Hillelite stratum of Pharisaic materials. It stands apart in form and language from everything else; and since it has an early attribution, we may take for granted that the form and language are not only different from, but earlier than, the Yavnean revision of the antecedent tradi­ tions. On that basis, of course, we cannot claim we have Yosi's ipsissima verba. But we may well have a remnant of a very old tradition indeed. If so, we may observe that the tradition consists of a set of rulings in simple declarative sentences, without contrary opinions. On that basis we may allege that the earliest, pre-Houses, traditions did not consist of antithetical lemmas, but of brief rules, perhaps arranged according to themes, as I suggested above. Other references to Yosi b. Yo'ezer—as the most pious of the priesthood, the end/beginning of the grapeclusters, and the like—of course carry no historical weight. Yosef b. Yohanan of Jerusalem is nothing more than a name. The two Yosi's uncleanness decrees are difficult to evaluate. Since they form part of a list that in final form can be no earlier than the mid-firstcentury, it is difficult to assess the source of the attribution of these particular decrees to the two masters. I see no relationship between Yosi b. Yo'ezer's little list, on the one hand, and the two decrees (land

252

HISTORY OF

THE

TRADITIONS

of peoples, glassware), on the other. Since, moreover, Yosi b. Halafta knew nothing of the Yosis' decrees, it is difficult to claim the attribu­ tion comes before the middle of the second century, if then. The stories of Yosi b. Yo'ezer's son and of Yaqim his nephew need not detain us. The seconds of the next two pairs, Nittai the Arbelite and Judah b. Tabbai, have no independent traditions. They occur only in lists or in fixed formulae with the first ones in the lists, Joshua b. Perahiah and Simeon b. Shetah. Judah b. Tabbai moreover does not occur in places where he should. The Ushan historians tried to work things out, but obviously had no "very early" traditions to which to refer. Yav­ neans had nothing to say about either man. Joshua b. Perahiah represents a most perplexing case. As I have noted (History of the Jews in Babylonia, V. Later Sasanian Times [Leiden,. 1970], pp. 235-241), Joshua's name was important to Jews and the writers of magical bowls and amulets in sixth and seventh century A.D. Babylonia. Nothing in the rabbinic corpus of Joshua-traditions tells us for certain why this should have been the case. We do not even know how the later Babylonians heard his name, for the magicians do not appear to have been part of the rabbinical movement, certainly not in its administration. The rabbinic traditions of Joshua give him a saying about Alexandrian wheat; the sages' comment, "If so, let it be unclean for him and clean for all Israel," is a cliche, occurring in other uncleanness-disputes of Yavnean and later times. The source of the earlier ruling is unknown to us. Joshua's saying about how hard it is to leave office seems to me similarly random and inconsequential. The Jesus-story is another matter. Perhaps the first part (b. Sot. 47a parts B, C) could have stood separately; its point would be the message of Simeon himself, given an apophthegmatic character: masters should remain in Palestine, and not go abroad, a theme important in secondcentury rabbinic materials (History of the Jews in Babylonia, L The Parth­ ian Period?, p. 131, n. 1). We hardly can claim the little pericope certain­ ly is independent and derives from Ushan circles. The Jesus-story however cannot come much before that time, certainly not earlier than Yavneh, when the anti-Christian polemic begins to matter. The con­ cluding lemma, Jesus practised magic etc., is attested by ca. 150, and may be the earliest element of the whole, on the basis of which the Jesus-Joshua materials were spun out. If this conjecture is sound, then perhaps the Alexandrian exile stands apart, and only later on was join­ ed with the Jesus-story, after ca. 150. At any rate that any part of the

THE

RABBINIC

HISTORY

OF PHARISAISM

253

Joshua/Alexandria pericope comes from before 70 A.D. seems to me unlikely, nor can I imagine what generalized thematic tradition would have given rise to any of its elements, except the exile of Pharisees from Jerusalem (below). Simeon b. Shetah is the only pre-70 named master whose traditions are both abundant and quite independent of the Hillelite-theme. Simeon and Judah on the false witnesses, the two masters in the several chains, Judah in Alexandria, and the sayings in Avot, consti­ tute the whole Judah b. Tabbai-corpus, as I said. Judah therefore does not produce a set of traditions in which he stands independent of Simeon; but in some of the materials, as discussed at Usha, he is not subordinate. His relative importance seems to be chiefly an Ushan issue. The one important story is Mekhilta's version of the execution of false witnesses, and as we traced the synoptic history of the story, we concluded the Mekhilta's version looks earliest of all. But it also is so different from the rest that it could be regarded as last and independent (following Wacholder, HUCA 1968, pp. 117ff.). While the literary traits seem to me to place the version at the start, a case could admit­ tedly be made for a quite different interpretation of matters. It seems to me noteworthy that the Zadokite law addresses this problem (as do the Sadducees, M. Mak. 1:6): For every infringement which a man commits against the Law, and which his fellow has seen, being alone, if it is a matter liable to the death [penalty], reproving him, the witness shall denounce the culprit to the overseer in his presence; and the overseer shall inscribe him with his own hand, waiting until he commits another [infringement] before one person alone, and he again denounces him to the overseer. If he relapses and is caught in the act [a third time] before one person alone, his case is juridically complete. Dupont-Sommer, Essene Writings from Qumran, p. 150

The Zadokite legislation therefore recognizes the same anomaly in the use of evidence deriving from a single witness, but makes provision for suitable procedures, rather than admitting the law's inability to act at all. But it does not help us to determine the time in which the Judah-Simeon story was first told, all the more so the antecedent, anon­ ymous exegesis repeated verbatim in the Simeon-Judah pericope. The Simeon-corpus, by itself, includes four items more or less closely related to Josephus's narrative: Simeon, Yannai, and the Nazi­ rites ; Simeon restored the Pharisees to favor with Yannai ( = Josephus

254

HISTORY OF

THE

TRADITIONS

on John Hyrcanus); Simeon called Joshua back from Egypt; Simeon hung women. The trial of Yannai's slave has been related to the trial of Herod, but the connection is not so obvious. When we eliminate these items, however, we come up with a strikingly thin tradition: it rained in the days of Simeon-Shelomsu, which is joined with a similar story about Herod's time, so that Simeon, or Shelomsu, looks like a gloss. He rebuked Honi. He made a decree on the marriagecontract, though no one is quite clear on what the decree consisted of. Property-litigation ended in his time. He decreed children should go to school. He returned a pearl. The school-decree seems confused with Rav Judah-Rav's story about Joshua b. Gamala. The pearl-story is of no consequence. The marriage-contract decree may be a generalized tradition, that Simeon had done something in connection with the marriage-contract, but more than this we cannot say. That the exact content of the tradition was unclear in Tannaitic times suggests all they had to work with was the Ketuvah + JV^tftf-tradition itself. Of these items, the Honi and marriage-contract pericopae are the most impor­ tant. Simeon is merely a name in the Honi-story. It was taken for granted the men were contemporaries. Simeon here is therefore the Nasi, as is claimed by Judah b. Ilai. The Honi-materials otherwise ignore Simeon b. Shetah. The sole master before Hillel to whom are assigned significant numbers of important traditions thus turns out not much different from the others. Whatever traditions came from before 70 A.D. seem so generalized and vague that they cannot bring us very close to the man himself. Simeon's usable materials, when unrelated thematically to Josephus's stories, pertain to the marriage-contract, not much else. The stories corresponding in theme or in detail to Josephus's are more difficult to analyze, for reasons already stated. If Josephus was known to the second-century tradents, then they added Simeon to his narrative, but, as I said, still did not draw a great deal of material from him. If Josephus was not known to them, then they had tradi­ tions which in theme more or less paralleled those used by Josephus. In either case, therefore, we come to a somewhat more useful corpus of pre-70 traditions: Alexander Jannaeus murdered Pharisees; Phari­ sees murdered their enemies; the Pharisees eventually were restored to favor; the Pharisees tried the agent of one of the first century rulers (Jannaeus/Herod). What is most striking in these rather general themes is their interest in the relationships to the Jewish government of the Pharisees as a group. Reducing the stories to their themes, we

THE

RABBINIC

HISTORY

OF PHARISAISM

255

discover that the generalized traditions about Simeon b. Shetah in­ deed are congruent to the characteristics attributed by Josephus to the Pharisaism of the period in which he is supposed to have lived. This can be explained in one of three ways. First, the rabbinic tradi­ tions derive from that period, and their thematic authenticity is on account of that fact. Or, second, the rabbinic traditions are primarily revisions of materials known to the later rabbis from Josephus. Or, third, rabbis and Josephus draw on the same sources. In the end it hardly makes much difference, for no explanation serves to verify the historical accuracy of the stories that embody the traditions in a mass of incredible detail. But what is important, and an argument for authen­ ticity of the underlying traditions, is the fact that the matter of HillelShammai never intervenes, unlike the Shema'iah-Abtalion traditions, whose materials have been reworked to introduce issues pertaining to the later masters. Yohanan the High Priest and John Hyrcanus must be the same man. On the Pharisaic side, however, one wonders whether, if rabbis knew Josephus's account, they thought the two indeed were one. Abbaye thought Yohanan and Yannai were identical, as we noticed. The one important tradition is the abrogations of M. M.S. 5:15. This list of brief reports of things Yohanan had done compares to Yosi's un­ cleanness rulings. While in Mishnaic Hebrew, it is brief and wellconstructed, again conforming to the sort of little legal pericope we should have expected as the vehicle for old legal materials. HI. THE MATTER OF HILLEL

The figure of Hillel dominates the traditions concerning the period from Shema'iah-Abtalion to the destruction of the Temple. We have already noted that the whole of the Houses-tradition, form and sub­ stance, reflects equal respect for Shammai and Hillel. It therefore must be set entirely apart from the traditions about Hillel and Shammai and about Hillel by himself, for most of these traditions exhibit an unre­ lieved polemic against the person of Shammai and against his House. The traditions about Hillel's alleged teachers, Shema'iah-Abtalion, do not add up to much. The anomalous pericope in Mekhilta, concern­ ing the faith that merited splitting the Red Sea, sets the two into stan­ dard dispute-form. Of the other nine traditions, Hillel occurs in three: Hillel/Shammai spoke in the language of their masters Shema'iah -f Abtalion; Hillel quoted Shema'iah-Abtalion, who are introduced in a

256

HISTORY OF

THE

TRADITIONS

gloss of the rise to power story; and Hillel studied with Shema'iahAbtalion even though he was a poor man. Shema'iah-Abtalion further appear in a gloss of the pericope about descent from Sennacherib. One legal precedent, about the suspected adulteress and the bitterwater rite, is told concerning them. It is attested fairly early, but not in the same form as in M. 'Ed., so the primary elements, as I said, seem to be S + A, administered water, Khorkemit. That leaves the Judah b. Dortai story, which relates to nothing else in the whole tradition; Yosi's quotation of S + A concerning Heave-offering; S + A and the high priest; and the legal teaching about marking the animal and the bird (b. Bes. 25a). The Shema'iah-Abtalion traditions differ from those of Simeon b. Shetah, for strikingly absent is any sort of allusion to Josephus-narratives. They are more akin to Judah b. Tabbai or the Yosi's. It seems to me the tradition about Khorkemit is apt to stand among the earliest elements of S + A-materials. Their relationship to Hillel seems, from a literary viewpoint, chiefly a matter of glossing existing Hillel-pericopae and introducing them where they formerly were absent, or taking them for granted in telling Hillel-stories (b. Yoma 35b). I simply do not know what to make of the Judah b. Dortai-story. The S + A-legal materials are occasional and random. They to be sure relate to two important Pharisaic concerns, festival observance and agricultural taboos. But they are too sparse to permit speculation on their likely antecedent traditions. The tradition about administering the bitter-water-rite falls into the group of pericopae alleging the Pharisees ran the Temple. These occur primarily in the Hillel-stratum and afterward. Nothing in the antecedent materials contains the allegation, or even the implication, that such was the case, excluding Yohanan the High Priest and Simeon the Just, regarded by the Pharisees as Pharisees, and the Yosi-cleanness pericope, in which the rulings specifically pertain to Temple-affairs. In that pericope it is not explicitly alleged that Pharisees or Yosi in particular ran the Temple. This is taken for granted. Later on, however, the post-70 masters made a considerable effort to prove that very point. Another theme first occuring here is the stress on master-disciple relationships, underlined in the language-of-the-masters pericope and in other Hillel/S + A materials. S + A have no teachers; everyone thereafter is supposed to. Shammai is never related to them, so the S + A traditions are wholly within the Hillelite tradition, even where Hillel does not appear.

THE

MATTER

OF

HILLEL

257

The Hillel-tradition may be divided into several parts (I, pp. 241-242). First come the Rise-to-Power-Materials: 1. Tos. Pisha 4:13: One time 14th fell on Sabbath. A. Does Pesah override Sabbath? They asked Hillel. He said, Do we have only one? B. Whole courtyard collected against him. He said to them: 1. Continual offering: ge^erah shavah 2. Its season: heqqesh 3. Cutting off: qal vehomer 4. I have received from my masters: Pesah overrides etc. C. They said to him, What will be rule for the people? Apophthegm: Holy spirit is on Israel. People brought Pesah tied to sacrifices. D. On that very day they him nasi. 2. y. Shab. 19:1 re what will be the rule for the people: When he saw the deed he was reminded of the law. He said to them, "Thus have I heard it from Shema'iah and Abtalion." 3. y. Pes. 6:1: This law was lost by the Elders of Bathyra. There is here a certain Babylonian, who served Shema'iah and Abtalion. He knows etc. Proofs are all rejected. Then: He sat and expounded all day, but no one accepted his opinion until he said, Thus have I heard from Shema'iah and Abtalion. Then: Who caused you etc. ? Because you did not serve S + A. Then: Forgot law re knives. Saw peoples' practice. Then: Thus have I heard from S + A. Bathyrans are not integral to the pericope, are merely glossed in at the outset, afterward are ignored. 4. b. Pes. 66a-b: Generally follows y Pes. 6:1. Adds: Because he made others miserable, he forgot his learning, then apophthegm, and he remem­ bered. 5. b. Pes. 66a-b: As long as Hillel lived, no one committed trespass through burnt-offering. He brought it unconsecrated, then con­ secrated it in Temple court, laid on hand, and slaughtered it. This seems t o be a development o f people-brought-knives-story, bined with laying-on-of-hands controversy.

com­

6. b. B.M. 85a: Judah the Patriarch, Bathyrans gave up /^/-position to Hillel It seems to me the Rise-to-Power story cannot come after Judah the Patriarch, not only because it occurs in Tos. Pisha, but also because N E U S N E R , The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 7 0 , III

17

258

HISTORY OF

THE

TRADITIONS

Judah himself refers to the Bathyrans in connection with his "ancestor." That means that some time before Judah the Patriarch, the Bathyrans had to have been associated with the patriarchate, and their deposition from the patriarchate had to have entered the Hillel-rise-to-power materials. Tos. Pisha knows nothing of the Bathyrans or of Shema'iah and Abtalion. If we suppose the Tos. version comes before Judah the Patriarch, we must also place it after Gamaliel II, who never refers to Hillel, but explicitly associates his father, and is himself associated, with the House of Shammai. Since the chains are attested at Usha, the succession from Shema'iah-Abtalion to Shammai-Hillel seems to come somewhat before that time too. Including both the Bathyrans and S + A, who first occur in the later developments of the story, there­ fore would seem to fall at about the same time, and my guess is that time comes between the death of Gamaliel II, ca. 120, and the child­ hood of Judah the Patriarch, ca. 140-150. The purpose of the story thus must be to give the Gamalielean patriarchate a new history, in place of whatever story Gamaliel II told about why Gamaliel I and Simeon b. Gamaliel were in charge of the Pharisaic party. Dropping the old ancestors and reaching back to Hillel coincides with the time that the old pattern of naming is aban­ doned: Judah instead of Gamaliel. This again points toward the effort to reconstruct the patriarchal history. I see no reason that the Tos. Pisha version could not date from before ca. 150 and form a part of the patriarchal history worked out at Usha, along with other historical materials on the Pharisees revised or invented at the same place. I further see no reason to suppose the story was not in written form by Judah the Patriarch's time, since the glosses are just that—glosses of fixed details, not reworkings of considerable segments of tradition. If so, what did the mid-second-century patriarchate gain by the new history of Hillel? First, and foremost, it cemented the tie between the patriarchate and the House of Hillel itself. Gamaliel II presumably acquiesced in Hillelite predominance at Yavneh. Simeon b. Gamaliel, or those around him in the patriarchate, went much further. The House of Shammai no longer carried any weight in the rabbinicalpatriarchal movement. We do not even know whether the Shammaites continued to exist as an organized force within the movement. With the Hillelites, especially the disciples of 'Aqiba, the leading Hillelite of Yavneh, everywhere in charge, the patriarch now had evidence of his own right to stand at the head of the House of Hillel itself, there­ fore to take charge of the rabbinical group.

THE

MATTER

OF

HILLEL

259

A second theme seems important: Hillel ruled the Temple and deter­ mined the cultic laws there. As I have suggested {Development, pp. 291-293), Judah the Patriarch made every effort to include in the authoritative Mishnah materials proving Yohanan b. Zakkai ran the Temple. A motif in all Hillel-materials is the authority of Hillel over the cult. It looks as though the same theme was present, although of secondary importance here. A third element is the little story, tacked on at the end, about how the people, if not prophets, are disciples of the prophets. Their prac­ tice can be relied upon. Since another set of materials, deriving from late Yavneans, carefully explains why Hillel had not received the holy spirit, it is striking to find here the allegation, developed into an apophthegm, that the "holy spirit is upon Israel." And that assertion is put into HillePs mouth. The Houses had debated that very point. The Shammaites had alleged that the echo could not be accepted in making legal decisions, while the Hillelites held the contrary. So this detail seems to me congruent to the Hillelite perspective. The explana­ tion of why the holy spirit was denied to Hillel himself would then come earlier, at Yavneh, as noted above (I, pp. 292-293), and would represent a Shammaite effort to adopt Hillel as precedent for their view of an issue hotly debated at Yavneh itself. Fourth, the glosses about Shema'iah and Abtalion, on the one side, and about the Bathyrans' having to give up office because they had not adequately studied with S + A, but Hillel had, look like early interpolations by an anti-patriarchal hand. The patriarch now is the descendent of Hillel. Rabbis may therefore lecture him about Hillel's subservience to his masters, with the obvious implication that the present patriarch would do well likewise to serve his. Further, just as the Bathyrans had been forced from office by the consensus of the college, attested in the opinions of Shema'iah-Abta­ lion, so the new patriarch must be wary to pay attention to the same matter. Both details, coming together, point toward the same polemic. And this is made entirely explicit: Because Hillel had mistreated sages, he forgot everything he knew, and had to rely for instruction on the practice of common folk. So heaven would support the collegium of the sages in punishing a tyrannical patriarch. The materials on Hillel as a paragon are as follows: 1. Hillel used to fold them together and eat them + E x . 12:8 (Mekh. deR. Simeon b. Yohai to 12:8)

260

HISTORY

OF

THE

TRADITIONS

2. Hillel purchased for poor man a horse and slave + Deut. 15:8 (Tos. Pe ah4:10) >

3. Would have received holy spirit but generation unworthy (Tos. Sot. 13:3) S a m u e l t h e S m a l l + J u d a h b . B a b a v s . : L e a v e Israel a l o n e ; h o l y s p i r i t is u p o n t h e m ( T o s . Pisha 4 : 1 3 ) .

4. Expounded language of common people + Alexandrian Ketuvah (Tos. Ket. 4:9) 5. Coming from the way, what does he say + Ps. 112:7 (y. Ber. 9:3, b. Ber. 60a) 6. Hillel studied though poor (b. Yoma 35b) 7. Hillel preferred Torah to wealth and world to come to this world (b. Sot. 12a) 8. According to painstaking is reward + "he brought them to correct understanding." (ARN Chap. 12) 9. Took baths (Lev. R. 34:3) These stories seem to me not so readily assigned to a particular time or school as the foregoing set. They occur in both early and late col­ lections. One cannot doubt Hillel served as a paragon in story-telling as early as Yavneh. Throughout the later history of the formation of Talmudic traditions it was routine to tell Hillel-stories. I have argued that forms of Hillel-materials come quite early, by Yavneh. But that cannot help us in assigning the substance of the foregoing stories to that, or any other, stage in the development of the Hillel-tradition. Hillel serves as an authority in legal and exegetical materials in the following pericopae: 1.

Re Lev.

2.

Re

11:24 (Sifra Shemini 9:5)

Lev. 13:37 etc. (Sifra Tazri
3. Ordinance re redemption of property (Sifra Behar 4:8) 4. Ordinance

re prosbul

(Sifre Deut. 113)

THE

MATTER

OF

261

HILLEL

5. Hillel prohibits trading in futures (M. B.M. 5:9) Ushan? 6. Food for Sabbath: Hillel prohibited (Tos. Ma. 3:2-4) Judah b. Ilai. 7. Ben He He and Hillel (b. Hag. 9b) I have already commented on the likely point of origin of materials set into ordinance-form, at Yavneh. The Ushans are responsible for some materials; of others we cannot be sure. The tradition on Hillel as a Babylonian emigrant is verified in Yav­ neh, and everywhere taken for granted. It seems to me puzzling that no story of why Hillel left Babylonia was developed; the fact of his migration is frequently referred to, both pointedly, in subscriptions and superscriptions, therefore as a redactional convention, and quite routinely. The references are as follows: A. Subscriptions and Superscriptions 1. Because of this matter Hillel came up from Babylonia (Sifra Tazri'a 9:16) 'Aqiba verifies. 2. This is one of the matters on account of which Hillel came up from Babylonia (Tos. Neg. 1:16) 3. For three things did Hillel come up from Babylonia (y. Pes. 6:1) B. Emigration Taken for Granted 1. Hillel migrated at age 40 (Sifre Deut. 357) 'Aqiba or later. 2. A certain Babylonian and Hillel is his name (y. Pes. 6:1) Late second century. 3. Resh Laqish: Ezra, Hillel, Hiyya came up and restored Torah (b. Suk. 20a) Links Babylonians to restoration of Torah, probably mid-third century.

262

HISTORY OF

THE

TRADITIONS

Hillel moreover is glossed into, or linked with, materials of other mas­ ters, beginning with Yohanan b. Zakkai, ending with Judah the Patriarch, as follows: A. Before Judah the Patriarch 1. Yohanan b. Zakkai and disciples re parah-szcti&ce (Sifre Num. 123) 2. Moses and Hillel (Sifre Deut. 357) 'Aqiban or later. 3. Hillel and Yohanan b. Zakkai—death scene + Prov. 8:21 (y. Ned. 5:6) B. Judah the Patriarch 1. Levi: Hillel from David (y. Ta. 4:2) 2. Yohanan b. Zakkai before Hillel, or Yohanan before Judah the Patriarch (b. Pes. 3b) 3. Resh Laqish: Ezra, Hillel, Hiyya came up and restored Torah (b. Suk. 20a) 4. Judah the Patriarch: Bathyrans gave up ^/-position to Hillel (b. B.M. 85a) Clearly, the inclusion of references to relationships between Judah the Patriarch and Hillel is somewhat more common than with any earlier master. But the evidence is not substantial. The moral sayings of Hillel form a large corpus. At least one of them begins with Sadoq, "Do not make the words of Torah into a crown." HillePs lemma then develops the idea, "He that makes world­ ly use of the crown shall perish." So earlier sayings were assigned to Hillel, in this instance not before ca. 100 A.D., assuming Sadoq at early Yavneh. Simeon likewise seems to gloss scatter/gather. Of course the most famous saying, What is hateful to yourself is one of those wise aphorisms that travelled throughout the ancient world, looking for, and quickly gaining, an appropriate authority in various cultures. Of the same sort is HillePs whole Torah on one/wZ-lemma, an apophthegm with important parallels in the Synoptic accounts of Jesus (above, pp. 78-89 We of course do not know whether Hillel or Jesus "really"

THE

MATTER

OF

263

HILLEL

said any such thing. We do know it was important for tradents to give both authorities a common type of lemma and to set that type into a common literary form, the apophthegm. Many of Hillel's sayings follow a single form, the opposites, whether conditional (Ifyou...) or the more... the more. That form is self-evidently generative, so many of Hillel's discrete sayings may have been produced by the extension of the same aphoristic model to new themes or images. The moral sayings are as follows: 1. M. Avot 2:5-7 a) Imperatives: e.g., Do not separate, judge, say b) Moral opposites: e.g., Brutish man dreads not sin c) The more...the more... (MRBH...MRBH...) 2. Sadoq: Do not make words of Torah a crown. Hillel: He that makes worldly use of crown shall perish (M. Avot 4:5) 3. Do not be seen naked vs. clothed + Qoh. 3:4-5 + opposites + Ps. 119:126.

(Tos. Ber. 2 : 2 1 , 6:24) Simeon re scatter/gather. 4. If you will come to my house I will come to yours + reverse + Ex. 20:24

(Tos. Suk. 4:3) Later partially apophthegmatized: When he saw them observing it im­ properly, properly + if we are here etc., y. Suk. 5:4.

5. Self-abasement/exaltation (Lev. R. 1:5) Only one pericope seemed to reveal a critical attitude toward Hillel: he did not cite Shema'iah-Abtalion accurately (M. 'Ed. 1:3). But the same pericope contains the allegation that he did just that. Perhaps the S + A glosses come in the time of Judah the Patriarch, in the same spirit as indicated earlier. If so, Judah took good care of them by adding at the end a statement in the exact opposite spirit of what had been alleged. Shammai occurs either routinely, or favorably, in only two peri­ copae : A. Shammai Treated Routinely or Favorably 1. Baba b. Buta cites teaching (b. Git. 57a)

264

HISTORY

OF THE

TRADITIONS

2. Shammai quotes Haggai the prophet (b. Qid. 43a) 3. To this, list one may add Shammai's exegeses, above, pp. 40-41, 62-64. Hillel and Shammai, moreover, occur as equals the following: B. H

+

S as

Equals

1. Time vs. interval 2. Hallah 3. Drawn water in ritual pool (M. <Ed. 1:1, 3-5) 4. Controversy for God's sake is Hillel vs. Shammai (M. Avot 5:17) Gloss.

5. When disciples of Shammai and Hillel who had not served adequate­ ly multiplied, disputes multiplied in Israel (Tos. Hag. 2:9) 6. H + S decreed concerning uncleanness of hands (y. Shab. 1:4 etc.) 7. To lay/not to lay (M. Hag. 2:2) 8. Vintage grapes made fit to receive uncleanness (b. Shab. 14b) Of these, nos. 1,2,3,6,7, and 8 correspond in form to Houses-disputes. M. Ed. 1:1, 3-5 and b. Shab. 14b are catalogued as Hillel-Shammai disputes; to the list one must add M. Hag. 2:2, and the development of that list in the uncleanness catalogue, y. Shab. 1:4. Nos. 4 and 5 contradict one another. The former glosses HillelShammai controversies into a saying about controversies for the sake of God. No. 5, which probably comes at about Ushan times, but not much later, since it is interpolated into Yosi's speech about the ad­ ministration of justice in ancient Israel, now accounts for disputes, which are bad, by reference to the inadequate work of the disciples. This would serve as a warning to the students of the new age to learn their traditions carefully. It also absolves Hillel and Shammai of any blame for controversy and discourages the growth of disputes at Usha. In all other materials Shammai serves as a foil to Hillel's greatness or plays the villain to Hillel's hero. A commonplace type contrasts be­ tween Shammai's vice and Hillel's virtue, as follows: c

THE

MATTER

OF

HILLEL

265

9

C. Shammai s Vice + HillePs Virtue 1. All Hillel's deeds were for the sake of heaven (b. Bes. 16a) H e r e S h a m m a i ' s v i r t u e b e c o m e s a sign o f l a c k o f f a i t h .

2. Gentle like Hillel, not impatient like Shammai (b. Shab. 30b-31a, ARN Chap. 15) V a r i o u s stories.

Shammai moreover lacked power—a recurrent theme—and the House of Shammai did not even have accurate records of what he had taught, or, if they did have them, did not follow them: D. Lacked Power 1. Shammai: If times were propitious, I would decree. Court that followed him decreed... (Tos. Shev. 3:10) 2. Shammai held infant is liable to fast on Day of Atonement. They forced him to feed infant. (b. Yoma 77b) 3. Jonathan b. 'Uzziel confounded Shammai in a legal argument (b. B.B. 133b-134a) ( C o m p a r e y. N e d .

5:6.)

E. Differed 1. Houses: Heave-offering vetches are given as food in uncleanness; vs. Shammai: They are eaten dry (M. M.S. 2:4) 2. Re changing Second Tithe money in Jerusalem. House: Change whole sela for copper coins; vs. Shammai: Not change it at all (M. M.S. 2:9) 3. House: Less than egg's bulk conveys uncleanness; vs. Shammai: Must be egg's bulk (M. 'Orl. 2:4-5) ' A q i b a verifies.

4. House: Quarter-^ of bones convey uncleanness in Tent; vs. Sham­ mai: From one bone. (M. 'Ed. 1:7) Joshua and 'Aqiba verify.

5. Bride's stool that lost seat-boards—House: Susceptible. Shammai: Even frame of stool is susceptible.

266

HISTORY

OF

THE

TRADITIONS

Stool fixed to baking trough—House: Susceptible. Shammai: Even one made [to be used] inside it is susceptible (M. Kel. 22:4) Here S h a m m a i rules m o r e strictly than his House.

The traditions seem clear that Shammai's House predominated before 70 A.D., Hillel's House afterward. Evidence of that fact is not only the reports of Gamaliel II about Simeon b. Gamaliel, but also the explanations of the Hillelites for the early predominance of Shammai­ tes and the later rise to power of the House of Hillel. The stories on this subject sometimes admit the House of Shammai "one day" out­ numbered the House of Hillel, so outvoted them. In M. Miq. 4 : 1 , Meir accounts for the Houses' agreement by alleging the Shammaites outvoted the Hillelites. He does not add that the Shammaites murder­ ed Hillelite voters or used a sword to keep them in line. He supplies the terminus ante quern for the story. His reference is routine, not polem­ ical. This story is developed in two directions. First, the Sham­ maites used force to keep out the Hillelite voters. Second, the Sham­ maites used force to make Hillel himself follow their rule in the Temple, over which he supposedly reigned as nasi. I would imagine this story, if widely told, comes before the //^/-materials, for it seems to me unlikely that a story about Hillel's weakness in the very Temple whose cult he supervised and about Hillel's dependence on a loyal Shammaite to retrieve the situation could have been believed by the same people who took for granted that Hillel was also nasi. A further Hillelite polemic was that Shammaites were inconsistent in making legal rulings. This is tied to the use of force on the part of Shammaites in imposing their rulings. Strikingly, this sort of story may be attached to a perfectly well balanced Houses-dispute, as a related but quite separate element. Early Yavneh apparently marks the period of the Houses' most intense competition with one another. That is when Tarfon materials are shaped to include the warning—to an alleged Shammaite—that if you follow Shammaites, you are worthy of death. Tarfon's Sham­ maite practices with respect to Seventh Year produce endangered his life in reference to his own property, according to another story. Whether or not Tarfon-materials were revised to encourage others to avoid Shammaite opinions, or whether he himself said such things, we cannot say. But the spirit of the materials and their early attestation seem good evidence of the state of affairs at Yavneh. Perhaps Dosa's calling on Haggai the prophet to testify against the

THE

MATTER

OF

HILLEL

267

Shammaite position on the daughter's rival provoked a Shammaite allegation that Shammai testified in the name of the same prophet, but on a different matter. One story seems to me entirely neutral, and that is Judah b. Bathyra's tradition that the Shammaites had effected their view of the law in Jerusalem. The allegation that all "purities" in Jerusalem were done in the trough suggests the whole Pharisaic group in the city could make use of a single trough for purifying their dishes. It is consistent with references to the Elders of the House of Shammai and of the House of Hillel all assembling in the same room or in the same house, and with the saying that Hillel had eighty disciples. From this sort of saying emerges the picture of rather small groups. The narrative con­ vention in many stories of the Houses is to have pretty much the whole of the respective Houses, or at least their elders, in the same place at the same time. The stories on why Shammaites predominated and other elements of the anti-Shammaite polemic are as follows: F.

Shammaite

Violence

1. Shammaites ganged up on Hillel in Temple, re laying on of hands + Baba b. Buta saved HillePs law + that very day law was establish­ ed according to Hillel (Tos. Hag. 2:11) 2. House of Shammai outnumbered House of Hillel one day, and they voted etc. (b. Shab. 13b) 3. Shammai silenced Hillel: Hillel: Why inconsistency? Shammai: If you anger me, I will decree... A sword did they plant in school-house. He who enters may enter, but no one leaves. Hillel submitted. Day grievous as day of golden calf etc. (b. Shab. 17a [b. A.Z. 39b—Hillel agreed with Shammai] ) T h e d e c r e e o f g l e a n i n g in p u r i t y , a p a r t f r o m t h e s t o r y , is unanimously in b . A . Z . 3 9 b = b . H u l . 3 6 b , b . S h a b . 1 5 a .

presented

4. One who follows Shammaite rulings deserves to be put to death (M. Ber. 1:3) Tarfon.

5. Shammaites outvoted Hillelites because they murdered Hillelite vo­ ters (y. Shab. 1:4)

268

HISTORY

OF

THE

TRADITIONS

6. And that day (y. Shab. 1 :A—outvoting) was as hard for Israel (Tos. Shab. 1:16) 7. Haggai the prophet lectured that daughter's rival is forbidden * (= House of Hillel) (b. Yev. 16a) Dosa b. Harkinas.

8. Shammaites are inconsistent (b. Shab. 17a, b. Hag. 22a [ = Tos. Ah. 5:11] and elsewhere) 9. Shammaites broke trough (M. Miq. 4:5) J u d a h b . B a t h y r a ' s t r a d i t i o n is n o t p e j o r a t i v e .

It seems to me that the contrary allegation, that the Houses really loved one another (M. Yev. 1:4) represents a later stage in the devel­ opment of the tradition, though it does not mean all materials hostile to Shammaites must come in their present form before the Bar Kokhba war. Further elements in the Hillelite polemic against the House of Shammai had to come to terms with two facts. First, Shammaites did persist in Yavneh. Second, Shammaite precedents were established,, and people did follow them. The Hillelites dealt with the undeniable presence of members of the House of Shammai in two ways. First, they alleged that all good Shammaites were really Hillelites (sometimes including Shammai him­ self). Second, they paid their respect to a bad Shammaite, in Dosa b. Harkinas's pericdpe (b. Yev. 16a), by alleging Shammaites are danger­ ous; they argue well, but fallaciously. The brother of Dosa is the first­ born of Satan! One must keep on one's guard. This is good evidence of the power of the Shammaites at Yavneh. The Hillelite's Shammaites are as follows: G.

The Good

Shammaites

1. Dositheus of Kefar Yatmah, a disciple of the House of Shammai, quotes Shammai as agreeing verbatim with House of Hillel (M.
(Tos. Hag. 2:11)

THE

MATTER

OF

269

HILLEL

3. Yohanan HaHorani followed Hillelite law a) Sukkah (M. Suk. 2:7) b) Cleanness laws (Tos. Suk. 2:3) 4. Certain disciple persuades Joshua of correctness of Shammaite ruling (Tos. Ah. 5:11) T h e r e v e r s i o n is a c c o u n t e d f o r , l a t e r e n t e r s t h e p o l e m i c as p r a i s e f o r Hillelites.

H. Other Shammaites 1. Yo'ezer of the Birah asked Gamaliel re 'Or/ah c

(M. Orl. 2:12) I. Bad Shammaites 1. Son of Harkinas: Take care that he not overwhelm you. He has three hundred arguments to prove that the daughter's rival is permitted (b. Yev. 16a [re M. Yev. 1:4]) As to precedents, the Hillelite tradition asserted, first, that people who follow Shammaite law do so only for themselves, but they agree that for all Israel, the law really follows Hillel: M. Bes 2:6: Simeon b. Gamaliel follows House of Shammai -f"What shall we do with regard to your father's house, which applied the stringent ruling to themselves but the lenient ruling to all Israel?" Second, Shammaite precedents were ignored or suppressed, and, in the spirit of the foregoing, the stories were made into proof that the law really followed the House of Hillel. At best, the Shammaites are left to explain away the precedent whose facts indubitably support the Hillelite position, as follows: 9

J. Shammai s Precedents Apply Only to Shammai 1. Minors are exempt from Sukkah. Shammai once fixed Sukkah for new-born baby. [Rather than: Shammai declares minor liable.] (M. Suk. 2:8) K. Precedents, Even of Shammaites, Support Hillelites 1. Yohanan HaHorani, a Shammaite, had a Sukkah which followed Hillelite rule (M. Suk. 2:7) D e b a t e o n w h a t sages said t o Y o h a n a n a b o u t his Sukkah. H i l l e l i t e s : H e f o l l o w e d o u r l a w . S h a m m a i t e s : [If s o ] t h e y [ r e a l l y ] said t o h i m , I f s u c h has been y o u r c u s t o m . . .

270

HISTORY

OF THE

TRADITIONS

2. Yohanan HaHorani followed Hillelite cleanness rule re moist olives etc. (Tos. Suk. 2:3 [M. <Ed. 4:6] ) 3. Honi the Little followed Hillelite liturgy (Tos. R.H. 2:17) S h a m m a i t e s : T h e t i m e s c a l l e d f o r it. T h u s t h e y a c k n o w l e d g e v a l i d i t y o f Hillelite p r e c e d e n t .

4. Pishon the camel-driver's wife (b. Yev. 107b) Shammaites explain a w a y Hillelite precedent.

5. Helene followed Hillelite instructions (M. Naz. 3:6-7) We observed several instances in which it was alleged that the Hillelites reverted and accepted the Shammaite position. This leaves the Hillelites in full control of the law, even where they are obliged to accept the opposition's view of a particular case. Yet when we examine the reversions, we find that the Hillelites in any event do not concede very much: L.

Reversions

1. Woman testifies re husband's death (M. Yev. 15:1-3) Hillelites a g r e e , b u t S h a m m a i t e s e x p l i c i t l y a c c e p t Hillelite p r e c e d e n t . S h a m m a i t e s m o r e o v e r f o l l o w Hillel h i m s e l f in i n t e r p r e t i n g l a n g u a g e o f Ketuvah.

2. Half-slave/half-freeman (M. Git. 4:5) Hillelites d o n o t g i v e u p t h e i r v i e w t h a t s u c h a status is w i t h i n t h e l a w . S h a m m a i t e a r g u m e n t a g a i n s t t h e status i n l a w is i g n o r e d .

3. Siphon is clean M . K e l . 1 0 : 1 contradicts Hillelites; reversion in M . K e l . 9 : 2 preserves t h e v i e w t h a t l a w r o u t i n e l y f o l l o w s Hillelites, w h o h e r e h a v e m e r e l y changed their mind.

4. Baking-oven and 'tent' (M. Oh. 5:1-4) Debate invented b y J o s h u a accounts f o r Hillelite r e v e r s i o n ; here the Hillelites = J o s h u a , T o s . A h . 5 : 1 1 .

The Hillelites, finally, had to account for their own success. The

THE

MATTER

OF

271

HILLEL

Amoraim make the Hillelite victory into a matter of superior moral character and higher intellectual ideals, on the one side, and heavenly intervention, on the other. The Aqibans, much earlier, supplied proofs to support Hillelite positions (pp. 40-42), and from that fact we may infer either that the Aqibans held that Scriptures proved the correctness of Hillelite opinion, or that the 'Aqibans, agreeing with Hillelite opinion, found in Scripture satisfactory proof of its correctness. It comes down to the same thing. c

c

M. The Hillelites Triumphed Because: 1. The echo favored Hillelites (b. <Eruv. 13b) 2. Hillelites were kindly, modest, open-minded c

(b. Eruv. 13b) 3. Hillelites reverted (y. Suk. 2:8) 4. Echo at Yavneh (y. Yev. 6:6) All Amoraic.

Having examined the elements of the Hillel-traditions and the Hille­ lite polemic against Shammai and his House, we must now ask, Which is prior, the Houses-corpus or the Hillelite polemic? Clearly, the Houses-form, and with it, the balanced assessment of the value of the opinion of each House, are verified in the earliest Yavnean stratum. The first sure verifications of the anti-Shammaite polemic, however, appear at the same time, with the Tarfon-stories, the Aqiban exegeses, and related materials. We therefore cannot main­ tain that either set of materials must antedate the other. The Housescorpus certainly comes from circles responsible for the compromise that produced a balanced form and careful attention to the opinions of each party. The Hillelite-polemic must derive from the Hillelite circles at Yavneh, and its later expansion testifies to their growing strength over the formation of the traditions. But the later Hillelites, Aqibans, and others, who were in full control of the formation of the rabbinic traditions of the Pharisees, faithfully preserved the early Houses-corpus and both literally and in spirit even followed its forms. Since the Houses-corpus is nearly entirely of legal interest, and the anti-Shammaite polemic almost wholly pertains to the effects, but not the substance, of the law, we may observe that the Hillelites and their successors paid much more attention to the impartial recording and preservation of the laws than they did to the balanced and untendentic

c

272

HISTORY OF

THE

TRADITIONS

ous narration of stories about the conditions of the enforcement of those laws. In other words, history might be falsified, but never law. In this respect, the Houses-debates represent a striking illustration of the Hillelites' willingness to give the opposition a full and fair hearing, by contrast to the allegation that Shammaites used force. While the form may be early, we noticed that the Houses-debates were fabricated in later strata as well, and this is congruent to the formation of Housesdisputes along the same impartial lines. Moreover, the Houses-corpus far exceeds in quantity, all the more so in the importance of its contents, the whole of the anti-Shammaite polemic. The willingness of the Hillelites to assert they intermarried with Shammaites, even though the purity of their family line, to which all Jews laid great importance, would be marred by following the Shammaites' false law, is similarly striking. While the need for com­ promise was great, its consequence was to call into question the family purity of the subsequent generations of rabbis and others. That must account for Simeon b. Yohai's effort to qualify the matter, also for the Babylonian gemara*s later pericope on whether the Shammaites had ever actually carried out their legal rulings or had simply taught them in theory, but in practice, followed Hillelite law (b. Yev. 15a and following). The net impression is precisely that discerned by the early Amoraim: the Hillelites really did in the main behave toward the opposition in a kindly, modest, and open-minded way. Since heaven was apt to recog­ nize and reward such behavior, it was no accident that the echo at Yavneh (if heard only after Judah the Patriarch) favored the Hillelites. Still, had the Shammaites triumphed at Yavneh and the patriarchate remained in their hands, the Houses-corpus would testify concerning them in precisely the same way. So I take the Houses-corpus as the best possible evidence of the true spirit of the early rabbis and of their Pharisaic forebears. i v . GAMALIEL AND SIMEON. YOHANAN B. ZAKKAI.

The traditions about masters after Shammai and Hillel and not related to the Houses-materials are not substantial. Gamaliel and Simeon, the next patriarchs, without a paired Av Bet Din, are not represented as participating in the Houses-disputes, nor are they even made to refer to their "ancestor, Hillel." Omitting reference to exegeses which are not decisively attributable

GAMALIEL

AND

SIMEON. Y O H A N A N

B. Z A K K A I

273

to Gamaliel, we find only a few pericopae. In some, Gamaliel is merely consulted, then brings a question to the Chamber of Hewn Stone, and in others, he is related to the disciples of the House of Shammai, for whom he serves as an authority. In M. Orl. 2:12, Gamaliel is consult­ ed by a Shammaite; his opinion is preserved verbatim in the name of Eliezer b. Hyrcanus. Temple-practices of Gamaliel's house are record­ ed. Gamaliel and Yohanan b. Zakkai are shown to require even ran­ dom meals to be eaten in the Sukkah. Gamaliel made an ordinance with respect to the right of witnesses to the New Moon to move on the Sabbath in Jerusalem. Yohanan b. Zakkai later set aside the ordinance, since it was no longer necessary, and this seems to me a well-attested tradition, and probably an accurate one. Gamaliel of Yavneh records the opinion of Gamaliel the Elder in a ruling about the remarriage of the wives of men killed at Tel Arza; the opinion also persists verbatim without attribution to Gamaliel. It is well-attested in early Yavneh, certainly by 100 A.D. Eliezer and Joshua oppose the Gamaliel-ruling. Gamaliel-sayings gloss the record of Admon's decisions; and those materials are attested at early Yavneh in Yohanan b. Zakkai-collections. Gamaliel's further rules, concerning the bill of divorce and collecting a marriage-settlement, are set in ordinance-form, which does not seem to fit. Halafta preserves the recollection, cited by his son Yosi, of Gamaliel's rule against the Targum of Job. Judah b. Ilai refers to Gamaliel's letters to the dia­ spora and cites the standard text. I should not be inclined to doubt the authenticity of a single one of the foregoing traditions. Most find attestation in Yavneh, the rest in Usha. The chains of tradition frequently are specified and strengthen the impression that the materials were well attested. Gamaliel II cites Gamaliel I or serves as part of the chain of Gamaliel I-rulings (e.g. Tos. A.Z. 4:9). Only a few items in the whole tradition compare to the edifying narratives told about Hillel, e.g. Hanina b. Dosa's healing of Gamaliel's son (b. Ber. 34b) and Gamaliel, the king and the queen (b. Pes. 88b). Gamaliel has no moral sayings or other sorts of apoph­ thegms. Simeon's traditions are not substantial. We have the story of his ruling on the cost of a pair of doves, which seems to me pure fantasy. Gamaliel's recollections of his father occur in reference to how the house of father gave pe*ah, and how his father dealt with a Sadducee in the same alley, with reference to the 'eruv (but this comes from Meir-Judah). Joshua refers to a letter of Simeon b. Gamaliel and c

274

HISTORY OF

THE

TRADITIONS

Yohanan b. Zakkai. Simeon b. Gamaliel juggled on the festival of Sukkot, knew how to do the prostration (Tos. Suk. 4:4). The context is the same as Hillel's mystical sayings, but Simeon is not related to Hillel. Gamaliel, or Simeon his son, blessed a gentile woman on the Temple mount (b. A.Z. 20a, y. A.Z. 1:9). Evidence that Simeon b. Gamaliel, and his son, Gamaliel II, were Shammaites, is as follows (and note L. Finkelstein, Akiba [Philadel­ phia, 1962] pp. 304-6, who adduces evidence of a less probative char­ acter) : A. Simeon b. Gamaliel 1. M. Eruv. 6:2: Gamaliel II reports his father followed Shammaite view re 'eruv. c

1. 2. 3.

4. 5.

B. Gamaliel II b. Ber 53a: House of Gamaliel avoided interrupting study. b. Ber. 43a: Gamaliel, "I shall decide [argue] in favor of the House of Shammai." Tos. Shab. 1:22: Gamaliel's house followed Shammaite rule re bringing washing to gentile launderer before the Sabbath (Eleazar b. R. Sadoq); M. Shab. 1:9: Simeon b. Gamaliel refers to father's house, meaning Gamaliel II. M. 'Eruv. 6:2: Gamaliel II reports his father—Simeon I— followed Shammaite rule on 'eruv. M. Suk. 3:9: Aqiba reports Gamaliel and Joshua follow Shammaite rule re lulav. c

Speculative.

6. M. Bes. 2:6-7: Gamaliel like House of Shammai: a) Hot food not covered on festival for Sabbath. b) Candle-stick not put together on festival. c) Not bake large cakes. 7. b. Yev. 15a: Gamaliel married brother's wife's rival (= House of Shammai). Hillelites were not apt to make up materials to show that Simeon b. Gamaliel and his son Gamaliel II of Yavneh were Shammaites. It was not to their advantage. Either they were too weak to take over, in which event they would not have benefited from the admission that the Yavnean patriarch and his Jerusalemite father had favored the opposition. Or they were sufficiently strong to force the patriarch to conform to their position, in which case they would have done well to allege the patriarchate had always conformed. So the House of Gamaliel II himself must be held responsible for these materials. It is

GAMALIEL AND

S I M E O N . Y O H A N A N B. Z A K K A I

275

a mark of the accuracy of their view of matters, also of the likelihood that the materials were not later on revised to present a different picture. The likelihood is that Hillelite predominance at Yavneh comes with the rise of Aqiba, and the real exclusion of Shammaites from the power to frame traditions and adjudge legal disputes must have taken place sometime between ca. 100 and ca. 120, by which point the Shammaites were already losing hold, so that the Hillelites could safely conciliate the defeated party. A further question remains: What of Yohanan b. Zakkai? He is curiously absent from the Houses-materials. His disciples apparently split among the Houses, with Eliezer generally, though not always, taking the Shammaite view, or himself serving as the House of Sham­ mai, and with Joshua mostly, though not always, on the other side. The other disciples drop away. One is intermarried with the patriarch's family, as we observed. So it looks as if two of Yohanan's circle of five fit in with the Shammaite circle, one with the Hillelite. Of Eleazar b. Arakh we know nothing, but evidently his absence from Yavneh may be taken as fact. The Houses were important only at Yavneh, not in whatever other schools or master-disciple-circles thrived else­ where. The other disciples are of no consequence. The master himself poses the real problem. He should be Av Bet Din along with the Nasi, Simeon b. Gamaliel, in which case he would presumably represent the Hillelites. But no one made that allegation, and we may take for granted that it was unlikely. On the other hand, the story that places Yohanan with Simeon b. Gamaliel comes from Joshua. Perhaps the story contains the hidden allegation that Yohanan was head of the House of Hillel, according to Joshua, the Hillelite. But Joshua never said so, nor did anyone but Gamaliel II call Simeon a Shammaite. I therefore doubt the Joshua-letter-pericope is meant to make that point at all. As we review the pericopae in which Yohanan appears with pre-70 masters, we find the following: c

c

1. Joshua: Yohanan + Simeon b. Gamaliel—letter (Midrash Tannaim ed. Hoffmann pp. 175-6) 2. Joshua: Yohanan + Gamaliel+eat in Sukkah (M. Suk. 2:5) 3. Joshua: Yohanan + Hanan + Admon + Gamaliel (M. Ket. 13:1, 2)

276

HISTORY OF

THE

TRADITIONS

4. Joshua: Yohanan has tradition from Moses; no mention of Hillel, Gamaliel, Simeon (M. <Ed. 8:7) 5. Eliezer: Yohanan has tradition from Moses; no mention of Hillel, Gamaliel, Simeon (M. Yad. 4:3) 6. Hanina b. Dosa: Gamaliel, Yohanan b. Zakkai—heal sons (b. Ber. 34b) 7. Hillel had eighty disciples: Yohanan + Jonathan b. 'Uzziel (b. Suk. 28a) 8. Yohanan and daughter of Naqdimon b. Gorion (b. Ket. 66b) The Tannaitic stratum thus exhibits the striking failure of both Joshua and Eliezer to link Yohanan to Hillel. Joshua ties Yohanan to Simeon; anonymous materials link Yohanan to Gamaliel (nos. 2, 3). The other pericopae are of no interest. Now we may take it as fact that Yohanan b. Zakkai lived in Jerusalem before 70 A.D. He should, therefore, have known about Hillel and Shammai and their Houses. Since Hillel, Shammai, and the Houses probably were historical personalities and institutions, it looks as if Yohanan was not associated either with the early masters (presumably because they came before his time) or with the Houses, but taught as an independent master within the Pharisaic group, organized his own circle of disciples, and occupied a modest place in the life of pre-70 Pharisaic Jerusalem. At Yavneh, after the destruction, no one took the trouble to allege he had earlier played any significant role in the leadership of the party. It may be that the organization of the party under the nasi and av bet din is the discovery of later Yavnean or (more likely) Ushan historians, for it was the Yavneans, then the Ushans who developed these offices into important bases for power within the rab­ binical group and in Jewish Palestinian government. Ushans supply the M. Hag. gloss on that matter (I, pp. 11-13). The position of Yohanan in Jerusalem seems not to have brought him into relationship with the Houses. If, as I suggested above, the Houses themselves were not substantial in numbers, then it was quite possible for several Pharisaic circles to flourish in the same city with­ out having their various masters enter into the traditions of the several circles. Yohanan's career at Yavneh would have been too brief for

GAMALIEL AND

SIMEON. Y O H A N A N

B. Z A K K A I

277

him to make much of the disputes of the Houses, if they had assembled at Yavneh in his times. He probably died about a decade after the destruction. It may have taken the Houses at least that long to re­ constitute themselves at Yavneh. What of Eliezer and Joshua? They say nothing about Yohanan in relationship to either House, because they either had no traditions associating him with a House or no motive to invent them. My view is that they had every reason not to assign the master to one or the other of the Houses. At the outset the Houses cannot have been very important. Their importance comes with Aqiba, Tarfon, and Gamaliel. Further, since Eliezer and Joshua seem to have gone over to the Shammaites and Hillelites, respectively, they had either to remain si­ lent on the master's association with one or the other House, or to tell contradictory stories about his relationships with the antecedent cir­ cles. Because for several decades they lived in the same time and place, they were likely to have said nothing at all, rather than to have alleged what could be immediately challenged and refuted. The chief Yavnean disciples of Yohanan associated themselves with the two Houses, probably because had they not done so, they would have been left out of the mainstream of Yavnean affairs. Gamaliel was a Shammaite. His chief opposition was Hillelite. Had Eliezer and Joshua maintained an aloof attitude toward the Houses, all the more so toward the issues debated by them and the formulations of Housestraditions, they in effect would have exiled themselves from Yavnean affairs. So the course of Yavnean politics, to begin with external to Joshua and Eliezer, drew the two disciples of Yohanan into discus­ sions for which their master had not prepared them. The substance of their traditions of Yohanan (Development, pp. 277, 288-9) portray the master according to the model of the disciple. Eliezer's Yohanan ruled on the garments for the heifer-ceremony; conducted a good court; made Yavnean decrees; issued the ruling about tithing in Moab and Ammon in the Seventh Year (above, pp. 170-171); gave instructions on cleanness laws; and died just as did his disciple, Eliezer. The two circles together may be responsible for the beginnings of the escape story. Eliezer's Yohanan like Eliezer himself was therefore a good judge, legislator, and conservator of traditions. Joshua's Yohanan also ruled on the garments for the heifer ceremony; saw Merkavah-visions; ruled on the uncleanness of the third loaf; made decrees at Yavneh; ruled on the marriage of an Zr^-family into c

278

HISTORY

OF

THE

TRADITIONS

the priesthood; spoke of Elijah's mission to the priesthood; ruled on tithing food, and perhaps made a purity rule. What is important, as I said, is that while the disciples make the master pretty much in their own image, they do not link him to legal issues debated by the Houses (except tithing in Moab and Ammon). My theory, therefore, is that Yohanan was not connected to the Houses before 70, and that afterward his disciples had either no motive or no opportunity to establish such a connection. The silence on the Hillel-relationship in Eliezer's and Joshua's traditions may therefore be part of a larger compromise between the two great disciples: Better say nothing at all than make the master either a Hillelite or a Shammaite. But if Gamaliel was a Shammaite and if Gamaliel also deposed Yohanan, then the Hillelites would have had a strong motive to pick up Yohanan and make him a central figure in the establishment of Yavneh and in the formation of his traditions, which accounts for the inclusion and preservation of important Yohanan-traditions in 'Aqiban collections, despite the fundamental disagreement between Yohanan and Aqiba about war. This theory supposes that the Houses in fact were historical in­ stitutions and did flourish in pre-70 Jerusalem. But we have no evi­ dence of that fact in external sources. Strikingly, none at all appears in materials concerning Gamaliel I and Simeon b. Gamaliel, as I said. Luke-Acts knows Gamaliel but not Hillel, Shammai, or their Houses. Of greater consequence, neither Josephus nor Paul has never heard of the Houses, and each claims he grew up in the Pharisaic movement. So one may argue that the silence of external sources on the Houses alongside their abundant evidence on the Pharisees as a group, both prove that the Houses are primarily a Yavnean phenomenon, perhaps even a literary convention, and that alone. I find it difficult to accept this view. While the failure of the Synoptic materials to refer to the Houses is striking, it cannot be decisive. The primary focus of the Synoptic materials is upon the Pharisees as a group and their relationships to the early Church ("Why do your disciples not..."). The internal politics of the party are of no concern to the Christian story-tellers. We have no reason to suppose the Chris­ tians discerned inner groupings within Pharisaism, any more than the rabbis cared to figure out relationships between Paul and Peter. To them, Christians were followers of Jesus; more than that was incon­ sequential. Josephus poses a more serious problem. He knows Simeon b. c

GAMALIEL AND

S I M E O N . Y O H A N A N B. Z A K K A I

279

Gamaliel, for one thing. His experience of the party was personal and extended over a period of years. But if we had a history of pre-70 Pharisaism from Joshua and Eliezer, that history would probably make no more of the Houses than did Josephus; their Yohanan-tradi­ tions are clear on this point. Eleazar b. Arakh, in "retirement" at Emmaus, was supposedly an important disciple, but Eliezer and Joshua make no reference to him. If the Houses were relatively small and constituted only one part of the Pharisaic group in Jerusalem, a still smaller segment of Pharisaism as a whole, then Josephus need not have known the Houses at all, or, more likely, thought them noteworthy. To him Shammai and Hillel would have represented merely other masters of the party, no more important than was Yo­ hanan b. Zakkai, of whom he says nothing despite the common Roman policy shared by Josephus and Yohanan. The centrality of the Houses in the rabbinic record of pre-70 Pharisaism derives from the importance of the Houses in the formation of Yavnean and later tradi­ tions, not from the place they held in pre-70 times. A second argument in favor of the Houses as historical institutions depends upon the verifications listed above (pp. 199-201). While Eliezer and Joshua were Shammaite and Hillelite, respectively, we noticed some traditions in which the positions were reversed. The most important, obviously, is b. B.M. 59b, which makes Eliezer ac­ cept, and Joshua reject, the testimony of the echo, thus making Eliezer a Hillelite, and Joshua a Shammaite. Whatever the facts of the matter, we cannot reasonably allege that either master in fact wholly constitut­ ed the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel respectively. They do supply materials to the Houses or contribute to discussions of opinions laws debated by the Houses. Sometimes Joshua's name is dropped, and House of Hillel substituted, and the same is so of Eliezer. But this does not make the House into the man. It merely suggests that some of the masters' traditions were assimilated into, then oblit­ erated by, the respective Houses. This stands to reason if the Houses actually were important Yavnean parties with significant power over the formation of traditions. We have no grounds to make Joshua into the whole House of Hillel, Eliezer into the House of Shammai, and to trace the historical Houses back to the men themselves. And there is a very good reason not to: Why not "House of Eliezer" and "House of Joshua"? Since Yavneans from Gamaliel, a contem­ porary of the disciples of Yohanan, to the slightly later figures, Tarfon, Eleazar b. Azariah, 'Aqiba, and the still later Yavneans, all c

c

280

HISTORY OF

THE

TRADITIONS

refer to the Houses-pericopae, why should they thereby have meant to refer to the opinions of masters whom they actually knew, and, in some instances, served as disciples ? Why omit the real authorities ? And further, why House of Shammai and House of Hillelt Jumping back over Gamaliel and Simeon to Houses formed by masters at least half-a-century prior to Yavneh makes little sense, if, in the intervening years, Houses tracing themselves to Shammai and Hillel did not ac­ tually flourish in Jerusalem itself. To be sure, we know the names of no Hillelites before 70, and only a few ("good") Shammaites. But that is because all the pre-70 materials were thoroughly revised at Yav­ neh, and the names of individual Houses' authorities tended to be sub­ sumed into the traditions of the Houses themselves. Yavneans had no obvious motive to link themselves to fictitious parties. And there was always Gamaliel, who represented his father, and who was himself represented, as a Shammaite. To be sure, the opposi­ tion for that very reason might have taken Hillel for its historical authority—but that is all the more reason to think that pre-70 Jerusalem knew a House of Hillel, along with a House of Shammai. So, in all, it seems to me that the Houses did flourish in Jerusalem before the de­ struction, as small circles, perhaps not much different in character from, or larger in size than, the circle of Yohanan and his disciples. And this leads to the final question: Do Hillel and Shammai stand as historical figures behind the Houses and did they found the Houses? And if so, do the rulings of the Houses in hundreds of specific legal problems follow general principles first laid down by the founders of the Houses themselves? Here we have no evidence at all, except for the existence of the Houses themselves, but that evidence seems to me sufficient to point toward an unequivocal and affirmative answer. Through the laws we may claim to reach legal principles held by the masters who founded the Houses. I should be inclined to claim that the historical Hillel and Shammai stand behind elements of the Houses' traditions. I should not, at this juncture, want to specify which ones. The materials of Hanina Prefect of the Priests were largely redacted in the pericopae of Yavnean masters. While many of the sayings relate to Temple times, the traditions are Yavnean. Many of them are veri­ fied in early Yavneh, either by references of Aqiba, Ishmael, and others, or by their inclusion in the pericopae of other Yavnean masters. The corpus is fundamentally sound. That is, Hanina is apt to have made these statements. Whether he knew what he was talking about, and, if he did, accurately reported it, I cannot say. c

THE

YAVNEAN

STRATUM

281

v. THE YAVNEAN STRATUM

Having listed the pericopae verified by Yavneans (pp. 199-209, 223230), we now seek to characterize the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees which are first attested there. What we describe is not what Yavneans said about the pre-70 Pharisees. We cannot know all that they said and thought, for materials first verified in later strata, or occurring for the first time in Mishnah-Tosefta or even afterward, may have roots in traditions known at Yavneh or before that time. Furthermore, rabbinic traditions not specifically attributed or referring to named pre-70 Pharisees and the Houses have not been considered at all. What we want to know is simply the configuration of the tradi­ tion indubitably known and regarded as authoritative and normative at Yavneh, then at Usha. We obviously cannot extrapolate from the known to the unknown or allege that the materials not explicitly related to pre-70 Pharisaism, or not attributed to any named authority, play no part in Yavnean and Ushan reflections on pre-70 Pharisaism. Of a historical nature is the tradition on Simeon b. Shetah's han­ ging women in Ashqelon; the letters of Simeon b. Gamaliel and Yo­ hanan b. Zakkai; the reference to Yosi b. Yo'ezer's uncleanness rulings; and the references of Gamaliel II to Gamaliel I and to Simeon b. Gamaliel (above, p. 202). On this basis, we simply could not reconstruct a coherent account of pre-70 Pharisaism. We find no effort at periodization, no attention to the lists of authorities of the party (excepting, possibly, Abba Saul's verification of M. Hag. 2:2), no overview of what had gone before 70. The pericopae of a historical character are random and episodic. Even if we add a few biographical reminiscences, the picture is not changed. The primary concern of Yavneans was with the Houses and their laws. The Houses obviously persisted in Yavneh as discernible groups. Their disagreements on law clearly contributed to setting the agenda for Yavnean discussion. The work of Yavneh consisted, first, in establishing viable forms for the organization and transmissions of the Houses-material. These forms obliterated whatever antecedent materials were available, for, as I said, we may assume the respective Houses shaped autonomous materials, not merely in antithetical relationship to the opposition, and handed down those materials in coherent units. The Yavneans, second, made considerable progress in redacting antecedent materials in the forms they created. We have already listed the areas of law to which

282

HISTORY

OF

THE

TRADITIONS

they gave most attention (pp. 199-209). The Yavnean stratum is vir­ tually exhausted by those materials. It also is possible, as I said, that much of the anti-Shammaite polemic of the Hillelites may derive from Yavnean times, when the issues separating the parties still were hotly debated. v i . THE USHAN STRATUM

From a legal viewpoint, the Ushan verifications do not significantly alter the picture yielded by the Yavnean ones (pp. 231-234). The areas of law on which the Houses legislated do not appreciably expand. What becomes commonplace is the revision of earlier Houses-mate­ rials. We find in some later Yavnean pericopae a few items in which a master alleges the Houses did not really differ about the matter on which it is alleged they differed. But rather, on that matter they were in complete agreement, very often on the Hillelite side. They really differed concerning a much finer point of law. In Ushan pericopae this mode of interpretation of Houses-pericopae becomes commonplace, and in the circles of Judah the Patriarch it predominates to the nearexclusion of all other sorts of commentary. This means that in the study of the Houses-materials, the Ushans were prepared both to revise what they had, and to investigate the legal principles under­ lying the antecedent materials, extending actual disputes to the most ambiguous possible matters. This mode of study signifies that the Ushans and the circle of Judah the Patriarch found the Houses-mate­ rials especially interesting as sources for legal theory, no longer attend­ ing to the actualities of the earliest disputes, if they had access to such information to begin with. And this further implies that the historical Houses lay sufficiently far in the background so that legal theory, rather than practical politics, might become the focus of inquiry. At the same time, as I said, Ushans gave considerable effort to the working out and redaction of historical materials. Indeed, most veri­ fiable historical materials in the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees are attested for the first time at Usha. It seems that the Ushans, aware of the need to reconstruct out of the remnants of pre-140 rabbinic traditions a viable legal and political structure, at the same time sought to establish historical continuities between themselves and the earlier masters. This was done in part by telling about the pre-70 masters and attempting to systematize and organize their history, not merely their legal traditions. While redacting 'Aqiban materials, the Ushans in­ cluded in the normative tradition as much as they could about an-

THE

USHAN

STRATUM

283

cients, back to Moses. So the Mosaic origins of the Oral Torah and the history of the Oral Torah from Moses down to Usha itself supplied the primary theme of Ushan historians. That seems to me to signify awareness of a lack of continuity with the past, just as the Yavneans' apparent indifference to historical questions tends to suggest a strong sense that nothing much had changed (p. 228). It is still another mark of the abyss separating pre-from post-Bar Kokhban times. It suggests that the real break in the history of the Pharisaic-rabbinic movement comes not at 70, with the destruction of the Temple, but at 140, with the devastation of southern Palestine and the reconstitution of the rabbinic movement and the patriarchal government in the north. The Ushans evidently are responsible for introducing into the normative tradition various historical themes. Simeon the Just and Yohanan the High Priest and their heavenly messages first occur in pericopae apparently redacted at Usha. Hillel becomes a central figure. His migration from Babylonia is taken for granted; his rise to power is the subject of serious historical efforts; his sayings about futures, his ordinances about the redemption of property, his expounding the language of common people, some of his moral sayings—these are materials first attested at Usha. Part of the reason may be, as I have suggested, the renewed interest of the patriarchate, now under Simeon b. Gamaliel, in discovering for itself more agreeable ancestors than the discredited Gamaliel II. And part of the reason (for it was not a patriarchal venture alone) must be the interest in recovering usable heroes from within Pharisaism itself, in place of Bar Kokhba and other messianic types. A further, though, I think, minor, sub-theme of Hillelmaterials was to stress that masters came to Palestine from Babylonia, not the reverse; at this time important masters had located themselves in Babylonia and others tended to leave Palestine for foreign parts. The Houses-disputes, now well-known, had to explained. This was attributed to the failure of disciples. The same theme recurs in the grapecluster-pericope, certainly an Ushan invention. Since, as Gary G. Porton has shown, Bar Kokhba had made extensive use of the sym­ bol of the grapecluster on his coins and was the first to do so (the sym­ bol occurs only once, on a coin of Archelaus, before his time), it stands to reason that the characterization of Pharisaic masters as grape­ clusters, bearers of the abiding blessing, was neither accidental nor irrelevant to the Ushan situation. The claim seems to be that sages, not messiahs, are the source of blessing. This theme then is tied into the issue of the disputes of the former generations. Disputes are traced to

284

HISTORY OF

THE

TRADITIONS

the end of the grapeclusters, with the concommitant warning that new disputes will call into disrepute the work of the Ushans as well. Therefore people had better learn their lessons well and avoid con­ troversy. And to this theme is tied still another: Hillel, Samuel the Small, and Judah b. Baba all would have received the holy spirit, but the generation was unworthy. At Usha this has obvious implications: those who now claim to receive the holy spirit are charlatans. No one,, not even the great Hillel, had received it. Furthermore, the unworthiness of the generation prevented it then, and if the generation now does not conform to the Torah, it too cannot hope to receive divine communications. The grapecluster-pericope is only one effort to periodize the history of ancient times. Another is represented by the Meir-Judah discussion on the Pharisaic chains; to lay/not to lay is verified at Usha. Just as the supernatural history was divided into periods, so too was the history of the Pharisaic party itself worked out in terms of the names of the presiding authorities in each stage of the party's history. The dispute about the relative places of Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah is closely related to this matter. Meir and Judah seem primarily responsible for the provision of a history for Pharisaism, Judah b. Baba for the account of the supernatural history. Yosi b. Halafta did not know the uncleanness-chain, and this may mean either that it comes later than Usha, or that it was made up in a different circle and not transmitted to Sepphoris, where he conducted his school, during his lifetime. Meir and Judah likewise debate the circumstances of the founding of the Temple of Onias in Alexandria. Judah supplies the letter of Gamaliel and the Elders to the Diaspora, here following the model of Joshua's letter of Simeon and Yohanan, assuming the latter is validly attributed and, indeed, is prior because of that attribution. Judah is responsible for the precedent about the Helene story, which shows an interest in first-century Pharisaic history. Likewise, who prepared the heifer-ceremony is discussed at Usha. So the four central is­ sues of sacred history, the history of the supernatural, the history of the messianic blessing, the history of the Pharisaic party and of the Oral Torah, and the history of the cult—all were worked out at Usha. If we now review the Ushan history of Pharisaism, we come to the following picture: from the time of Moses onward, the divine blessing inhered in the grapeclusters. These were men who bore the special grace of God. They lasted to the time of the Yosi's, after which dissensions split the Oral Torah into many parts, and the blessing

THE

USHAN

STRATUM

285

was lost. But it was restored by Judah b. Baba, who had ordained the surviving students of 'Aqiba. Those very students now dominate at Usha. So the grapecluster-blessing of ancient times has been restored. If the disciples of Usha learn their lessons and satisfactorily serve their masters, the blessing will persist. And the grapecluster, every­ one knew, was the sign of the messiah. So on the unity of the rabbinic group at Usha depended the hope of Israel for the coming of the Messiah, on that unity and not on the pretentions of messianic generals. In the meanwhile, none should suppose that the chain has been broken that extends from Usha back to Sinai. On the contrary, the list of the masters from Sinai onward demonstrates the perfect continuity of the tradition. What began at Sinai endures to this very day. Heavenly messages came to worthy men in the past—Simeon the Just and Yohanan the High Priest were even able to tell what was happening at distant places. Hillel himself alleged that the holy spirit was upon Israel. So those who today want to rely upon the echo and upon the holy spirit may take comfort. However, Hillel himself did not receive the holy spirit, and the reason was the un worthiness of his contemporaries. Just as the decline of generations and the rise of disputes had withdrawn the blessing of the grapecluster, and with it the messianic hope, from Israel, so the unworthiness of the generation has deprived Israel of its spiritual gift of receiving revelation. The stress on sin as the cause for the thwarting both of the mes­ sianic hope and of the capacity to receive the marks of divine concern corresponds to the message of the Yohanan b. Zakkai-circle after the destruction of the Temple: Take comfort, for he who punished you for your sins can be relied upon to recognize your penitence and to respond to and reward your regeneration. Here too the comfort is that Israel's own sin, and not the might of a foreign conqueror, ac­ counts for Israel's present condition. These primary spiritual concerns for the Messiah and for receiving direct divine communications sug­ gest that people claimed to have heavenly messages in Bar Kokhban times. But they certainly point toward the messianic claim of Bar Kokhba himself. Aqiba's students could not affirm the master's view that Bar Kokhba had been the messiah. What they could and did allege was that the messianic blessing remained intact, enduring within the rabbinical group itself. This accomplished two important purposes. First, it saved from the debacle of Bar Kokhba the remnant of the messianic hope. Second, it made certain that anyone who was subject to the influence of the rabbis would reject the notion that someone c

286

HISTORY

OF

THE

TRADITIONS

who was not a rabbi might again enjoy the sponsorship of rabbis in asserting a messianic claim. The Temple lay in ruins, and now prospects of rebuilding it were hardly encouraging. The founding of a Temple not in Jerusalem was attributed to disreputable persons. Anyone who proposed to build a Temple in some place safer than Jerusalem, as did Onias in Leontopolis, could not hope to enjoy the support of Palestinians or the approval of the rabbis. This message was brought by Ushans to Hananiah, Joshua's nephew, in Babylonia {History, I, pp. 122-130). The patriarch descended from the Babylonian, Hillel, not from those discredited in the tumult of the approach of Bar Kokhba's war (above, pp. 256-259). Hillel had been a Babylonian, but had had to endure poverty in order to study in Palestine, and all his power depend­ ed upon that study. Therefore the rabbis going abroad should know it is better to remain in Palestine and to study even though in poverty than to emigrate to a more abundant, but spiritually deprived land. These, I think, are some of the contemporary motives emerging from the Ushan pericopae on the history of Pharisaism. We of course cannot claim that Ushan story-tellers invented the stories in order to make these very points. That is something we do not know. It is clear, however, that in telling such stories, they conveyed a message peculiarly pertinent to their own situation. This fact, I should guess, was not hidden from them. I find no verifications at Usha for elements of the anti-Shammaite polemic. The polemic may have gone on, but alongside was the al­ legation that the Houses really loved each other, and this may have limited the force q£ the anti-Shammaite polemic, which in any case was not so relevant as earlier to the life of the schools. One legal issue, important in Ushan times and certainly open for discussion into the period of Judah the Patriarch, concerned mixing cheese and chicken. This issue was attributed to the Houses, and the literary data strongly suggest the attribution comes at Usha, but the dispute derives from Yavneh. The same may apply to the uncleanness of Qohelet, phrased in terms of the Houses, but probably debated at Yavneh aforetime. VII. THE LAWS

Having examined the external aspects of the rabbinic traditions of the Pharisees, we may now ask, What of the contents? Of the varsiou

THE

LAWS

287

types of pericopae, only the laws seem to me apt thematically to reflect the historical realities of pre-70 Pharisaism. The historical traditions come late, and, while perhaps based upon earlier materials, the stories they tell in their present form hardly compel much credence. Judah and Meir, for instance, could not have known anything about the founding of the Temple of Onias, yet they did not hesitate to fabricate stories which in every detail contradict one another. The lists may be genuine, but do not tell us much about pre-70 times. The names may mean something; to layjnot to lay does not. The legal exegeses of various kinds generally prove what is already known on the basis of non-exegetical legal traditions. One cannot maintain that the Houses came to their opinions on the basis of the sort of legal exegeses we have examined. The non-legal exegeses per­ mit no speculation whatever but are not an important part of the traditions. The histories of the Houses are composed entirely within the Hillelite perspective, and while they suggest Shammaite predomi­ nance, we can learn from them little more than that. As to the Hillelite attitude toward the Shammaites, the historical pericopae tell us much about Yavnean, Ushan and later attitudes. We might not err in extra­ polating from them the view that in pre-70 times the Hillelites bore much the same opinions. But that sort of information is not of much consequence and could have been projected on the basis of still less concrete testimonies than the Yavnean and Ushan stories about Sham­ maite use of force, Shammai's inconsistencies, and the like (pp. 263272). At this point we seek to speak not merely of the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees, but of the historical Pharisees in the decades before the destruction of Jerusalem, as portrayed by legal traditions that seem to me fundamentally sound in theme, perhaps also in substance, and attested by references of masters who may reasonably supposed to have known what they were talking about. Which laws pertained primarily to Pharisaism, and which were part of the law common to all of Palestinian Jewry? Most of the laws we have before us, verified early or late, affect primarily the sectarian life of the party. Other laws, not in the materials attributed to the pre-70 Pharisees but referred to, or taken for granted, by Yavneans and later masters may derive from, or reflect, antecedent common law. Of this we cannot be certain. But since laws of marriage, divorce, transfer of real property, litigation of torts, damages, criminal law, court-testi-

288

HISTORY OF

THE

TRADITIONS

mony, and the like equally pertained to everyone, it is consequential that the Houses-materials contain remarkably few, if any, rulings on such subjects. Of these, Levirate marriage, because of conflicting Scriptures, was bound to produce sectarian controversy. The paucity of laws pertaining to the Temple is not without reason. Since the Pharisees did not run the Temple, they had no occasion to develop a substantial corpus of laws about the cult and how it should be carried on. The laws that made a sect sectarian were those which either were interpreted and obeyed by the group in a way different from other groups or from common society at large, on the one hand, or were to begin with observed only by the group, on the other. In the latter category are the purity laws, which take so large a place in the Pharisaic corpus. The primary mark of Pharisaic commitment was the observ­ ance of the laws of ritual purity outside of the Temple, where every­ one kept them. Eating one's secular, that is, unconsecrated, food in a state of ritual purity as if one were a Temple priest in the cult was one of the two significations of party membership. The manifold circumstances of everyday life required the multiplication of concrete rules. Representative of the former category may be the laws of tithing and other agricultural taboos. Here we are less certain. Pharisees clear­ ly regarded keeping the agricultural rules as a primary religious duty. But whether, to what degree, and how other Jews did so is not clear. And the agricultural laws, just like the purity rules, in the end affected table-fellowship, namely, what one might eat. The early Christian traditions on both points (pp. 78ff.) represent the Pharisees as reproaching Jesus because his followers did not keep these two kinds of laws at all, that is, why were they not Pharisees ? The answer was that the primary concern was for ethics. Both the question and the answer are disingenuous. The questioners are repre­ sented as rebuking the Christians for not being Pharisees—which begs the question, for everyone presumably knew Christians were not Pharisees. The answer takes advantage of the polemical opening: Pharisees are not concerned with ethics, a point repeatedly made in the anti-Pharisaic pericopae, depending upon a supposed conflict be­ tween rules of table-fellowship, on the one side, and ethical behavior on the other. The obvious underlying claim is that Christian tablefellowship does not depend upon the sorts of rules important in the table-fellowship of other groups. As to the Sabbath laws, the issue was narrower. All Jews kept the

THE

LAWS

289

Sabbath. It was part of the culture of their country. The same applies to the festivals. Here the Pharisaic materials are not so broad in in­ terest as with regard to agricultural rules and ritual purity. They per­ tain primarily to gentiles' working on the Sabbath for Jews, on the one hand, and to the preparation of the W , on the other. Like the Levirate rule, the 'eruv-lzws must be regarded as solely of sectarian interest. The references to the unobservant Sadducee make this virtu­ ally certain. Since the tithes and offerings either went to the Levites and priests or had to be consumed in Jerusalem, and since the purity rules were to begin with Temple matters, we note that the Pharisees claimed laymen are better informed as to purity and Temple laws than the Temple priesthood. Morton Smith ("The Dead Sea Sect in Relation to An­ cient Judaism," New Testament Studies 7, pp. 347-360) observes, "Dif­ ferences as to the interpretation of the purity laws and especially as to the consequent question of table fellowship were among the principal causes of the separation of Christianity from the rest of Judaism and the early fragmentation of Christianity itself. The same thing holds for the Qumran community, and, within Pharisaic tradition, the haburah. They are essentially groups whose members observe the same interpretation of the purity rules and therefore can have table fellow­ ship with each other. It is no accident that the essential act of com­ munion in all these groups is participation in common meals." Since food which had not been properly grown or tithed could not be eaten, and since the staple of the diet was agricultural products and not meat, the centrality of the agricultural rules in no small degree is on account of precisely the same consideration: What may one eat, and under what circumstances? Smith states, "The obligation to eat only tithed food was made the basis of elaborate regulations limiting table fellow­ ship in a way comparable even to the effect of the purity laws" in the reforms of Nehemiah ("Sect," p. 353). Nehemiah's third reform, in addition to purifying the Temple and enforcing the giving of tithes to Levites, was the enforcement of the Sabbath, also represented in a more than random way in the Pharisaic laws. "The normative religion of the country," Smith observes, "is that compromise of which the three principal elements are the Pentateuch, the Temple, and the 'amme ha^ares, the ordinary Jews who were not members of any sect." The Pharisaic laws virtually ignore the second, treat the third as an outsider, and are strangely silent concerning the first. They supply no rules about synagogue life, all the more so about

290

HISTORY OF

THE

TRADITIONS

reading the Torah and preaching in synagogues. It would be difficult to maintain that the sect claimed to exercise influence in the life of synagogues not controlled by its own members or widely preached in synagogues. The fact is, therefore, that the laws we have are the laws we should have: the rules of a sect concerning its own sectarian affairs, matters of importance primarily to its own members. That seems to me further evidence of the essential accuracy of the representation of the Houses in the rabbinic traditions. To be sure, not all laws before us portray with equal authenticity the life of pre-70 Pharisaism. But the themes of the laws, perhaps also their substance in detail, are precisely what they ought to have been according to our theory of sectarianism. Simeon the Just and Antigonus of Sokho appropriately leave no laws. Yosi b. Yo'ezer, a priest, laid down rules concerning cleanness of fluids in the Temple slaughter-house and of a kind of locust, and corpse-uncleanness. To Yosi b. Yo'ezer and Yosi b. Yohanan and the rest of the pairs are attributed opinions on laying on of hands in the sacrifice on festivals that coincide with the Sabbath. They also decree concerning the uncleanness of the land of the peoples and of glassware. Joshua b. Perahiah decided about the uncleanness of Alexandrian wheat. Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah decreed uncleanness on metalware. To Simeon is also attributed a decree regarding the marriage contract. Shema'iah and Abtalion ruled on giving bitter water to a suspected adulteress, a Temple rite, a rule of Heave-offering, and a law on preparing animals for use on the festival. They further gave an opinion on the acceptability of a ritual pool. This is the sum of the laws attributed to pre-Hillelite Pharisees: purity rules, Temple rites, agricultural taboos. Only the marriage-contract stands outside of the sectarian framework, and precisely what is attributed to Simeon is unclear. So the early laws, whether authentic or not, conform to the pattern well-established in the later ones. Shammai's rulings pertain to Sabbath observance, phylacteries, Heave-offering, Second Tithe, uncleanness, ploughing in the Seventh Year, uncleanness from a bone in a 'Tent,' the liability of children to observe the festival of Sukkot and the Day of Atonement, and the liability of an agent for misdeeds done in behalf of another. Only the last item is outside of the pattern. Hillel's laws and legal exegeses pertain to Passover observance: eating the species together, sacrificing the Paschal offering on the Sabbath; uncleanness: touching an insect in a ritual pool, declaring

THE

291

LAWS

an itch to be clean; Seventh Year and Jubilee law: redeem property, prosbul; interest; liability for tithes; expounding the language of the Ketuvah. Only interest and the Ketuvah diverge from the established pattern. Shammai and Hillel together rule on the retroactive unclean­ ness of a menstruant, which is important in assessing the cleanness of objects she may have touched; the liability of a loaf for Hallah, the acceptability of a ritual pool, uncleanness of hands, and uncleanness in vintaging grapes for the vat, all as expected. Gamaliel I has rulings quite different from the foregoing, e.g., on the right of a woman to remarry on the testimony of one witness. He was asked concerning pe'ab, 'orlah-tules, and ordained with respect to the rights of Temple calendar witnesses on the Sabbath, something a person in his position might have done. He issued ordinances on annulling divorces, using nicknames in writs of divorces, collecting the marriage contract. Gamaliel's laws therefore pertain primarily not to sectarian matters, but to the affairs of ordinary folk. This is what one would expect from an important civil authority. From Simeon b. Gamaliel we have no legal lemmas, only reports of how he had lower­ ed the price of doves, given pe'ab, and managed to live in the same alley with a non-believer, with respect to an 'eruv. The latter two items are of sectarian interest, the final one explicitly so. The first puts Simeon into the Temple as a major official, in conformity with Jose­ phus's picture. If he made and effected such a ruling, it was not as a Pharisee. The legal traditions of the named masters thus tend to con­ form to the pattern suggested above: sectarian rules primarily pertain­ ing to matters of sectarian interest. The Houses-laws, so much more considerable in quantity, do not much change the picture. We shall briefly categorize the Houses' materials in Mishnah-Tosefta. A.

Agricultural

Lam

1. Corner of field and other agricultural gifts to the poor M. Pe'ah 3:1, M. Pe'ah 6:1, 2, 3, 5 2. Agricultural taboos (Fourth-year fruit, mixed seeds, untithed foods, disposal of food to insure tithing, purity, Seventh Year Tithes, Second Tithes, Removal of old produce at Passover) M. Pe'ah 7:6, M. Demai 1:3, 3:1, M. Demai 6:6, Tos. Demai 1:26-7, M. Kil. 2:6, 4:1, 5, 6:1, Tos. Kil. 3:17, 4:11, M. Shev. 1:1, 4:2, 4, 10, 5:4, 8, 8:3, Tos. Shev. 1:5, 2:6, 4:5B, 4:21, 6:19, M. Ma. 4:2, M. M.S. 2:7-9,3:6-7, 9, 13, 4:8, 5:6-7, Tos.

292

HISTORY OF

THE

TRADITIONS

M.S. 2:11, Tos. M.S. 2:12, Tos. M.S. 5:17-20, M. Suk. 3:5, M. R.H. 1:1, M. Hag. 1:3 3. Priestly and levitical gifts from agricultural produce {Hallah, Heaveoffering and its rules, including cleanness) y. Demai 5:1, M. Ter. 1:4, 4:3, 5:4, Tos. Ter. 5:4, 3:12, 3:14, 3:16, Tos. Ma. 3:13, Tos. M.S. 2:18, Tos. M.S. 3:14-15, M. Hal. 1:6. M. Hal. 11:2, M. Bekh. 5:2, Tos. Bekh. 3:15-16 4. Ritual slaughter of animals M. Hul. 1:2 5. Milk/meat taboo M. Hul. 8:1, Tos. Hul. 8:2-3 B. Ritual Uncleanness

1. Uncleanness of animals M. Kil. 8:5 (weasel) 2. Uncleanness in agricultural products Tos. Ter. 3:2 (vat), Tos. Ter. 6:4 = M. Ter. 5:4 (unclean Heave-offering), b. Pes. 20b, y. Pes. 3:6, M. M.S. 2:3, 4, 3:9, Tos. M.S. 2:1, 2:16, M.
THE

LAWS

293

C. Sabbath and Festival Laws 1. Preparing and keeping food on festival, Sabbath (and other tablerules in connection with Festivals and Sabbath), also 'eruv for cooking, search for leaven on Passover, Passover Seder Tos. Ma. 3:10, M. Shab. 3:1, 21:3, Tos. Shab. 1:14, Tos. Shab. 1:20, Tos. Shab. 2:13, Tos. Shab. 16:7, M. <Eruv 6:6, M. Pes. 1:1,10:2,6, Tos. Pisha 1:6, 7:2, Tos. Pis. 10:2-3, 9, M. Bes. 1:1-9, 2:1-7, Tos. Y.T. 1:4, 8, 10, 11, 12-14, 15-17, 21, 2:4 2. Work started before Sabbath and finished on Sabbath, also gentile work on Sabbath, work on Sabbath and on festivals M. Shab. 1:4-9, Tos. Shab. 1:22, Tos. Shab. 14:1, Tos. Shab. 16:21-2, M. Pes. 4:15, Tos. Y.T. 2:10 3. 'Eruv to permit carrying on Sabbath M. <Eruv. 1:2, 6:2, 4A, 8:6 4. Laws of Sukkah M. Suk. 1:1,7,2:7, M. Suk. 3:9 5. Pilgrimage laws M. Hag. 1:1-3, 2:3-4, Tos. Hag. 1:4, 2:10 D. Family Laws 1. Levirate marriage M. Yev. 1:4, 3:1, 5, Tos. Yev. 1:7-13, 5:1 2. Disposition of wife's property M. Yev. 4:3, M. Ket. 8:1, 6, M. B.B. 9:8-9, Tos. B.B. 10:13 3. Sexual duties M. Yev. 6:6, Tos. Yev. 8:14, M. Ket. 5:6, Tos. Ket. 5:6 4. Minor's right of refusal M. Yev. 13:1, Tos. Yev. 13:1 5. Remarriage of widow M. Yev. 15:2-3, Tos. Nid. 2:12 6. Vows of wife Tos. Ned. 6:3-4 7. Marriage of half-slave M. Git. 4:5 8. Divorce M. Git. 8:4, 8-9, 9:10, Tos.'Arakh. 4:5, Tos. Git. 8:8 9. Betrothal M. Qid. 1:1, Tos. Qid. 4:1 10. Coming of age M. Nid. 5:9, M. Nid. 10:1, Tos. Nid. 9:7-9 E. Temple, Oaths and Vows 1. Sheqel offering M. Sheq. 2:3

294

HISTORY OF

THE

TRADITIONS

2. Disposal of unclean offerings M. Sheq. 8:6, Tos. Sheq. 3:16 3. Sotah-titt M. Sot. 4:2 4. Sprinkling blood M. Zev. 4:1, Tos. Zev. 4:9 5. Offering of woman who miscarries etc. M. Ker. 1:6, Tos. Ker. 1:9 6. Qorban-vovts M. Ned. 3:2, Tos. Nez. 1:1 7. Nazir-vows M. Naz. 2:1-2, 3:6-7, Tos. Nez. 2:10, 3:1, 17, 19 8. Dedications M. Naz. 5:1-5 9. Also D. 6 F. Liturgical and Ritual Matters 1. How to recite Shema' M. Ber. 1:3 2. Blessings and conduct at meals M. Ber. 6:5, 8:1-8 3. Liturgy on New Year that coincides with Sabbath Tos. Ber. 3:13 4. Tefillin b. Ber. 23a 5. Circumcision Tos. Shab. 15:9, M. Pes. 8:8, Tos. Pis. 7:4 G. Civil Law, Torts, Damages 1. Thievery: recompense Tos. B.Q. 9:5 2. Misappropriation of bailment: Recompense M. B.M. 3:12, Tos. B.M. 3:12 H. House of Study 1. Blessing in house of study Tos. Ber. 5:30, b. Ber. 53a Houses-rulings pertaining either immediately or ultimately to tablefellowship involve preparation of food, ritual purity, either purityrules directly relating to food, or purity-rules indirectly important on account of the need to keep food ritually clean, and agricultural rules pertaining to the proper growing, tithing, and preparation of agricul­ tural produce for table-use. All agricultural laws concern producing

THE

LAWS

295

or preparing food for consumption, assuring either that tithes and offerings have been set aside as the Law requires or that the conditions for the nurture of the crops have conformed to the biblical taboos. Ritual slaughter, appropriately, occurs in only one minor matter, likewise the milk/meat taboo is applied to chicken and cheese. The laws of ritual cleanness apply in the main to the preservation of the rit­ ual cleanness of food, of people involved in preparing it, and of objects used in its preparation. Secondary considerations include the ritual pool. These matters became practically important in the lives of Pharisees in regard to the daily preparation of food, in the lives of all Jews only in connection with visiting the Temple, and of the priests in the cult itself. Laws regarding Sabbath and festivals further­ more pertain in large measure to the preparation and preservation of food on festivals and the Sabbath. The ritual of table-fellowship also included blessings and rules of conduct at meals. We find no such concentration of interest in any other aspect of every­ day life. To be sure, ritual considerations in respect to sexual relations, apart from the preparation of food, do figure; but these are a minor part of the matter, and the ritual uncleanness that prevents sexual relations also makes a woman unclean for the preparation of food. One aspect of Sabbath law, as I said, is surely sectarian, and that is, the 'eruv to permit carrying. It was supplied to alleyways, not to whole towns, which means that Pharisees never considered the possibility that they might control a larger domain. The problem of work started before the Sabbath and finished on the Sabbath and related matters looks to be of theoretical more than practical interest. People presumably kept such laws, but once a routine was established, they would not have had to receive admoni­ tion in the matter. The laws of the Sukkah are tangential to the festival. Like the Sabbath and other festivals, Sukkot was part of the culture of the country. The Pharisees do not allude to building a Sukkah dif­ ferent from that of other folk; the rulings in the matter are minor and of no great consequence. Pilgrimage laws and Temple rules are not all of the same sort. The former theoretically pertain to all Jews and concern offerings for various purposes and their cost, the liability of children to make the pilgrimage, and similar matters. But Pharisees could well have obeyed these laws without appearing to be much different from other people. The expenditure of funds, for instance, for the various pilgrim offerings was not a matter subject to the close supervision of Temple

296

HISTORY OF

THE

TRADITIONS

authorities. Other Temple rules seem sectarian. The references to various rites and offerings, to the way in which blood was sprinkled, to the disposal of unclean offerings, and the like are all of theoretical interest, and some of these pericopae seem to have been shaped in Yavnean times. We should have expected more laws pertaining to family matters. Levirate marriage, the disposition of the wife's property, annulling the vows of a wife, the remarriage of a widow, exercising the minor's right of refusal, and similar topics are represented only in one or two rulings. These affect strikingly fundamental matters. One can hardly suppose that for many centuries Jews had not known what to do in these aspects of marital life. In some cases, especially Gamaliel's rul­ ings about divorce-documents, we may imagine that the Pharisees have taken over and made their own the rulings of the civil authority, perhaps of Gamaliel himself, just as the form of M. Ket. 13: Iff. looks like a Pharisaic record of approved decrees of municipal authorities. Levirate marriage on the other hand apparently involved considera­ tions internal to the sect itself. Of other items we can be less certain. Perhaps some of the rulings were primarily for the members of the group; others may represent ratification by the group of laws pertaining to everyone and issued by other authorities. Oaths and vows, which figure in the Christian indictment of Phari­ saism, play a smaller role in the traditions than their place in that indictment would have led one to anticipate. I take it for granted that the Houses did debate the theory of erroneous consecrations, or per­ haps later masters discovered that specific Houses-disputes revolved around that general theory. It looks as though Nazir-vows indeed were made and carried out. I should suppose party-members would have been governed by party-rules, while Jews not in the Pharisaic group who made Nazir-vows would have turned to Temple priests for instruction. Ritual and liturgical matters not involving table-fellowship are episodic: reciting the Shemcf, a liturgy for the New Year that coincides with the Sabbath, the unlikely need to rule on the circumcision of a child born circumcized. The two matters of civil law and torts both relate to how to assess damages. Whether these rules derive from Temple times or not, they do not leave the impression that Pharisees bore heavy responsibilities in the administration of justice. If the Pharisees were, as has been taken for granted, primarily a

THE

LAWS

297

group for Torah-study (as the Qumranian writers describe themselves) then we should have looked for more rules about the school, perhaps al­ so scribal matters, than we actually find. Indeed, we have only one, and that, while attested at early Yavneh, merely involves sneezing in the school-house. Surely other, more fundamental problems presented themselves. Nor do we find much interest in defining the master-dis­ ciple relationship, the duties of the master and the responsibilities and rights of the disciple, the way in which the disciple should learn his lessons, and similar matters of importance in later times. Of the 341 individual pericopae alluded to above, no fewer than 229 directly or indirectly pertain to table-fellowship, approximately 67% of the whole. The rest are scattered through all other areas of legal concern, a striking disproportion. This brings us to a puzzling fact: nowhere in the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees do we find a reference to ritual gatherings of the Pharisaic party, as a whole or in small groups, for table-fellowship, apart from the allusions to the question of the 'eruv for several havurot in the same hall. This surely supplies a slender basis on which to prove the Pharisaic party did conduct communion meals, especially so, since there no sectarian ritual meal is ever mentioned. By contrast, the Qumranian laws, which make much of purity, also refer to com­ munion-meals and the right, or denial of the right, of access to them for members of the commune. Why do we find no stories of how the haverim gathered to eat and so-and-so happened or was said? Why is not the communion-meal a redactional or formulary cliche in the formulation of materials, along­ side testified before Gamaliel, or the Elders of the Houses assembled and? The editorial and redactional framework is silent about table-fellow­ ship. The narrative materials say nothing on the matter. And yet the laws concentrate attention on rules and regulations covering most aspects of a ritual-meal, which then is never decribed or alluded to as a ritual-meal. It seems to me these facts point to one conclusion: the Pharisaic groups did not conduct their table-fellowship meals as rituals. The table-fellowship laws pertained not to group life, but to ordinary, daily life lived quite apart from heightened, ritual occasions. The rules applied to the home, not merely to the cultic center, be it synagogue, Temple, or sectarian rite-house (if such existed). While the early Christians gathered for ritual-meals and made of these ritual-meals the high point of their group-life, the Pharisees apparently did not.

298

HISTORY OF

THE

TRADITIONS

The very character of the sectarianism of the Pharisees therefore seems to differ from that of the sectarianism of the Christians in this important detail. What embodied and actualized group- or sectarianlife for the Christians and came as the climax of the group's existence was the communion-meal. What expressed the Pharisees' sense of self-awareness as a group apparently was not a similar ritual meal. Eating together was a less ritualized occasion, even though the Phari­ sees had rituals in connection with the meal. No communion-ceremony, no rites centered on meals, no specification of meals on holy occasions, seem uniquely to characterize Pharisaic table-fellowship. The one communion-meal about which we do find legislation characterized all sects, along with the rest of the Jews: the Passover Seder. Eating in the Sukkah is not of the same order. For the Seder, as for the observance of Sukkot, the Pharisees may have had rules separate from, and additional to, those observed by everyone else. But that is not the same thing as a sectarian communion-meal. Pharisaic table-fellowship thus exhibits a different quality from that of the Christians: it was of a quite ordinary, everyday character. The various fellowship-rules had to be observed in a wholly routine cir­ cumstance, daily, for every meal, but without accompanying rites other than a benediction for the food. Unlike the Pharisees the Chris­ tians had a meal-myth. Ritual rendered table-fellowship into heightened spiritual experience: Do these things in memory of me. The Pharisees told no stories about purity laws, except (in later times) to account for their historical development (e.g. who had decreed which purity-rule). When they came to table, so far as we know, they told no stories about how Moses had done what they now do, and they did not do these things in memory of Moses "our rabbi." Qumranian table-fellowship was open upon much the same basis as the Pharisaic: appropriate undertakings to keep ritual purity and consume properly grown and tithed food. Priests, not laymen, said the blessings. Indeed table fellowship depended upon the presence of a priest ("Let there not lack among them a man who is a priest, and let them sit before him, each according to his rank" (1 QS vi. 2-3);... "And then when they set the table to eat or prepare the wine to drink, the priest shall first stretch out his hand to pronounce a blessing on the first-fruits of bread and wine" (1 QSa ii 11-22). Only those who knew the secret doctrine of the sect were fully accepted in table-fellow­ ship. Sinners were excluded, whether the sins pertained to the rituals of the table or otherwise. The "Messiah of Israel," after the priests,

THE

LAWS

299

blessed the bread, then each blessed according to his rank. The bless­ ing of the meal is an important rite, but the Qumranian table-meal references do not seem to have included a ceremony equivalent to the Eucharist. In this respect they appear to be somewhat similar to the Pharisaic meal. It has been argued (Matthew Black, The Scrolls and Christian Origins [N.Y., 1961], pp. 102ff.) that the reference (I QSa II 11-14) to the Messiah of Israel's "stretching out his hand to the bread" is "obviously an account of an ideal Messianic session and a ideal Messianic meal." Black points out that this 'regular meal' "is no ordinary meal of the community... but a meal confined to those full members of the sect who belonged to the council of the community." He says, "It is a priestly celebration and consists solely of bread and wine or bread or wine, with a priest presiding." But, Black admits, there is no evidence of any particular religious significance's attaching to this sacred meal, though such has been inferred (p. 105). Whether the Qumran documents report a sacred meal of the sort described by Philo in connection with the Egyptian Therapeutae (Black, p. 106) seems to me not pertinent to our inquiry. The fact is we have no de­ cisive evidence from the Qumranian materials of a Eucharistic meal. As we now know it, the Qumranian meal apparently was liturgically not much different from the ordinary Pharisaic gathering, the rites pertaining to, and deriving from, the eating of food and that alone. The Qumranian meal would have some similarity to the Eucharist if it included some sort of narrative about the Temple cult, e.g., stories about how the sect now replicates the holy Temple and eats at the table of God, how the founder of the community had transferred the Temple's holiness out of unclean Jerusalem, how the present officiants stand in the place of the High Priest of Jerusalem, how the occasion calls to mind some holy event of the past and comparable tales, or how such things would be repeated in the future. But we have no allusion to the inclusion of such mythic elements in the enactment of the community meal. Josephus's Essenes (cited by Black, p. 175) have a priest pray before the meal, and afterward, "at the beginning and the end they do honor to God as the provider of life." This seems to me no different from the Pharisaic table-rite. The primary difference is the prominence of priests in the life of the group. The table-fellowship of Qumranians and Pharisees seems to me to exhibit less of a ritual embodiment of sacred myth than does that of the Christians.

300

HISTORY OF

THE

TRADITIONS

On the other hand, both Christians and Pharisees lived among ordinary folk, while the Qumranians did not. In this respect the commonplace character of Pharisaic table-fellowship seems all the more striking. The group's ordinary gatherings were not as a group at all, but in the private home, with all participating in an ordinary meal. All meals required ritual purity. Pharisaic table-fellowship took place in the same circumstance in which all non-ritual table-fellowship occurred: common folk, eating everyday meals, in an everyday way,, amid neighbors who were not members of the sect, and engaged in workaday pursuits like everyone else. This made the actual purity-rules and food-restrictions all the more important, for only they set the Pharisee apart from the people among whom he constantly lived. Not on festivals nor on Sabbaths alone, but on weekdays, in the towns,, without the telling of myths or the reading of holy books (Torah-talk at table is attested only later), or the reenactment of first or last things,. Pharisaic table-fellowship depended solely on observance of the law. That observance, apart from the meal itself, was not marked off by benedictions or other rites. No stories were told during the meal or about it. Keeping the laws included few articulate statements, e.g.,. blessings. The setting for observance was the field and the kitchen,, the bed, and the street. The occasion for observance was set every time a person picked up a common nail or purchased a se*ah of wheat, by himself, without priests to bless his deed or sages to tell him what to do. So keeping the Pharisaic rule required neither an occasional, ex­ ceptional rite at, but external to, the meal, as in the Christian sect in Judaism, nor taking up residence in a monastic commune, as in the Qumranian sect in Judaism, but perpetual ritualization of daily life, on the one side, and constant inner awareness of the communal order of being, on the other.

CHAPTER

TWENTY-TWO

SUMMARY: THE RABBINIC TRADITIONS ABOUT THE PHARISEES BEFORE 70 The rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees before 70 are pericopae in which we find either pre-70 masters or the Houses of Shammai and Hillel. Pre-70 masters are the men named in the chains of authorities down to and including Simeon b. Gamaliel and masters referred to in pericopae of those same authorities. In addition I rapidly surveyed traditions of others who were evidently presumed by the Tannaitic tradents both to have lived before 70 and to have been Pharisees. These do not add up to much; the traditions are mostly concerned with the masters named in the Pharisaic chains. Few others are known. Authorities who began teaching before 70 but whose traditions derive chiefly from Yavneh, rather than pre-70 Jerusalem, were excluded. I have entirely omitted traditions referring to the history of pre-70 Judaism and Jews in which either the named masters or the Houses do not appear—for example, stories dealing with biblical heroes, say­ ings and laws attributed to Moses, the prophets and sages prior to Simeon the Just, and similar materials. These I have not assigned to the rabbinic traditions about the pre-70 Pharisees, though the rabbis certainly supposed that biblical heroes, including Moses and the proph­ ets, all were part of the Pharisaic movement of their day. This ex­ clusion admittedly derives not from the rabbinic traditions but from my own historical judgment that, whoever Moses was, he was not a rabbi like 'Aqiba. If I had been trying to reconstruct the history of the Jews and Judaism before 70, I should certainly have had to consider whatever the rabbis asserted about that history, though what their assertions would probably teach us is about post-70 rabbinical Judaism, not about pre-70 times. A second, more important exclusion requires specification. In omit­ ting reference to materials in which named masters and the Houses do not occur, I have also precluded consideration of the whole corpus of rabbinic law not attributed to any authority, before or after 70, which may derive from, or pertain to, pre-70 Palestinian Judaism. This seems to me the most important limitation of my effort to characterize the rabbinic traditions about the pre-70 Pharisees. Were my purpose to

302

SUMMARY

describe the legal system of pre-70 Palestine, I should have had to study those anonymous laws of uncertain date, which, standing with­ out attribution to post-70 authorities, may have come in anonymous form from pre-70 times, as well as laws attributed to post-70 authorities which may in some earlier form have applied before the destruction of Jerusalem and the establishment of the patriarchal-rabbinic govern­ ment, whether originating in Pharisaic circles or not. Theories about the origin, shape, and history of the law before 70 must emerge from a study not only of the rabbinic traditions about law, but also of the law deriving, directly or indirectly, from other Jewish traditions of the period and from the Greco-Roman, and especially the antecedent Near Eastern Semitic, legal heritage. The study of the law of ancient Palestine cannot be pursued through a consideration of only a small part of the evidence, that in the rabbinic sources, nor may one isolate that study from the larger historical and legal setting in which Pale­ stinian Jewish law took shape. So the study of the Jewish law of ancient Palestine must stand entirely apart from the study of the Phari­ sees, on the one side, and from the consideration of the history and enforcement of laws now preserved in rabbinic literature, either at­ tributed to named authorities or given anonymously, on the other. The issue is not whether the Tannaitic collections contain laws from before 70, or whether those laws were applied to, and may accurately reflect the conditions of, everyday life; or even whether the post-70 authorities knew what they were talking about. These constitute false definitions for the problems of legal history. The first problem is the definition of the range of pertinent data; the second, the articulation of questions which may be brought to those data even within the present limitations of our knowledge; the third, the relationship of the rabbinic, particularly Tannaitic, corpus of law to the antecedent law codes or systems which governed Jewish Palestine; the fourth, the place of the law of Jewish Palestine before and after 70 within the system of GrecoRoman administration; fifth, the character of law common to the entire ancient Near East. As Yochanan Muffs has stated (Studies in the Aramaic Legal Papyri from Elephantine [Leiden, 1969], pp. 193-4), "What is urgently needed is the coordination of all of this material into a history of Aramaic Common-law, its origins and developments." Studying that common law requires consideration of the rabbinic law-sayings, but those sayings by themselves do not contain the ans­ wers to any legal-historical questions worth asking. The definition of our inquiry therefore is appropriate to the data

303

SUMMARY

I have assembled: what did the rabbinic traditions have to say about, or attribute to, pre-70 Pharisaic masters? To answer this question I have brought together all pericopae in which those masters appear, have then examined the data, and have come to some conclusions about the form, character, and historical pertinence of the data. The rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees before 70 A.D. consist of approximately 371 separate items—stories or sayings or allusions— which occur in approximately 655 different pericopae. Of these tradi­ tions, 280, in 456 pericopae, pertain to Menahem, Shammai, Hillel, and the Houses of Hillel and Shammai; these make up approximately 75% of all. A roughly even division of the materials would give twenty-three traditions in forty pericopae to each name or category, so the disparity is enormous. Exact figures cannot be given, for much depends upon how one counts the components of composite pericopae or reckons with other imponderables. The following approximate figures suffice to indicate that the disproportionately greater part of the rabbinic traditions of the Pharisees pertains to Hillel and people involved with him: Master Simeon the Just Antigonus of Sokho Yosi b. Yo'ezer Yosi b. Yohanan Joshua b. Perahiah Nittai the Arbelite Judah b. Tabbai Simeon b. Shetah Shema'iah-Abtalion Shammai Menahem Hillel' Shammai-Hillel Gamaliel Simeon b. Gamaliel Houses of Shammai and Hillel

Number of Traditions 10 2 4 6 3 2 7 13 11 15 2 , 33 11J 26 7 219

A

6 1

371

Number of Pericopae 30 2 10 13 6 2 26 38 18 25 3 , 89 39 41 13 300 A r

1 5 6

655

304

SUMMARY

Approximately 67% of all legal pericopae deal with dietary laws: ritual purity for meals and agricultural rules governing the fitness of food for Pharisaic consumption. Observance of Sabbaths and festivals is a distant third. The named masters normally have legal traditions of the same sort; only Gamaliel greatly diverges from the pattern, Simeon b. Shetah somewhat less so. Of the latter we can say nothing. The wider range of legal topics covered by Gamaliel's legal lemmas and stories goes to confirm the tradition that he had an important position in the civil government. The rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees as a whole may be cha­ racterized as self-centered, the internal records of a party concerning its own life, its own laws, and its own partisan conflicts. This seems to me the most striking result of the survey. The omission of records of what happened outside of the party is not only puzzling, but nearly inexplicable. Almost nothing in Josephus's picture of the Pharisees seems closely related to much, if anything, in the rabbis' portrait of the Pharisees, except the rather general allegation that the Pharisees had 'traditions from the fathers,' a point made also by the Synoptic story­ tellers. The rabbis' Pharisaic conflict-stories moreover do not tell of Pharisees' opposing Essenes, Christians, or Sadducees, but of Hillelites' opposing Shammaites. Pharisaic laws deal not with the governance of the country but with the party's rules for table-fellowship. The polit­ ical issues are not whether one should pay taxes to Rome or how one should know the Messiah, but whether in the Temple the rule of Shammai or that of Hillel should be followed in a minor festal sacrifice. From the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees we could not have reconstructed a single significant, public event of the period before 70— not the rise, success, and fall of the Hasmoneans, nor the Roman conquest of Palestine, nor the rule of Herod, nor the reign of the procurators, nor the growth of opposition to Rome, nor the prolifera­ tion of social violence and unrest in the last decades before 66 A.D., nor the outbreak of the war with Rome. We do not gain a picture of the Pharisees' philosophy of history or theology of politics. We should not even know how Palestine was governed, for the Pharisees' tradi­ tions according to the rabbis do not refer to how the Pharisees govern­ ed the country—the rabbis never claim the Pharisees did run pre-70 Palestine, at least not in stories told either about named masters or about the Houses—nor do they tell us how the Romans ran it. Further­ more, sectarian issues are barely mentioned, and other sects not at all. The rabbis' Pharisees are mostly figures of the late Herodian and

SUMMARY

305

Roman periods. They were a non-political group, whose chief reli­ gious concerns were for the proper preservation of ritual purity in con­ nection with eating secular (not Temple) food, and for the observance of the dietary laws of the day, especially those pertaining to the proper nurture and harvest of agricultural crops. Their secondary religious concern was with the proper governance of the party itself. By con­ trast Josephus's Pharisaic records pertain mostly to the years from the rise of the Hasmoneans to their fall. They were a political party which tried to get control of the government of Jewish Palestine, not a little sect drawn apart from the common society by observance of laws of table-fellowship. Josephus's Pharisees are important in the reigns of John Hyrcanus and Alexander Jannaeus, but drop from the picture after Alexandra Salome. By contrast, the Synoptics' Pharisees appropriately are much like those of the rabbis; they belong to the Roman period, and their legal agenda is virtually identical: tithing, purity laws, Sabbath-observance, vows, and the like. The rabbinic tradition thus begins where Josephus's narrative leaves off, and the difference between them leads us to suspect that the change in the character of Pharisaism from a political party to a sect comes with Hillel. If Hillel was responsible for directing the party out of its political concerns and into more passive, quietistic paths, then we should understand why his figure dominates the subsequent rabbinic tradition. If Hillel was a contemporary of Herod, then we may com­ mend his wisdom, for had the Pharisees persisted as a political force, they would have come into conflict with Herod, who could have wiped them out. Hillel's policy may have been shaped by remembrance of the consequences to the party of its conflict with Alexander Jan­ naeus. The extreme rarity of materials of masters before Simeon b. Shetah, except those of Yohanan the High Priest = John Hyrcanus, suggests that few survived Jannaeus's massacres, and that those few did not perpetuate the policies, nor, therefore, the decisions of their predecessors. Hillel and his followers chose to remember Simeon b. Shetah, who was on good terms with Salome, but not his followers, who were almost certainly on bad terms with Aristobulus and his descendents, the leaders of the national resistance to Rome and to Antipater's family (see Josephus's story of Aristobulus's protection of the Pharisees' victims). As Herod's characteristics became clear, therefore, the Pharisees must have found themselves out of sympathy alike with the government and the opposition. And at this moment Hillel arose to change what had been a political party into a tableNeusner, The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70, III

20

306

SUMMARY

fellowship-sect, not unlike other, publicly harmless and politically neutral groups, whatever their private eschatological aspirations. All this is more than mere conjecture, but less than established fact. What is fact is that the vast majority of rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees relate to the circle of Hillel and certainly the best attested and most reliable corpus, the opinions of the Houses, reaches us from that circle's later adherents. The pre-Hillel Pharisees are not known to us primarily from the rabbinic traditions, and, when we begin to have a substantial rabbinic record, it is the record of a group very different from Josephus's pre-Hillelite, pre-Herodian party. We have three chains of Pharisaic tradition, that is lists of names of authorities in succession, to each of which names is given an opin­ ion. The first (M. Hag. 2:2) is a list of six pairs, Yosi b. Yo'ezer and Yosi b. Yohanan, Joshua b. Perahiah and Nittai the Arbelite, Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah, Shema'iah and Abtalion, Hillel and Menahem, Shammai and Hillel; the opinions are to lay or not to lay hands on the festival offering before slaughter on the Sabbath. The subscription assigns to the first the office of patriarch, to the second the office of "father of the court." The latter office is never elsewhere referred to in the rabbinic traditions about the pre-70 Pharisees. The former occurs only with regard to Hillel's rise to power in the Temple. Meir and Judah refer to the list. Meir knew nothing of the HillelMenahem clause. Meir's list is a secondary development. Instead of Hillel-Menahem, he has Hillel-Shammai. The second lists, on uncleanness, have only six names, three pairs: Yosi b. Yo'ezer and Yosi b. Yohanan, Simeon b. Shetah and Judah b. Tabbai, and Shammai and Hillel. The form calls for decreed uncleanness plus objects: land of the peoples, metal utensils, uncleanness on hands, respectively. The moral sayings of M. Avot 1:18 are explicit in linking Yohanan b. Zakkai, or Gamaliel and Simeon b. Gamaliel, to Hillel. They take for granted that the latter two were his heirs and successors, although nothing, in the early traditions of any links him to Hillel through either stories or citations of legal teachings. Simeon b. Gamaliel was repre­ sented by his son, Gamaliel II, as a Shammaite. It looks to me as if the predominance of Hillelites later on called for the establishment of a relationship between Hillel and the authorities who came between him and the Yavnean Hillelites, so Gamaliel I was made his son, Simeon b. Gamaliel his grandson, and—in a different circle—Yohanan b. Zakkai into his successor (still later, his outstanding disciple).

SUMMARY

307

The rabbinic tradition about the Pharisees clearly began with the two Yosi's. The insertion of Simeon the Just was motivated by the desire to attach the legal tradition to the last great member of the legitimate Jerusalem priesthood. Simeon serves in M. Avot 1:1 just as does Moses—he bridges the temporal gap between Simeon and the Yosi's, a whole century. Originally the men of the great synagogue connect the prophets to the Pharisees, i.e. the Yosi's, who presumably founded the sect. The names of M. Avot correspond to M. Hag. where the two coincide, while the cleanness-decree lists do not conform. Except for Hillel's saying, none of the apophthegms in M. Avot ever is discussed or even referred to by Tannaim or in Tannaitic collections, while the materials in M. Hag. were reworked by Judah b. Ilai and Meir. So it seems as if the Avot apophthegms appeared about the time of Judah the Patriarch, the point at which Hillel was important both as ancestor of the patriarchate and as master of Yohanan b. Zakkai. The earliest chain of tradition thus consisted of the names of the two Yosi's, Joshua-Nittai, Judah-Simeon, Shema'iah-Abtalion, Shammai-Hillel. Since the two Yosi's were not originally related to Simeon the Just, they cannot be dated by their present relation to him. It would be likely to date them about 150 B.C., when Josephus first mentions the sect's existence; this would allow about thirty years per pair. Of the figures before Shammai, only Simeon b. Shetah was made the bearer of a significant corpus of traditions. Simeon the Just appears in ten traditions occurring in thirty peri­ copae. The Simeon-traditions relate primarily to the Jerusalem Temple and cult: he prepared a red-heifer sacrifice; heard in the holy of holies that a decree was annulled; saved the Temple in the time of Alexander; served forty years as high priest; and predicted his own death on the basis of his supernatural experience in the cult. His son founded the Temple of Onias. Only the story of the guilt-offering of a worthy Nazirite stands apart—but not far—from Temple-materials. The Nazir-story is told in the first-person, a unique narrative in the rab­ binic traditions about the Pharisees. Simeon appears in a pericope at­ tested by Meir, referring to the heifer-sacrifice. He made a new ramp for each offering; since he was a good high priest, the practice was not extravagant. No Simeon-pericope reveals forms that might derive from before 70 A.D. M. Par. 3:5, for example, is in the form given it by Judah the Patriarch on the basis of a dispute of Meir and the sages. But the

308

SUMMARY

heavenly message, though said to have come in Aramaic, then is translated into Hebrew and is attested in Josephus—but not for Simeon the Just. It may represent an old tradition taken over in Tannaitic times and assigned to Simeon. The pericope in which it occurs is composite and was formed no earlier than Ushan times, if then. For the rabbis Simeon the Just marked the end of the legitimate priesthood. From his time on some priests were, and some were not, acceptable. The Tannaitic tradition about him is wholly narrative, primarily "historical"; it contains no legal or exegetical materials, nothing to indicate Simeon was other than a high priest admired by Pharisees. Antigonus of Sokho has one tradition in one pericope. Apart from his appearance in M. Avot 1:3, Antigonus occurs only in ARN Ch. 5, where the theological question is explored, Why is there no reward in the world to come? The beginnings of the Sadducees and Boethusians are traced to dissension about this problem among Antigonus's dis­ ciples. Yosi b. Yohanan occurs only with Yosi b. Yo'ezer, in four tradi­ tions, which come in ten pericopae: (1) the end of the grapeclusters, augmented by the tradition on the reproach against the grapeclusters; (2) the decree on the uncleanness of the land of the peoples and of glassware; (3) laying on of hands on the sacrifice; and (4) the sayings in M. Avot 1:4-5. Yosi b. Yo'ezer occurs alone in an additional six traditions, occurring in a total of thirteen pericopae, for a total of ten traditions in twenty-three pericopae. Yosi b. Yo'ezer's uncleannesssaying is attested at the very beginning of the Yavnean stratum by Eliezer b. Hyrcanus. It is simply a list of three rulings, which probably circulated as a group, as in M. Ed. 8:4: the ^//-locust is clean, liquids in the Temple shambles are clean, and touching a corpse makes one unclean. This list seems to me to supply a model for Pharisaic legal traditions before the Yavnean revisions, one of two available examples of a pre-Yavnean formulation of laws; the other is Yohanan the High Priest's abrogations. It is a brief list, on a single subject—uncleanness rules—and appears without an exegetical foundation, but rather with the name of an authority. Perhaps other Pharisaic legal materials came down in much the same form, namely, as brief lists of related laws at­ tributed to an important authority. The list contains no contrary opin­ ions, no discussion, and no generalizations. The use of Aramaic is uncommon; DKY should be THR, S'B should be T M \ The words c

SUMMARY

309

occur only here in the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees. But they are not rare in the Mishnah, especially in M. Bekhorot. The Qumran laws, given without attributions to authorities, are similarly arran­ ged in little lists on a single theme. Other materials pertinent to both Yosi's consist merely of references to the two masters. They stand at the end of the grapeclusters, a theme of importance to Ushans, and Yosi is called the most pious of the priesthood. His disinheriting his son is a tradition consisting of two sentences tied fore and aft to a story bearing no relationship to that tradition, about his son's gift to the Temple. The tradition would be represented by the sayings, Yosef b. Yo e%er had a son who did not behave properly and Yosef b. Yo et(er brought in one and his son took out seven. The story told in between these two sayings has to do with the son's exemplary behaviour in giving to the Temple a substantial sum of money. The story should tell of how Yosi's son had deprived the Temple—or someone—of money which his father had originally donated. What­ ever story we should have, the one we do have exhibits no relation­ ship to the key sentences and evidently is told by someone who has no direct knowledge of whatever tradition is 'encapsulated' in the fixed lemmas. This then gives us a hint as to the way in which generaliz­ ed traditions, perhaps conveying themes of some sort or other, might produce specific, but quite novel, accounts. The fixed traditions prove of little, if any, help in formulating those accounts. The story of Yaqim of Serurot, Yosi's "nephew" may have been assigned to Yosi because he and Yaqim derived from (or are assigned to) the same town. Otherwise there is no relationship to Yosi. But on account of Yosi's origin in Serurot, Yosi is made to be carried out to be hanged. Thus stories of how Jewish martyrs, presumably of the Bar Kokhba period, died brave deaths, while those who looked on without sympathy either died ignominious ones or committed suicide, might be told of Yosi as well. The whole is a melange of late themes and cliches; the historical Yosi has contributed only his name. Yohanan the High Priest is nowhere identified as John Hyrcanus. For the rabbis he was both a high priest and a Pharisee. He has six traditions in fifteen pericopae. The most important of these concerns his cultic abrogations of the confession and of certain questionable procedures in slaughtering. The heavenly-echo story, which Josephus assigns to John Hyrcanus, is given by the rabbis in closely similar form to Yohanan. The other four traditions are all mere allusions to c

c

310

SUMMARY

Yohanan's name: he prepared a red-heifer; he is mentioned by Yo­ hanan b. Zakkai (the sole reference of Yohanan b. Zakkai to a pre-70 Pharisee); he ended up a Sadducee after eighty years in the high priesthood, a conclusion that evidently followed from Yohanan b. Zakkai's calling him a Sadducee; and the medieval Scholion to Meg. Ta. has a little story of Yohanan the High Priest as a well-meaning but inept legislator. So the 'Pharisaization' of Yohanan the High Priest comes down merely to the record of his abrogations, which produces the assumption that he was a good rabbi, and further leads to the development of other materials around his name. The pericope in M. M.S. 5:15 containing the abrogations is a simple list of 'three things' he did, in historical language; it recalls the Yosi-uncleanness-ruling pericopae, and, as I said, may reflect the way in which pre-70 materials were formulated and transmitted before the Yavnean stage. Nittai the Arbelite occurs only alongside Joshua b. Perahiah, in two traditions in two pericopae, M, Avot and M. Hag. Joshua in addition has three traditions in six pericopae, a saying on wheat from Alexandria, on the difficulty of giving up high office, and the flight to Alexandria at the time of Yannai's murder of the Pharisees. This last makes him a contemporary of Simeon b. Shetah, then not nasi, and involves him with his disciple Jesus, thus further making Jesus into a rabbinical disciple of the second century B.C., or Joshua into a rabbi of the first century A.D. The Jesus-story has an attached tradition, Jesus practised magic, etc., which does not refer to Joshua, and none of the details of the Joshua-Jesus story is alluded to in the summary-sentence, Whoever sinned and caused others to sin etc. A tradition that Joshua was a great magician persisted, but left no trace in rabbinic literature. That both he and Jesus were connected with magic probably explains why Jesus was made his disciple. This tradition reached Jews in Babylonia, who called upon Joshua's name to exorcise demons. His appearance on the Jewish magical bowls of Nippur, written in the sixth or seventh century A.D., is unwarranted by rabbinic stories about him, which make him a standard rabbinical figure. Judah b. Tabbai similarly appears only along with Simeon b. Shetah; he has no traditions for his own and sometimes is dropped from Simeon-materials where he should appear, in favor, for example, of Shelomsu the Queen. Simeon-Judah traditions are seven, counting sayings in M. Avot 1:8-9 and M. Hag. 2:2; these occur in twenty-six pericopae. Two Simeon-Judah traditions are closely related, first,

SUMMARY

311

putting a man to death illegally, second the anomaly of the law with respect to circumstantial evidence. The role of each in the Pharisaic government was debated. Judah is sent to Alexandria, instead of Joshua b. Perahiah; and the uncleanness decree on metalware is credited to him, though not in all versions of that chain. Simeon has in addition thirteen traditions, occurring in thirty-eight pericopae. Of these, two are similar to Josephus's stories about John Hyrcanus and the Pharisees and Herod and the Pharisees, the former so close as to suggest dependency. Clearly, later rabbis supposed Jannaeus and Simeon were contemporaries. Abbaye identified Jan­ naeus with John Hyrcanus, which would account for the use of a Hyrcanus-story with Simeon. Of the thirteen traditions, Simeon is central in the ones about hanging eighty women in Ashqelon, the decree on the marriage contract, the story of Simeon, Yannai, and the Nazirites, the trial of Yannai for his slave's murder, and the vanquish­ ing of the Sadducees, a medieval fantasy. In the others Simeon con­ tributes merely a name; it rained heavily in his time, he rebuked Honi, in his day property litigations came to an end, he decreed children should go to school, and he returned a pearl to a Saracen. What is striking is that while Simeon appears, in all, in twenty traditions, the matter of Hillel makes an impression on none of these. Simeon-tradi­ tions form an independent corpus. While many of them obviously are rather late, (e.g. the hangings in Ashqelon produce a long magical story, well after Eliezer b. Hyrcanus verifies the existence of a tradition on hanging women in Ashqelon) or certainly derivative, (e.g. the Yannai-materials), some of them are both centered upon Simeon and important, e.g. the Nazirites and Yannai, the decrees on the marriagecontract, and other legal matters. Simeon therefore stands as an independent authority, and not a minor one, in the mind of the rab­ binic historians. But the exact nature of his legal traditions was not clear. Most of Simeon's materials are "historical," rather than legal. He has no standard legal lemmas or significant exegetical traditions. After Simeon b. Shetah, the figure of Hillel nowhere is wholly ab­ sent from traditions of important Pharisaic masters. Of the eleven Shema'iah-Abtalion traditions in eighteen pericopae, Hillel is present in, or glossed into, three; M. Avot and M. Hag. account for two more, and the latter certainly leads to Hillel-Shammai. So we are left with six traditions in which Hillel is absent; of these, a legal item, on setting apart an animal or a bird for festival use, pertains to a matter of law discussed by the Houses of Shammai and Hillel. A saying on

312

SUMMARY

Heave-offering, cited by Yosi, and a precedent on administering the bitter-water rite to a suspected adulteress stand independent of the Hillel-corpus. In addition we have an important Scriptural exegesis, on the faith that merited the splitting of the Red Sea; the story of the high priest who insulted Shema'iah and Abtalion, and the allegation, glossed into a pericope from which the two were originally absent, that they were descended from Sennacherib. One enigmatic tradition has Judah b. Dortai, otherwise unknown, criticize S + A for not ruling as he thought they should. The two masters are rarely separated at all. In this respect they carry to an extreme the tendency of materials on earlier authorities to be attributed jointly to the two regnant au­ thorities; while Joshua and Simeon in several traditions stand sepa­ rate from their colleagues, S + A have only one. The Honi-the-Circler-corpus consists of the M. Ta. 3:8 story about his rain-making, which is developed in various later versions, but not substantially changed. Nothing in that version makes him into a Pharisee, and the traditions do not allege that he was a Pharisee. Menahem occurs only in M. Hag. 2:2 and produces an additional gloss, in both Talmuds, about what happened to him after he 'went forth\ Shammai by himself has fifteen traditions in twenty-five pericopae. Hillel stands in the background of many of these. Shammai appears by himself and as a fully respectable authority primarily in respect to Sabbath-rulings. Nearly all narratives about Shammai form part of the Hillelite polemic. Shammai is represented as subordinated to the authority of 'the sages'; his precedents are made into private pref­ erences, without legal weight. His legal sayings are juxtaposed to those of his House in such a way as to suggest either that Shammai and his House differ, or that Shammai is more stringent than his House, or that Shammai is a crypto-Hillelite. He is further shown to be weak, unable to accomplish desirable changes in the law. The tendency to revise materials into hostile accounts continues into Amoraic.times. A favorable story about Shammai and Jonathan b. 'Uzziel, told in Palestine, is turned into a very unfriendly account in the Babylonian circles of Pumbedita, though I think the reason has to do with the politics of Babylonian rabbinic Judaism, not with the historical Shammai. So Shammai-traditions apart from Hillel and the matter of the Houses are not much different in quantity or character from those of earlier, pre-Hillel Pharisaic masters, Joshua b. Perahiah or Judah b. Tabbai. Simeon's corpus is substantially richer than those

SUMMARY

313

Shammai-materials which reflect a neutral or favorable opinion about him. Hillel's tradents, presumably at Yavneh and afterward, denied to Shammai more than a negligible position in the traditions, except on Hillelite terms. This makes all the more striking the immense and balanced picture of the traditions of the House of Shammai handed on by the Yavnean tradents. Hillel by himself has thirty-three traditions in eighty-nine pericopae. Hillel's materials include legal traditions and exegeses, exegeses turned into narratives; legal precedents; biographical traditions; and a huge corpus of moral and theological logia, which, except for M. Avot 1:1-18, far outweighs all moral and theological logia assigned to all other masters put together. The traditions center on the theme of Hillel's rise to power, Hillel as paragon of virtue, model for legal and moral behavior, and authority in legal and exegetical matters, partic­ ularly with reference to ritual cleanness, tithing, and keeping agri­ cultural rules and taboos. Hillel's emigration from Babylonia is every­ where taken for granted, but we have no story about when or why he came. The Hillelite indictment of Shammai and his House primarily per­ tains to non-legal matters. In legal pericopae Shammai and Hillel are treated as equals, just as are the Houses. The historical and biographical materials are another matter. Here Shammai's vice serves as a foil to Hillel's virtue. Shammai lacked power. He differed from his House. Shammaites were violent and prevailed, when they did, only because of their superior numbers and force. Good Shammaites knew the law was really as taught by the House of Hillel. A bad Shammaite was called the first-born of Satan. Shammai's precedents are dismissed either because they apply only to Shammai himself, or because they prove the law is correctly taught by the House of Hillel. Because of their superior rationality and moral character, the Hillelites sometimes change their views and follow the reasoning of the Shammaites. The Shammaites never do so. When Hillelites do, to be sure, it is because the change is to a position in consonance with other Hillelite opinions, or is in fact no change at all, or because the Shammaites explicitly accept Hillelite precedents. In the end the Hil­ lelites triumphed because they were kindly, modest, and open-minded, also because Heaven itself announced that the law follows Hillel. Shammai and Hillel appear together, as I said, in a few legal perico­ pae, in which the two are fairly balanced, and otherwise, in polemical materials directed against Shammai and his House. In all, the two

314

SUMMARY

masters share eleven traditions in thirty-nine pericopae. The legal materials pertain to uncleanness and agricultural matters. Later tra­ dents explain that the source of the disputes between the Houses was inadequate study with Shammai and Hillel. They develop the laying on of hands dispute into narratives in which Hillel obeys the Shammaite law because he is forced to. The striking omission is of the Temple priests, who actually ran things. We are told that the internal politics of the Pharisaic sect dominated even the cult. Either Shammaites or Hillelites ran—and would run—the cult, but not the priests and Sadducees to whom it was supposedly entrusted. The Romans are unrepresented in the mob-scenes, but a single Shammaite put matters right, a fantastic picture. Shammai-Hillel decrees pertain to uncleanness of the hands; they argue about, or agree on, the uncleanness of vintag­ ing grapes for the vat. Otherwise the corpus consists of stories in which Shammai's vices contrast to Hillel's virtues, or Shammai's rules are shown inferior to Hillel's. One beraita makes Simeon Gamaliel and Simeon Hillel's sons and heirs. This takes for granted the M. Avot sequence and the descent of the patriarchate from Hillel, therefore it must be relatively late in the formation of the traditions. Gamaliel I occurs in twenty-six traditions in forty-one pericopae, some of which may not refer to him, but to his grandson. The Gamalielcorpus consists primarily of stories and allusions to Gamaliel, not of rulings in standard legal form. His place in the traditions is not infre­ quently merely within the redactional formula. While most of his pre­ decessors rule on uncleanness laws and agricultural matters, Gamaliel also has important rulings about receiving testimony on the New Moon, marriage and divorce rules and procedures, preparing a Targum for Job, letters on the leap-year, permitting the use of drinking ves­ sels which had been used for gentile wine, and other matters outside of the legal framework established by the antecedent materials. Some of these legal materials, e.g. family law, are congruent to the figure of a Pharisaic master who also held a position in the Sanhedrin, as Acts reports of Gamaliel. That Gamaliel was a Pharisee is attested in the same place, so it is unlikely that he was an outsider anachronistically and retroactively Tharisaized', like Honi or possibly Hanina b. Dosa. Gamaliel may have been the conduit through which rulings on matters formerly outside of the range of Pharisaic legal interest entered the party's traditions. A number of stories place him in the Temple or in Jerusalem. Several fables about Gamaliel with a king or the king and the queen may relate to Gamaliel I; telling such fables may rest upon

SUMMARY

315

a generalized tradition that Gamaliel, like Simeon b. Shetah, had something to do with the court or the government; their absence mayreflect the (accurate) view that other figures, such as Hillel, did not. Simeon b. Gamaliel has seven traditions in thirteen pericopae, in­ cluding the Avot-sayings. All materials are stories about him: how he lowered the price of doves, how he gave pe*ah, how he dealt with a non-believer with respect to the eruv, how he juggled, blessed a pretty gentile woman, and the like. His son, Gamaliel II, further tells stories of his house's conformity to the rulings of the House of Shammai. Clearcut and well-defined forms were used for the transmission of the Houses-materials, Hillel-pericopae, and related data. The single striking formal characteristic of the whole corpus is, of course, at­ tribution to named authorities; this applies throughout—by definition. The form developed for such attributions, namely, X says, produces the dispute-form (Statement ofproblem,Xsays.,. Ysays...), the debate form (They said to them... They said to them...), and related forms. All are well-attested at early Yavneh and are used primarily for Housesmaterials, secondarily for the masters standing behind the Houses, finally for later first-century authorities. The Houses-form (The House of Shammai say... The House of Hillel say...) comes when the Houses are of roughly equal strength, so that the form used for the transmission of their opinions will give parity to both sides. This seems to derive from early Yavneh, both because it is attested in the earliest Yavnean stratum, and because it is at that point that the Houses came together evidently as equals to reconstruct the tradition, both at the same strength. Before then, Shammaites prevailed, afterward, Hillelites. The whole corpus of earlier materials characteristic of the respective Houses was transmuted into the joint Houses-form, with the Houses' opinions given on a mutually determined agenda of legal problems, and with an antithetic relationship preserved throughout. A second Yavnean form used for Pharisaic material is the ordinance, appropriate for Yohanan b. Zakkai-decrees, but entirely inappropriate for most Pharisaic pericopae to which it is applied. The testimony-form seems primarily the creation of the circle respon­ sible for M. Ed., though it would seem that the form had appeared before the second half of the second century, at which time finished pericopae of disciples of Aqiba were included in M. Ed., forming the foundations of that tractate. Chains and lists, so far as these may be regarded as forms, are presumc

c

c

c

316

SUMMARY

ably old but are preserved at the earliest from the time of Shammai and Hillel. Precedents do not exhibit a single fixed form; they function in a welldefined way, but that is not the same thing. Techniques of story-telling and other narratives are of a different order; they are not forms and characterize the whole range of materials before us. Forms for the citation of Scripture seem primarily redactional in origin; they differ from one document to the next and are consistent within the respective compilations. Where we do have a well-defined form for Scriptural pericopae, it appears primarily in Hillel-materials. Thirty-three of thirty-five exegeses for legal purposes are attributed to Hillel, Shammai, or the Houses. Not only do most of the forms we are able to isolate derive from Yavneh, specifically from the circles responsible for the redaction of the Houses' antithetic pericopae, but evidence of mnemonic techniques first occurs in precisely the materials produced by those same circles. First, as I said, the form of the apodoses of Houses-pericopae invaria­ bly is: House of X say... House of Y say... Furthermore, the actual opin­ ions of the Houses normally are balanced opposites, or other mnemonic devices are used to set up the same balance. Some of the patterns derive from a balanced number of syllables. Others are conventional syzygies, such as unclean/clean. Still others involve fixed changes in morph­ ological or syntactical elements. Approximately 105 pericopae do not exhibit any sort of mnemonic formula or pattern; approximately 82 exhibit some sort of pattern, generally external to the substance; and 314 pericopae contain small units of tradition or other highly disci­ plined mnemonic forms. In all, Houses' and Hillel-Shammai-pericopae normally exhibit mnemonic patterns or are balanced in some way or other. Pericopae of other named masters are apt not to be balanced or to exhibit other mnemonic patterns. Thus the evidence indicates that, although these forms and patterns were used in peri­ copae produced by later masters, the Yavnean tradents were the first who shaped and fixed traditions in clearcut literary forms and who created the common lemmas in such a way as to facilitate memoriza­ tion and transmission. This does not prove that the Yavnean materials originally were orally formulated and orally transmitted. Part of the corpus seems to me to have been ritually shaped according to the myth of how Moses orally dictated, and Aaron memorized, lemmas, namely, those in the

317

SUMMARY

<

Aqiban Mishnah. But the allegation that the present rabbinic material about the pre-70 Pharisees consists of the written texts of traditions originally orally formulated and orally transmitted is groundless. The only allegation we find about pre-70 Pharisees is that they had traditions. Nothing is said about whether these traditions come from Moses, nor about whether they were in oral form. They generally are ascribed to the 'fathers,' and their form is not specified. No mention of an Oral Torah or a dual Torah occurs in pre-70 pericopae, except for the Hillel-and-the-convert story, certainly not weighty evidence. More­ over the Pharisaic laws contain no instructions on how materials are to be handed on, nor references to how this actually was done. Alle­ gations that Moses dictated an Oral Torah to Aaron in much the same way as rabbis taught Mishnah first occur with Aqiba, who in fact undertook exactly that process in the formulation of his Mishnah. The myth of oral formulation and oral transmission is first at­ tested by Judah b. Ilai, although a dispute between Eliezer and *Aqiba presupposes oral formulation and transmission in Yavnean circles. We were moreover able to verify the existence of the larger part of the Houses-corpus both at Yavneh and Usha. The verifications ex­ hibit a uniform pattern. Types of laws attributed to the Houses at Yavneh are the same types attributed to them at Usha. The Housesform was not used as a mere mnemonic device, to facilitate the memo­ rization of traditions of any sort, but was reserved for the redaction of materials on a few themes on which the Yavneans and Ushans evidently believed the Houses actually legislated. This further justifies our attribution of the forms and mnemonic patterns to Yavnean tradents. But we cannot suppose that a great part of the rabbinic tradition has been left in its pre-70 form. On the contrary, I take it for granted that the individual Houses preserved records of their own opinions not in juxtaposition to the opinions of the opposing House, just as did Qumranians. The model would be the uncleanness-saying of Yosi b. Yo'ezer, perhaps also the three abrogations of Yohanan the High Priest. But the Shammai-Hillel-Houses-corpus of laws follows a single form, and that is, the dispute—even using it where the opinions of the Houses do not differ. It follows that the people responsible for the Houses-dispute-form and the mnemonic small units inserted in it also recast the whole of the antecedent tradition in this form, obliterating the earlier forms of whatever materials they had. This makes it all the more striking that the earliest, and substantial verific

318

SUMMARY

cations come from the disciples of Yohanan b. Zakkai and their contemporaries, at the very outset of the Yavnean tradition. If Yavneans and Ushans were meticulous in reporting the Houses' disputes, they were not equally careful to preserve a balanced picture of the period from Hillel to the destruction of the Temple. The picture they produced is the work of Yavneans more than of Ushans. It reflects intense competition between Yavnean Hillelites and the Shammaite opposition. Evidently the Hillelites predominated at Yavneh but had to overcome the common recollection of Shammaite pre­ dominance before the destruction. This they accounted for through a number of vicious stories about Shammaites' use of force and even murdering their Hillelite opponents. It is striking that the generation (if not the same tradents) responsible for the carefully balanced disputes also produced entirely unbalanced stories. The thematic authenticity of the laws seems to me beyond doubt. The historical accuracy of the stories is similarly to be affirmed, for their picture of pre-70 politics seems to me plausible, albeit prejudiced. Along with the latter, how­ ever, goes the body of anti-Shammaite polemic, much of it Yavnean, and most of it probably grossly exaggerated if not wholly false. We may conjecture that the legal material with its fixed forms is the official product of the Yavnean academy in which the parties, under Yohanan b. Zakkai's leadership and the pressure of necessity, cooperated, and that the stories and propaganda, in less fixed forms, represent what was then the private gossip of the Hillelite party, and only later, with the triumph of that party, got into the official tradition. But this is only conjecture. Our picture of therabbinic traditions about the Pharisees therefore is clear. Perhaps beyond those traditions we may even gain a perspec­ tive on part of pre-70 historical Pharisaism. The traditions pertain chiefly to the last half-century or so before the destruction of the Temple—at most, seventy or eighty years. Then the Pharisees were (whatever else they were) primarily a society for table-fellowship, the high point of their life as a group. The laws of table-fellowship predominate in the Houses-disputes, as they ought to—three fourths of all pericopae—and correspond to the legal agenda of the Pharisees according to the Synoptic stories. As we saw, some rather thin and inadequate traditions about masters before Shammai-Hillel persisted, but these do not amount to much and in several cases consist merely of the name of a master, plus whatever opinion is given to him in the chain in which he appears. The interest of the non-legal materials

SUMMARY

319

concentrates on the relationships of Shammai and Hillel, on the career of Hillel, and related matters. Materials on their successors at best are perfunctory, until we come to men who themselves survived to work at Yavneh, such as Hananiah Prefect of the Priests and, of course, Yohanan b. Zakkai. The chief interest of Hillel-tradents, apart from the preservation of favorable stories of Hillel and the attribution of wise sayings to him, was Hillel's predominance in Pharisaism. After the Houses-disputes ceased to matter much, by the Bar Kokhba War, the growth of Hillel-materials was undiminished. The rise to powerstories then begin, very likely at Usha, and are rapidly glossed by patriarchal and anti-patriarchal hands, so that by Judah the Patriarch's time everyone knows Hillel is the ancestor of the patriarchate in general, and of Judah in particular. The attribution of a Davidic ancestor to Hillel naturally means that the patriarch Judah also derives from the Messianic seed. The work of Yavneh consisted, therefore, in establishing viable forms for the organization and transmission pri­ marily of the Houses-materials. The Ushans continued to make use of these forms, and further produced a coherent account of the history of the Oral Torah from Moses onward. The Yavneans probably showed greater interest in the development of stories about the rela­ tionships between the Houses than did later masters, for whom the disputes were less interesting. The Ushans may have augmented the traditions of other early masters, besides Shammai-Hillel, and otherwise broadened the range of interests. So, in all, we have from the rabbis a very sketchy account of the life of Pharisaism during less than the last century of its existence before 70, with at most random and episodic materials pertaining to the period before Hillel. We have this account, so far as it is early, primarily through the medium of forms and mnemonic patterns used at Yavneh and later on at Usha. What we know is what the rabbis of Yavneh and Usha regarded as the important and desirable account of the Pharisaic traditions: almost entirely the internal record of the life of the party and its laws, the party being no more than the two factions that predominated after 70, the laws being mainly rules of how and what people might eat with one another.

APPENDIX

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFLECTIONS Introduction The study of Talmudic and related literature for historical purposes stands conceptually and methodologically a century and a half behind biblical studies. While biblical literature has for that long been subjected to the criticism of scholars who did not take for granted the presuppositions and allegations of the text, Talmudic literature was studied chiefly myeshivot, whose primary interests were not historical to begin with, and whose stu­ dents credulously took at face value both the historical and the legal sayings and stories of the Talmudic sages. Here the influences of literary and his­ torical criticism emanating from universities were absent. The circle of masters and disciples was unbroken by the presence of non-believers; those who lost the faith left the schools. When Talmudic literature was studied in universities, it was mainly for philological, not historical, purposes. Even J. Wellhausen, Die Pharisder und die Sadducder. Eine Untersuchung %ur inneren judischen Geschichte (Griefswald, 1874) seems to have known the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees primarily through the medium of Derenbourg, Essai (below). Those Talmudists, such as Abraham Geiger and Louis Ginzberg, more­ over, who did acquire a university training, including an interest in history, and who also continued to study Talmudic materials, never fully overcame the intellectual habits ingrained from their beginnings in yeshivot. Charac­ teristic of Talmudic scholarship is the search, first, for underlying principles to make sense of discrete, apparently unrelated cases, second, for distinc­ tions to overcome contradictions between apparently contradictory texts, and third, for hiddushim, or new interpretations of particular texts. That exegetical approach to historical problems which stresses deductive thought, while perhaps appropriate for legal studies, produces egregious results for history, for it too often overlooks the problem of evidence: How do we know what we assert? What are the bases in actual data to justify hiddushim in small matters, or, in large ones, the postulation of comprehensive principles (shitot) of historical importance? Ginzberg's famous theory that the disputes of the Houses of Shammai and Hillel and the decrees of the earlier masters reflect economic and social conflict in Palestine is not sup­ ported by reference to archaeological or even extra-Talmudic literary evidence. Having postulated that economic issues were everywhere present, Ginzberg proceeded to use this postulate to "explain" a whole series of cases. The "explanations" are supposed to demonstrate the validity of the postulate, but in fact merely repeat and illustrate it. What is lacking in each particular case is the demonstration that the data could not equally well—or even better—be explained by some other postulate or postulates. At best

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL

REFLECTIONS

321

we are left with "this could have been the reason," but with no concrete evi­ dence that this was the reason. Masses of material perhaps originally irrele­ vant are built into pseudo-historical structures which rest on nothing more solid than "we might suppose that." The deductive approach to the study of law Ul serves the historian. One of the most common phrases in the historical literature before us is, "If this supposition is sound, then..." I found it in nearly every historian who wrote in Hebrew. It is Talmudics extended to the study of history. I do not unreservedly condemn Talmudics, except in connection with historical studies. It is a great tradition, interesting and important as a phenomenon of intellectual history, beautiful and fascinating as an intel­ lectual exercise, and a powerful instrument for apologetics and for the reinterpretation necessary to make ancient laws and doctrines apply to modern problems. I should not even deny that it may be a valuable instru­ ment for philosophical research. For instance, my teacher Morton Smith comments on the work of Harry A. Wolfson, "Wolfson's achievements by his 'hypothetico-deductive method' are justly famous. But when Wolfson uses the method, the hypotheses are made from a minute study of the pri­ mary sources, and the deductions are checked at every point by careful consideration of the historical evidence, and those which cannot be confirm­ ed are clearly indicated as conjectural." My objection is that when used by men without Wolfson's historical training, mastery, and conscience, the method lends itself easily to abuse, to the invention of imaginary principles and distinctions for which there is no historical evidence whatsoever, and to the deduction of consequences which never appear in the texts. It can too easily be used to obscure real differences of opinion or practice, to explain away the evidences of historical change, and to produce a picture of antiquity which has no more similarity to the facts than the Judaism of contemporary New York does to that of ancient Palestine. A further, even more serious impediment to the development of the historical study of Talmudic literature was the need for apologetics. Talmudists with university training encountered the anti-Pharisaic, anti-Judaic, and frequently anti-Semitic attitudes of Christian scholars, who carried out polemical tasks of Christian theology in the guise of writing history. The Jewish historians undertook the defense. Two polemical themes recur. (First, the Christians' account of the Pharisees ignores rabbinic sources, therefore is incomplete. The reason is that the Christian scholars do not know the rabbinic literature, therefore whatever they say may be discounted because of their "ignorance." Second, the Pharisees were the very opposite of what Christians say about them) The former polemic produced the Chris­ tian response that the rabbinical materials are not reliable, because they are "late" or "tendentious." Many Christian scholars drew back from using rabbinic materials, or relied on what they presumed to be accurate, second­ ary accounts of them, because they were thoroughly intimidated by the claims of the Jewish opposition as to the difficulty of properly understand­ ing the materials, and because they had slight opportunity to study the materials with knowledgeable scholars of Judaism. The latter polemic—to prove the Pharisees the opposite of what had been said of them—was all NEUSNER, The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70, III

21

322

APPENDIX

too successful. When Christian scholars became persuaded that the earlier Christian view had been incorrect, they took up the polemic in favor of the Pharisees. In doing so, they of course relied on Jewish scholarship and took over uncritically its uncritical attitude toward the material. Consequent­ ly, on both sides, sources were more often cited as facts than analyzed as problems. We commonly find a source cited without attention to how the citation is supposed to prove the "fact" it purportedly contains. Systematic analysis of texts is rare; allusion to unexamined texts is commonplace. Reservations about the method and results of previous scholars should not be taken as evidence that I consider their work to be utterly worthless, except as history. On the contrary, I have learned from earlier writings and rely upon some of their results. But I should not have written these books if I had not considered all previous studies of the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees to be seriously inadequate, because, in general, the historical question has been asked too quickly and answered uncritically. The inadequacy results from the false presumption that nearly all sources, appearing in any sort of document, early, late, or medieval, contain accurate historical information about the men and events of which they speak. The historians are further to be blamed tor allowing the theologians to set the issue: Were the Pharisees really hypocrites? On the part of the Jewish scholars, the issues were, What shall we say in response to the Christian theological critique of Pharisaism? How shall we disprove the allegations of the Christians' holy books? On the Christian side, there were few "his­ torians" worthy of the name, for most served the Church and not the cause of accurate and unbiased historical knowledge. Since the Christian theolog­ ical scholars set the agenda, the Jewish ones can hardly be condemned for responding to it, especially since contemporary anti-Semitism was both expressed and aided by the Christian scholarly assessment of Pharisaism. In fact the European Jewish scholars turn out to have been fighting for the lives of the Jews of their own day and place. They lost that fight. It was a worthy effort, but it was not primarily an exercise of critical scholar­ ship, and it seriously impeded the development of scholarly criticism. The history of scholarship on the Pharisees thus cannot be divorced from the history of Judaism and of Christianity in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, from the sociology of the Jews in Europe and the USA, and from the interrelationships between the two religious traditions. It is not our problem to describe the course of those complex and interrelated histories. We have instead to demonstrate in detail how those handicaps pointed out above—anachronistic presuppositions, Talmudic method, and apologetic purpose—have vitiated previous studies of the Pharisees. To do so, I shall rely upon the device of substantial quotations from important and influen­ tial studies on the Pharisees. The reader may then measure those statements against the evidences he has already reviewed. He will observe two recurrent faults: first, the claim that a story contains an exact historical record of what actually happened; second, the tendency to say jar more than all the data together permit. For the former error, evidence is not only abundant, but obvious. For the latter, the various generalizations about the Pharisees will have to be measured against the substance of the rabbinic traditions about

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL

REFLECTIONS

323

the Pharisees, upon which such gross generalizations largely rely. It might have been better to state the essential argument of each book or article, then to point out what is wrong with it. But to do so, I should have had to enter into the discussion of issues denned by historians to begin with not com­ petent to formulate worthwhile issues for argument. I thereby should have implicitly suggested that the modern historiographical tradition had formu­ lated arguable questions, and that its fundamental grasp of the evidence was sound. This is the opposite of the truth. I therefore cannot attempt to refute, point by point, statements which are made upon no foundation other than a false conception of the character of the evidence and of the nature of historical inquiry. Apologetics Three examples of the apologetic literature suffice. R. Travers Herford, The Pharisees (repr. Boston, 1962), Leo Baeck, The Pharisees and Other Essays (N.Y., 1947), and George Foot Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era (Vols. I-III, Cambridge, 1954) mark the high point of the apologetic movement. Herford observes that the German and other nonJewish scholars "all seem to have the contrast with Christianity more or less consciously present in their minds, not realizing that two things cannot be rightly compared until it has first been ascertained what each of them is in itself...to call the New Testament as the chief witness upon the question who the Pharisees really were is false in logic and unsound in history." The Jewish scholars "know what Pharisaism is like from the inside"—as if the rationalistic Judaism of the nineteenth century were still Pharisaism! Lauterbach is Herford's guide: the Pharisees stood for the Oral Tradition. For his historical account, Herford turns to Josephus (a prejudiced and un­ reliable source), whose story he embellishes with some Talmudic stories (mostly late second and third century A.D.). The descriptions of "Pharisaic religion" then draw upon the whole corpus of rabbinic literature. For Baeck, the Pharisees were "a movement within the Jewish people," not a party or a sect (manifestly false). They were ascetics, Essenes (certainly not), and separatists. They were committed to the "search for the exact meaning and the ultimate [?] law," and were primarily a movement of exegetes of Scriptures. "The Pharisaic trend found its leaders in the scribes." The Pharisees were "prominent figures, especially in the spiritual life." We have "hardly any names of Sadducean scribes." The Pharisees were also "the men of the synagogue," against the Sadducees, "the men of the Temple." Baeck concludes, "Pharisaism represents a great attempt to achieve the full domination of religion over life, both over the life of the individual and the life of the collectivity...It took the idea of saintliness in earnest...Phari­ saism was a heroic effort to prepare the ground for the kingdom of God." One could make an equally good case for the proposition that the Pharisees were concerned to limit as precisely as possible the claims of religion upon life. Various Tannaim—whom Baeck would have considered Pharisees, though they were not—were notoriously hostile to preparations for the coming of the Kingdom, for one thing.

324

APPENDIX

Moore's apologetic work is less homiletical in form and is far superior in method. His treatment of the Pharisees (I, pp. 56fF.) is accompanied by excellent notes (III, pp. 17ff.) in which Moore carefully explains (pp. 17-22) his approach and method, furthermore specifying his differences from the earlier scholars. Moore's account of the 'rise of the Pharisees' follows Josephus's narrative. Then b. Qid. 66a is seen as "patently a doublet," and the Talmud's Jannaeus is understood as Josephus's Hyrcanus, who later went over to the Sadducees. This is "attested by another Baraita" (b. Yoma 9a). The word Pharisee means "one who is separated; in general it stands against <-am ha?ares" Moore now summarizes Josephus's stories about the Pharisees and Alexander Jannaeus; Simeon b. Shetah comes in at the end: "According to the rabbinical sources, this restoration took place under the superintendence of Simeon b. Shetah, a brother of the queen." The Phari­ sees murdered their opposition. The historical account ends here. The Pharisaic beliefs then are summarized. They believed in traditional law; "they were the zealous partisans of the unwritten law." The Sadducees believed only in the written law. They were more literal in interpreting it. The Sadducees saw Scripture as the only authority. Scripture and tradition were the authority for the Pharisees. The Sadducees were rich; the Pharisees had the masses on their side. Moore resumes the historical narrative in the next chapter, giving a paraphrase of Josephus, Antiquities 14. Then Shammai and Hillel are intro­ duced, as the last of the pairs and "the beginning of the Tannaite school tradition." HillePs hermeneutical rules "came from the Babylonian schools [about which we know nothing before 140 A.D.]. In Jerusalem "the doctors of the Law sat at the fountainhead of tradition and were able to draw directly upon that source for answer to the questions that arose in practice... In remoter lands this appeal to tradition must often have been unavailable, and the necessity of arriving at an authoritative conclusion from the biblical text itself must have been correspondingly more strongly felt." Moore then follows the story of the rise of Hillel, paraphrasing it just as he does Jose­ phus's stories, and refers to anecdotes about Shammai and Hillel. He then returns to the Babylonian origin of the exegetical principles. In Babylonia much of the law had only an academic interest: "It was natural under these circumstances that the unwritten law should be more largely deducted from the text itself by certain exegetical principles. When he came to be head of a school in Jerusalem, Hillel recognized that the laws must take account of actual conditions." This accounts for his devising the prosbul, "which left the law unchanged [!] but by a legal fiction secured the creditor against the loss of his loan through the coming of the year of release." Hillel and Shammai produced two schools. The Shammaites predominated until after the fall of Jerusalem. Bibliographies

For a central topic in the study of ancient Judaism, the sole satisfactory bibliography, by the standard of which all others are shown insufficient, is Heinz Schreckenberg, Bibliographie %u Flavius Josephus (Leiden, 1968).

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL

REFLECTIONS

325

Since Schreckenberg includes various themes referred to by Josephus, he lists many items on the Pharisees. To be sure, he does not know the large corpus of pertinent writings in Hebrew and Yiddish journals, but for the European languages, his references to Josephus's Pharisees are evidently thorough and reliable. It would be a service to scholarship to compile similarly ambitious, annotated bibliographies for Philo, the Pharisees, and other subjects. An excellent model is Louis H. Feldman, Scholarship on Philo and Josephus (1937-1962) (N.Y., 1962). Ralph Marcus, "A Selected Bibliography (1920-1945) of the Jews in the Hellenistic-Roman Period," Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 16, 1947, pp. 97-182, and Louis H. Feldman, fosephus IX. Jewish Antiquities, Books XVIII-XX (Cambridge, 1965) pp. 556-588, supply selective bibliographies on various special subjects. Alexander Guttmann adds a new bibliography, for the years 1925 to 1967, to Moses Mielziner, Introduction to the Talmud (Repr. N.Y., 1968) pp. 397-415. Guttmann's list is particularly valuable for rabbinic literature, editions and commentaries. The bibliographies of my Life of Yohanan b. Zakkai (Leiden, 1970 ), pp. 250-264, History of the Jews in Babylonia (Leiden, 1965-1970), I , pp. 204-226, II, pp. 291-301. Ill, pp. 359-365, IV, pp. 437-442, and V, pp. 376-387, contain numerous items about the Pharisees. The more ambi­ tious works referred to below include bibliographies. Louis Finkelstein, The Pharisees (Philadelphia, 1962 ), II, pp. 903-945, is particularly good for books and monographs on the Pharisees (pp. 905-946), less thorough for journal-articles and festschrift en. But Finkelstein's list is not satisfactory for the period after the publication of the first edition, in 1938; and the general bibliography contains items not pertinent to ancient Judaism at all. The bibliography does not suggest that the later revisions of the first edition were based upon wide reading in studies written after 1938 of problems pertinent to the Pharisees. Nor has he confronted Bultmann, Fascher. Dibelius, or other great form-critics. Helpful bibliographical materials also are found in E. Schurer, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (Edinburgh, 1885, trans. Sophia Taylor and Peter Christie), on the Pharisees: II, ii, pp. 1-2; on the scribes (masters): II, pp. 312, 351. But Schurer is by no means complete. 2

2

3

Studies of the State of the Question Since the Pharisees and Pharisaic-rabbinic literature have been intensively studied for many centuries by both Jewish and Christian scholars, one can hardly expect to find a truly comprehensive study of the state of the ques­ tion. One turning point is marked by G. H. Box, who seems to me to have been among the first to call attention to the Jewish counter-attack on Chris­ tian scholarship about the Pharisees. G. H. Box, "Survey of Recent Litera­ ture on the Pharisees and Sadducees," Review of Theology and Philosophy IV, 1908-9, pp. 129-151, discusses fourteen items published between 1900 and 1908, including encyclopedia articles, brief monographs, and major studies. What impressed Box was that "Jewish scholarship is beginning to assert itself in the domain of New Testament historical science." The issues defined by that scholarship centered upon the evaluation of the Pharisees: Were

326

APPENDIX

they all really hypocritical, or merely some of them? Was their legalism merely stiff and lifeless, dry and trivial, or was it sincere and inward? The Jewish critique of Bousset and Schurer (among others) began with the assertion that the non-Jewish scholars simply did not understand Pha­ risaic Judaism, because they did not control its sources. Had they understood rabbinic literature, they would have seen the Pharisees were "men of culti­ vated character and of piety true and deep." Only when Jewish scholars touched on New Testament materials did the Christians meet the attack. For reasons integral to his thesis about the extent of the purity laws, Buchler alleged that Mark 7: Iff. is "not authentic as an incident in the life of Jesus." Box then found it necessary to differ. One might say whatever he liked about the Pharisees. In the spirit of the early twentieth-century AngloAmerican scholarship on the subject, favorable judgments on the Pharisees would be more readily accepted than unfavorable ones. A second Jewish polemic had to do with the "guilt" for the trial and death of Jesus. Since Jesus had said and done nothing "which would render him liable to the death penalty according to the criminal law of the Pharisees (of which we have exact knowledge) [I], his death was the work of "the Sadducean High Priesthood." No one now claimed to inherit "Sadducean Judaism," and on the Jewish side, everyone purported to be true heirs of the Pharisees, so it seemed safe to blame the Sadducees. Box phrases the now-predominant issue: "One of the most difficult problems that confronts the New Testament student who wishes to take account of the Jewish background and to be just to the Palestinian Judaism of the first Christian century is concerned with the classification and estimate of the great Jewish parties, especially the Pharisees and Sadducees" (p. 132). More pretentious, but less satisfactory is Ralph Marcus, "The Pharisees in the Light of Modern Scholarship," The Journal of Religion 32, July 1952, pp. 153-164. Marcus gives a brief resume of suggestions on the meaning of the word Pharisee and on the historical Pharisees. His paper marks the high tide of the "sociological interpretation," which, to be sure, began with Josephus's characterization of the Sadducees as rich and nasty, the Pharisees as poor humble and kindly. Marcus takes for granted the accuracy of the picture of Geiger, Ginzberg and Finkelstein, who portrayed the Pharisees as liberal, proletarian city-dwellers, and their enemies as the reactionary, rich, landed aristocracy. He traces the beginning of 'scientific discussion' of the Pharisees to Abraham Geiger, then alludes to Derenbourg, Wellhausen, Graetz, and Schurer. In all, for Marcus the primary issue remains whether the Pharisees were good or bad, legalistic or not legalistic, sincere or hypo­ critical, universalistic or particularistic. Marcus concludes that today most people agree with Geiger and "are prepared to vindicate the Pharisees of the age-old charge that they were narrow legalists and hypocrites." He further holds that there was no irreconcilable difference between Jesus and the Pharisees. Marcus's paper at best is reportorial. He brings no new ideas to the history of scholarship. He makes no effort to relate the backgrounds of the several scholars to the judgments they have reached. The 'sociological interpretation' is limited to the Pharisees, not extended to the study of scholarship about the Pharisees.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL

REFLECTIONS

327

E. E. Urbach, Ha^aL Pirqe *Emunot veDe'ot (Jerusalem, 1969) pp. 1-14, provides a helpful commentary on modern researches on Pharisaism. His criticism of earlier accounts of rabbinic Judaism seems just and accurate, if somewhat abbreviated. While not a thorough study of the state of the question, his brief chapter is a model of critical historical judgment. Un­ fortunately, his later chapters (pp. 502-538) on the Pharisees take for granted the historical accuracy of the whole range of rabbinic materials. A. Michel and J . LeMoyne, "Pharisiens," Supplement au Dictionaire de la Bible, begun by Louis Pirot and Andre Robert, continued by Henri Cazelles and Andre Feuillet, Fascicules 39 (Paris, 1964) pp. 1022-1024, and 40 (Paris, 1965), pp. 1026-1115, cover the entire range of Pharisaic problems: sources, history, the masters, then a synthetic account, finally Jesus and the Pharisees, the Pharisees and the death of Jesus. They lay out the whole scholarly agenda and give a brief, reliable account of generally accepted views. Their bibliog­ raphy gives a good introduction to each of the important problems. I regard Michel and Lemoyne's article as the best brief introduction to the study of Pharisaism; it is reliable, judicious, and comprehensive. The new departures of Ellis Rivkin, alluded to above (I, pp. 3ff.) begin with sophisticated comments on the state of the question; these are highly suggestive and thoughtful. Note also J . Margot, "Les Pharisiens d'apres quelques ouvrages recents," Revue de theologie et de philosophie, 3rd series 6, 1956, pp. 294-302. Critical Studies From the late nineteenth century onward, a few historians have made intelligent use of Talmudic materials. They have avoided assuming that rabbinic texts always are accurate accounts of things that really happened. They have compared various versions of a story without supposing that every detail of every version contributes to a factual picture. They have used common sense. The pseudorthodox reading of the materials therefore had to compete with a dispassionate historical evaluation of sources, item by item. Israel Levi, and his student M. Stourdze in France, and E. Schiirer in Germany at the turn of the twentieth century are the most important early representatives of the critical approach. Levi and Stourdze examined a few specific pericopae. Schiirer, by contrast, wrote a complete history of the period before 70 A.D. Characteristic of both is a certain reserve, a distance from the values and beliefs of the storytellers. Israel Levi, "Les sources talmudiques de Phistoire juive. I. Alexandre Jannee et Simon ben Schetah. II. La rupture de Jannee avec les Pharisiens," RE] 35, 1897, pp. 213-223, observes that many stories used by historians for the reconstruction of Pharisaic history are no more than aggadot, imagi­ nary anecdotes for edification and amusement. This observation then is illustrated by the stories of Simeon, Jannaeus and the Nazirites. Levi com­ pares the texts and notes a few of the differences I have listed. He finds it incongruous that the Persian embassy wants nothing more than to hear wise teachings of the rabbi. The king is represented as naive. The whole is in the spirit of a fable: "It would not be difficult to uncover in medieval

328

APPENDIX

literature numerous parallels, not to mention equivalent fables in Midrashic literature, to which no one assigns historical value." The break with the Pharisees (b. Qid. 66a) is analyzed as well. Here Levi compares Josephus's story with the Talmud's and finds noteworthy differ­ ences, but the accounts are close and resemble one another. The differences are explained: both the rabbinic narrator and Josephus drew upon an early third source. The language and style of the beraita are not talmudic (a point made by Zeitlin as well, below, p. 346): "Le textc.a conserve tant de vestiges de sa forme primitive que force nous est d'y voir, non pas une tradition orale semblable a celles qui ont ete fixees dans des baraitot, mais bel et bien l'estraits d'une chronique redigee en hebreu sur le modele des livres historiques de la Bible." If the Qid. beraita is drawn from such a historical document, Levi does not cite other extracts of this chronicle. H. Stourdze, "La fuite en Egypte de Josue b. Perahya et l'incident avec son pretendu disciple Jesus," RE J 82, 1926, pp. 133-156, appropriately appears in the festschrift to Israel Levi. Stourdze holds that the story of Joshua and Jesus has no historical value. Hefirstreviews various discussions of the passage: Krochmal, Weiss, Frankel, Graetz, Yavetz, Halevy, and Hyman all regard the stories of Judah b. Tabbai and Joshua b. Perahiah as of historical value. For them Judah fled to Egypt, and later on, so did Joshua [!]. This he finds unlikely. The several hypotheses do not stand up under close examination. He compares the versions of the stories and finds the Palestinian Talmud's simpler and more 'natural.' The story is an imagi­ nary anecdote, of no historical value whatever. Stourdze adds, "Mettre en doute la veracite d'une assertion est une idee moderne. A l'epoque talmudique, les parties discutaient, expliquaient, chacun d'apres ses principes, les affirmations de l'adversaire, mais ne le contestaient pas." Henceforward, therefore, Stourdze's analysis is literary and tradition-critical, and not historical. Emil Schurer, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of fesus Christ (Trans. Sophia Taylor and Peter Christie, Edinburgh, 1885), II, i, pp. 351ff., and II. ii. 4ff., deals with "scribism" and "Pharisees," respectively. Under the former come Hillel and Shammai, information on whom, apart from the legendary, "is comparatively small and unimportant." Schurer then presents M. Avot 1:1-18, and discusses individual names on the list. "It is likely that just ten names were known, and that these were formed into five pairs of contemporaries, after the analogy of the last and most famous pair, Hillel and Shammai." Josephus "seems to speak of the fourth pair, Shemaiah and Abtalion, under the names Sameas and Pollio...The only thing that causes hesitation is, that Sameas is called the disciple of Pollio, while elsewhere Shemaiah stands before Abtalion." Shammai's school was strict, Hillel's mild. "Of ideas of reformation, which Jewish self-love would so willingly have us believe in, there is not, as we see, a single word." Simeon b. Gamaliel "enjoyed extraordinary fame as a scribe." "The Pharisees" begins with a survey of the pertinent passages in Jose­ phus and the Mishnah, further of the haver and the *am ha*ares. The Pharisees "were by nature the rigidly legal, the Sadducees...only the aristocrats, who certainly were driven by the historical development into that opposition to

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL

REFLECTIONS

329

Pharisaic legality..." a judgment, certainly here as elsewhere, based on lack of evidence. The Pharisees were simply "those who were specially exact about the interpretation and observance of the law, hence they were the rigidly legal, who spared themselves no pains and privations in its punctual ful­ fillment." "Pharisaism rests upon the foundation of the law as developed by the scribes..." The more famous scribes [of whom nothing is known] proceeded from its midst: "All the influential scribes belong to the Pharisaic party." Schiirer reviews the several dogmatic differences between Pharisees and Sadducees. Pharisaism is "simply identical" with post-exilian Judaism in general [!]. The haverim were not only scholars by profession, but all who kept the law of purity and tithing. Eduard Montet, Essai sur les origines des parties saduceen et pharisien et leur histoire jusqu'd la naissance de Jesus Christ (Paris, 1883) first reviews the histori­ cal sources. He takes issue with Derenbourg, who placed credence in the Talmudic stories about the Second Temple period. Montet's review of scholarship on various topics is consistently helpful. He finds the Talmudic version of the Hyrcanus/Jannaeus/Pharisees story "much inferior" to Jose­ phus's. "It is merely a pale copy." Montet criticizes Derenbourg's and Graetz's preferences for the Talmudic story. Montet's chapter about the religious principles and dogmas of the Sadducean and Pharisaic parties deals with law and tradition and controversies within the law, including those pertaining to the calendar, Sabbath, daily sacrifices, legal purity, and so forth. While Montet knows Simeon b. Shetah, he scarcely refers to Hillel, the Houses, or other central materials. George Foot Moore, "Simeon the Righteous," Jewish Studies in Memory ofIsrael Abrahams (N.Y., 1927), pp. 348-364, alludes to the rabbinical stories, concluding only that Simeon "stands out in the memory of the age from which the legends come as the end of an epoch." He looks in second century A.D. problems for the animus of the stories of Meir and Judah about the Egyp­ tian temple, treats the context in which the stories stand, and pays attention to the problem of QSQLGS and other materials. None of these pericopae serves Moore as the basis for his comments on the historical Simeon. At best, he argues, the "Simeon...of the rabbinical sources" is to be put in the period located on the basis of other, more persuasive evidences. The Avotchain is examined. Moore sees that "at least one link is lacking," and thinks Antigonus of Sokho had students who were cut out. Moore's account of Simeon stands out. Unlike Schiirer, Moore both mastered and respected the Talmudic materials; like him, Moore read them in a critical spirit. Morton Smith, "Palestinian Judaism in the First Century," Israel: Its Role in Civilisation, ed. Moshe Davis (N. Y., 1956), pp. 67-81, observes that Josephus's picture of the predominance of the Pharisees is drawn not in War but in Antiquities, written twenty years after the War. "Every time he mentions them he emphasizes their popularity. It is almost impossible not to see in such a rewriting of history a bid to the Roman government...The Pharisees, he says again and again, have by far the greatest influence with the people. Any government which alienates them has trouble...Josephus's discovery of these important political facts (which he ignored when writing the Jewish War) may have been due partly to a change in his personal rela-

330

APPENDIX

tionship with the Pharisees...But...the more probable explanation is that in the meanwhile the Pharisees had become the leading candidates for Roman support in Palestine and were already negotiating for it." But much of Palestinian Judaism was not Pharisaic. Further, "the influence of the Phari­ sees with the people...is not demonstrated by the history he records." Third, "even Josephus' insistence on their influence 'with the multitude' implies a distinction between them and the people whom they influenced." The model for contemporary studies is Smith's paper. He demonstrates how one must read and make use of all sources, showing the importance of asking, Why does the narrator wish to tell us this story? What does he want to prove by it? How does the story fit into the larger narrative, and what is the purpose of that narrative? The historians who take for granted the 'historicity' of Talmudic stories tend also to treat New Testament and Josephus narratives in the same way. Smith's brief essay teaches the proper approach to every text and problem. The off-hand remark of Feldman, Scholarship, p. 41b, is not accurate; Feldman has not taken seriously the evidence adduced by Smith. The comparative study of Talmudic and Hellenistic literature, has been deliberately neglected in the present work, for it is in the hands of Henry A. Fischel, for example his "Studies in Cynicism and the Ancient Near East: The Transformations of a Chria," in J . Neusner, ed., Religions in Antiquity. Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough (Leiden, 1968), pp. 372-411. In the same article (p. 372 n. 1) Fischel refers to his as yet unpublished MS, Tannaitic and Amoraic Literature and the Cynici^ing Chria, and his Studies in Cynicism and the Ancient Near East: Transmission, Reception and Transformation, Function and Structure of Cynic Ideas, Values and Literary Forms in the Mediterranean Area of Near Eastern Cultures. In "Story and History: Observations on Greco-Roman Rhetoric and Pharisaism," in American Oriental Society, Middle Western Branch, Semi-Centennial Volume. Asian Studies Research Institute, Oriental Series, no. 3, ed. Denis Sinor (Bloomington, 1969), pp. 59-88, Fischel observes (p. 65), "If we find...that the political fable plays a role in both [Greco-Roman and Near Eastern] cultures, we are fully aware of the fact that the animals never actually did what they are said to have done in the narrative...If, however, this genre is transformed into a type of anecdote in which the clever or good animal is replaced by a Sage and the dumb or wicked animal by his antagonist..., the modern scholar has too often been tempted to consider every detail as true history." Further, "The cynicizing chria with many of its major motifs, forms, and elements is found also in Tannaitic literature. Without exception, all the stories on Hillel the Elder...prove to be Greekchriic, representing either (a) a complete Greek chria; (b) a composite of several chriic parts; or (c) an aggregate of the smallest meaningful chriic elements... Furthermore, some Hillel chriae are joined to one another within a narrative framework precisely as in Hellenistic sources." The motif, for instance, of the sage's forgetting the essentials of his teaching, or of his suddenly and unexpectedly becoming the head of the academy, is common­ place. Fischel further notes, "Similarly, another startling phenomenon is found

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL

REFLECTIONS

331

in both cultures. The same gnome...may be quoted in the name of several different Sages, thus making for contradictory features in the overall portrait of a particular Sage. Further, and more important, the same gnome may occur: (1) as the punch-line of a chria; (2) as an independent unit, without a story; (3) anonymously, often as a popular proverb; (4) occasionally as the moral of a fable. It thus seems that the ascription of a sententia to a Sage might merely have been another means of stressing his importance and does not reflect an actual teaching of his." The Golden Rule is the best example: "The point... is that Greco-Roman rhetoric reactivated and refor­ mulated older original materials in the Near East" [Note: "Lev. 19:18 may thus have been the original form of the Golden Rule in earlier Jewish culture."] Fischel counts thirty to thirty-five examples of cynicizing chria in Talmudic literature, "whereas there are probably more than 1,000 in Hellenistic literature and the papyri." In the chria "all Sages were once slaves, all were abjectly poor, and almost all once did menial work. Only on these grounds can the interdependence of Cleanthes items and Hillel anecdotes be fully established and their probable non-historicity be suggest­ ed." Fischel goes on (p. 81), "The intriguing question can now be asked wheth­ er the Tannaim and their Pharisaic predecessors, using rhetorical techniques and the ideology of the Sage in a similar fashion, represent in Judean culture the identical class, similarly entrusted with the practical tasks of law, admin­ istration, and cult...similarly concerned with the preservation of the an­ cient heritage by new techniques, and similarly clashing with the hoi polloi... Indeed, its attractiveness as an ideology for an elite scholar-bureaucracy may have been among the reasons for the adoption of this rhetorical system in the first place." In "early talmudic culture" the Greek chria was "(1) 'naturalized,' i.e. told of Pharisaic and Tannaitic heroes; (2) transcendentalized, i.e. used for the propagation of revealed Torah and the acquisition of immortality; (3) most often 'legitimized' or 'testimonialized' by the addition of a more or less fitting confirmative biblical quotation...; (4) 'humanized' ...(5) 'halachized,' i.e. considered an actual event and legal precedent from which further law could be derived...(6) rhetorical material was of course only selectively adopted...(7) its narrative technique was used creatively in the (still rheto­ rical) combination of chriic and other motemes into a new unit..." Fischel has not yet fully presented his results and evidence, so it is diffi­ cult to comment on the larger implications of his monumental conception. In general I am much impressed by the dazzling erudition, breath, originali­ ty, and critical acumen of his published account. One may wonder whether he occasionally slips into the state of 'parallelomania', such as is described by Samuel Sandmel, "Parallelomania," J B L 81, 1962, pp. 1-13. In time to come Fischel may find occasion to reflect upon the distinctions among parallels and their meanings discovered by Morton Smith, Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels (Philadelphia, 1951), and also alluded to in my Aphrahat and Judaism. The Christian-Jewish Argument in Fourth-Century Iran (Leiden, 1970), pp. 187-196. These several studies of the nature and meaning of parallels will serve not to contradict the significance of Fischel's work, but to refine

332

APPENDIX

his conceptional framework. FischePs undertaking is unique. While others have noted various parallels between Hellenistic and Talmudic literature, Fischel has carried out the work not on a sporadic or episodic basis, but thoroughly, profoundly, and with conceptual sophistication, When his larger study is available, it will be necessary to cross-reference each pericope in the present volumes according to his various categories and exempla. Only then will the cultural context of our materials be fully illuminated,, as is clear even from this brief summary of a single article. A. Buchler, <-Am Ha*Ares HaGalili (trans. Y Eldad, Jerusalem, 1964, of Der galilaische Am-Ha Ares des %weiten Jahrhunderts) thoroughly reviews the agricultural and purity laws. Buchler's striking thesis, that the laws pertained primarily to second-century Galilee and were not kept except by priests in the Temple before that time, must be read in the light of G. Allon's critique, "The Limits of the Laws of Purity," (in Hebrew, in his Mehqarim beToledot Yisra'el, I, [Tel Aviv, 1957] pp. 148-176.) Another important area of critical study concerns the legal principles underlying discrete materials. Here the elucidation of the data has produced persuasive and striking results, especially when not accompanied by grandi­ ose claims. Among the legal historians, Solomon Zeitlin seems to me to stand out. In his "Studies in Tannaitic Jurisprudence," Journal of Jewish Lore and Philosophy, 1, 1919, pp. 297-311, Zeitlin states, "Intention as a factor in Jewish law was first recognized and given a status by Hillel, who insisted that we ought to take into consideration not only the primary act of a man, but also his intention. This innovation was strenuously opposed by his colleague Shammai." Numerous Houses-disputes are explained in terms of this disagreement, e.g. M. Maksh. 1:1, 6; 4:3, Tos. Maksh. 2:16, M. Kel. 26:5-8, etc. Intention in laws of the Sabbath explains the Houses* differences. Work is forbidden "in which a man intends a particular result; any ML'KH-act in the doing of which the man contemplated no particular result is not forbidden." S. Zeitlin, "Les principles des controverses halachiques entre les ecoles de Schammai et de Hillel," REJ 93,1932, pp. 73-83, refers to four principles on which the Houses differed: 1. rabbis have the right to interpret and emend the law through legalfictions;2. rabbis may interpret the law accord­ ing to its spirit, rather than its letter; 3. one should build a fence around the law; 4. intention is taken into account in the application of the law. In all four the Shammaites took a negative position, the Hillelites a positive one. As to M. Pe'ah 6:1, the difference of opinion pertains to the law of res nullius: if a person renounces his property rights, expressly stipulating that certain persons may not acquire that property, the object is regarded by Meir (a Shammaite) as res nullius, for at the moment that the rights are abandoned* the object becomes ownerless. Yosi (a Hillelite) does not consider the object as res nullius, for in abandoning his rights the owner has not lost his title or his responsibility for the object. The disputes in M. Ed. 1:3 pertain to the same issue. Zeitlin assembles a number of other disputes in which the same principle recurs. Zeitlin concludes, "J'ai essaye de montrer que les controverses entre les ecoles de Schammai et de Hillel sont fondees sur des principles legaux bien definis." What impresses me in these t

c

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL

REFLECTIONS

333

and related papers of Zeitlin is his careful and judicious use of the legal materials for essentially legal purposes, that is, the elucidation of the under­ lying principles of various discrete cases. Zeitlin here makes no historical claims (if we discount his assumption that attributions invariably are correct, and that assumption plays no significant role in his argument). He shows that concrete issues of specific cases reflect underlying disputes on impor­ tant legal issues. Another effort to see some order in the Houses-disputes is Adolf Schwartz, Die Erleichterungen der Schammaiten und die Erschwerungen der Hilleliten. Ein Beitrag %ur Entmcklungsgeschichte der Halachah (Karlsruhe, 1893), who offers the following thesis: "dass die Erleichterungen der Schammaiten und die Erschwerungen der Hilleliten nicht aus Unsicherheit... entstanden, sondern aus einem principiellen Gegensatz der beiden Schulen, oder praciser, aus dem Antagonismus der Schammaiten gegen der die Entstehung neuer Halachoth gunstige Lehrmethode Hillel's emporgewachsen sind." Furthermore, Talmudists have made numerous advances in the philologi­ cal and text-critical approach to the materials. These have been alluded to throughout. Lieberman's Tosefta Kifshutah is the foundation of vol. II of this study; Epstein's Mavo LeNusah haMishnah and Mevo'ot leSifrut HaTanna*im were constantly consulted, as was Albeck's text and (uncritical, highly tradi­ tional) commentary to the Mishnah. Albeck does not exhibit Epstein's critical acumen; he is a traditionalist. J. N. Epstein, Mevo'ot leSifrut HaTannaim. Mishnah, Tosefta, uMidrashe Halakhah (Jerusalem-Tel Aviv, 1957), pp. 23ff., sees the Mishnaic traditions involving the Houses as earlier than 'Aqiba's Mishnah. They were edited near the destruction of the Temple by a Hillelite. Where 'Aqiba adds to a Mishnah, the passage to which he adds was there before his time. When the Houses differ on the explanation of a Mishnah, that shows the Mishnah antedated the Houses, e.g. M. Oh. 2:3, 7:2, 11:1, M. Kel. 15:1, 20:6, M. Qid. 1:1, M. Miq. 4:1, M. Pes. 1:1, 10:8, and many others. Similarly, if Joshua cites a Mishnah, the passage comes before his time, e.g. M. Ter. 11:2 etc. This seems to me a good argument, if the attribution of the differ­ ence to the Houses appears to be correct. But Epstein's conclusion claims too much: "All these prove...that there was in existence an early Mishnah, which was arranged and formalized." In addition, some collections of materials come from before 70, e.g. M. Sheq., Tamid, Middot, Yoma, Sukkah, Sotah, Bikkurim, Parah, Ta'anit, Hagigah, Qiddushin, Bava Qamma, Sanhedrin, Shabbat, Pesahim—all contain materials which in final form derive from before 70A.D. That the cited tractates (and others) contain materials deriving from before 70 seems to me beyond reasonable doubt. That the materials we have were in their final form at that time is a quite different, and more difficult question. I think Epstein tends to move too rapidly from the analysis of literary data to historical conclusions about those data. Of interest also is H. J . Zimmels, "Jesus and Tutting up a Brick,' " fQR 43,1952-3, pp. 225-8, Zimmels explains the action of Jesus in the story of Jesus and Joshua b. Perahiah. LBYNT* without the prefix L is BYNT', or, by a slight emendation, B YN YT>, meaning fish. So the meaning is, "And

334

APPENDIX

he hung up the fish and worshipped it."This sort of explication of texts would be interesting, if one could find any good reason why the teller of the story should have wanted to represent Jesus as worshipping a fish rather than a "brick" which might mean a stamped clay tablet. In the absence of such a reason, the explanation is not compelling. Note also A. L. Hilbis, "The Hasmoneans According to the Talmudic and Midrashic Sources," Sinai 8, pp. 6-22, who discusses the failure of the Talmudic sages to preserve much information about the Hasmonean period. Traditional Studies Without doubt the most ambitious and impressive traditional historian of the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees—as of every other topic in "Talmudic history"—is Y.I. Halevy. I call him 'traditional' because Halevy makes no pretense of approaching materials as a participant in the wissenschaftliche or scientific tradition. He enjoys destroying the results of those who do. But his thoroughness, profound knowledge of law, willingness to analyze texts in depth and to criticize all authorities, ancient and modern— these mark Halevy as the greatest master of "Talmudic history" of his or any other generation. Obviously, one cannot assent to his ridiculous con­ clusions. He regards as facts the allegations of the tradition as to its own history—it begins at Sinai, or, least, before Ezra—and of course takes for granted that what stories tell is what really happened, what laws prescribe is what actually was done. For him these are natural assumptions, but not impediments to the critical analysis of all problems. Yishaq Isaak Halevy, DorotHaRishonim (German title: Die Geschichte und Literatur Israels. Ic. Umfasst den Zeitraum von Ende der Hasmonaer^eit %ur Einset^ung derrdmischen Landpfleger, Berlin-Vienna, 1923), pp. 89-143, 547ff., deals with Hillel; pp. 144ff., with the beginnings of the Mishnah; etc. The foundations of the Mishnah had been entirely laid long before Hillel and Shammai. "The whole was arranged before them in its very language just as it is before us today." The task of Hillel and Shammai was to expound their traditions. There were different Mishnaic traditions, however, accord­ ing to the different masters, and it was necessary to recover the original and correct law. The foundations had been laid much earlier. The Men of the Great Assembly were responsible for various taqqanot, but the bulk of Mishnah in its present form comes before their time. The Houses dispute the explanation of various preexisting Mishnah-laws. They therefore supply a date for those laws: before the time of Hillel. Halevy cites M. Oh. 7:3; M. Oh. 2:3; M.Qid. 1:1; M. Ter. 1:4, M. Yev. 6:6, and numerous other passages. All of them prove that the Houses ruled on minor aspects of exist­ ing laws, or disputed the exact reading of the Mishnah, or interpreted the extant laws differently. But the Mishnah existed in its present form before the Houses. On the Houses (pp. 548-606) Halevy says Shammai and Hillel founded their respective houses at the beginning of their active careers. On the "eighteen things,' note pp. 580ff. Pseudocritical Studies I share Halevy's negative view of the results of "the science of Judaism,"

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL

REFLECTIONS

335

though my reasons are not the same as his. Halevy ridicules the misleading impression given by "the German sages" that they possess more accurate information than they actually have. What seems to me equally absurd is the gullible and uncritical use of Talmudic traditions, combined with the pretentious claim that, for the first time, something both new and "scienti­ fic" is being done with them. All of the studies we are about to consider take for granted what should be the problem, namely, the facticity or 'his­ toricity' of the source. Frequently they merely allude to a pericope, without citing or analyzing it. For example, one will find Hillel ousted the Bathyrans by citing his masters, ShemaHah and Abtalion, with an accompanying footnote, b. Pesahim 66b. We hear nothing of the several versions, of how the author understands the introduction of new materials, the rearrangements of old, the inclusion of interpolations of various sorts (including the names of S + A), and so on. The unwary reader will therefore assume that the his­ torian has facts, and that the task is to interpret or explain facts. He will not see the frail foundations beneath such 'facts'. In this regard, Fischel, Levi, and his student Stourdze stand nearly by themselves among Jewish scholars, Schurer, Moore, and Smith among Christian ones. It seems to me the best way to recognize what is false about the claim of the scholars before us to a critical approach is to measure their statements against the sources we have already studied. For that purpose I shall cite their actual language. The reader may recall the stories and judge for himself the claim that a "scientific" or "critical" approach is at hand. In this respect, I carry forward the study of 'pseudorthodoxy' of my teacher Morton Smith, in "The Present State of Old Testament Studies, J B L 88, 1969, pp. 19-35. Smith defines pseudorthodoxy as "the attempt to reconcile the traditional beliefs about the OT with the undeniable results of scholar­ ship." Of greatest interest here are Smith's remarks about higher criticism, "which has always been the bete noire of the pseudorthodox. They were clev­ er enough to see that its results had to be accepted. On the other hand, to attack higher criticism was the accepted way of vindicating pseudortho­ doxy. Therefore higher criticism had to be both attacked and accepted. What could be done? The solution was: to concentrate the attack on the greatest and most famous representative of higher criticism, to announce to the public that his 'system' had been destroyed, and to appropriate privately its elements." Smith's pseudorthodox, and our pseudocritical, scholars have only the "pseudo" in common. The pseudocritical scholars claim to accept a critical approach, but in pretending that the sources are accurate historical records, and in failing to articulate and defend that notion, they reveal the fundamentalist convictions which they both hold and claim to transcend. They do not argue with the critical scholars. They either villify or ignore them. Schurer is attacked; Moore's article on Simeon the Just and the full implications of Smith's on Josephus's picture of the Pharisees (to take two examples) are simply ignored. Or the pseudocritical scholars will allege that they grant the presuppositions of the opposition, then completely bypass them, pretending nothing has changed. It comes down to the same thing. Ironically, we face the opposite of Smith's pseudorthodox: the pseu­ docritical scholars announce to the public that they are "critical" but pri-

336

APPENDIX

vately they appropriate nothing whatever of the literary and historical-critical advances of the past century and a half of biblical studies. What commonly characterizes the pseudocritical school are some or all of these qualities: first, deductive reasoning; second, arbitrary and ground­ less judgments as to the 'historicity' and the lack of 'historicity' of various individual pericopae; third, failure to bring to bear a wide range of evidence external to the Talmudic materials; fourth, the assumption that whatever is alleged in any source is as well attested as what is alleged in any other; fifth, the endless positing of untested, and untestable, "possibilities"; sixth, the recurrent, and groundless claim that a story "must have been supported by tradition"; sixth, the repeated argument that if a story were not true, no one would have told or preserved it; seventh, the spinning out of large theories to take account of stories and sayings under some grand philosophi­ cal scheme (which is not much different from the next); seventh, a love of homiletics; eighth, the invention of new definitions for old data, e.g. the use of proto-Pharisees, to describe the dim figures who link the Pharisees we know about to the alleged, earlier men of the Great Assembly about whom we know nothing. But above presumably, must or may have been and perhaps, a few sentences later magically converted into was and certainly, everywhere recur. The pseudocritical scholars claim to write history, but the 'historicity' of their histories is superficial, not profound. They concentrate on the exege­ sis of discrete pericopae. Further, they merely take up one rabbi after another in chronological order and describe as historical facts the stories and dicta attributed to him by any and all sources. The best they can do with disparate sources, e.g. Josephus and the Talmud, is to weave one to­ gether with the other; both are true, or one is false and the other true— that exhausts their powers of historical imagination. They never get behind such sources to events or situations indicated by both but different from either. Abraham Geiger, HaMiqra veTargumav (Hebrew translation by Y.L. Barukh of Urschrift und Oberset^ungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhdngigkeit von der innern Entwicklung des Judentums, Jerusalem, 1949) pp. 69-102, discusses the Sadducees and Pharisees, whom he sees as aristocrats versus republicans. Geiger stands at the beginning of modern Jewish scholarship on the Phari­ sees. His picture affected nearly every subsequent treatment of the subject, except for Halevy's. Abraham Geiger, Judaism and Its History (trans, by Charles Newburgh , N.Y., 1911) pp. 90-121, treats the Pharisees and related questions. The Pharisees were separatists (whatever that means), opposing the Sadducees, "the descendants of the priest estate in connection with the families of rank." The Pharisees "objected to having the sanctity of the priesthood placed so much in the foreground." The Pharisees managed "all institutions that were of great importance in the popular life." The Pharisees "were the very core, the brain and the brawn of the nation; their exertions were directed toward the establishment of equal rights for all [!]—their fight was the fight that was repeated in all times when great interests are at stake, the fight against priest-craft and hierarchy, against privilege of individual classes, the fight for the very truth that not outward qualities alone, but inward religious conviction and consequent moral conduct con-

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL

REFLECTIONS

337

stitute the proper worth of the man." "Hillel is a fully historical person." Legends... "emanate from his character, so that we must acknowledge that, even if they did not actually come to pass, they are yet in full harmony with his character." He came from Babylonia as a poor man. He was meek and mild. For him "the essence of Judaism consists in love of man and mutual regard, in the respect of the dignity of man and the equality of all men..." The adherents of the School of Shammai "maintained in perfect accordance with their gloomy ways that it would be better for man never to have been born..." Heinrich Graetz, History of the Jews. II. From the Reign of Hyrcanus (135 B.C.E.) to the Completion of the Babylonian Talmud (500 C.E.) (trans. H. Szold, repr. Philadelphia, 1949) follows and paraphrases Josephus's narra­ tive, into which he mixes Talmudic materials, the whole then being embel­ lished with homilies. The Pharisees, "the very center... of the nation, having above all things at heart the preservation of Judaism in the exact form in which it had been handed down, insisted upon all political undertakings, all public transactions, every national act being tried by the standard of religion." The Pharisees were not a party, "for the mass of the nation was inclined to Phariseeism..." They received their name "from the fact of their explaining the Scriptures in a peculiar manner, and of deriving new laws from this new interpretation." Simeon b. Shetah played so great a part in the history of the time of Salome Alexandra "that it was called by many 'the days of Simeon...and of Queen Salome.'" Simeon drove the Sadducees out of the Sanhedrin "by the order of the queen." Simeon waived his own rights of precedence "in favor of Judah b. Tabbai, who was then residing in Alexandria..." "The anxiety to exalt the Law to punish all opposition...was so great that upon one occasion Judah ben Tabbai had a witness executed who had been convicted of giving false testimony in a trial for a capital crime. He was... desirous of practically refuting the Sadducaean views..." Simeon "did not fail to upbraid his colleague...and Judah...evinced the profoundest remorse at the shedding of the innocent blood of the executed witness by resigning his office of present and by making a public acknowledgment of his contri­ tion." Shema iah presided at Herod's trial. Hillel was "particularly distinguished for his winning, dove-like gentleness..." "All the members of his household were imbued through his example with the same faith, so much so that once, upon entering the town and hearing a cry of distress, he was able confidently to remark, 'That cry cannot have proceeded from my house.' " Hillel's seven hermeneutical rules gave the Oral law a quite different aspect: "It lost its apparently arbitrary character; it became more universal and reasonable in its tendency..." Once Hillel had proved the matter of sacrificing the paschal lamb on the Sabbath, "from that day Hillel's name became so popular that the Bathyrene Synhedrists resigned their offices—whether of their own free will, or because they were forced to do so by the people, is not known—and conceded the Presidency to Hillel himself (about 30)." Herod did not object. Hillel's deputy was "the Essene, Menahem, chosen because of Herod's wishes." Shammai was "not a gloomy or misanthropical disposition...he c

N E U S N E R , The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70, III

22

338

APPENDIX

encouraged friendliness in demeanor towards everyone." The two masters founded separate schools. Jonathan b. Uzziel "was disinherited by his father in favor of Shammai, probably from displeasure at his having joined the school of Hillel." In the school of Shammai "the Pharisaic principles were carried to the very extreme." But the Hillelites yielded, and kept the peace. This repertoire of lugubrious homilies masquerading as historical facts set the fashion from Graetz's time onward. The account of the Houses given by S. Mendelsohn shows an even more gullible approach, in "Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai," J E 3, pp. 115-116. He sees the Shammaites as restrictive, the Hillelites as moderate. Three hundred sixteen [exactly!] controversies are preserved in the Talmud, "affecting 221 halakot, 29 halakic interpretations, and 66 guardlaws; and out of the whole number only 55 present the Shammaites on the side of leniency." This pseudoprecise number marches from book to book; it seems to be Weiss's (Dor, below), but no one footnotes him. The Hillelites were "like their founder—quiet, peace-loving men, acco­ modating themselves to circumstances and times...The Shammaites...stern and unbending like the originator of their school, emulated and even exceed­ ed his severity." "They were intensely patriotic and would not bow to foreign rule. Their principles were akin to those of the Zealots"—who were not notorious for loving peace. "As all the nations around Judea made a common cause with the Romans, the Zealots were naturally inflamed against every one of them; and there­ fore the Shammaites proposed to prevent all communication between Jew and Gentile..." The Hillelites did not agree: "Eleazar ben Ananias invited the disciples of both schools to meet at his house. Armed men were stationed at the door, and instructed to permit everyone to enter, but no one to leave. During the discussions that were carried on under these circumstances, many Hillelites are said to have been killed; and then and there the remainder adopted the restrictive propositions of the Shammaites, known in the Tal­ mud as the 'Eighteen Articles.' On account of the violence which attended those enactments, and because of the radicalism of the enactments themsel­ ves, the day on which the Shammaites thus triumphed over the Hillelites was thereafter regarded as a day of misfortune." The ritual obeisance to "historical criticism" takes the form of said to have. But the phrase has not affected Mendelsohn's "historical" picture. Our next example of the pseudocritical school must be taken more seri­ ously. Louis Ginzberg, "The Significance of the Halachah for Jewish History," On Jewish Law and Lore (Philadelphia, repr. 1962), pp. 77-126, proposes "to demonstrate that the development of the halachah...is not a creation of the House of Study but an expression of life itself." The decree of the Yosi's about the uncleanness of foreign countries and of glass was imposed "at the time when, as a result of the persecution by Antiochus Epiphanes, emigration from the Holy Land began. During that period contemporary leadership feared the threat of mass evacuation as a great danger to the nation and its land. Therefore, as a preventive measure, they ruled that foreign lands were impure." Ginzberg claims that c

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL

REFLECTIONS

339

glass was very expensive, though it seems to have been cheap. Many pre­ ferred glass vessels, "which could not become ritually impure, to locally produced earthenware and metal dishes, which required safeguarding against ritual impurity...When ritual impurity was decreed for glassware this competition was partially lessened, since glassware from Tyre and Sidon no longer possessed the advantage of being free from the liability to ritual impurity"—as if the masses kept the purity-laws! Joshua's decree about wheat from Alexandria is similarly accounted for: "It is...well known that the competition between the Holy Land and Egypt in the grain trade, and particularly in wheat, was very great indeed; when, consequently, Joshua ben Perahya became aware that some apprehension of impurity existed with respect to Alexandrian wheat, he used it as the reason for a restrictive decree intended for the benefit of Jewish farmers. He hoped that the majority of buyers would prefer the wheat of the Holy Land, which was not conditioned to receive impurity, to impure foreign wheat. His colleagues...disagreed, for they preferred for the sake of the general good to encourage competition in foodstuffs." Simeon b. Shetah's decree on metal vessels came because "people began to import into the Holy Land other metals...In order to protect native products, the susceptibility to ritual impurity was also decreed on these foreign metals, lest they be preferred to the metals of the Holy Land..." To be sure, Palestine had no metals to speak of. Before the Houses, "it is established...that there were not many conflicts of opinion among the sages of Israel." The differences between the Houses cannot be systematized. Many factors caused them. Shammai and Hillel did not found the Houses; they date back to the beginning of the pairs. But then from the beginnings there were many conflicts of opinion, or Ginzberg contradicts himself. The Pharisees were split into two wings, right and left, conservatives and progressives. The controversy about laying on of hands "stems from the differences between the conservatives and the progressives." "It is my view that the conflict among the Pairs was over the issue whether obligatory burnt-offerings and obligatory peace-offerings required the laying on of hands, for the Torah mentions the laying on of hands only in connection with votive burnt-offerings and votive peace-offerings or in the cases of a guilt-offering or sin-offering." The controversy involved four questions. 1 . The extent to which scholars were empowered to derive new enact­ ments by means of biblical exegesis: The conservatives wanted to limit the authority of biblical exegesis as a source of new law. Therefore laying on of hands was not required, since the Bible does not mention it. 2. The participation of the public, not merely priests, in the Temple service: The progressives favored increasing the influence of the people on the Temple, therefore said the people may lay on hands. 3 . Use of laying on of hands as a means of increasing the return of the Jews to the Holy Land: The progressives wished to use the ritual as propa­ ganda towards that end. 4. Equality between Jews of the Holy Land and those of the diaspora in offering their sacrifices: The conservatives said it was sufficient for the

340

APPENDIX

Jews to send obligatory burnt-offerings. The progressives said in favor of the diaspora that there is no distinction between votive and obligatory burnt-offerings; in both instances laying on of hands is required. As to the differences between the Houses, "the usual interpretation is that these two Schools expressed the personalities of their founders, the conciliatory Hillel and the unyielding Shammai." But this is not so. The real difference goes back before the two masters; the differences were over social and economic policy. For example, Ginzberg cites M. Ber. 6 : 5 , "If one pronounces a benediction over the bread, he need not recite one over the side-dishes..." "The reason for the disagreement was that bread was the main dish of the poor man's meal, and, therefore, once he recited a benediction over the bread, he thereby blessed the entire meal; for the rich man, however, who ate meat, fish, and all kinds of delicacies, bread was not the main dish. The school of Shammai...maintained that even cooked foods were not included in a benediction over bread." Other differences concerning the meal were "based on the class difference between the Schools." Further, slaughtering a wild animal or bird on a festival day (M. Bes. 1 : 1 ) produces a disagreement resulting "from the class differences between the two Schools. The eating of game or birds was quite usual for the rich but not for the poor..." As to the several cases in which the Houses differ on the matter of inten­ tion : "Primitive man reckoned only with the act, and not with the intention; a man was judged by his deeds and not by his thoughts...We therefore find the School of Shammai, the representatives of the conservatives, considered deed more important than thought. In many cases involving laws of things prohibited and permitted...they declared that deed is paramount, as over against the progressive view of the School of Hillel, who taught that an act not accompanied by intention is not to be considered an act." Ginzberg's picture depends upon the presupposition, not only that the decrees were made by those to whom they were attributed, but also that they were enforced. The Pharisees were in control of the government. Whatever they decreed had the force of law. The Hasmoneans were subser­ vient to their wishes even at the very outset of their rule (the Yosi's). The decrees of the Yosi's were confirmed by the monarch, who presumably "sat humbly" before the Pharisaic masters. The government was, moreover, both sophisticated in matters of economics, and also able to carry out sweep­ ing decrees pretty much as the Pharisaic masters issued them. One could argue in Ginzberg's behalf that the Pharisees might have decided their legal questions by considerations of public interest even though they knew their decisions would produce no practical consequences. If the presupposi­ tion that the law made by Pharisees was enforced was false, that fact would not render the rest of the structure impossible. What is weak is that Ginz­ berg never raises the question of whether and how the Pharisees enforced their rulings. Ginzberg must have taken for granted the 'historicity' of the laws of M. Sanhedrin. He does not bring a shred of evidence to substantiate any of his theories, e.g. that there was mass emigration at the time of the Macca­ bees, that everyone kept the purity laws, that many preferred glass vessels,

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL

REFLECTIONS

341

that Joshua had the power and knowledge to help out the farmers, and that they needed help; that people began to import other metals in the time of Simeon b. Shetah, and that he had the power to prevent it. The Houses' disputes go back a century and a half before the establishment of the Houses, even though we have no hint of that fact in the sources attributed to antece­ dent authorities. The Pharisees were split into conservatives and progres­ sives ; so too the Sadducees were conservative and the Pharisees progressive, and so on. Wherever we find two parties, the difference between them will be explained in the same way. The explanation of M. Hag. 2:2 is not accompanied by archeological or historical facts. Everything is argued on the basis of what sounds reasonable. Louis Finkelstein, HaPerushim veAnshe Keneset HaGedolah (N.Y., 1950: The Pharisees and the Men of the Great Synagogue) and The Pharisees. The Sociolo­ gical Background of Their Faith (Philadelphia, 1962 ) carries forward the economic-sociological thesis of Ginzberg. For him the plebeians are urban workers, against the rural gentry. Differences in wealth were secondary. The Houses did not debate old vs. new law. The real differences were be­ tween provincials and metropolitans; they reflected differences of habitat. The struggle was "carried on in Palestine for fifteen [!] centuries." For example, the Hillelites were sympathetic to the Judean grape-growers; the "patrician Shammaites" favored the Galilean olive-producers—accounting for the difference of opinion between the masters recorded in b. Shab. 17a. Likewise, Shema'iah, a plebeian, believed in the merit of the fathers. The patricians denied pre-determination." "Abtalyon, the patrician, maintains that the miracle was caused by the merit of the Israelites themselves." Louis Finkelstein, Akiba, Scholar, Saint and Martyr (Philadelphia, repr. 1962), again has the Shammaites as patricians, the Hillelites as plebeians. Simeon b. Gamaliel "scion of the House of Hillel" defected to the Sham­ maites: "Social position meant everything to Simeon ben Gamaliel, and he could not bear to risk its loss. His abandonment of the Hillelite School was not merely formal and outward; it was inner and complete. He had inherited the mind of his ancestors, but not their spirit, their shrewdness but not their understanding, their keen insight but not their broad sympa­ thies and social conscience...Above all, he had lost that fundamental quality of self-effacement, which had made the House of Hillel universally revered. He could never forget himself. Vain, pompous, and egotistical, conscious of scholarly inferiority among the Hillelites and of social inferiority among the Shammaites, he found his greatest delight in dramatic exhibitions of personal authority." "Everything that Simeon ben Gamaliel did reflected his social ambitions. He lived in a fashionable court, where his nearest neigh­ bor was a Sadducee." Finkelstein's vituperative tirade against poor Simeon b. Gamaliel seems to me representative of the pseudocritical school's homiletics. The reader may refer to the little corpus of Simeon-materials to see whether he can find out what so irritated Finkelstein. I cannot account for his lengthy, hostile judgment. Isaiah Sonne, "The Schools of Shammai and Hillel Seen from Within," Louis Ginsberg fubilee Volume. On the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. English Section (N.Y., 1945), pp. 275-293, observes, "Granted that the two 3

342

APPENDIX

schools represented two classes [rich and poor], we must not overlook the fact that the schools had to settle their class differences not on a purely practical, but primarily on an academic theoretical ground.. .the schools were compelled to exert their objective thinking faculties beside seeking the mere calculation of class interest." Sonne proceeds to elucidate the "immanent dialectic of the controversies." This had been the contention of A. Schwarz, Die Erleichterungen der Schammaiten und die Erschiverungen der Hilleliten (Vienna, 1893), who held that the differences between the Houses were based upon the Shammaites' rejection of Hillelite hermeneutic principles of interpreta­ tion. For Sonne, too, the Shammaites were more literal than the Hillelites. For example, the Shammaites opposed the use of the principle of analogy (Ge^erah shavah). This is proved from the b. Pes. 66b. story of Hillel in the Temple; so Sonne makes "them" or "the whole courtyard" into the House of Shammai (!). Sonne posits, however, that the fundamental difference is between "the one and the many, which constitutes the fundamental rhythm of human thinking in general...To lay stress on context [ = Shammaites] means... to see the unity in diversity and multiplicity, to think in concepts and to defy sense perceptions...To lay stress on the word [ = Hillelites], on the other hand, means to dissolve the unity and the continuity into an infinite multitude of fragments." Sonne cites M. Miq. 5:6 (Vol. II, p. 295). The "unity in the continuous change of the stream" is in line with the view of the Shammaites, but denied by "the disruptive tendency of the Hillelites." Shammai holds that if a man sends another to commit murder, the instigator is guilty. "The long range causation asserted by the Shammaites accounts for a series of their restrictions with regard to the starting of work on Friday which cannot be completed before the Sabbath." The same difference relates to intention: "The Hillelites require the 'intention' to accompany the act; the Sham­ maites... extend considerably the range of the intention, so as to reach acts accomplished after a certain interval in time." The difference about grounds for divorce has to do with causation: "...from the point of view of the Hillelites, causation in general is something contingent and external, and therefore any 'unseemly thing,' even if it has nothing to do with marital life, may be the cause of divorce." In general the Shammaites "see the conceptual unity in the diversity and multiplicity...[while] the Hillelites' tendency [was] towards disintegra­ tion of conceptual units..." Sonne concludes that the Hillelites' "atomicnominalistic tendency bears also unmistakably germs of disintegration and anarchy." So one man's progressives turn out to be another's anarchists. While I find much to admire in Zeitlin's legal-historical studies, I regret to observe that the more narrowly historical articles and books uniformly exhibit unparalleled dogmatism, joined with the allegation that no one else understands Talmudic literature. Zeitlin's papers confidently and repeatedly present as fact a wide range of quite dubious notions. For example, S. Zeitlin, "Prosbol, A Study in Tannaitic Jurisprudence," JQR 37, 1946, pp. 341-362, takes for granted the literal, historical accuracy of the prosbo/stoties. He does not analyze the literary traits of the stories

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL

REFLECTIONS

343

and sees no historical problems in them. The primary issue is legal, but what the law describes is taken for granted as social and historical fact. Here that assumption is central to the argument. Zeitlin claims, "Before his [HillePs] time, the creditor in order not to lose the money which he had loaned to his fellow men on account of the sabbatical year, deposited with the court a promissory note given to him by the debtor. Such a promissory note had a clause to the effect that the real property of the debtor was mortgaged to the creditor. In such a case, the creditor had the right to collect the debt even after the sabbatical year...According to the opinion of the school of Shammai, anything which ultimately has to be collected is considered as already collected [Footnote: "b. Git. 37a"—which contains an Amoraic interpretation]. However, that was only a custom and had not as yet been sanctioned. Hillel introduced the Takkana that the creditor may write a Prosbol, even without the knowledge of the debtor, in which he declares that he will collect all the debts people owe him. The Prosbol is valid, whether or not the creditor has a promissory note, and whether or not the note was deposited with the court. This Takkana Hillel made a law by supporting it by a verse in the Pentateuch. A Takkana must always be based on the Pentateuch." Zeitlin thus takes for granted that the Sabba­ tical laws were everywhere enforced. It was moreover possible for the Pharisees to effect changes in the administration of commercial (and real estate) law. Further, Zeitlin claims that the Prosbol was in existence before HillePs time, which is not what the story says. He claims this was merely a "custom," but the story says Hillel introduced that custom. Zeitlin has imposed a theory upon stories which in their present form contradict his theory. It hardly serves to argue that Hillel "really" did introduce the Prosbol as the stories say, against the view that all he did was to find a Scriptural basis for a rather minor alteration of existing practice. Indeed, one can hard­ ly argue with this sort of allegation, without being drawn into the concep­ tually primitive framework of discussion. What Hillel "really" did or did not do is not a suitable subject for analysis, given the condition of the sources. S. Zeitlin, "Hillel and the Hermeneutic Rules," JOR 54, 1963-4, pp. 161173, again discusses the several stories of HillePs rise to power. "Hillel introduced the term kal wa-homer, but not the principle of logic." This was well known. Hillel did not introduce the term ge^erah shavah, nor the principle of analogy. Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah knew it. Zeit­ lin refers to the story of the people's bringing knives in the wool of lambs: "This story reveals that the ordinary people, the farmers...knew that if the eve of Passover fell..." etc. Why did not the Bathyrans know it too? They were newcomers and did not know the oral Torah (!). "The Bene Bethyra who rejected Hillel's view to make the custom of the slaughtering of the paschal lamb a statutory law, accepted Hillel's statement that it was permis­ sible to do so on the authorization of Shemaiah and Abtalion. The Bene Bethyra relinquished their leadership and Hillel became the nasi of the Bet Din. This occurred in the year 31 B.C.E...It corresponds to another state­ ment in the Talmud that Hillel and his descendents headed the Sanhedrin for a hundred years. From 31 B.C.E. to 69 C.E., when Simeon ben Gamaliel was assassinated, makes one hundred chronological years."

344

A P P E N D I X

Solomon Zeitlin, "The Pharisees and the Gospels," Essays and Studies in Memory of Linda R. Miller, ed. Israel Davidson (N. Y., 1938), pp. 235-286, now regards as "historically accurate" only the controversies between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. "The Halakot of the Schools of Hillel and Shammai, Akiba and Eliezer, etc., belong to the history and the develop­ ment of the halakah, but have nothing to do with the Pharisees." So the Houses and presumably their founders were not Pharisees! The Sadducees ended at 70, "and thus the Pharisees likewise disappeared as opponents." But the Pharisees "had great influence on the Halakot of the Schools of Hillel and Shammai." There was "no such sect as the 'Pharisees.' " This is very confusing. The difference between the teachings of Jesus and the teach­ ings of the Pharisees is accounted for as follows: "The Pharisees, leaders of the Jewish people, although maintaining that ethical teachings are impor­ tant for the development of human nature, insisted on the fulfillment of the law...A state cannot exist unless it is maintained by law and order. On the other hand, Jesus, not being interested in the State, appealed to his fellow men to refrain from doing evil..." Zeitlin's thus intuits various sorts of novellae, offering his own certainty of the truth of his allegation in place of evidence or careful argumentation. Perhaps the most striking example of his quite arbitrary definitions is "The Semikah Controversy between the Zugoth," JOR 7,1916-1917, pp. 499-517. Here Zeitlin proposes that the "lay on hands" of M. Hag. 2:2 has nothing to do with performing the ceremony of laying of hands upon the head of the sacrifi­ cial animal in the Temple-court on holidays. While the Houses did dispute that question, the pairs did not. Since Tosefta asks, "Over which semikhah were the schools of Shammai and Hillel divided," and not over which semikah were the Zugoth divided," this clearly (!) shows "that the two controversies were not considered identical." It is Zeitlin's contention that "according to y. Hag. 2:2 the semikhah was the only subject of contention debated during the administration of all the Zugoth." The words LSMK and $L> LSMK do not denote here "to lay on the hands on an object, but express the derivative meaning of the verb., i.e. to depend, to rely, to accept the authority of, and the question discussed by the Zugoth was whether we could depend upon the authority of the Hakamin." Those who held the negative said that "we ought not to rely on the sages in their innovations upon the Torah; the colleagues say we rely entirely upon the sages even in their innovations in the Torah." Zeitlin then analyzes the legal materials attributed to the pairs and distinguishes the opinion depending upon "the sages" from that de­ pending upon the Scripture. The Shammai-Hillel disputes concern four issues: 1. 'a fence for the Torah,' vs. 'let the strict law prevail' (M. Nid. 1:1, M. Ed. 5:2); 2. the Hallah-offering, in which Shammai rules that the strict law must prevail; 3. the Semikhah controversy, in M. Ed. 1:3 pertains to the tradition of Hillel on the drawn water; and 4. Intention in respect to grapes for the winepress (b. Shab. 17a). Zeitlin interprets the language of Shammai to Hillel in b. Shab. 17a, "If you anger me," as follows: "If you will bring the principle of intention to prevail, I shall decree that olives are also made susceptible to levitical uncleanness by their own liquid though no one desires this superfluity." u

c

c

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL

REFLECTIONS

345

Another characteristic of pseudocriticism is the resort to facile emenda­ tions to solve historical problems. Since the facticity of the historical stories is taken for granted, emending the sources will supply the answer to any difficulty and forthwith create a new fact. For example, Solomon Zeitlin, "Sameias and Pollion," Journal of Jewish Lore and Philosophy 1, 1919, pp. 61-67, reviews the references of Josephus and then asks, "Who are the two men... ?" He forthwith reviews various suggestions and possibilities, reject­ ing each in turn. In the end he concludes the references of Josephus are not always to the same men. In one passage Sameias is Shammai; in two others, he is Shema'iah. The consequences of this theory are then spelled out. The passages are treated as literally true and accurate accounts of what was really said and done. Zeitlin then turns to Pollion the Pharisee, who must be Hillel. Josephus's Pollion is represented as teacher of Sameias. "But Hillel was not the teacher of Shemaiah—he was his pupil. This reversing of relations can be explained as due to a scribal error." Along the same lines, Louis H. Feldman, "The Identity of Pollion, the Pharisee, in Josephus," JQR 49,1958-9, pp. 53-62, sees Pollio as Abtalion. "Both were very highly placed in Jewish religious life." Shema'iah's saying in M. Avot 1:10 about hating domination and not making oneself known to the government "reflects his disillusionment with Herod. While Hillel came to power in 30 B.C.E., according to the Josephus story, Abtalion would then still have been alive." But this would not matter: "Every college faculty has men who studied under their colleagues." He then was Hillel's colleague, not his disciple. Feldman rejects Zeitlin's allegation that the reversal of names was a scribal error. The "identification of Pollio the Pharisee in Josephus with Abtalion is justified linguistically..." Feldman might have argued his case differently. If he had noted that the trial of Herod occurs only in Antiquities, but is not known in War, he might have observed that for Josephus, the chain of Pharisaic tradition had not been finally determined by 90 A.D. Therefore the relationships and order of Shema'iah, Abtalion, Shammai, and Hillel were unclear. Granting his contention that Pollio is Abtalion, we may observe that Sameas might stand for either Shammai or Shema'iah (or Simeon, for that matter). Even fifty years after the composition of Antiquities, the exact order of Shammai-Hillel was still under discussion by Meir and Judah b. Ilai. But by then S + A seem to have been worked out. What we learn from Josephus is simply that Abtalion was known and important by ca. 90 A.D. We may also observe that he became considerably less important later on (as did Shema'iah). It may be that with the rise of Hillel to predominance over the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees, other names became progressively less important and materials originally attached to them were transferred to Hillel. Zeitlin's most ambitious work is The Rise and Fall of the Judaean State. A Political, Social and Religious History of the Second Commonwealth (Philadel­ phia, I, 1962; II, 1967). He holds that the Pharisees "stressed the principle of the universality of God..." while the Sadducees held "that Yahweh is an ethnic God..." He does not cite the Sadducean documents on this matter; there are no evidences on their views. Zeitlin sees the Talmudic account

346

APPENDIX

of Hyrcanus's split with the Pharisees as older than Josephus's "as the lan­ guage makes clear. The conversive JFtf#\..was used here—this usage is frequently employed in the Bible but this is the only instance of its occur­ rence in the Talmud." The Pharisees go back to earliest Second Temple times: "The original Pharisees supported Zerubbabel" (!). They were the "main factor in the revolt against the domination of the Syrians." The Sadducees demanded rigid observance of the Pentateuchal law. "The Pharisees, however, strove to amend the Pentateuchal law in order to bring religion into consonance with life. They were ready to modify the Pentateuchal law in order to enable it to accord with the requirements and demands of ever-changing life." The Pharisees disapproved of class distinctions. The haverim and Pharisees "were not identical. Although many of the haberim undoubtedly were Pharisees, not all the Pharisees were haberim. The haberim had no theories of life. They only stressed the observance of the Pentateuchal laws of levitical purity and tithes. [This seems to me plausible.] The Pharisees on the other hand had well developed beliefs with regard to both the individual and the Judaean community as a whole." The pairs headed the "Bet Din HaGadol (high court)." Two men repre­ sented "two factions in the Great Sanhedrin...When the Great Sanhedrin was established, the first place of leadership was given to one with a Saddu­ cean point of view; the second place to a Pharisee. Later, at the time of Hillel, when the Pharisees became the representatives of Judaean thought, the Great Sanhedrin was headed by one person, a Pharisee." The Pharisees "taught humility and forgiveness of wrong-doing. This was their motto as a religious group." But the civil wars changed the mind of many: "They persuaded Queen Salome Alexandra to destroy all who had helped Jannaeus Alexander to crucify the 800 rebellious Pharisees..." Judah b. Tabbai was head of the Sanhedrin, but when Simeon b. Shetah told Judah that he had shed innocent blood and was guilty of manslaughter, Judah accepted his view "and relinquished the presidency in his favor." The Sadducees held that false witnesses "themselves would be executed, if through their false testimony an innocent person was actually executed. The Pharisees maintained that they be executed after the verdict was render­ ed, and it was determined that they had borne false witness." "In the spring of 3 1 , Hillel became head of the Bet Din. Josephus calls him Pollion—the hoary or venerable." Hillel was a man of peace. His broth­ er "named Shabneh was a business man." Hillel migrated "presumably to find solutions for three contradictions he found in Pentateuchal laws." Hillel wanted to "verify whether his interpretations were in fact Judean law...When Hillel arrived in Judaea...he learned that his independent inter­ pretations were all correct, well-established halakoth." His rise to power vindicated the oral Torah. All his hermeneutic principles "had been used by Judaeans before Hillel...What was novel in Hillel's approach was the application of these principles to actual cases of statutory law...Hillel's method was too radical for the Bene Bathayra and they rejected it." The Houses represented conservative and liberal viewpoints, respectively. As with Ginzberg (not cited), Zeitlin holds the differences had begun with

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL

REFLECTIONS

347

the first pairs, but Hillel and Shammai gave their names to the schools. Shammai followed the established law, while Hillel was the innovator. He introduced another new concept, the principle of intention. He made a legal distinction "between happenings which stem from volition and those which do not." "Four controversies are recorded between Shammai and Hillel. In all tannaitic controversies recorded in the Talmud, the name of the person who adhered to the conservative point of view is given first. Shammai's name, however, is given first in three of the disputes...while in the controversy on Semikah, that is, the transmittal of authority to introduce new laws, Hillel's name is given first. This is due to the fact that this principle had already been accepted. Shemayah and Abtalion had already debated this issue, and the name of Shemayah, who adhered to this principle, was recorded first." The debates between the Houses "actually took place." The Hillelites insisted that people should lay hands on the sacrifice. They realized that "if people were not allowed to lay their hands on the sacrifices, they would not bring them and would not make pilgrimages..." They therefore took a positive view "so as to encourage pilgrimages...The con­ tention of the Hillelites that the Shammaite view would deter pilgrimages was proved correct: the Temple became deserted on the holidays (!). The view of the Hillelites then became the law." So much for Baba b. Buta! "Many citations in the Mishne [sic] are Pharisaic formulations from the period of the Second Commonwealth. This is evident not only in their content, but also in their wording and style." In the "conclave of 65-66" the Judaean leaders decreed that gentile food was ritually unclean. "Some of the decrees adopted at this conclave were directed against the Sadducees...The Conclave again brought up the prin­ ciple of intention introduced by Hillel; that an act without intention although willed, was not considered a legal act. Shammai had strongly opposed this innovation, and the Shammaites again opposed this principle. At the con­ clave three different units of eighteen measures were discussed. Eighteen were unanimously adopted; eighteen were adopted by a majority; the other eighteen remained undecided." Alexander Guttmann not only takes for granted the 'historicity' of the various talmudic stories; he also seems to believe in the heavenly echo mentioned in them. In "The Significance of Miracles for Talmudic Judaism," HUCA 20,1947, pp. 363-406, Guttmann holds that the Houses ended with the destruction of the Temple. Eliezer and Joshua refer to them. The "echo that settled their controversy must have appeared at the time when these controversies had not yet been settled, i.e. during the first Tannaitic genera­ tion (between 70 and 90 CE.)." In "The End of the 'Houses,' " The Abraham Weiss Jubilee Volume, ed. Samuel Belkin et al. (N.Y., 1964), pp. 88-105, Guttmann now asks, "When did the Bath Ool [echo] make this sweeping verdict [in favor of the Hillelites]; 2. did both Houses continue their existence after that verdict; 3. what was the extent of the authority this Bath Qpl possessed?" Guttmann takes as fact the opinion of R. Yohanan that the echo came at Yavneh: "This information is repeated several times in the Palestinian Talmud, thus confirming its accuracy [sic!]" The echo

348

APPENDIX

came shortly after 70. "Few controversies of the Houses refer to conditions existing after the destruction of the Temple." Joshua and Eliezer disagree on the interpretation of controversies between the Houses. "Had they [the Houses] existed, a simple inquiry with the respective schools would have sufficed." b. Git. 81a is adduced to prove that the House of Shammai did not exist in the time of Dosa b. Hyrcanus. Guttmann further takes as fact the tradition that M. Ed. was edited at early Yavneh. The "fundamental decision in favor of Beth Hillel was made at the end of a three year's dispute by a Bath Opl, a Heavenly Voice. The immediate effect of the Bath Ool was the doom of Beth Shammai. The Bath Qpl was not effective retroactively." Alexander Guttmann, "Hillelites and Shammaites—a Clarification," HUCA 28,1957, pp. 115-126, makes the same point, that the Houses ended with the destruction. He denies that Eliezer was a Shammaite, this time with reference to y. Ter. 5:4 ("Who agreed with whom?"), y. Shev. 9:6, etc. Shamuti applied to Eliezer means under ban, not Shammaite. The Talmuds "do not offer convincing evidence that Eliezer was actually a Shammaite." Alexander Guttmann, "Pharisaism in Transition," Essays in Honor of Solomon B. Freehof ed. Walter Jacob, Frederick C. Schwartz, and Vigdor W. Kavaler (Pittsburgh, 1964), pp. 202-219, asks whether the Pharisaic movement continued through the Talmudic period: "Were the rabbis of the Talmud Pharisees ?" The answer is negative: The Talmudic rabbis were not Pharisees, but themselves criticized the Pharisees. "When the Temple was destroyed, the progressive wing of the Pharisees (Beth Hillel) prevailed and became the main stream of Judaism...Considering themselves as the true representatives of Judaism, the Hillelites dropped the limiting desig­ nation 'Beth Hillel'...The designation 'Pharisees' was now used by the Talmud for the dissident peripheral groups...While Rabbinic Judaism of the post-Temple period was well aware of its Pharisaic roots and conceded that there were genuinely pious men among the Pharisees of their own day too, the tension between progressive Rabbinic Judaism and the reactionary [!] Pharisees resulted in derogatory remarks by some rabbis against these non-conforming Pharisees..." Guttmann concludes, "The Talmud makes a clear distinction between Pharisees that lived before the destruction of the Temple and those that lived afterwards. Its attitude towards the former is friendly, towards the latter...it is just the opposite." Alexander Guttmann, "Foundations of Rabbinic Judaism," HUCA 23, 1, 1950-1951, pp. 453-474, states, "The principal way of molding Judaism, of harmonizing changing conditions of life with her hallowed ideas...was that of interpretation... This indirect way of legislating is a major character­ istic...It commences with Hillel...Hillel's great distinction was not the use of Bible interpretations to establish the law...Hillel's distinction lies in the fact that he emphasized interpretation as a method." Guttmann alludes to y. Pes. 6:1. "The above passages [re the three things on account of which Hillel migrated] reveal that Hillel came to Palestine to reconcile certain Biblical passages that seemed to be contradictory, and thus to clarify and confirm certain practices." He may have had in mind a Greek hermeneutical method, for he had had contacts with Alexandrian Jews. c

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL

REFLECTIONS

349

The version of Hillel and the Passover-Sabbath sacrifice in y. Pes. 6:1 and b. Pes. 66a "supplement and clarify one another." Furthermore, "brief partial versions of the arguments are found in Tannaitic midrashim, e.g. Mekh. Pish. 3:5, Sifre Deut. 65, 142, and in them Hillel is not mentioned. Josiah occurs instead." But, Guttmann argues, the Talmuds and Tosefta give three independent (!) versions: "There is no justification...for discarding three independent sources in order to solve a problem." The Midrashim "give merely one phase of the discussion. Theirs is obviously a shortened version related at a time when the discussion did not command the interest it did at the time of the Temple." So for Guttmann, the Hillel-stories go back to Temple times. "No real evidence has been produced...against the historicity of the accounts to the effect that the law under discussion had actually been forgotten." To be sure no evidence in favor of the historicity of the stories, or of the application of Pharisaic law in the Temple, is adduced either. Like Louis Ginzberg, Jacob Z. Lauterbach enjoyed wide influence for sev­ eral decades. Herford says that he revised his own views of the Pharisees after reading Lauterbach. Lauterbach posits his own set of theories to account for various disputes. In general, he falls in line with the opinion of reform Jewish scholars, beginning with Geiger, that the Sadducees were reactiona­ ries, the Pharisees liberals. The whole then is embellished with sermons of various kinds. Lauterbach, in "The Sadducees and Pharisees," "A Signifi­ cant Controversy between the Sadducees and the Pharisees," and "The Pharisees and their Teachings," Rabbinic Essays (Cincinnati, 1951), pp. 23-50, 51-86, 87-162, respectively, postulates that the Sadducees were the older, more conservative party, the Pharisees the younger, "broader and more liberal in their views, of progressive tendencies and not averse to innova­ tions." Lauterbach treats the division of the two parties, which he assigns to early (!) in Second Temple times. Pharisees emerge from lay teachers, the Sadducees were formed by the priestly aristocracy. Like Moore, Lauter­ bach draws upon the whole corpus of rabbinic literature for his description of the Pharisees (called "sages of Israel"). For example, the Meg. Ta. story of how Simeon b. Shetah threw the Sadducees out of the Sanhedrin is taken as fact, also the story of John Hyrcanus/Alexander Jannaeus and the Pharisees. The name Perushim orig­ inates in the fact that Hyrcanus forced the group out of the Sanhedrin, so "they were called NBDLYM, the excluded ones or expelled ones." The significant difference between the parties was the "identification of the Law with the ever growing and changing ideas of the teachers." The Pharisees claimed the right to make laws neccessary for their time. The Sadducees de­ nied that right. "Sadducaism because of its rigid conservatism in following the letter of the Law, gradually lost all influence upon the life of the main body of the Jewish people." The 'significant controversy' between the parties concerned the manner in which the high priest should bring in the incense into the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement. "The Sadducees said it must be prepared outside of the Holy of Holies. The Pharisees said it should not be put into the censer outside, but the high priest should enter the Holy of Holies carrying the

350

APPENDIX

censer with thefierycoals in his right hand and the spoon full of incense in his left hand. Only inside the curtain should he put the incense upon the fiery coals on the censer and thus offer it there." Lauterbach asks how the Pharisees could have known the law, when the Sadducees were in control of the Temple. The Pharisees, he claims to prove, introduced "a radical reform." The Sadducees retained "many of the primitive notions both about God and the purpose of the service offered to Him in the Temple." The Pharisees had a "purer God conception and less regard for the sacrificial cult...They tried...to democratize and spiritualize the service in the Temple and to remove from it...the elements of crude superstition and primitive outworn conceptions." Preparing the incense outside was a measure of pre­ caution; the smoke would protect the priest from "the danger of Satan's accusations..." Further, the smoke would prevent the high priest from "involuntarily looking the Deity in the face..." These "primitive theological views" were rejected by the Pharisees. "The Pharisees and their Teachings" makes the same point, that the Pharisees offered a "more spiritual" conception of religion than did their op­ position. Their victory "had to result in a broad liberal universalism." Christianity sprang from Pharisaic Judaism. "Jesus and his disciples did not belong to the priestly aristocratic party of the Sadducees. They were of the plain humble people who followed the Pharisees." Each of the an­ cient sources, the Talmud, Josephus, and the New Testament, preserves "some accurate information about these two parties." The Pharisees were the newer party, the Sadducees the older; they were conservative, strict interpreters of the Torah. The Pharisees were "the younger, progressive party composed originally of democratic laymen who outgrew some of the older notions, cherished modern and liberal ideas, and therefore became separated from the older group and formed a distinct party. They were the liberal separatists, the dissenters who rejected some of the ancient traditional conceptions of religion and who broke away the primitive traditional attitude toward the Torah..." "The Pharisees were heirs of the prophets and disciples of the priests" (even though elsewhere Lauterbach sees the Sadducees as the priests!). Hyman G. Enelow, "The Modern Reconstruction of the Pharisees," Selected Works ofHyman G. Enelow. With a Memoir by Felix A. Levy (Chicago, 1935), IV, Scientific Papers, pp. 117-134, reviews the more favorable assess­ ment of the Pharisees developing in the early years of the 20th century. The picture of the parties is standard: The Pharisees "stood for this live developmental principle. They believed in tradition, but not in a petrified tradition.!.The Sadducees...like all aristocrats were opposed to develop­ ment. Their ground was that the old Scriptures were sufficient, and that no additions or expansions were permissible." "...from the Pharisees...sprang all [!] the known leaders and thinkers of post-exilic Israel." Both the Essenes and the Christians come from them. The Sadducees, by contrast, included Hellenists and other "dangerous internal enemies." Armand Kaminka exhibits a commendable skepticism about some mate­ rials, but thorough-going gullibility about others. The traditional hiddush (novella) often involved the claim that what everyone took for granted

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL

REFLECTIONS

351

was false, but the very opposite was true. In Kaminka's case, this meant turning Hillel from a Babylonian into an Alexandrian—"perhaps" a provin­ cial judge from Jericho (!). His sayings can be set at particular historical times and made to refer to particular events. So behind the facade of skepticism lies the usual pseudocritical attitude. In "Hillel's Life and Work," J OR 30, 1939-40, pp. 107-122, Kaminka recognizes that some of the Hillelmaterials are unhistorical. Any priest in Jerusalem "could have testified with certainty as to how the ritual of the Passover sacrifice had been perform­ ed through long generations when the 14th day of Nisan fell on a Sabbath." The stories are spun out of "public addresses containing fables with ethical conclusions." The rise-to-power-story proves a haughty man loses his wisdom. The story of Hillel's hardships shows "poverty is no excuse for neglecting the study of the Law." Other materials likewise are for didactic purposes and should not be treated as historical. It is unlikely that Hillel, a poor man from abroad, "should have been suddenly chosen for a high position." The office of nasi did not exist. Hillel came from Alexandria, not Babylo­ nia; this is shown by the story of Hillel's ruling in the Alexandrian marriagecontract case. Hillel was born about 75 B.C.E. Shammai's saying (b. Qid. 43a) that one who tells someone to kill is guilty of murder explains how the judges acquitted Herod: A murderer is only the one who actually sheds blood, and "Shammai" opposed the ruling. He is the Sameias mentioned by Josephus. Hillel's sayings, "A name made great is a name destroyed," and "Those that drowned you will be drowned" refer to great historical events, e.g. the battle of Pharsalus (48 B.C.E.). Hillel's saying alluded in fact to Pompey, and "// is to the skull of the latter that he addressed the verse..." (!). A. Kaminka, "Hillel and his Works," in Hebrew, Zion 4, 1939, pp. 258-266 ( = fOR 30, 107-122) says Hillel came from Alexandria and had been "perhaps a judge in Jericho when this city was under the rule of Cleopatra." Pollion was Hillel. Again, the story about the skull floating on the water "was told about Pompey who drowned near Alexandria after the battle of Pharsalus." A. Karlin, "Hillel," in Hebrew, Zion 5, 1940, pp. pp. 170-177, claims to prove the facticity of the story of Hillel's rise to power. Now not only was Hillel a Babylonian, so too were Shema iah and Abtalion (!), also the Bathyrans. Kaminka rejects the Davidic origin of Hillel; Karlin reaffirms it. Kaminka had pointed out that in the story of Gamaliel IPs deposition, no reference is made to Gamaliel's Davidic origin (through Hillel), a good point. Karlin replies that there is a reference to the "merit of the ancestors" of Gamaliel, and this "must mean" the Davidic origin of the patriarchal family. "I do not understand why we should without reason deny the Talmudic tradition that Hillel lived one hundred twenty years. Not for nothing did they call Hillel 'the Elder'..." So Kaminka provoked the appropriate kind of counter-argument. Ben Zion Wacholder, Nicolaus of Damascus (Los Angeles, 1962) compares the ideas of Nicolaus and Hillel. "We are perhaps justified then in assuming that most of the accounts concerning Hillel that are found in the Talmudic literature emanate from the second half of the first century B.C." He does c

352

APPENDIX

not say why. Both men were well educated. Perhaps the claims that Hillel had wide learning "were a reaction to the wide learning ascribed to the Greeks in Herod's court." Both men said one should not make worldly use of learning. Hillel "arranged the scale of vices" much as did Nicolaus, and these may be compared to one another. "Both Nicolaus and Hillel com­ pared the striving for a good life with climbing up a ladder." "That Hillel was aware of the fundamental distinction between Peripatetic and Pharisaic ethics is perhaps evident from his concluding statement: 'If one has gained a good name, he has gained something; but if he has gained the words of the Torah he has gained for himself life in the world to come.' " Abtalion had urged his fellow scholars "to avoid fraternization with Herod and his court." "Hillel's famous saying to the floating skull, 'Because you drowned, they have drowned you'...seems to be applicable to the Antipater affair" (!). Both men also were brave. "It is conceivable that the stories concerning Hillel's supposed secular learning endeavored to counter the then famous polymath Nicolaus, the right hand of the despised king." Wacholder's use of the words perhaps and seems to changes nothing. In fact his arguments are perti­ nent to an examination of the ideal of the sage-politician in Pharisaic and Greco-Roman literature. As I noted, Henry Fischel is working on such comparative studies. But by insisting on the historical facticity ("seems applicable") of the Hillel-stories, Wacholder preserves for himself a place in the ranks of the pseudocritical scholars. Israel Goldberger, "The Sources Concerning the Rise of Hillel to the NesPut" Judah Arye Blau Festschrift (Budapest, 1926), pp. 68-76, compares the various versions. He dates the event at exactly the thirtieth of March, 30 B.C. (a century before 70 A.D.). He argues that Hillel and others really lived for one hundred twenty years, citing similar life-spans in Latin America and in Hungary. Hugo Mantel, Studies in the History of the Sanhedrin (Cambridge, 1961) examines a number of problems pertinent to the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees. He notes that Krochmal and Geiger maintained M. Hag. 2:2, which speaks of the pairs as sharing the offices of nasi and av bet din, is based upon "the form of leadership that existed among the Tannaim of the post-Bar Kokba period." Mantel rejects this view: "Nor have we any reason to believe that their [Meir's and Judah's] view was simply a projection of the present into the past." But Mantel's arguments on this point are insuf­ ficient. He draws Amoraic data indicating that "the Amoraim here are not speculating about the reason why R. Meir. and R. Judah held the opin­ ions they did, but are pointing to incidents that might plausibly be cited in support of either opinion. If the Amoraim assumed anything at all it was that both opinions were backed by tradition." In general, without even such flimsy arguments Mantel takes for granted the literal historicity of the sour­ ces, and all arguments are settled within the presupposition of their facticity. As above, Mantel repeatedly appeals to "tradition" to support this view, e.g. "Yet use of the title in our source [b. Shab. 31a-b, re Hillel and the gentile] must have been supported by tradition." But Mantel has the merit of thoroughly reading earlier accounts of each problem with which he deals. His is by far the best-researched scholarly

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL

REFLECTIONS

353

contribution. He respectfully summarizes the ideas of others, carefully takes up each point, and thoughtfully offers his own theses. The bibliogra­ phy for any topic he studies is comprehensive and reliable. For the state of any particular problem, he supplies the best account; his solutions of various difficulties are no worse than anyone else's. Sidney b. Hoenig, The Great Sanhedrin. A study of the origin, development, composition, and functions of the Bet Din Ha-Gadol during the Second feivish Commonwealth (Philadelphia, 1953), pp. 29ff., criticizes the view, beginning with Geiger, that Yosi b. Yo'ezer was the uncle of Yaqim: "I Mace, and Ber. R. cannot be combined to prove one historic fact, as claimed by Geiger." But Hoenig does not doubt the historical usefulness of the Ber. R. story. Simeon the Just is identified with Simeon the Hasmonean. Simeon and Antigonus are omitted from M. Hag. 2:2 because they "functioned only in the temporary Bet Din of the Hasmoneans, that is, in the transition period prior to the creation of the regular supreme court..." His overall judgment on the value of the sources is, "...all passages which record the Zugot of the Second Temple era are authentic sources of the epoch's history." This is the opinion of Zeitlin, whom Hoenig follows closely, e.g., "S. Zeitlin has already shown that this Semikah controvery...had to do with reliance upon the authority of the sages who introduced new laws. Hence the basic conflict in the early Great Sanhedrin was conservatism (opposition to the introduction of new laws and innovations by the sages) versus liberalism (reliance upon the authority of the Hakamin...in addition to that of the Torah)," i.e. "strict constructionism" versus "flexible con­ structionism" in the interpretation of the law. As to the Houses-form, the Shammaite opinion is mentioned first, "for in the methodology of the Talmud, it is the practice to mention the conservative tendency or older tradition first, and then the liberal view of innovation in law...", again as in Zeitlin. Chaim Tchernowitz (Rav Tzair), Toledot HaHalakhah (English title: His­ tory of Hebrew Law. The Transmission and Development of the Oral Law from its Inception to the Compilation of the Talmud, N.Y., 1950), IV, pp. 99-124, 277340, treats the masters and the Houses. The Houses' disputes were not random, but concerned principles. Shammai held very old traditions—one from Haggai, for example—while Hillel made use of hermeneutical techni­ ques to create new laws. The Shammaite opinion comes before the Hillelite one because the House of Shammai was older than the House of Hillel. There were three bases for the Houses disputes: historical-religious, natio­ nal-political, and logical-hermeneutical. According to the first, the Sham­ maites were conservative, the Hillelites liberal. According to the second, the Shammaites were nationalists, the Hillelites universalists. According to the third, the former emphasized the meaning of words, the second, the explanation of basic principles. Tchernowitz is less thorough than Halevy; he lacks Halevy's acuteness and sometimes tends toward homiletics. Yishaq Baer, Yisra^el Ba^Amim (Jerusalem, 1955; English title: Israel among the Nations. An Essay on the History of the Period of the Second Temple and the Mishnah and on the Foundation of the Halacha and fewish Religion) states, "The Essenes of the external sources are the sect of the Hasidi7?/-Pharisees,

354

APPENDIX

the haverim of the language of the Mishnah, the first founders of the halakhah." The purity laws go back to pre-Maccabean times. Ritual separatism is intended to elevate the hasid in pneumatic stages. The name "Pharisees" does not refer to an organized sect, as in the Gospel and Josephus. The name Pharisees "signifies a stage of elevation in the education of the whole community." This seems to me a confused homily in the guise of cultural and religious history. Louis H. Feldman, Scholarship, has said the last word; see pp. 16a-b, 23a, 30a, 42a, 48a. Herbert Loewe, "Pharisaism," in W. O. E. Oesterly, ed., Judaism and Christianity. I. The Age of Transition (Repr. N.Y., 1969) pp. 105-192, is long, discursive, and sermonic. The main judgment is that the Pharisees were practical and tried to "bring religion and learning into the life of the people." Loewe accepts Finkelstein's theory that the Pharisees were townspeople, the Sadducees, country gentry and priests. Salo Wittmayer Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews. II. An­ cient Times, Part II (Philadelphia, 1952 ), pp. 35-46, and pp. 342ff., notes 43-53, rapidly summarizes the views of various scholars. The Pharisees "enjoyed great popularity and may be said to have represented the large majority of the nation...in fact every one [sic] of the Babylonian leaders known to us was a Pharisee, as were in essence also Philo in Alexandria, Paul's father in Tarsus, and Theudas in Rome." The Sadducees were wealthy, educated, and nationalistic, and insisted "on the rigid application of Jewish law." But they had "lost contact with the living currents of their faith." The Pharisees represented "the living ethnic body" and insisted on the validity of the oral law. "As late as the days of Hillel, we are told, leaders of the Sanhedrin, puzzled by a legal problem, invited this relatively unknown foreign student to communicate to them some traditions which he had learned from their own predecessors in office..." "In short, by synthesizing traditions with the revealed words of Scripture, the Pharisees acknowledged the supremacy of the time element, of national evolution, of history. The Sadducees, however, adhering to the basis of their political power, had to attach more importance to the space element, to the unchanging and per­ manent, to the revealed word of God in its most literal sense." Yishaq D. Gilat, The Teachings of R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanos and their Position in the History of the Halakha (Tel Aviv, 1968; English title for Mishnato sheI R. Eliezer benHyrkanus uMeqomah beToledotHaHalakhah) claims that Eliezer is "completely dependent on the early halakhah." "The opinions and halakhot of R. Eliezer reflect the halakha as it actually existed in Israel's past..." Gilat sees Eliezer as identified with "the Shammaitic system of clarification of the halakha, its exegesis and final decision." The Shammaites "generally represented the early conservative halakha, while the latter reflected the later halakha." Gilat cannot be said to have demonstrated his thesis. He systematically repeats it in connection with one source after another. Like other Talmudists, he does not resort to archaeological evidence, nor does he look at extra-Talmudic literary materials, not to mention secondary studies of other scholars. He acknowledges no antecedents for his entirely commonplace theory. Adolph Buchler, Types offeivish-Palestinian Piety from 70 B.C.E. to 70 C.E. 2

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL

REFLECTIONS

355

The Ancient Pious Men (Repr. N.Y., 1968), devotes a chapter to Hillel, another to Honi. Hillel was called a hasid. Buchler assembles various stories about Honi and Hillel, all narrated in ordinary historical language. For example, Honi ot Tos. R.H. 4:11 is the grandson of Honi the Circler: "This happened undoubtedly before the year 70 in Jerusalem, not only because the elders of the Shammaites are referred to, but because even the legendary Honi III lived before the destruction of the Temple." Honi "was a scholar or a specialist on the prayers." He could not have been an Essene. B. Z. (Wilhelm) Bacher, AggadotHaTanna?im (Trans. A. Z. Rabbinowitz, Jerusalem, 1922), I, i, pp. 1-17, treats Hillel and the Houses, surveying various aggadic materials. Bacher accounts for the absence of attributions of materials to Simeon the son of Hillel and to Gamaliel I and Simeon b. Gama­ liel I: "Evidently the destruction of the Temple and the end of the authority of the Sanhedrin caused the beginning of giving, together with the sayings, also the name of the person who had said them, because then the private au­ thority of each of the sages of the Torah became more important, and the name of the person responsible for a saying could win acceptance for the saying." But before the destruction the sayings were "subsumed under the names of the Houses." But the named masters do have sayings! The Houses disagreements on aggadic matters must come before the destruction, "for otherwise they would not have been preserved"—a familiar and meaningless allegation. In fact the Houses-form was extensively used afterward. Israel Friedlander, "The Rupture between Alexander Jannai and the Pharisees," JQR 4, 1913-1914, pp. 443-448, sees the story of Josephus and that of the Talmud as "unmistakably different." The Talmudic narrative disagrees with Josephus "not only in the names of the heroes but also in the fundamental character of the incident." The Talmudic account should have preference over Josephus, "for Josephus's version is in strange contradiction with his own enthusiastic estimate of John Hyrcan...The whole story points clearly to the unfortunate conditions as they existed in the time of Jannai, and, when looked at in this light, the Talmudic account... receives its proper setting, such as we would seek in vain in the version of Josephus." The Talmudic story, "while legendary in detail, may well reflect an historic fact. Its divergence from Josephus may perhaps be best explained on the supposition that it reached the historian in a different version, in which the names had been garbled...The Talmudic account is undoubtedly...a fragment from an old historic source..." R. Leszynsky, "Simon ben Schetah," REJ 63,1912, pp. 216-231, reviews the various sources pertaining to Simeon. He says the story of Simeon's poverty relates to Simeon b. Halafta, citing Ruth R. 1:18, Ex. R. 52:3, and other late compilations. He assumes that, as a matter of fact, Simeon was the queen's brother. Simeon could not have issued ordinances (taqqanot), for he was not "recognized head of Judaism, head of the supreme magistrature." Judah b. Tabbai was. Leszynsky thus settles the disputed traditions by ignoring the ones he does not accept. Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions during the New Testament Period (trans, by F. H. and C. H. Cave, Philadelphia, 1969) devotes an appendix to the Phari-

356

APPENDIX

sees (pp. 246-270), He sees the Pharisees as closely linked with the scribes. The Pharisees were closed communities, members of religious associations. The Pharisaic communities of Jerusalem "...had strict rules of admission, which again shows their character as a closed society." The members of the Pharisaic havurot cannot have been too numerous. The Pharisees were not the same as the scribes. The leaders of the Pharisaic communities were scribes. Not all scribes belonged to the Pharisaic community. "For the most part the members of the havurot were not scribes." All of these judg­ ments seem sound and within the limits of the evidence. "The Pharisees represented the new tradition, the unwritten Law, against the Sadducean champions of the ancient orthodox theology and tradition, inflexible defenders of the letter of the written biblical text." The Pharisees were the people's party: "Their much respected piety and their social lean­ ings towards suppressing differences of class gained them the people's support and assured them...of the victory." "There is something very impressive about the way in which the people unreservedly followed the Pharisees. For the Pharisees fought on two fronts; not only did they oppose the Sadducees, but as the true Israel they drew a hard line between themsel­ ves and the masses...who did not observe as they did the rules down by Pharisaic scribes on tithes and purity." The popularity of the Pharisees and conclusions drawn therefrom are hardly to be taken as axioms. George Wesley Buchanan, The Consequences of the Covenant (Leiden, 1970), pp. 259-267, says, "The Pharisees did not necessarily write all of the rabbinic literature, and may not therefore be adequately represented there. Some of the rabbis may have been Pharisees but not necessarily all. Because some of the doctrines in rabbinic literature were similar to those of the Pharisees it has been supposed that they were responsible for the entire body of literature..." He further comments, "It is very difficult, if not impossible, to learn the character of the Pharisees in the first century of the Christian Era in Palestine from rabbinic literature, which was mostly edited or originally composed in the diaspora [sic] sometime between the third and the seventh century A.D., and which seldom mentioned the Pharisees by name. Some early tradition may be preserved in this literature, but it must be demonstrat­ ed point by point by comparison with Josephus, Philo, or some other earlier writer. A statement attributed to an early rabbi may have been composed, as well as attributed to him, by a later rabbi. Literature written and preserved by the rabbis may or may not have been written by Pharisaic rabbis, and the date of its composition must still be established by some other criterion than the date at which the rabbi in question lived." "These discussions relating Hillel, Shammai, and R. Joshua to the Pharisees do not prove that these rabbis were themselves Pharisees..." "The quarrels between the Pharisees and Sadducees were reported neither from a pro-Pharisaic nor anti-Pharisaic point of view, so there is little direct evidence that the Pharisees wrote either the Mishnah or the Tosefta." What does not ring true in Buchanan's account is, first, his allegation that rabbinic literature "was mostly edited in the diaspora," for he cites no evid­ ence whatever that Mishnah-Tosefta were not Palestinian documents. Most

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL

REFLECTIONS

357

people think they were. I do not know why Buchanan supposes otherwise. Further, he seems not to take seriously the fact that later masters do refer to earlier sayings and stories (above, Chapter Twenty). This would seem to mean those sayings and stories are not to be dated at the very end of the Talmudic period—600 A.D.—but, with some reservations, may be assigned to the period before the time of the masters who evidently knew them. To be sure, attributions are not always reliable. But we are no better off in deciding they never are reliable and in rejecting out of hand the reliability of the rabbinic process of transmission, in particular after 140 A.D., when it appears to be sound and under excellent control. The real problem in Buchanan's account, however, is not his thesis that the Pharisees do not stand behind elements of Mishnah-Tosefta, but his failure to do more than to enunciate that theory. In this respect he can hardly be differentiated from the various Talmudic historians already con­ sidered, who announce "revolutionary" theories and then take them for granted, without subjecting their theories either to close examination or to the test of evidence. What is pseudocritical here, therefore, is the display of the form of the critical approach without the substance of the critical process. In other chapters of the same book, moreover, Buchanan takes for granted the accuracy not only of attributions to various masters, but also of what is attributed to them. J. H. Weiss, Dor Dor VeDorshav (German Title: Zur Geschichte derjiidischen Tradition, Vilna, 1904), I, pp. 89-184, discusses the several masters and the Houses. He describes Shammai as a conservative. "Hillel sought the reasons of laws and was willing to annul those without sound foundations. The House of Shammai stressed the simple meaning of Scripture, while the House of Hillel went more deeply into matters." Z. Frankel, DarkheHaMishnah (Repr. Tel Aviv, 1959) rapidly traces the history of the Second Temple period down to Hillel and Shammai, then supplies brief biographies of the names listed in M. Avot 1:1-18. As to the Houses, the Shammaites were strict, the Hillelites lenient. "The disputes of the Houses are of three orders, first, concerning Scripture, second, concerning the extension of prohibitions beyond the narrowest limits of a ruling, third, concerning reasons for laws." Most of the disputes are of the second order. "The Shammaites will decree prohibitions far beyond the narrow limits of the law." J. Briill, Mevo HaMishnah (German title: Einleitung in die Mishnah\ Frankfurt/M., 1876), gives brief biographies of the masters before 70. The Houses' differences concern extending biblical prohibitions beyond their stated lim­ its. The Hillelites opposed doing so. Also, unlike the Hillelites, the Sham­ maites followed the obvious meaning of Scripture. "Sometimes the Houses argued face to face." J. Derenbourg, Essai sur Phistoire et la geographie de la Palestine, d'apres les Thalmuds et les autres sources rabbiniques. I. Histoire de la Palestine depuis Cyrus jusqu'a Adrien (Paris, 1876), mixes Josephus's narrative and the rab­ binic sources. The Pharisees occur in reference to Hyrcanus (pp. 70ff.), then a chapter for Hillel and Shammai and their schools (pp. 176ff.). The various traditions always are taken as fact.

358

APPENDIX

Yosef Klausner, Historia shel HaBayit HaSheni (Jerusalem, 1954), III, IV, V, deals with the Pharisees (III, pp. 125-130) and Hillel and Shammai (IV, pp. 125-152). He regards as facts that "Hillel was a Babylonian, poor, and eventually a member of the Sanhedrin." At no point does he analyze sources. Elias J . Bickerman, "The Maxim of Antigonus of Socho," Harvard Theological Review 44, 1951, pp. 153-166 interprets the saying as follows: "Be like slaves who attend upon their master without receiving any allow­ ance from him, who are in servitude, but also worn with care for daily bread like free men." The saying "was uttered shortly before or during the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes. In this time, when there was very great wrath upon Israel, the hope that whoever calls on God is never forsaken could help no more." But before that time the same dilemma had been recognized. And we cannot be sure the saying is Antigonus's. Abba BenDavid, Lashon Miqra veLashon Hakhamim (Tel Aviv, 1967) pp. 95ff., takes for granted that sayings attributed to Simeon the Just were actually said by him. He therefore asks how it is possible that the contem­ porary, Ben Sira, should use such different language, for Simeon's is Mishnaic, Ben Sira's biblical. The difference is that Ben Sira's language is written, but that of Simeon (and Antigonus) is not written. Their sayings were an "oral creation." but "if they had been written down, it is possible that they would have behaved like Ben Sira and tried...to imitate Proverbs or at least Qohelet." BenDavid stresses that the Apocryphal, Pseudepigraphical, and Qumranian writers did follow biblical Gattungen and forms and imitate biblical style, while the Mishnaic writers did not. The whole of rabbinic literature was formulated and transmitted orally. BenDavid (pp. 224ff.) also presents the various versions of Simeon and the Nazir. He observes various developments but does not account for them. Ellis Rivkin, "Pharisaism and the Crisis of the Individual in the GrecoRoman World," JQR 61,1970, pp. 27-53, sees Pharisaism as "...the Judaism of a reality within..." G. H. Box, "Pharisees," Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. James Hastings (N.Y., 1908) vol. 9, pp. 831-836, says the Pharisees were "essential­ ly a democratic party in the sense that they were themselves mainly drawn from the people and safeguarded the religious rights and privileges of the laity as against the aristocratic and exclusive priesthood." Max Weber, Ancient Judaism (Glencoe, 1952, translated and edited by Hans H. Gerth and Don Martindale), pp. 385-405, regards Pharisaism as "primarily urban in nature "and "basically bourgeois." The Pharisaic order "was indeed a substitute for the rural neighborhood for landless city dwellers.. .The transformation of Jewry into an inter-local, essentially urban, landless...guest people was essentially consummated under Pharisaic leader­ ship." All this far transcends the evidence. Abraham Moshe Naftal, HaTalmud veYosrav. L Dorot HaTanna*im (Tel Aviv, 1969), pp. 225-238, treats the masters; on the Houses, pp. 38-40. Naftal does not seem to have read a single scholarly treatise (except Halevy) on the subject, but merely assembles a few items pertinent to each master. His repertoire is by no means complete, and the discussion is primitive.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL

REFLECTIONS

359

Kaufman Kohler, "Pharisees," JE 9, pp. 661-6, sees the Pharisees as the same as the haverim and the hasidim. They founded the synagogue "for com­ mon worship and instruction," and schools as well. In the Temple itself "the Pharisees obtained a hold at an early date, when they introduced the regular daily prayers beside the sacrifice..." They represented "the principle of progress." Aaron M. Hyman, Sefer Toledot Tannafim veAmoraim (Vols. I-III, London, 1910) is the most complete compilation of materials pertaining to various masters. The materials, however, are not distinguished as to reliability. Stories from the Zohar stand beside Tosefta and Mishnah-passages. The collection could have been compiled in 1500; it has no critical value at all. Theology in Historical Guise If I have neglected accounts of Pharisaism by non-Jewish scholars, the reason is that most are beneath criticism. What they lack are concern to portray the Pharisees accurately and dispassionately and willingness to abandon theological interests in favor of historical ones. To take one recent example, Reginald H. Fuller writes (in The Book of the Acts of God. Contempo­ rary Scholarship Interprets the Bible, by G. Ernest Wright and Reginald H. Fuller [N.Y., I960], pp. 229-231), "The dominant concern of the Pharisaic movement was to preserve inviolate the Mosaic law and its way of life against the encroachments of alien cultures. Since that law had been given once for all through Moses there could be no new laws. Instead, the ancient laws, which had been intended for a more primitive society, had to be reap­ plied to later situations. In this reapplication there was no thought of introducing novelties: rather, the idea was to extract the real meaning of the law." In the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees, one will look in vain for the articulate expression of Fuller's "dominant concern." As to not making new laws, Fuller seems not to have noticed the taqqanot, and more especially, the later rabbinic interpretations of the authority of taqqanot. Certainly, some rabbis are accurately represented by Fuller, namely, those who sought or supplied Scriptural foundations for taqqanot. But others are misrepresented, for, as the Jewish scholars repeatedly claim, considerable efforts were made to change the law, and not merely through reinterpretation or casuistry. Here Fuller shows that he has neither examined the evidence nor read the scholarly literature. Further, he reveals a theological bias: "There was little attempt to search for an underlying principle behind the numerous commands and prohibi­ tions. The two great commandments, love of God and love of the neighbor, were of course part of the law, but even in combination they were not accorded that central and unifying position which they were given in the New Testament. All this naturally led to legalism and scrupulosity, to a belief in the saving value of good works, and the consequent sense of pride which a doctrine of merit inevitably entailed." The stories of Hillel, some of them made up at the same time the Gospels were composed, make precise­ ly the point Fuller denies was central in the Pharisaic tradition. To Hillel, just as to Jesus, is given the saying that Lev. 19:18 was "the whole Torah,"

360

APPENDIX

thus surely "central" and "unifying". (To be sure Hillel may never have said any such thing, but such critical considerations do not enter Fuller's argu­ ment.) Fuller thus misrepresents the Pharisaic position, and one must ask why. The answer follows in his next sentence. The references to legalism and scrupulosity and the saving value of good works tell us that Fuller judges Pharisaic Judaism by the theology of classical Christianity. Legalism is a bad thing; belief in the saving value of good works obviously is inferior to "faith." The theological bias natural to a Christian theologian has prevent­ ed Fuller from carefully examining the Pharisaic literature and accurately representing what he finds there. What is wrong with the Pharisees is that they were not Christians. There­ fore one may do with the evidence anything he likes. For example, Fuller writes, "Hellenistic Judaism became a missionary religion. The statement in Matthew 2 3 : 1 5 : . .you traverse sea and land to make a single proselyte...' may be an exaggeration, as far as Palestine is concerned, but it was certainly true of the dispersion." Fuller carefully omits the opening part of the saying: "Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees" For Fuller the verse therefore testifies about "Hellenistic Judaism," of which it does not speak, and not about Pharisaic Judaism, to which it refers. This sort of "revision" of evidence may suit theological purposes, but hardly suggests that the canons of critical historical inquiry come into play at all. Fuller's account of the Pharisees is brief and plays no important role in his picture of early Christianity. I use it to exemplify traits which occur in grosser form in other works of the same origin. What it shows is that the large number of Christian scholars of Pharisaism, even in very recent times, first, do not see differences between theology and history and, second, do not take the trouble to examine the rabbinic evidences, either accepting or rejecting the whole (as with Herford and Buchanan, respectively) without careful, thorough study. Of these faults, the second seems from a scholarly viewpoint the more damning, for it means scholars have not even bothered to do their homework. Fuller's Pharisees are unimportant in his book, and his account cannot be thought of much consequence. Matthew Black, "Pharisees," in George Arthur Buttrick et al.> eds., Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (New York and Nashville, 1962), III, pp. 774b-781a, by contrast appears in a widely used handbook and therefore is apt to cause far more prejudice. To his credit, Black supplies a reasonably accurate account of Josephus's picture of the Pharisees. His references to Pharisaic law, which, he claims, is characterized as "legalism and apartheid," derive only from the New Testament. He seems entirely ignorant of the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees, though he lists in his bibliography various works which make copious (if uncritical) use of those traditions. What alone renders his account noteworthy is his conclusion: There is no reason to doubt that the Pharisees still exercised a power­ ful influence within the Judaism of our Lord's time. But it is doubtful if they still enjoyed the same popularity with the masses as in the heydey

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL

REFLECTIONS

361

of their political power in the previous centuries. By the first century A.D.... Pharisaism had become a bourgeois rather than a popular movement, a predominantly Jerusalem "city" party. No doubt the Jerusalem Pharisees also had their followers in the country districts, but their attitude to the ^Am Ha ares suggests that the gulf between the Pharisees and the peasants who formed the bulk of the population was as great as that between the Sadducees and the small traders in the cities from whom the Pharisees drew their main support. y

One would be curious to know how Black knows the Pharisees "still en­ joyed the same popularity..." etc. He does not cite opinion polls or other hard data to that effect—and I know no such data. That the Pharisees were "bourgeois" seems to me not merely a groundless, but a quite meaningless statement. In the materials before us and in the stories in Josephus's writings and the New Testament, one will look in vain, moreover, for their "attitude to the

<-AmHa*ares"

Thus far Black shows merely questionable historical judgment. One may wonder at the editors' selection of a non-specialist in the study of Pharisaism for the composition of the article. However, the concluding paragraph passes from the study of Pharisaism to the judgment of Judaism, and from history to prejudiced theology: This loss of influence with the broad masses, especially in the provinces and the countryside, applied to Pharisaic religion no less than to the membership of the sect [sic], Pharisaism is the immediate ancestor of rabbinical (or normative) Judaism, the arid and sterile religion of the Jews after the fall of Jerusalem and, finally, the Bar Cocheba debacle (A.D. 135). In Jesus' time, no doubt with certain differences, the broad picture of Pharisaism cannot have been so far removed from that of rabbinical Judaism of the post-Jamnia period, the Judaism of the Tannaites. It is a sterile religion of codified tradition, regulating every part of life by a halachah, observing strict apartheid, and already as entrenched in its own conservatism as that of the Sadducees. Its golden age lay in the second and first centuries B.C., from which its main literary monuments come [sic], and where its important ideals and con­ ceptions are to be found. We have already observed that Black has no evidence as to the influence or loss of influence of the Pharisees. His "no doubt with certain differences," like the "perhaps" and "may be" of the pseudocritical Talmudic historians, changes nothing; the Pharisaism of Jesus's time is what he is talking about, and the Gospels' account supplies the evidence. The "important ideals and conceptions" of the Pharisaism of which Black approves cannot derive from the evidence of Josephus, the Gospels, or the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees, for none of these sources supplies a picture of that "golden age" in terms of "ideals and conceptions." It evidently is based upon Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphical books attributed to the Pharisees, for no good reason, by obsolescent scholarship. Black has taken these attributions at face value. As to his obiter dicta about post-70 Judaism—which is not the topic of his

362

APPENDIX

article—one need not comment. This is the sort of anti-Judaism which has nothing to do with either historical facts or lack of historical facts. The choice of prejudicial language—"sterile" (twice), "arid," "strict apartheid" (!), "entrenched conservatism"—is familiar in the anti-Semitic writings of every age, particularly in Germany, to which historical facts are quite irre­ levant. We have already observed that Rudolf Bultmann's knowledge of rabbinic Judaism derives entirely from secondary sources. Except for his claim to compare rabbinic literature with Hellenistic and Christian literary forms, that hardly matters. His Primitive Christianity in its Contemporary Setting (N.Y., 1965) does matter, for it is widely read, heralded by his American followers as scholarship, not as what it is, namely apologetics of a rather crude sort. Bultmann on Judaism tells us the following: p. 60: "There was no possibility of science and art, nor could there be any cultural intercourse with other nations. Israel (apart from Hel­ lenistic Judaism) cut herself off from the outside world and lived in extraordinary isolation. As a result she cut herself adrift from history. p. 64: "The scribes regarded the foundation as immutable, for it consisted in the holy scriptures themselves. Their method of exegesis was primitive, and, despite certain variations, stereotype. The progress of scientific knowledge was limited to painstaking exegesis. But there was no attempt to reach a deeper understanding of the context, to discover the ideas underlying the text itself, or the circumstances in which it took shape. The only kind of progress they recognized was the accumulation of possible interpretations... New interpretations were simply recorded side by side with the old, and no attempt was made to decide which was the true one. It is the function of learning to preserve as many existing interpretations as possible. In teaching there was no attempt to ask questions of the pupil and thus train him to think for himself. The Greek method of seeking the truth in the cut and thrust of argument was entirely unknown... [!] p. 68: "Radical obedience would have involved a personal assent to the divine command, whereas in Judaism so many of the precepts were trivial or unintelligible that the kind of obedience produced was formal rather than radical. The equality of importance attached to ritual and moral precepts was no less conducive to formalism... p. 69: "With the unintelligibility of many of the precepts and the scope for works of supererogation, it was impossible to entertain a radical conception of obedience... p. 70: "A further consequence of the legalistic conception of obe­ dience was that the prospect of salvation became highly uncertain. Who could be sure he had done enough in this life to be saved?... It is a remarkable fact that side by side with this sense of sin and urge to repentance we find the 'righteous' proud and selfconscious... In the end the whole range of man's relation with God came to be thought of in terms of merit, including faith itself." Now what is wrong with all this (and much more, not quoted) is that

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL

REFLECTIONS

363

Bultmann simply does not know what he is talking about, in part because of his demonstrated lack of direct knowledge of the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees, but in larger measure because no one has data on the basis of which "historical" statements such as these may be made. Obviously the "extraordinary isolation" is groundless; here we may justly excuse Bultmann for what is evidently mere carelessness. But how would anyone be able to show, upon the basis of evidence now in our hands, whether or not the Pharisees "attempted to reach a deeper understanding of the context"? How does Bultmann or anyone else know what "kind of progress" the Pharisees recognized or did not recognize? My criticism is not that Bultmann is ignorant of rabbinical traditions about the Pharisees, but that he makes statements which cannot be founded upon any evidence now available or likely to become available. It is as if, like other scholars, he accused the Pharisees of being "hypocrites" or "the brood of Satan." Without knowledge of their true feelings, shown, for instance, by diaries or personal interviews, how are we to know whether the Pharisees were, or were not, characterized by hypocrisy? (Nor do historians accurately know who Satan's children really are.) A work on historical problems, more­ over, cannot rightly introduce considerations irrelevant to the historical in­ quiry. "Radical obedience" may serve as a fruitful theological category, but helps not at all to understand the nature of life under the law. As to the triviality or unintelligibility of "many of the precepts" and the consequent "obedience" produced by them, one need only observe Bult­ mann does not know what seemed trivial to a Pharisee, nor, given the state of his Talmudic knowledge, can one take seriously his judgment of what was intelligible or unintelligible in first century life. The three instances of theology in historical guise are not of the same order. Fuller has merely repeated what he read in some books, decorating the picture with a few of his own embellishments. His emendation of Matt. 23:15 is adequate evidence of his historical reliability. Black, by contrast, presents an on-the-whole creditable encyclopedia article, not to be com­ pared, to be sure, to the comprehensive and balanced essay by Michel and LeMoyne (above, p. 327). It is only at the end that Black introduces post-70 rabbinic Judaism, in order to parade his contempt and hostility to it. Perhaps better editing would have left us with a less biased and therefore more re­ spectable article. Bultmann is most influential of the three, and rightly so; his History of the Synoptic Tradition is apt to guide many students of Talmudic literature in the method of literary-critical and historical-critical analysis of traditions. It is, therefore, to be regretted that in his journalistic works, for a wide audience, he has written theology in the past tense of a historical essay. Summary First, we observe that few students of Pharisaism or of the rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees have thoroughly examined all pertinent sour­ ces. Among these few, Epstein and Halevy are outstanding. Second, a consistently critical, truly historical approach characterizes only a small number of scholars, e.g, Moore, Morton Smith, Levi and Stourdze, and the like.

364

APPENDIX

What makes a scholar pseudocritical, third, is the claim that he follows the normal canons of historical inquiry while at the same time he advances arguments alien to that inquiry; or that he credulously takes as fact alle­ gations contained in literature he has not actually analyzed; or that he may ignore the conceptual and methodological achievements of other scho­ lars, both in the field of Talmudic studies and in cognate areas of inquiry. One looks in vain, fourth, for the awareness that scholarship reflects the scholar's own sociological and historical situation. The Reform Jewish scholars who see the Pharisees as Reform Jews and the Conservative ones who claim the Pharisees were economic liberals (in the New Deal sense) exhibit scarcely a trace of self-consciousness. Admittedly, historians of Pharisaic Judaism face a very knotty problem. Information on the Pharisees derives from difficult sources. These sources are quite different from one another and in some measure entirely discrete. Schurer and Montet were baffled by the evidences of Talmudic literature; the New Testament materials have not been critically examined by the Talmudists, who read the New Testament in exactly the same literal way in which they read the Talmud; and only Smith has subjected Josephus's information on the Pharisees to careful analysis. The attributions of various Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphical books to Pharisaic authors seem based upon shaky assumptions, but these attributions have yet to be carefully reconsidered in the light of recent advances of scholarship in Qumran, New Testament and the varieties of early Christianity and Judaism and the like. In any case reference to supposedly Pharisaic Apocryphal and Pseude­ pigraphical books is rare among the Jewish scholars of the Pharisees. Finally, the fact that Pharisaism was a sect, not "normative" or "popular" or "democratic," while now widely acknowledged, has scarely entered the historical understanding of the Jewish scholars, even in recent times. The following outline summarizes the chief historical faults found in the materials surveyed above, together with the names of some of the scholars in whose writings those faults are exemplified. I. Faulty 1.

2.

Scholarship

N e g l e c t o f s o m e o r all o f t h e r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n s a b o u t t h e P h a r i s e e s : a. H o u s e s - m a t e r i a l s n o t u s e d at all : e.g. M o n t e t , S c h u r e r . b) Houses-materials n o t t h o r o u g h l y consulted: e.g. H o e n i g a n d Z e i t l i n : " C o n s e r v a t i v e v i e w p o i n t a l w a y s c o m e s f i r s t " — b u t t h e H o u s e o f S h a m m a i takes t h e lenient position part o f the time. c) R a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n s r e j e c t e d w i t h o u t c l o s e e x a m i n a t i o n : e.g. B u c h a n a n . d) R e l i a n c e o n s e c o n d a r y a c c o u n t s o f r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n s : e.g. W e l l h a u s e n , F u l l e r . Neglect o f non-rabbinic evidences about the Pharisees o r materials contained in rabbinic traditions: a) N o r e f e r e n c e t o a r c h a e o l o g i c a l data p e r t i n e n t t o h i s t o r i c a l i n t e r ­ pretation : e.g. G i n z b e r g , glass e x p e n s i v e , metals a b u n d a n t .

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL

REFLECTIONS

365

b) F a i l u r e t o f o l l o w t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f N e w T e s t a m e n t s c h o l a r s h i p : e.g. Z e i t l i n , F i n k e l s t e i n ( a m o n g m a n y ) i g n o r e f o r m - c r i t i c i s m . c) N o c o n s i s t e n t r e f e r e n c e t o Hellenistic l i t e r a r y a n d c u l t u r a l p a r a l l e l s : e.g. P r a c t i c a l l y all p s e u d o c r i t i c a l s c h o l a r s h i p , e x c e p t B a e r , w h o completely misuses the materials. Contrast Fischel. 3. Failure t o consult relevant secondary literature: e.g. G i l a t , N a f t a l , a n d p r a c t i c a l l y all t r a d i t i o n a l s c h o l a r s e x c e p t Halevy. 4. Failure t o articulate and examine questionable presuppositions: e.g. B e n D a v i d ; W a c h o l d e r o n first c e n t u r y B . C . o r i g i n o f Hillel stories; among many. I I . Faulty Use of Evidence 1. A t t r i b u t i o n s o f sayings are always reliable: e.g. B i c k e r m a n , W a c h o l d e r , T c h e r n o w i t z , K a m i n k a : " S h a m m a i quotes Haggai", a m o n g many. 2 . W h a t a s t o r y says h a p p e n e d a c t u a l l y d i d t a k e place ( c r e d u l o u s n e s s ) : e.g. Z e i t l i n , G r a e t z , G i n z b e r g , F i n k e l s t e i n , B i i c h l e r , a n d all others. 3 . E v e n m i r a c l e s t o r i e s a r e o f h i s t o r i c a l v a l u e in t h e i r o w n t e r m s : e.g. G u t t m a n n re e c h o ; G o l d b e r g e r ; a n d o t h e r s . 4. If the story w e r e n o t true, w h y should the tradition h a v e preserved i t ? V a r i a t i o n : " T h e y m u s t h a v e h a d a g o o d r e a s o n t o tell t h e s t o r y " : e.g. M a n t e l , K a r l i n . 5. Construction o f narrative b y paraphrase o f rabbinic stories a b o u t Pharisees (gullibility, similar t o n o . 2 ) : e.g. D e r e n b o u r g , G r a e t z , M e n d e l s o h n , W e i s s , F r a n k e l , K a r l i n re 1 2 0 y e a r s ; K l a u s n e r ; a m o n g m a n y . 6. Presumption of unitary pericopae: e.g. A l l p s e u d o c r i t i c a l s c h o l a r s , w i t h o u t e x c e p t i o n . 7 . U s e o f e m e n d a t i o n s o f texts t o s o l v e h i s t o r i c a l difficulties: e.g. Z e i t l i n re S a m e a s . 8 . C l a i m o f exact c h r o n o l o g i c a l o r h i s t o r i c a l a c c u r a c y e v e n o f f a b l e s : e.g. Z e i t l i n o n d a t e o f Hillel's e l e v a t i o n ; W a c h o l d e r a n d K a m i n ­ k a o n s k u l l in s t r e a m ; G o l d b e r g e r ; a m o n g m a n y . 9 . I n v e n t i o n o f h i s t o r i c a l s e t t i n g s o r m o t i v e s f o r exegetical m a t e r i a l s : e.g. Z e i t l i n o n Hillel's m i g r a t i o n " t o find s o l u t i o n s f o r t h r e e c o n t r a d i c t i o n s h e f o u n d in biblical l a w s . " 1 0 . A l l versions o f a story are correct and must be harmonized and u n i ­ fied ( u n i t a r y t r a d i t i o n ) : e.g. G u t t m a n n o n y. Pes. 6 : 1 , b . Pes. 6 6 a . 1 1 . " N o real e v i d e n c e has been p r o d u c e d a g a i n s t t h e h i s t o r i c i t y o f t h e ac­ c o u n t s " (similar t o n o . 4 ) : e.g. G u t t m a n n , K a r l i n , M a n t e l . 1 2 . E v i d e n c e c o n t r a r y t o o n e ' s t h e o r y is i g n o r e d : e.g. L e s z y n s k y re S i m e o n b . S h e t a h ( a m o n g m a n y ) . 1 3 . A l l s t o r i e s d e r i v i n g f r o m all c o m p i l a t i o n s a r e e q u a l l y v a l i d t e s t i m o n i e s (parallel t o n o . 1 0 ) — a l l p s e u d o c r i t i c a l s c h o l a r s : e.g. H y m a n : Z o h a r a n d M i s h n a h e q u a l l y v a l i d . I I I . Faulty

Narrative

1 . False, i n a p p r o p r i a t e , o r m i s l e a d i n g a n a l o g i e s : e.g. G e i g e r ; G i n z b e r g ; H o e n i g ; F i n k e l s t e i n ; G u t t m a n n ; L a u -

366

APPENDIX

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

t e r b a c h ; Z e i t l i n o n l i b e r a l s vs c o n s e r v a t i v e s , p l e b e i a n s vs p a t r i ­ c i a n s ; B a r o n re t i m e vs s p a c e ; L a u t e r b a c h re " P h a r i s e e s ' p u r e r G o d c o n c e p t i o n " , etc. Incompetent question-framing: e.g. B o x ; Z e i t l i n re " P h a r i s e e s " vs. H o u s e s a n d m a s t e r s ; L a u t e r ­ b a c h : " H o w c o u l d Pharisees h a v e k n o w n t h e l a w ? " Overinterpretation, o r g o i n g b e y o n d the limits o f the evidence: e.g. M a r c u s re s o c i o l o g i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ; F i n k e l s t e i n re S i m e o n b . G a m a l i e l ; G i n z b e r g re u n c l e a n n e s s l a w s ; E p s t e i n o n p r e 'Aqiban Mishnah; G r a e t z ; Ginzberg and Zeitlin on lay-hands debate; Zeitlin and Finkelstein o n b. Shab. 1 7 a , etc.; W e b e r ; many others. Deductive reasoning: e.g. G i n z b e r g ; F i n k e l s t e i n ; S o n n e o n "the o n e a n d t h e m a n y , " among many. Homiletics: e.g. G e i g e r ; G r a e t z ; F i n k e l s t e i n ; Z e i t l i n o n J e s u s a n d P h a r i s e e s ; L a u t e r b a c h re P h a r i s e e s " m o r e s p i r i t u a l " r e l i g i o n ; E n e l o w re Pharisees f o r "this l i v e , d e v e l o p m e n t a l p r i n c i p l e " ; B a e r ; L o e w e ; B o x ; etc. Postulates u n s u p p o r t e d b y evidence: e.g. Z e i t l i n , "Pharisees s u p p o r t e d Z e r u b a b b e l " ; G u t t m a n n o n d i s a p p e a r a n c e o f P h a r i s e e s a n d t r i u m p h o f Hillelites as " m a i n ­ stream of Judaism". A r b i t r a r y definitions t o s o l v e h i s t o r i c a l difficulties (similar t o n o . II.7): e.g. F i n k e l s t e i n re P r o t o - P h a r i s e e s ; G u t t m a n n o n Hillel's e x e g e ­ sis; B a c h e r re c i t i n g i n d i v i d u a l s a g e s ; Z e H i n o n H o u s e s n o t P h a r i s a i c ; etc. U s e o f critical f o r m t o h i d e p s e u d o c r i t i c a l p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s : e.g. W a c h o l d e r , "It is c o n c e i v a b l e , " " p e r h a p s , " "seems t o " ; M e n d e l s o h n , "said t o h a v e " ; G r a e t z , e t c . ; m a n y e x a m p l e s .

Among the historiographical errors of pseudocritical scholars, three are so serious as to render their historical results virtually useless: first, the failure carefully and critically to analyze the literary and historical traits of every pericope adduced as evidence; second, the assumption that things happened exactly as the sources allege; third, the use of anachronistic or inappropriate analogies and the introduction of irrelevant issues. One or more of these three fundamental fallacies may account for every one of the specific faults listed above, as well as for many not specified. The historians might have learned the need for literary- and historical-critical analysis from classical and biblical scholarship of the past century and a half; second, they might have proved less gullible and credulous had they taken seriously the historical and philosophical achievements of the Enlightenment, at least its skepticism; and the study of the history of historical scholarship and of the sociology of knowledge ought to have suggested the dangers of ana­ chronism, moralizing, and didacticism. Other Works

Consulted >

y

A b e l , F . M . , Histoire de la Palestine depuis la conquete d Alexandre jusqu* a l invasion arabe. I. De la conquete d*Alexandre jusqu'a la guerre juive ( P a r i s , 1 9 5 2 ) .

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL

367

REFLECTIONS

A b r a h a m s , I . , Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels. P r o l e g o m e n o n b y M o r t o n S . Enslin (N.Y., R e p r . 1967). A d l e r , L . , Hillel und Schamai, oder die conservative Reform und der stabile Conservatismus (Strassburg, 1878). A d l e r , S . , " P h a r i s a i s m u s u n d S a d d u c a i s m u s , " MGWJ 27, 1878, pp. 522-28; 28, 1879, pp. 29-35. B i c k e r m a n n , E . J . , " V i r i M a g n a e C o n g r e g a t i o n i s , " Revue biblique 5 5 , 1 9 4 8 , p p . 397fT. B o n d i , J . , " S i m o n d e r G e r e c h t e , " Jahrbuch der judisch-litterarischen Gesellschaft 5 , 1907, pp. 245-277. D e i n a r d , S . N., " P e r u s h i m , " Osar Yisra'el ( 1 9 1 2 , R e p r . N . Y . , 1 9 6 2 ) , 8 , p p . 3 0 0 - 1 . E l b o g e n , I . , Die Religionsanschauungen der Pharisaer mit besonderer Beritcksichtigung der Begriffe Gott und Memch ( B e r l i n 1 9 0 4 ) . F r i e d l a n d e r , M . , Die religiosen Bewegungen innerhalb des Judentums

im Zeitalter

Jesu

(Berlin, 1 9 0 5 ) . G e i g e r , A b r a h a m , " S a d d u c a e r u n d P h a r i s a e r , " Jiidische Zeitschrift fur Wissenschaft und Leben 2 , 1 8 6 3 , p p . 1 1 - 5 4 . G i n z b e r g , L o u i s , Students, Scholars, and Saints ( P h i l a d e l p h i a , 1 9 2 8 ) , p p . 8 8 - 1 0 8 : "The Religion o f the Pharisee." G l a t z e r , N a h u m N., Hillel the Elder: The Emergence of Classical Judaism

(Washington,

1959). G o l d i n , J u d a h , "Hillel t h e E l d e r , " Journal of Religion 2 6 , 1 9 4 6 , p p . 2 6 3 - 2 7 7 . , " T h r e e P i l l a r s o f S i m e o n t h e R i g h t e o u s , " Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 2 7 , 1 9 5 8 , p p . 4 3 - 5 8 . Herzfeld, L., "Chronologische A n s e t z u n g der Schriftgelehrten v o n A n t i g o n u s aus S o c h o bis R. A k i b a , " MGWJ 3, 1 8 5 4 , p p . 2 1 1 - 2 2 9 , 2 7 3 - 2 7 7 . H o e n i g , S i d n e y B . , " O i l a n d P a g a n D e f i l e m e n t , " JQR 6 1 , 1 9 7 0 , p p . 6 3 - 7 5 . H o l s c h e r , G . , " J o s e p h u s , " in Paulys Real-Encyclopadie der classischen Allertumswissenschaft ( S t u t t g a r t , 1 9 1 6 ) , c o l s , 1 9 3 4 - 2 0 0 0 . J u s t e r , J e a n , Les juifs dans Vempire romain ( P a r i s , 1 9 1 4 ) . K a m i n k a , A . , Mehqarim BeTalmud (Tel A v i v , 1 9 5 1 ) , p p . 7 0 - 8 7 , o n t h e H o u s e s . K a m p f , J . , "Genealogisches u n d Chronologisches Bezuglich der Patriarchen aus d e m H i l l e r s c h e n H a u s e bis a u f R a b b i J e h u d a h H a - N a s i , R e d a c t e u r d e r M i s c h n a , " MGWJ'2, 1853, pp. 201-207, 231-236; 3, 1854, pp. 39-42, 98-107. Re b . S h a b . 1 5 a , t h e successors o f H i l l e l b e f o r e 7 0 A . D . K a t z , B . Z . , Perushim, §eduqim, Qanna im, Nosrim (Tel A v i v , 1 9 4 8 ) . K a t z e n e l s o n , J . L . , "Hillel u B e t M i d r a s h o , " HaTequfah 3 , 1 9 1 8 , p p . 2 6 9 - 3 0 1 . K l i j n , A . F. J . , "Scribes, Pharisees, H i g h Priests, and Elders in t h e N e w Testa­ m e n t , " Novum Testamentum 3 , 1 9 5 9 , p p . 2 5 9 - 2 6 7 . K r o c h m a l , N a c h m a n , Moreh Nevukhe HaZeman, i n S i m o n R a w i d o w i c z , e d . , The Writings of Nachman Krochmal ( W a l t h a m , 1 9 6 1 ) , p p . 7 1 - 9 6 , 2 1 7 f f . L a c o c q u e , A n d r e , " L a t r a d i t i o n d a n s le B a s - J u d a i s m e , " Revue d histoire et de philosophie religieuses 4 0 , 1 9 6 0 , p p . 2 - 1 9 . L a n d a u , W . , " S c h e m a j a u n d A b t a l i o n , " MGWJ 7, 1 8 5 8 , p p . 3 1 7 - 3 2 9 . , " S i m e o n b e n S c h e t a c h , " MGWJ 2, 1 8 5 3 , p p . 1 0 7 - 1 8 0 . L e h m a n n , J . , " L e p r o c e s d ' H e r o d e . S a m e a s et P o l l i o n , " REJ 1892, p p . 6 8 - 8 1 . L e s z y n s k y , R . , Pharisaer und Sadducaer ( F r a n k f u r t , 1 9 1 2 ) . L e v i , I s r a e l , " D e r o r i g i n e d a v i d i q u e de H i l l e l , " REJ 3 1 , 1 8 9 5 , p p . 2 0 2 - 2 1 1 ; 3 3 , 1896, pp. 143-146. L e v y , I s i d o r e , La legende de Pythagore de Grece en Palestine (Paris, 1 9 2 7 ) , p p . 2 3 5 - 2 6 3 , carefully summarizes the materials o f J o s e p h u s o n the Pharisees and r e v i e w s Daniel and A p o c r y p h a l and Pseudepigraphical b o o k s conventionally assigned t o the Pharisees. y

y

368

APPENDIX

M a r c u s , R a l p h , "Pharisees, E s s e n e s , a n d G n o s t i c s , " JBL 7 3 , 1 9 5 4 , p p . 157ff. M e y e r , R u d o l f , Tradition und Neuschopfung im antiken Judentum. Dargestellt an der Geschichte des Pharisaismus. Mit einem Beitrag von Hans-Friedrich Weiss, Der Phari­ saismus im Lichte der Oberlieferung des Neuen Testaments ( B e r l i n , 1 9 6 5 ) . O d e b e r g , H u g o , Pharisaism ana Christianity (St. L o u i s , 1 9 6 4 , t r a n s , b y J . M . M o e ) . R a b i n , C h a i m , " A l e x a n d e r J a n n a e u s a n d t h e P h a r i s e e s , " Journal of Jewish Studies 7 , 1 9 5 6 , p p . 3 - 1 2 : " T h e Pharisees w e r e r e g a r d e d as f r i e n d l y t o J a n n a e u s a n d his dynasty." R e i c k e , B o , " R e m a r q u e s s u r P h i s t o i r e d e la f o r m e ( F o r m g e s c h i c h t e ) des T e x t e s d e Q u m r a n , " Les Manuscrits de la Mer Morte, Colloque de Strasbourg, 5-7 Mai 1955 (Paris, 1 9 5 6 ) . R o s s l e r , D i e t r i c h , Geset% und Geschichte. Untersuchungen %ur Theologie der judischen Apokalyptik und der pharisaischen Orthodoxie ( 1 9 6 0 ) . Schrenk, G o t t l o b , "Rabbinische Charakterkopfe i m urchristlichen Zeitalter," t

Judaica 1 , 1 9 5 4 - 1 9 4 6 , p p . 1 1 7 - 1 5 6 . U z z i e l , B e n S i o n M e i r Hai, " S i m e o n b e n S h e t a h a n d his T e a c h i n g , " i n Sinai 3 2 , p p . 3 4 3 - 3 5 0 .

Hebrew,

ADDENDUM Vol. I, pp. 99-102, the story of Simeon b. Shetah and the witches of Ashqelon, has the following ending in y. Sanh. 6:6, to be added to III.i.3.d, p. 102: He indicated to them, "Each one of you, take one [witch] and lift her up from the earth, and what she does [by way of magic] will not work." And he said to that one that brought bread, "Bring bread," and she did not bring it. And he said, "Bring her to be crucified (LSLYB )." "Bring broth," and she did not bring it, and he said, "Bring her to be crucified." "Bring wine," and she did not bring it, and he said, "Bring her to be crucified." And thus he did with all of them. And this is what we have learned, "Eighty witches did Simeon b. Shetah hang in Ashqelon. And they do not judge two [capital cases] on one day, but the hour required it." >

INDICES I. Acts of the Apostles 5:34,

1 347, 373

Amos 4:13,

I 4 0 2 ; III 6 3 , 9 8

5:2, III 6 9 8:11-12, 1312 9:6,

III 6 3

1

BIBLE 17:1,

I 125

17:6,

1 9 4 - 5 , 1 0 9 ; III 4 0

18:4, 19:15,

II 3 6 ; III 4 1 1 8 6 , 1 2 3 ; III 3 6

19:17,

I 114

20:20, 21:5, 22:9,

I 1 9 6 - 7 , 2 0 5 ; III 4 0 I 3 4 3 ; III 6 3 , 1 9 1 II 9 6

22:11-12, I Chronicles 23:15,

II 2 0 6

I Corinthians 15:3-5,

III 1 5 4

Daniel 7:10, 12:2,

1 2 6 7 , 2 9 7 , 111 6 4 II 2 3 9 ; III 6 3

Deuteronomy 1:5, III 1 5 7 4:39, I 3 4 2 ; III 6 3 , 1 9 1 5:12-15, III 7 2 6:7, 6:8,

II 3 4 , 4 1 ; III 4 1 II 3 9

11:19, 1396 12:2-4, I 3 4 3 ; III 4 0 , 6 3 , 1 9 1 12:15, II 2 4 6 13:2, 1295 14:26, I 3 9 3 ; III 6 2 15, III 7 7 15:1-3, III 7 7 15:3, I 217, 222, 245, 283-4, 296, III 4 0 , 1 0 9 15:8, I 2 2 9 , 2 7 1 , 2 8 6 , 2 9 6 ; III 4 3 , 260 15:9, I 2 4 4 , 2 6 2 , 2 8 3 - 4 ; III 4 0 , 4 2 15:9-10, 1 2 1 8 , 222-3 15:22, II 2 4 6 15:29-30, 1 229 16:2, 1 2 6 6 , 3 8 1 ; III 4 0 , 1 9 0 16:8, I 2 6 6 , 2 8 1 , 2 9 5 ; III 4 0 , 1 9 0 16:16, II 3 5 - 3 6 ; III 4 1

II 4 0

22:12, 22:22,

I I 3 0 - 3 2 , 3 9 , 3 3 4 ; III 4 1 I 9 0 ; III 3 9

23:19, 23:26,

I I 2 5 1 ; III 4 1 , 2 0 7 II 3 9

24:1,

I I 3 7 - 8 ; III 4 1 , 7 0 , 1 1 7 , 1 3 6

26:13, 1 378 28:46, 1405 31:11, III 1 5 7 33:3, 1 2 2 2 , 2 9 7 ; III 6 3 33:7, 1154 34:7,

1 2 2 0 , 2 7 5 ; III 1 1 5

Exodus 4:22,

I 3 2 3 ; III 6 2

4:31, 9:16, 12:5, 12:6, 12:8, 259

1 1 4 2 , 1 5 5 , 3 8 3 ; III 6 2 III 6 2 I 2 6 6 , 2 8 1 , 3 9 3 ; III 4 0 , 1 9 0 1 1 9 , 1 4 7 ; III 4 0 , 1 1 7 , 1 9 3 I 2 1 2 - 3 , 2 5 8 , 2 8 1 , 2 9 6 ; III 4 2 ,

12:15, 1 2 6 6 , 2 8 1 , 2 9 5 ; III 4 0 , 1 9 0 12:16, II 1 6 0 , 1 6 9 ; I I I 4 1 13:7, II 3 4 , 1 6 1 ; III 4 1 13:9-10, 116 13:10, I 1 8 8 ; III 4 0 13:13, I 3 9 3 ; III 6 2 16:22-30, III 7 2 19:6, 1332 20:5, 1342 20:8, I 1 8 6 ; III 4 0 , 4 2 , 1 8 9 20:9, 11 1 0 - 1 1 , 1 2 8 ; III 4 0 , 1 1 7 20:24, I 2 3 3 , 2 6 0 , 2 9 7 ; III 5 6 , 6 0 , 63, 98, 263 21:2, III 1 7 1

1

Indices w e r e prepared b y M r . A r t h u r W o o d m a n , Canaan, N e w Hampshire, o n a grant f r o m B r o w n University. N E U S N E R , The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70, III

24

370

INDICES

21:12-17, 21:23,

III 7 2 1124

21:29, I 1 1 4 ; III 9 8 22:7, II 2 3 6 22:8, 1 1 7 , 2 3 5 ; III 4 0 , 1 1 7 , 2 0 7 22:27, I 3 9 0 ; III 6 2 , 9 8 23-6-12, 187 23:7, II 2 1 1

18:18, 36,

III 8 3

III 1 5 7

Job 22:28,

III 6 2

John

23:14,

II 1 8 3

1:24, 4:50,

23:16, 23:17,

III 4 0 II 1 0 , 3 5 - 3 6 ; I I I 2 0 7

4:50-3, 1 361 8:lff, III 2 4 6

28:4, I 3 2 9 ; III 6 2 34:21, III 7 2 34:27,

III 1 4 5 - 6

9:lff,

III 2 4 6 III 8 7

III 2 4 6

9:16, III 2 4 6 21:24-5, III 9 0 31:lff,

III 2 4 6

Ezekiel 18:24,

1163

Leviticus 2:17,

Galatians 1:11, 1:14,

III 1 5 4 14

Genesis 1:1, II 1 8 9 ; III 6 3 1:27, 11 1 2 8 , 2 0 6 2:4, II 1 8 9 ; I I I 6 3 5:2, II 2 0 6 9:6, 1 87,280 15:6,

1 1 4 2 , 1 5 5 ; III 6 2

Habakkuk 2:1,

I 1 7 8 ; III 6 2

Isaiah 2:2, 2:3, 7:21,

I 3 9 1 ; III 6 2 , 9 8 1396 I I 3 6 , 2 4 4 ; III 4 1

26:20, 1 9 6 , 1 1 6 , 1 3 6 ; III 6 2 , 9 8 45:7, I 4 0 2 ; III 6 3 , 9 8 45:10, II 2 2 8 45:18, II329 50:1, III 7 0 51:16, I 2 9 ; III 6 3 5 8 : 7 4 , . II 3 7 3 60:7, 1310 65:8, 162 66:1,

III 6 3

Jeremiah 2:13, I 3 4 2 ; III 63 3:8, III 7 0 5:25, 1 8 9 , 1 0 6 , 1 1 7 , 1 3 0 ; III 4 2 , 9 8 9:16, III 6 9

II 1 9 0

6:5, 1 2 7 , 5 3 ; II 1 1 ; III 4 0 6:30, II 1 3 ; III 4 1 7:18, II 2 4 1 11:24, I 2 8 1 , 2 9 5 ; III 4 0 , 1 0 9 , 1 8 9 , 260 11:24-25, 1213 11:32, II 3 2 2 11:38, 11310-11 12:6-7, II 1 6 ; I I I 4 1 , 2 0 7 12:7, III 4 1 13:17, 13:37,

1 2 6 6 , 2 9 5 ; III 4 0 , 1 9 0 I 2 1 4 , 2 8 1 , 2 9 5 ; III 4 0 , 1 0 9 ,

205, 260 15:1-15, II 3 1 7 15:2, II 2 9 9 15:10, II 3 0 6 15:19, II306 15:25, II 3 0 6 19:18, 111331,359 19:23-24, II 2 3 ; I I I 4 1 , 2 0 7 20:11, III 7 3 21:7, II 2 2 7 22:6-7, II322 23:39, 11141,207 23:41, II 1 6 9 ; III 4 1 25:4-6, II 2 6 , 2 9 ; III 4 1 25:29, I 1 8 8 ; I I 6 ; III 4 0 25:29-30, I 2 1 4 - 1 6 , 2 2 7 ; III 1 8 9 25:30, 1 2 8 2 , 2 9 5 ; III 39 26:4, 1206 26:44, I 3 9 ; III 3 9 , 1 8 7 27:30, II 8 8 ; III 4 1 , 1 3 0 Luke 1:1-4,

III 9 0

371

INDICES

4:1-12,

III 8 7

5:1-6,

III 7 9

5:17ff, 5:29ff,

III 2 4 6 III 2 4 6

6:lff, 7:10,

III 2 4 6 1361

7:28,

III

7:36, III 11:27-28,

15:21-28, 1361 16:lff, III 2 4 5 17:24-27, III 8 7 18:15-17, III 8 5 23:2, 14 23:13, 25:27,

246 246 III 7 9

11:37, 11:42,

III III

246 246

11:43,

III

84

111 8 4 , 2 4 5 , 360, 1242

Micah 4:5,

III 1 5 7

7:1,

1 6 2 , 6 8 ; III

13:10, III 2 4 6 13:10-17, III 7 8

Numbers

14:lff, III 2 4 6 20:27ff, III 2 4 6

1:51,

1:15,

Malachi 3:18,

I 2 7 0 ; III

364

63

Mark 2:15ff, III 3 4 5 3:1-6, III 78 6:1-16, III 8 1 7:lff, 1 1 1 2 4 5 , 326 7:4, III 1 6 4 - 5 7:5, I 4 ; III 2 4 5 7:9, 14 7:24-30, 1 361 7:29, III 8 7 8:11, III 2 4 6 8:34-7, III 8 4 9:2-8, III 8 7 9:34-40, III 7 9 10:2-10, III 7 9 , 9 4 , 1 7 6 11:1-10, III 8 7 12:18-27, III 7 9 13:18fT, III 2 4 6 15:2, III 1 6 4 Matthew 3:7, III 2 4 4 4:1-11, 11187,89 6:1-34, III 8 4 7:30-34, III 8 5 8:13, I 3 6 1 ; III 8 7 9:13, III 2 4 5 9:14, III 2 4 4 12:lrT, III 2 4 4 12:38, III 2 4 4 15:lff, III 2 4 4 15:13, III 2 4 5

39

1332 III

62

6:2,

I 2 4 , 3 4 ; III 3 9 , 9 8

6:26, 9:2,

I 4 0 1 ; III 6 2 , 9 8 , 1 1 7 I 2 3 1 ; III 4 0

9:3,

1247

9:11, 1 2 5 7 - 8 , 2 6 5 , 2 8 0 ; III 2 9 , 4 2 15:20, 1 3 1 2 , 3 3 3 ; III 4 2 15:38, I I 3 0 ; III 4 1 18:27, I I 8 8 ; III 4 1 , 1 3 0 19:11, 165 19:17, 165,11168 28:2, I 2 3 1 , 2 4 7 , 3 9 3 ; III 4 0 , 6 2 28:10, 1256 Philippians 3:5,

6; I 4

Proverbs 4:8, I 1 1 2 , 1 3 6 ; III 9 8 6:23, I 3 9 1 ; III 6 2 , 9 8 8:21, I 2 5 2 ; III 5 2 , 6 0 , 6 4 , 6 9 , 1 0 9 , 262 10:1, III 7 0 10:27, 1 3 7 , 3 9 ; III 3 9 11:17, 1 2 7 5 , 2 8 0 ; III 6 2 11:24, I 2 2 8 , 2 5 3 , 2 8 5 , 2 9 7 ; III 5 8 , 63 14:28, II 5 2 ; III 21:2, II204 23, 199

42

23:25, 192,103,114,133,176,179; III 6 2 , 9 8 Psalms 17:1, 22:3, 25:14, 68:20, 104:24,

1154 1 2 6 8 , 2 9 0 , 2 9 7 ; III 6 0 , III 1 7 0 I 186, 324 1 384

64

372

INDICES

112:7, 1 2 4 3 , 2 5 3 , 2 9 4 , 2 9 7 ; III 4 3 , 82, 109, 1 9 0 , 260 113:5, I 2 7 5 ; III 5 6 , 6 4 114:1, I I 1 4 3 ; III 1 3 9 114:8, II 1 4 2 ; III 4 0 , 1 3 9 115, 1396 115:1,

II 1 4 3 ; III 1 3 9

116:1, II 2 3 8 - 9 ; I I I 6 3 118, II 1 5 4 118:1, 11140,139 119:126,

II Samuel 1:17, 12:9,

III 69 I 2 0 1 ; III 4 2

23:2,

I 2 6 8 , 2 9 0 , 2 9 7 ; III 6 0 , 6 4

4:1-8,

III 1 5 4

Zechariah 8:16, 8:19,

I Samuel I I 2 3 8 - 9 ; III 6 3

7:2-8,

III 7 1

I Thessalonians

I 33, 228, 244, 263, 285,

2 9 7 ; III 5 8 , 6 3 , 9 8 , 2 1 4 , 2 6 3 126:1, III 6 2

2:6,

10:17-27,

25:8, III 4 1 25:18, 11 3 6 , 2 4 4

I 1 7 ; III 6 3 II 2 0 4

9, III 8 7 13:9, II 2 3 8 - 9 ; III 6 3

III 7 1 II.

APOCRYPHA

Ben Sira

Maccabees

11:1, I 9 6 ; III 9 8 25:1, III 7 8 50:1-21, 158

2:1, 7:16,

III. Antiquities

158 177

TOSEPHUS X V 3 , III 2 4 2 X V 3-4, 370, 1 5 X V 260-6, 1 5 X V 3 7 0 , I 5 ; III 2 4 2 XVII, 1173

III 2 5 4 , 1 1 7 3 XII 32, 158 XIII 171-2, III 2 4 1 XIII 171-3, III 1 6 3 X I I I 288ff, I 1 7 3 ; III 2 4 1 X I I I 293ff, III 1 6 3 XIII297-8, 111 1 6 3 , 2 4 1 X I I I 320ff, I 138 XIII 372, 1 138 XIII 383, I 138 XIII 400, I 138 X I I I 4 0 1 , III 2 4 2 X I I I 405ff, III 2 4 2 XIII 409, I 139 XIV III 3 2 4 X I V 22-24, 1 177 X I V 168-84, I 115 X V 1-4, 1 1 5 9

X V I I 4 1 - 6 , III 2 4 2 XVIII 11-23, III 2 4 2 XVIII 12-15, III 1 6 4 Life 2,38, III 1 6 4 Jewish W a r 12-6, III 2 4 9 154, 1173 I 108, I 138 I HOff, III 2 4 1 - 2 I 110-12, I 138 I 5 7 1 , III 2 4 1 II 1 1 9 , 162ff, I I I 2 4 1 II 1 6 2 - 3 , III 1 6 3 IV.

'Arakhin 8:1-2, I I 2 5 0 ; III 1 9 7 9:4, I 2 2 7 , 2 6 3 , 2 7 6 , 2 8 2 ; III 2 0 9

MISHNAH Avot 1:1, I 7 0 ; III 5 6 , 3 0 7 1:1-18, 1 1 7 , 1 9 , 1 6 1 ; III 5 6 , 7 4 , 7 8 ,

373

INDICES

84, 96-7, 1 1 5 , 1 1 8 , 185-6, 3 1 3 , 328, 357 1:2,

III 5 7

1:3,

I 2 9 , 4 1 , 4 4 , 5 7 , 6 0 ; III 5 7 , 3 0 8

Bava Qamma 9:1,

II 2 3 4

Berakhot

1:4, III 5 7 1:4-5, I 7 4 ; III 3 0 8

1:3, 1 3 4 , 3 9 , 4 1 , 4 9 , 7 5 , 3 4 6 ; III 7, 113, 204, 208-9, 224-5, 234, 236,

1:5, 1:6,

III 57 III 57

267, 294 5:5, I 3 9 4 ; II 3 5 4 - 6 2 , 3 6 9 , 3 7 0 - 3 ;

1:7,

III 57

III 6 7

1:8, I 2 2 6 ; III 5 7 1:8-9, I 1 1 8 ; III 3 1 0

6:5, II 4 2 , 4 5 , 3 4 4 ; III 7, 1 3 4 , 1 9 3 , 294, 340

1:9,

8:1, 11 5 1 , 1 4 2 , 1 4 5 - 6 , 1 9 9 , 3 4 6 ; III 7, 1 2 8

III 5 7

1:10, 111 5 7 , 3 4 5 1:10-11, 152 1:11,

III 5 7

1:12,

1 297, 3 0 7 - 1 1 , 57

1:12-14,

I 222, 226-27, 276, 297

8:1-8,

II 4 4 , 6 3 , 1 6 2 , 1 6 6 , 3 2 5 , 3 4 6 ;

III 1 9 3 , 2 9 4 8:2, 1117,128 8:3,

1117,135

1:13, 1:14,

I 2 8 4 ; III 5 7 , 1 9 0 III 57

8:4,

1117,128

8:5,

11 5 1 , 3 4 6 ; III 7, 1 2 6 , 1 9 3 , 2 1 6

1:15,

I 2 0 2 ; III 5 7

8:7, 8:8,

1117,125 1117,128

1:16, III 5 8 1:17, III 5 8 1:18, I 3 8 2 , 3 8 6 ; III 2 7 , 5 8 , 6 3 , 9 9 , 306 2, 119 2:1, I 19, 226 2:2, I 19 2:5-7, I 225, 227, 260, 275-6, 2 9 7 ; III 5 8 , 8 5 , 1 1 5 , 1 9 0 , 2 6 3 2:6, III 59 2:7, III 6 1 2:8, I 19 3:2, I 4 0 4 , 4 0 8 , 4 1 2 ; III 1 1 2 3:10-11, 1394 4:5, 1 2 7 6 , 2 8 4 , 2 9 7 ; III 2 6 3 4:11, 1307 5:17, I 3 0 7 , 3 3 0 , 3 3 9 ; III 1 1 0 , 1 9 1 , 264 5:23, 1 392 Bava Batra 5:2,

1414

9:1, 1 355, 364, 375, 394 9:8-9, II 2 3 7 - 8 , 3 5 0 ; III 1 2 4 , 2 0 6 , 293 9:9, II 2 3 7 Bava M e s i V 3:12, I I 1 1 , 2 3 7 ; III 1 1 , 2 0 , 2 0 5 , 2 9 4 5:9, I 224, 240, 254, 276, 284, 295; III 1 4 , 1 0 9 , 1 9 0 , 2 0 9 , 2 6 1 12:19, III 4 0

Besah 1:1,

1 34,172,331,340,346,349;

III 4 1 , 1 2 6 , 1 3 0 , 1 9 3 , 2 1 5 , 2 9 3 , 3 4 0 1:1-2, 11 1 6 6 , 3 4 9 1:1-3, 11 1 6 0 , 3 2 6 1:1-5, 11161,169-71 1:2, III 1 0 , 1 3 3 1:3, 11 1 7 6 , 3 4 9 , 1 1 1 1 0 , 1 3 9 , 2 1 4 , 221 1:3-6, III 1 3 3 1:4, II 1 7 6 ; III 1 0 1:5, 11 1 7 6 - 7 , 3 4 9 1:5-9, 11 1 6 0 , 3 2 6 1:6, 11 1 6 4 , 1 7 7 , 3 4 9 ; III 1 0 1:7, I I 1 7 9 , 3 4 9 ; III 1 0 , 1 9 , 1 3 9 , 2 1 5 1:8, II 9 4 , 1 7 9 , 3 4 9 ; III 1 0 , 1 3 9 , 202, 2 1 7 , 220 1:9, II 1 7 9 , 3 4 9 ; I I I 1 0 , 1 3 9 , 2 1 3 1:12, III 2 1 5 2:1, 11 1 8 0 , 3 4 9 ; III 1 0 , 1 3 7 , 2 2 1 2:1-7, II 1 6 7 ; III 2 9 3 2:2, 2:2-3, 2:3, 2:4, 202 2:5, 2:6, 2:6-7, 3:4, 3:8,

11 2 3 6 , 3 4 9 ; III 1 0 , 1 2 7 III 1 9 6 III 1 2 7 , 1 3 0 II 1 8 5 , 1 8 8 , 3 4 9 ; III 1 0 , 1 3 3 , 1 1 1 7 2 , 3 2 6 , 3 4 9 ; III 1 0 , 1 9 6 I 3 7 6 , 3 8 0 ; III 1 1 7 , 2 0 2 , 2 6 9 II 1 7 0 , 3 4 9 ; III 2 0 3 , 2 7 4 II 3 2 6 II 3 3 1

374 4:2,

INDICES

II 1 8 0 ; III 1 3 0 , 2 2 1

Bekhorot 5:2,

111 1 1 , 1 3 3 , 2 0 6 , 2 9 2

Bikkurim 2:6,

II 8 0

4:7,

4:11,

11223,350

4:12, 5:1,

II 3 5 2 II26-30,74,263,342,345,347,

3 5 1 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 3 , 2 1 7 , 2 2 2 5:1-2, II 8 7 ; III 2 1 8

Demai

5:1-5, 1:3,

II 6 3 , 6 6 , 3 4 6 ; III 8 , 1 2 0 , 2 1 9 ,

291 1:6, II 1 6 0 3:1,

II 6 3 , 3 4 4 ; I I I 8 , 1 1 3 , 1 9 4 , 2 9 1

6:6, II 6 4 , 9 4 , 3 4 6 ; III 8 , 1 9 4 , 2 1 9 , 291 'Eduyyot 1:1,

1 1 9 4 , 3 0 4 , 330, 3 3 3 , 3 3 8 ; III 7,

135, 191, 264 1:1-14, 1 1 3 3 1 , 350-1 1:2, 1 312,330,333,338 1:3, I 143, 152, 155-6, 193, 304, 309, 3 3 0 , 3 3 3 , 3 3 8 ; III 7 , 1 4 - 1 6 , 2 3 , 31, 108, 135-6, 168, 188, 2 1 1 , 263, 292, 332, 344 1:3-5, 1 1 1 9 1 , 2 6 4 1:4, I 1 4 4 , 1 5 5 , 3 0 4 ; II 2 5 3 1:5, 1304 1:7, I 1 9 4 , 2 0 0 , 2 0 2 , 2 0 4 , 2 0 9 ; II 2 7 8 - 9 , 3 2 9 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 , 1 3 6 , 2 0 0 - 1 , 217, 265 1:7-14, 11 329-30 1:8, I 1 8 9 , 2 0 2 , 2 0 4 ; II 3 4 8 1:9, II 3 4 8 1:10, I 1 9 1 , 1 9 9 , 2 0 2 , 2 0 4 ; II 3 4 8 1:14, I I 2 6 8 , 2 8 1 , 2 8 3 - 4 ; III 2 1 , 2 0 1 , 292 2:1, 2:2,

11338,351

4:8, 11204,350 4:9, 11 1 9 4 , 3 5 0 4:10, I 2 3 0 ; II 345-7, 3 5 0

1 4 0 3 , 4 0 8 ; III 1 5 , 1 1 7 , 1 8 5 I 4 0 3 , 4 0 5 , 4 0 8 , 4 1 2 ; II 1 5 6 ,

224 2:2-4, II 56 2:3, 1403,408,412 II 1 6 0 ; HI 2 1 5 4:1, II 3 4 , 1 7 2 , 3 4 9 4:1-2, 11 3 3 5 , 3 3 7 4:2, II 3 4 9 4:3, II 3 4 6 4:4, II 3 4 6 4:5, II 2 3 - 4 , 2 7 , 5 9 , 3 4 5 - 6 ; I I I 4 1 , 207 4:6, II 1 5 5 , 3 4 0 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 3 , 2 1 8 , 270

II 3 3 7 , 3 3 9

5:2, ' i i 8 1 , 87, 1 1 8 , 1 4 5 , 2 9 6 , 346-9, 3 5 1 , 3 5 3 ; III 2 0 3 , 2 1 2 - 3 , 3 4 4 5:3, 1 1 2 0 6 , 3 2 3 , 3 3 9 , 3 4 2 , 3 5 3 ; III 13, 121, 182, 2 1 4 , 2 1 5 5:4,

II 3 4 3 , 3 5 3 ; III 2 1 8

5:5, II 1 9 4 , 2 0 6 , 3 0 9 , 3 5 0 ; III 2 0 0 , 218 5:6,

I 1 4 5 - 6 , 1 5 1 - 2 , 1 5 7 - 8 ; III 2 8 ,

108, 188 7:8, 1 1 8 5 7:9, I 4 1 8 ; III 1 6 , 2 8 8:1, II 3 3 9 8:2, I 4 1 5 ; III 1 6 8:3, III 1 6 9 8:4, 1 6 1 , 6 4 , 7 4 , 8 0 ; III 1 5 , 9 2 , 1 1 6 , 201, 308 8:7, 111 1 6 9 , 2 7 6 'Eruvin 1:2, II 1 3 5 , 3 4 9 ; III 9, 1 2 7 , 2 0 2 , 208, 293 3:2, II 1 5 4 6:2, I 3 7 9 , 3 8 2 , 3 8 4 , 3 8 6 ; II 1 3 6 ; III 3 4 , 1 1 1 , 1 6 4 , 2 0 2 , 2 1 6 , 2 7 4 , 2 9 3 6:3, II 1 3 7 6:4, 11 1 3 6 - 7 , 3 4 9 ; III 9, 1 9 5 , 2 9 3 6:6, 11 1 3 6 - 7 , 3 4 9 ; III 9, 1 2 9 , 2 9 3 8:6, I 3 7 7 ; II 1 3 8 , 3 4 9 ; III 9, 1 2 3 , 219, 293 Gittin 4:2, 1 360,364,366 4:2-3, I 3 5 2 , 3 7 5 ; III 2 7 , 9 5 , 1 9 2 4:3, I 223, 276, 283-4, 366 4:5, II 2 2 8 - 9 , 3 2 9 , 3 5 1 ; III 2 0 , 1 3 9 , 197, 270 5:5, I 4 1 8 - 9 ; III 1 6 , 1 1 7 , 1 9 3 , 2 9 3 5:15, 1 4 1 8 8:4, II 2 3 0 , 3 3 3 , 3 4 1 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 1 , 133, 197, 2 1 5 , 293 8:8, III 1 1 , 1 9 7 8:8-9, I I 2 3 1 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 3 1 8:9, 111 1 1 , 2 1 5 , 2 2 2 , 2 9 3

375

INDICES

9:10,

I I 3 8 , 2 3 2 , 3 4 6 ; III 1 1 , 1 7 , 4 1 ,

117, 136, 205, 293

123, 197, 206, 222, 292 20:3,

II263

20:6, II 2 5 5 , 2 5 7 , 2 6 4 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 2 , 124 2 1 6 292 2 2 : 4 , ' I 1 9 4 , 2 0 2 , 2 0 4 , 2 0 9 ; II 2 5 7 ,

Hagigah 1:1, I I 1 0 , 3 4 6 ; III 1 0 , 1 9 6 1:1-3, II 1 8 3 , 3 5 0 ; III 2 9 3

2 6 4 , 3 2 8 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 , 1 2 0 , 1 8 9 , 2 1 7 ,

1:2,

1 1 3 5 , 3 5 0 ; III 1 0 , 1 2 8 , 1 9 6

1:3, 1:6,

111 1 0 , 1 3 4 , 2 2 1 , 2 9 2 II26

1:8,

1417

26:4, II 3 3 5 , 3 3 9 ; III 2 1 8 26:5-8, III 3 3 2

2:2,

I 1 1 , 19, 57, 62, 67, 69, 74-5,

26:6,

81, 93, 105, 1 1 8 , 130, 184-5, 310, 3 1 7 , 3 3 0 , 3 3 9 ; I I 1 , 1 7 1 , 3 4 9 ; III 1 9 , 27, 89, 92, 1 1 5 , 129, 152, 184-5, 210, 2 1 5 , 225, 228, 264, 281, 306, 310, 312, 341, 344, 352, 353 2:2-3, 2:3,

III 2 0 2

Hallah 120,

I I 2 5 7 ; III 2 0 6 I I 2 5 9 ; III 2 0 3

28:4,

I I 2 5 8 - 9 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 , 1 2 0 , 2 0 3 ,

1:2, II 2 4 2 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 1 , 1 2 2 , 1 9 7 , 292 8:1, I I 1 6 9 , 2 4 3 , 2 4 5 , 3 3 5 , 3 5 1 ; III 11, 1 3 1 , 212-3, 292 11:2, 1 1 2 4 4 , 3 4 6 ; III 1 1 , 4 1 , 1 3 7 Kelim 11 2 6 0 , 3 5 2 II281 III 2 1 1

9:2, II 2 5 3 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 1 , 1 3 4 , 2 0 6 , 270, 292 9:5, 11 2 6 1 , 3 5 2 10:1, II 2 5 3 ; I I I 2 7 0 11:3, II 2 5 4 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 1 , 1 2 0 , 2 2 2 , 292 II 2 5 5 , 292 II 2 6 2 , II 2 5 5 ; II 2 5 5 , 292 II 2 5 6 ,

2 5 7 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 2 , 1 2 4 , 3 5 2 ; III 2 0 3 III 3 3 3 2 6 2 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 2 , 1 2 3 , 2 5 8 , 2 6 3 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 2 ,

I I 2 6 6 ; III 1 2 1 , 2 1 4

28:9, II 2 5 9 , 2 6 6 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 , 1 3 8 , 197, 292 Keritot 1:6, III 294 1:7, 6:3,

11 1 7 - 2 2 , 2 4 , 2 5 2 , 3 3 4 , 3 4 4 - 5 ; 1 1 , 17, 41, 120, 197, 207, 215, I 3 8 1 - 2 , 3 8 4 , 3 8 6 ; III 1 9 2 1 3 8 9 , 3 9 1 ; III 3 8 , 1 1 1 , 1 9 9

Ketuvot 1:6, 2:9,

Hullin

14:2, 216, 14:8, 15:1, 18:1, 212, 20:2,

27:9, 28:2,

28:7,

2:3-4, II 1 8 5 , 3 5 0 ; I I I 2 9 3 2:4, III 1 0 , 1 3 0 2:7, 1 2, 6 3 , 7 4 , 4 1 7 ; III 3 8 , 1 1 2 , 116, 164, 187, 193 3:6, 163

2:1, 3:10, 8:5,

II 2 5 8 , 2 6 5 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 , 1 2 3 ,

223, 292, 333

292

11 1 8 8 , 3 4 9

1:6, II 1 1 8 , 3 3 6 , 3 4 8 ; III 9 , 195, 213, 292 11:2, III 2 9 2

266, 292 26:2, II 263

III 4 1 I 4 1 5 ; III 1 1 2

4:6, 1237 5:6, II 2 0 7 , 3 3 4 , 3 4 1 , 3 5 0 ; III 1 0 , 137, 200, 215, 293 8:1, II 2 0 9 , 2 1 1 , 3 5 0 ; III 1 1 , 1 3 1 , 218, 293 8:6, II 2 0 9 , 2 1 1 , 3 5 0 ; III 1 0 , 1 2 4 , 200, 206 13:1, I 3 9 4 , 4 1 4 ; III 2 9 6 13:1-2, I 1 0 3 , 3 9 4 ; III 2 7 5 13:1-5, 1353 13:3, 1 335,364,375 13:3-5, I 350, 354, 364, 373, 375; III 3 4 , 9 3 , 1 1 5 , 1 9 2 13:3-9, 1394 13:5, 1 364,370,375 Kila'im 2:6, 2:9, 4:1, 4:2, 4:3, 4:5,

1 1 6 7 , 3 4 6 ; III 8, 1 3 5 , 1 9 4 , 2 9 1 II 6 7 ; III 1 9 4 II 6 7 , 3 4 6 ; III 8 , 1 3 7 , 2 1 7 , 2 9 1 II 6 8 I I 6 8 ; III 2 1 7 II 6 8 , 7 0 , 3 3 6 , 3 4 6 ; III 8 , 1 3 0 ,

376

INDICES

137, 194, 213, 291 4:6, II 6 8

215, 332

6:1, 11 7 0 , 7 2 , 3 4 6 ; I I I 8 , 1 3 5 , 2 0 8 , 291 7:1, II 7 2 8:5,

1 1 7 1 , 3 4 4 , 3 4 6 ; III 8, 1 1 3 , 2 9 2

Ma'aserot 4:2, I 2 3 0 ; II 9 3 , 3 3 4 , 3 4 1 , 3 4 7 ; III 8, 1 2 0 , 1 9 5 , 2 1 5 , 2 9 1 5:4,

II 9 4 ; III 2 1 9

II 1 0 7

2:3,

1118,292

2:3-4, 2:4,

1:4, 111 1 3 , 2 2 , 2 1 3 , 2 3 2 4:4-5, 11313,316,353 4:3,

III

4:4,

11113,125

332

4:4-5, 111213,292 4:5, 11113,121 198,

I 4 0 5 , 4 0 8 , 4 1 2 ; III 7 , 2 4 , 1 1 6 ,

136, 185 Middot

2:9, I 1 9 1 , 196, 199, 202, 204, 209, 2 1 1 ; II 9 8 - 9 , 3 2 8 , 3 3 0 , 3 4 8 ; III 8 , 204-5, 265 3:2, III 9 3:6, 11111-3,348 3:6-7, I I 1 0 1 - 5 ; III 1 2 3 - 4 , 1 2 6 , 2 1 1 , 291 3:7, II 1 1 1 - 3 , 2 5 0 , 3 4 8 ; III 9 , 2 0 6 , 212 3:8, II 1 1 2 - 3 3:9, 11 1 4 , 1 0 1 - 5 , 1 4 4 , 1 4 9 , 3 4 8 ; I I I 9, 1 2 3 , 2 0 1 , 2 1 6 , 2 2 1 , 2 9 1 , 2 9 2 3:12, II 1 0 4 ; III 1 2 3 3:13, II 1 0 1 - 5 , 1 1 6 , 3 4 8 ; III 9 , 1 3 0 , 221, 291 4:8, I I 1 0 5 , 3 4 8 ; III 9 , 1 2 7 , 1 9 5 , 2 9 1 5:2, II 1 0 7 - 8 5:3, II 5 9 , 1 0 6 - 8 , 3 3 2 , 3 4 5 - 6 ; III 194, 215 5:6, 1119,130,195 5:6-7, II 1 0 6 - 7 , 3 4 8 ; III 2 9 1 5:7, II 1 1 7 ; III 9 , 1 2 7 , 1 9 5 5:8, 1358 5:10, II 5 9 5:15, 1 1 6 0 , 1 6 6 , 1 6 9 - 7 0 , 1 7 3 ; III 2 7 , 70, 116, 188, 255 Makkot I 2 ; III 1 6 4 , 2 5 3

Makshirin II 3 1 1 , 3 1 4 , 3 1 6 , 3 3 2 ; III

II 3 1 1 - 2 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 2 1 , 2 9 2 II 6 2 ; III 1 3

10:1,

1 1 8 9 , 2 0 2 , 2 0 4 , 2 0 9 ; II 9 7 , 9 9 ;

2:7-9, II 9 6 ; III 2 9 1 2:8, 1 1 9 8 - 9 , 3 4 8 ; III 8 , 2 1 5 2:8-9, III 1 3 5

1:1,

1:3,

Menahot

II 9 6 , 1 0 9 , 3 4 8 ; III 2 1 6

III 8 , 1 2 8 , 2 0 5 , 2 6 5 , 2 9 2 2:7, 11 9 7 , 3 4 8 ; III 8 , 1 3 3 , 2 0 6

1:6,

1:2-4,

5:9, I I 3 1 4 , 3 4 4 ; III 1 3 , 1 3 4 , 292

Ma'aser Sheni 1:5,

1:2, III 1 3 1:2-3, III 2 2 2

132,

2:3,

1417

2:6,

1417

Miqva'ot 1:4,

II 2 9 3

1:5, II 2 9 2 , 2 9 6 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 3 , 219, 292 4:1, II 1 2 7 , 2 9 3 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 3 , 128, 266, 2 1 3 , 292, 333 4:5, II 2 9 5 ; I I I 3 0 , 1 1 3 , 2 1 0 , 292 5:6, 1 1 2 9 5 - 6 , 3 3 6 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 3 , 213, 292, 342 6:5, 11297,344 6:6, III 1 3 2 10:6, 292

128, 123, 268, 197,

II 2 9 6 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 3 , 1 3 2 , 1 9 7 ,

Nazir 1:2, III 1 3 1 2:1, II 2 1 5 , 2 2 0 ; III 1 1 2:1-2, 11 2 1 5 , 3 5 0 ; III 2 1 8 , 2 9 4 2:2, III11 3:1, II 2 2 2 ; III 2 2 1 3:6, 11111,124 3:6-7, I I 2 1 7 , 3 3 4 , 3 5 0 ; III 2 1 5 , 2 1 8 , 270, 294 3:7, II 2 1 8 , 3 4 1 , 3 5 0 ; III 1 1 , 1 3 9 , 223 4:6, II 2 2 4 5:1, III11 5:1-2, 111131,204 5:1-3, II 2 1 9 , 3 5 0 ; III 2 1 8 5:1-5, III 2 9 4 5:3, II 2 2 5 ; III 2 0 , 2 0 4

377

INDICES

5:4,

I 4 1 3 ; II 2 2 5 ; III 3 2 , 1 1 2 , 1 9 3

5:4-5,

III 2 1 2

5:5,

II 2 1 9 , 2 2 1 , 2 2 5 , 3 5 0 ; III 1 1 ,

131, 204 Nedarim 3:2,

II 2 1 2 - 3 , 3 5 0 ; III 1 1 , 1 2 7 , 1 9 6 ,

294

7:2,

III 3 3 3

7:3,

II 2 7 0 , 2 8 4 - 5 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 , 1 2 4 ,

134, 2 1 8 , 292, 334 11:1, I I 2 7 2 - 3 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 , 1 2 5 , 1 3 8 , 213, 333 11:1-8, 111212,292 11:3, II 3 3 5 ; III 2 1 5 11:3-5,

3:4,

11 3 2 5 , 3 5 0 ; III 1 1 , 1 3 4 , 1 9 6

9:6,

II 2 1 4 ; III 1 9 6

13:1, Nega'im 1406

1 4

i 4 0 6 , 4 0 8 , 4 1 0 , 4 1 2 ; III 7, 1 3 7

y

Niddah 1:1, I 3 0 8 , 3 2 7 , 3 3 1 , 3 3 3 , 3 3 8 ; III 244 1:4, II 2 9 9 2:1, II 2 9 7 - 8 2:4, II 2 9 7 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 3 , 1 2 5 , 2 0 1 , 292 2:6, II 2 2 , 2 0 8 , 2 9 7 - 8 , 3 4 5 , 3 5 3 ; III 13, 121, 198, 292 4:2, III 1 6 4 4:3, II 2 9 9 , 3 0 8 - 9 , 3 3 5 , 3 3 7 , 3 4 3 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 3 , 2 2 , 1 2 1 , 1 4 0 , 2 0 0 , 2 1 7 8, 2 9 2 4:4, II 3 0 9 , 3 4 2 ; III 2 1 4 5:9, II 3 0 1 , 3 0 5 , 3 4 5 ; III 1 3 , 1 3 8 , 200, 293 10:1, I I 3 0 3 - 4 , 3 0 9 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 3 , 1 3 8 , 215, 292-3 10:3, III 1 3 2 10:4, I I 3 0 3 - 4 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 3 , 1 4 0 , 2 1 5 , 292 10:6, II 3 0 3 , 3 0 5 , 3 4 5 ; III 1 3 , 1 3 4 , 215, 292 10:7, II 3 0 6 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 3 , 1 3 2 , 2 1 5 , 292 10:8, II 3 0 6 , 3 0 8 , 3 1 0 , 3 5 3 ; I I I 1 3 , 22, 1 2 1 , 140, 2 1 5 , 292 Ohalot 1:4, 2:1, 2:3,

II 2 7 4 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 , 1 4 0 , 1 9 7 ,

292

1:1, :

III 1 3 2

11:3-6, I I 2 7 2 - 3 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 11:8, II 2 7 2 - 3 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2

II 2 6 8 II 2 7 8 - 9 , 3 2 9 , 3 5 2 ; III 2 0 0 II 2 6 6 , 2 7 5 , 2 7 8 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 ,

138, 140, 2 1 5 , 292, 333-4 2:12, I 3 4 4 , 3 6 4 , 3 7 3 - 4 , 3 9 1 ; II 2 6 8 9, 2 7 3 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 , 1 2 8 , 2 7 0 , 2 9 2 5:1-5, III 2 1 5:3, 11 2 5 3 , 3 2 9 5:4, I I 2 8 0 - 1 , 2 8 3 - 4 ; III 2 0 1

13:4, 292

I I 2 7 4 - 5 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 , 1 3 8 , 1 9 7 ,

15:8,

II 2 7 5 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 , 2 1 , 1 3 8 ,

197, 223, 292 15:9, II 2 5 3 16:1, 18:1,

II 1 2 7 , 1 2 9 II 2 7 6 , 2 8 7 , 3 4 5 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 ,

1, 1 4 0 , 1 9 7 , 2 1 2 , 2 9 2 18:4, I I 2 7 6 - 7 , 2 8 7 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 , 1 3 2 , 197, 206, 2 1 2 , 292 18:8, I I 2 7 6 - 7 , 2 8 7 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 , 1 4 0 , 197, 206, 212, 292 'Orlah 2:4-5,

1 1 9 2 , 2 0 2 , 2 0 9 ; II 1 1 9 , 3 4 8 ;

III 9 , 1 3 0 , 1 3 4 , 1 8 9 , 1 9 5 , 2 6 5 , 2 6 8 , 292 2:5, 1 3 8 9 2:11, I 3 4 5 ; III 1 9 1 2:12, III 3 2 , 3 5 , 1 1 0 , 1 9 1 , 2 6 9 , 2 7 3 Parah 1:1, III 1 7 1 3:1, 1 4 0 7 - 8 , 4 1 2 ; III 2 5 , 1 8 5 3:5, I 2 5 , 2 9 , 1 6 1 , 1 6 6 , 3 9 7 ; III 6 8 , 207, 2 1 5 3:5-6, 1 4 8 - 9 3:6, 129 3:7, III 1 6 4 5:1, III 2 1 4 12:4, 11 3 3 9 , 3 4 2 , 3 5 3 12:10, II 2 8 7 - 8 ; III 1 2 , 1 4 0 , 2 1 3 , 2 9 2 Pe'ah 1:5, III 1 3 7 2:5-6, 1 3 4 4 , 3 6 4 , 3 7 3 - 4 ; III 3 2 , 1 1 0 , 191 2:6, 1 4 1 5 3:1, II 5 4 , 3 4 6 ; III 7, 1 2 8 , 1 9 3 , 2 9 1 6:1, 111 8 , 1 2 9 , 1 3 4 , 1 9 4 , 2 1 5 , 3 3 2 6:1-3, II 5 6 , 3 4 6 ; III 2 9 1

378

INDICES

6:1-5, 11332,346 6:2, II 6 0 - 1 ; III 8 , 1 2 9 , 2 0 4 , 2 1 5 6:3, III 1 9 4 6:5, 111 8 , 1 9 4 , 2 1 5 , 2 9 1

21:3,

Pesahim II 1 4 0 , 1 6 0 , 3 4 9 ; I I I

9,

9,

Sheqalim

7:6, II 2 5 , 5 9 - 6 0 , 3 3 2 , 3 4 5 - 6 ; III 8 , 129, 194, 215, 291

1:1,

II 1 2 6 , 1 3 3 , 3 4 5 , 3 4 8 ; III

135, 212, 293

135,

2:3,

I I 1 4 7 , 3 4 9 ; III 9 , 1 3 5 , 2 1 4 , 2 9 3

2:4,

II 1 4 8 ; III 2 1 4

3:3, 4:4,

I 3 4 5 , 3 6 4 , 3 7 3 ; III 1 1 0 , 1 9 1 I 4 0 2 , 4 0 5 , 4 0 8 , 4 1 2 ; III 7, 2 4 ,

112, 185 6:1, I 346, 364, 373, 403, 408;

195, 293, 333 1:3-6, III 1 9 6

30, 1 1 1 , 192

1:6,

6:3,

1 4 0 2 , 4 0 4 , 4 0 8 , 4 1 2 ; I I 1 4 4 ; III

III

1417

24, 112, 184-5, 201 3:8, II 1 6 6

8:6, I I 1 4 , 1 4 8 , 3 4 5 , 3 4 8 ; III 9 , 1 2 3 , 201, 216, 294

4:5,

8:7,

I 3 7 7 ; II 1 4 1 , 3 4 9 ; III 9 , 1 2 2 ,

195, 196, 293 8:8, II 1 4 2 , 1 4 5 , 3 3 6 , 3 4 9 ; III

9,

130, 203, 212-3, 294 10:2,

11 1 4 2 , 1 4 5 - 6 , 3 4 6 ; III 7 , 1 2 9 ,

195, 293 10:6, II 1 4 2 , 3 4 9 ; III 9 , 1 8 , 4 0 , 2 0 4 10:8, 111 1 3 9 , 3 3 3 Qiddushin 1:1, II 2 3 3 , 3 3 3 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 1 , 1 3 6 , 197, 215, 293, 333-4 Rosh Hashanah 1:1, II 8 0 , 1 8 1 , 3 5 0 ; III 205, 292 1:4,

10,

137,

III 9 5

2:5, 1 3 4 7 , 3 6 4 , 3 7 3 , 3 7 5 ; III 2 6 , 9 5 6, 1 9 2

I 9 2 , 1 2 0 , 1 3 1 - 2 ^ III 3 9 , 1 9 9

Shabbat 1:1-8, 1:2-3,

III 1 9 5 II 1 2 2

1:4, I 4 1 6 ; II 1 2 2 , 1 2 8 ; III 3 2 1:4-8, II 1 9 9 , 3 2 5 ; III 1 3 3 1:4-9, II 1 2 1 , 3 4 8 ; III 2 9 3 1:4-11, 1111 1:5, II 1 2 9 ; III 9 1:5-7, III 2 0 6 1:6, III 9 1:7, 1:8,

1:1, I I 7 2 , 7 5 , 3 4 7 ; III 8 , 1 3 5 , 1 9 4 , 291 1:2,

1172,74

2:4, II 7 8 2:7-8, II 7 9 4:1, III 2 1 1 4:2, I 1 9 5 ; II 2 6 - 3 0 , 7 3 , 3 3 5 , 3 4 7 ; III 8 , 4 1 , 1 2 9 , 2 1 7 - 8 , 2 9 1 4:4, II 7 3 - 4 , 3 4 7 ; III 8 , 1 3 5 , 1 9 4 , 204, 291 4:10, 4:26, 5:4, 5:6, 5:7, 5:8,

11 7 5 , 3 4 7 ; III 8, 1 9 4 , 2 9 1 II 3 4 5 II 7 6 , 3 4 7 ; III 8, 1 3 5 , 1 9 4 , 2 9 1 II 7 7 II 7 7 II 6 5 , 7 6 , 8 0 , 3 4 7 ; III 8 , 1 3 2 ,

Sotah 1:2,

II 1 2 9 , 1 4 4 ; III 9 , 2 1 2 III 9

1:9, II 1 2 9 - 3 0 ; III 2 1 9 , 2 7 4 2:1, 1414 3:1, II 1 2 5 , 1 3 1 , 1 4 5 , 3 4 8 ; III 127, 214, 2 1 6 , 293

Shevi'it

194, 291 6:3, 1394 7:3, II 7 7 8:1, II235 8*2 II81 8:3,' 1 1 7 7 , 3 4 7 ; III 8 , 1 1 3 , 1 9 4 , 2 9 1 10:3, 11140,42 10:3-4, 1 219,222,276,283-4,296

Sanhedrin 6:4,

11 1 4 , 1 4 9 , 3 4 5

9,

1393

4:2, II 2 2 6 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 1 , 1 3 1 , 2 2 2 , 294 4:4, II 3 0 7 5:1, I 4 1 5 ; III 2 0 0 5:2, III 1 6 9 5:5, III 1 6 9 9 III 1 5 0 9:5, III 2 1 0 9:9, 1 6 2 , 6 8 , 7 4 ; III 3 9 , 4 5 , 1 1 6 , 2 1 0

379

INDICES

9:9-15, 128 9:10, 1161,166 9:15, I 3 5 1 , 363-4, 374, 394, 397, III 4 6 , 1 1 6 , 1 9 2

1:1, 1:7,

I I 1 5 0 , 3 4 9 ; III 9 , 1 2 2 , 1 9 5 , 2 9 3 I I 1 5 0 , 3 4 9 ; III 9 , 1 2 7 , 2 1 6 , 2 9 3

2:5,

I 3 4 6 , 3 6 2 , 3 6 4 , 3 7 0 , 3 7 5 ; III

29, 1 1 1 , 192, 275 I 3 9 2 ; II 1 5 1 , 1 5 6 , 3 4 9 ; III 1 0 ,

18, 30, 122-3, 203, 269, 293 2:8, I 1 9 3 , 1 9 7 , 2 0 0 , 2 0 2 , 2 1 0 ; III 108, 189, 269 3:5,

II 1 5 3 , 3 4 9 ; III 1 0 , 1 2 2 , 1 9 5 ,

292 3:9, II 1 5 4 , 3 4 5 ; III 1 0 , 4 0 , 1 3 9 , 206, 274, 293 Ta'anit 3:8, I 92, 99, 104, 1 1 4 , 120, 133-4, 1 7 6 ; III 3 6 , 4 9 , 6 8 , 1 0 7 , 1 8 7 , 3 1 2 23:25, III 6 2 Temurah 7:5,

II 8 4

Terumot 1:4, II 8 1 , 8 8 - 9 , 3 3 6 , 3 4 7 ; III 1 2 4 , 194, 213, 292, 334 1:9-10, II 8 9 1:10, II 8 1 3:4, II 8 7 3:9, II 59, 1 0 8 4:3, 292 4:7, 5:2, 5:4,

II 8 2 - 3 , 3 4 7 ; III 8, 1 3 7 , 1 9 5 , II 8 2 11 8 5 , 9 0 , 3 2 3 I I 8 4 , 9 1 , 3 4 7 ; III 8 , 1 8 , 1 2 2 ,

199, 292 5:5, II 8 5 5:6, II 8 5 11:2, III 3 3 3 Tevul Y o m 1:1, II 3 2 2 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 3 , 1 3 2 , 1 9 8 , 292 2:5,

1 0 : 4 , ' II 2 9 1 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 , 1 2 1 , 1 9 7 'Uqsin

Sukkah

2:7,

9:7, 1 1 2 8 9 - 9 0 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 , 1 2 1 , 1 3 4 , 219 292

11 3 2 3 , 3 5 3

Toharot 9:1, I I 2 8 9 - 9 0 , 2 9 2 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 , 1 2 5 , 203, 219, 292 9:5, I I 2 8 9 - 9 0 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 , 1 3 2 , 2 1 9 , 292

3:6, II 3 2 4 , 3 3 6 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 3 , 1 2 1 , 198, 2 1 5 3:6-11,

III 2 9 2

3:8, II 3 2 4 , 3 3 6 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 3 , 1 9 8 , 207 3:11,

11 3 2 4 , 3 3 6 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 3 , 1 2 5

Yadaim 3:5,

II 3 2 3 , 3 3 6 , 3 4 2 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 2 1 ,

213, 215, 292 4:3, I 1 5 ; II 1 0 7 ; III 1 7 0 , 2 7 6 4:6,

1162,166

4:6-7, 1 2 4:7, III 1 6 4 4:8, III 1 6 4 Yevamot 1:1, II 1 9 0 , 2 0 5 ; III 2 3 6 1:1-4, II 1 9 5 ; III 1 0 , 3 9 , 1 2 2 , 1 3 3 , 200, 203-4, 208-9, 214-5, 224-5, 234, 236, 268-9, 293 1:2-3, III 2 3 6 1:3, II 2 0 5 1:4, I I 1 2 4 , 1 5 7 , 1 9 0 , 194,205, 334, 350 1:7, III 1 3 9 2:4, II 1 9 0 3:1, II 1 9 4 , 2 0 6 , 3 3 7 , 3 4 3 , 3 5 0 ; III 10, 1 3 5 , 200, 202-3 3:1-5, II 2 1 3 3:5, II 1 9 5 , 3 3 4 , 3 5 0 ; III 1 0 , 2 1 5 , 293 4:3, II 1 9 6 , 2 0 9 , 2 1 1 , 3 5 0 ; III 1 0 , 124, 196, 200, 206, 293 6:4, I 3 9 6 ; III 5 3 , 1 1 2 6:6, II 1 9 8 , 2 0 6 , 3 5 0 ; III 1 0 , 1 3 6 , 219, 293, 334 13:1, II 1 9 8 , 3 2 5 , 3 5 0 ; III 1 0 , 1 9 , 127, 196, 293 14:2, 1 4 1 8 14:7, II 2 2 1 15:1-2, II 3 2 8 15:1-3, III 2 7 0 15:2-3, II 2 0 1 , 3 5 0 ; III 2 0 , 1 9 6 , 2 9 3 15:3, II 3 2 9 , 3 4 0 ; III 1 0 , 1 3 1 16:6, II 2 2 1 16:7, I 3 4 8 , 3 6 4 , 3 6 8 , 3 7 5 ; III 3 2 , 111, 205, 210

380

INDICES

Yoma

2:3,

1:1,

II 1 6 0

1:6, 3:9,

1414 1397

II 3 0 9

Zevahim 4:1,

II 2 4 0 , 2 4 2 , 3 4 2 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 1 ,

24, 138, 294 Zabim 1:1, 1 :l-2, 1:2,

9:3, 9:5,

111 1 4 0 , 2 2 2 I I 3 0 6 , 3 1 7 - 8 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 3 , 2 9 2 111 1 3 8 , 2 0 7 - 8

V.

II 2 7 8 - 8 0 , 3 5 2 ; I I I 1 2 , 2 0 0 , 2 9 2

5:10-12,

II 2 6 9

5:11, I I 2 8 1 , 2 8 3 - 4 ; III 2 1 , 2 0 1 , 2 6 8 70, 292 5:11-12,

11 3 2 9 - 3 0 , 3 5 2

8:7, II 2 8 5 , 3 5 2 ; I I I 2 1 8 , 2 9 2 12:1, 11 2 8 5 , 3 5 2 ; III 2 1 3 , 2 9 2 14:4, II 2 8 5 , 3 5 2 ; I I I 1 3 8 , 2 9 2 15:9, 111 1 2 , 2 1 , 1 2 1 , 2 2 3 , 2 9 2 16:6, 1 1 2 8 7 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 3 8 , 2 0 6 , 2 9 2 16:8, 1 242,276,296 16:21-22, III 2 9 3 17:9, II 2 8 7 , 3 5 2 ; I I I 1 9 7 , 2 9 2 17:13, II 2 8 7 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 9 7 , 2 9 2 'Arakhin 1377

4 : 5 , ' II 2 4 8 , 3 5 1 ; I I I 1 1 , 1 3 2 , 2 0 1 , 293 4:22, II 2 5 0 , 3 5 1 ; I I I 1 1 , 1 3 2 , 1 9 7 5:15, 11111,250

1:1,

Zarah 1414

3:10, I 3 5 8 , 3 6 6 , 3 7 5 ; III 3 0 , 1 1 1 , 192 4:9, I 3 5 9 , 3 6 6 , 3 7 4 ; III 1 5 , 1 1 1 , 202, 273 Bava Batra 7:11, 9:1, 10:13,

1415 1414 I I 2 3 8 ; III 2 0 6 , 2 9 3

Bava M e s i V 3:12, II 2 3 7 , 3 4 5 ; III 2 9 4 6:10, I 2 2 4 , 2 4 0 , 2 7 6 , 2 8 4 , 2 9 5 ; III 14, 109, 190 Bava Qamma 2:1,

1 4 0 4 - 5 , 4 0 8 ; III 1 1 2 , 1 8 5 II 6 6

8:13,

3:4,

'Avodah

12:4, 14:3,

TOSEFTA

Ahilot

1:13,

1 4 0 5 , 4 0 8 ; III 1 8 5 II 6 6

III 2 2 2

9:5,

1 7 5 , 7 7 - 8 ; III 6 8 , 2 1 0 I I 2 3 4 , 3 5 1 ; III ii, 1 4 0 , 2 1 9 , 2 9 4

10:38,

1 392-3

Bekhorot 3:15-16, 292 3:16,

I I 2 4 6 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 3 3 , 2 0 6 ,

III 1 1

Berakhot 1:4,

34,49,346

2:21, 1 2 2 8 , 2 7 6 , 2 9 7 ; III 5 8 , 6 3 , 9 8 , 115, 190, 263 3:13, I I 4 9 , 1 8 2 , 3 4 6 ; III 7 , 1 3 7 , 1 9 3 , 294 3:20, I 3 9 4 ; III 5 9 , 1 1 7 , 1 9 2 3:25, 12 4:9, 1377 5:25-30, 111 7, 2 1 6 5:27, III 1 2 8 5:30, 11 1 3 8 , 3 4 6 ; III 1 2 8 , 1 9 3 , 2 9 4 6:24, 1 2 2 8 , 2 4 4 , 253,276, 285, 297; III 5 8 , 6 3 , 9 8 , 1 1 5 , 1 9 0 , 2 6 3 Besah 1:11,

II 1 3 2

Demai 1:3, III 1:26-27, 1:28, II 2:12, 11

219 I I 6 3 , 6 5 , 3 4 6 ; III 1 2 0 , 2 9 1 6 6 ; III 8 , 1 2 0 , 2 1 4 66,247

'Eduyyot 1:1, I 3 0 7 , 3 1 2 , 3 3 0 , 3 3 8 ; III 4 2 , 9 4 1:3, 1 1 4 6 , 1 5 2 , 1 5 5 - 6 , 3 1 2 , 3 3 0 , 3 3 3 , 3 3 8 ; III 1 3 6 1:4, 1307 1:6, 11 3 4 0 , 3 5 0 2:2, I 3 9 2 ; II 2 2 4 , 3 4 9 , 3 5 1 , 3 5 3 2:2-3, II 3 4 0

381

INDICES

2:3,

II 2 0 4

2:4, I 2 4 2 , 2 7 6 , 2 9 5 ; II 2 2 3 , 3 4 1 , 347, 350-1

11:7, 292

I I 2 5 7 , 2 6 4 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 2 8 , 2 1 6 ,

Kelim B.Q.

2:5,

11 3 4 2 , 3 5 3

2:6,

11 3 4 2 , 3 5 1

2:1,

2:7, 2:8,

11 3 4 2 , 3 5 3 II 3 4 3

6:18,

2:9,

11 2 0 6 , 3 3 7 ,

II 2 6 0 , 3 5 2 ; III

12, 120,

292

I I 2 6 1 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 0 , 2 2 3 , 2 9 2

Keritot 343,350

'Eruvin 3:7, I 1 8 7 , 1 9 6 , 2 0 4 , 2 0 8 ; II 1 1 ; III 40, 188 11:24,

1417

Gittin 8:3,

11 2 3 2 , 3 5 1

8:8, II 2 3 2 , 3 4 1 , 3 5 1 ; I I I 1 1 , 2 2 2 , 293 Hagigah 1:4, I I 1 8 6 - 7 , 3 5 0 ; III 1 2 9 , 1 3 4 , 2 2 1 , 293 1:9, 1417 2:1, III 1 9 1 2:8, 1 1 2 - 3 , 9 3 , 1 1 8 , 1 2 7 ; III 2 1 5 2:9, I 308, 3 1 1 , 313, 327, 330, 334, 3 3 9 ; III 4 6 , 6 8 , 1 1 5 , 2 6 4 2:10, II 1 8 8 , 3 4 9 ; III 1 9 , 2 0 2 , 2 9 3 2:11, 1309,314,326,330,334,339, 3 8 9 ; III 3 7 , 6 8 , 1 1 0 , 2 6 7 - 8 3:34, 12 Hullin 1:6, 11 2 4 5 , 3 5 1 8:2-3, II 2 4 5 , 3 5 1 ; I I I 1 3 1 , 2 1 2 , 2 9 2 K e l i m B.B. 1:12, II 2 6 4 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 1 , 2 1 7 , 2 9 2 4:9, II 2 6 5 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 1 , 1 2 3 , 2 9 2 5:7, III 1 2 5:7-8, II 2 6 6 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 1 , 2 1 4 , 2 9 2 7:4, I I 2 6 6 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 3 8 , 2 9 2 Kelim B.M. 1:2, II 2 5 4 ; I I I 1 2 0 , 2 2 2 3:8, II 2 6 1 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 2 , 1 2 0 , 2 2 2 , 292 4:5, II 2 6 1 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 2 , 1 2 4 , 1 2 8 , 216, 292 4:16, II 2 6 2 , 3 5 2 ; III 1 2 , 1 2 0 , 2 0 3 , 292 8:1, II 2 6 2 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 3 2 , 2 9 2 11:3, II 2 6 3 , 3 3 9 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 2 , 1 2 4 , 292

1:5, 1:9,

II 9 0 II 2 5 3 , 3 4 5 ; I I I 1 9 7

Ketuvot 3:2,

1415

4:9,

I 236, 251, 264, 278, 291, 295;

III 3 7 , 1 0 9 , 1 9 0 , 2 1 0 , 2 6 0 5:6, 8:9,

II 2 0 8 ; III 2 9 3 I I 2 3 4 ; III 1 2 4 , 2 1 9

12:1, I 9 3 , 1 0 7 , 1 2 0 , 1 2 9 , 3 9 4 ; III 26, 107, 187 12:4,

1 356, 3 6 4 , 3 7 0 , 3 7 5

Kila'im 3:17,

I I 7 1 , 3 4 7 ; III 8 , 1 3 0 , 1 9 4 , 2 9 1

4:1, I I 7 1 ; III 2 0 8 4:11, I I 7 1 , 3 4 7 ; III 8 , 1 3 7 , 2 1 8 , 2 9 1 Ma'aserot 1:5, 11 7 9 , 9 4 , 3 4 7 3:2-4, I 2 3 0 , 2 4 2 , 2 7 6 , 2 9 5 ; II 9 4 ; III 1 4 , 1 1 5 , 2 1 7 , 2 6 1 3:10, II 9 4 , 3 4 7 ; III 1 2 0 , 2 2 0 , 2 9 3 3:13, I I 9 4 , 3 4 6 ; III 8 , 1 9 4 , 2 1 9 , 2 9 2 5:4, II 9 4 Ma'aser Sheni 2:1, II 9 7 , 9 9 , 1 0 9 , 3 4 8 ; I I I 216, 292 2:10, 1196

128,

2:11, II 1 0 2 , 1 1 0 - 1 , 3 4 8 ; III 1 8 , 2 9 2 2:12, II 1 1 1 , 3 4 8 ; I I I 1 2 3 , 2 9 2 2:16, II 1 4 , 1 0 4 , 1 4 9 , 3 4 8 ; I I I 1 2 3 , 202, 292 2:18, 11 1 1 6 , 3 4 8 ; III 2 2 1 , 2 9 2 3:13-15, II 1 1 6 , 3 4 8 3:14-15, III 1 2 7 , 1 9 5 , 2 9 2 5:17, 111129,194 5:17-20, II 1 1 7 ; III 2 9 2 5:19, III 1 2 7 5:20, III 1 3 3 Makshirin 1 :l-4, II 3 1 5 , 3 5 3 ; I I I 1 2 1 , 2 2 2 , 2 9 2 1:3, III 2 2

382

INDICES

1:4,

III 2 1 3

2:6, 2:16, 3:4,

II 3 1 6 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 2 1 , 2 1 3 , 2 9 2 III 3 3 2 I 8 2 , 8 4 ; III 6, 9 2 , 1 0 7 , 1 8 7

I

9:7-9, 9:19, Parah 3:6,

Megillah 1:9,

II222

I I 3 0 9 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 3 8 , 2 1 5 , 2 9 3 11 3 0 6 , 3 1 0 , 3 5 3 ; III 2 2 , 2 9 2

4:7, 5:1,

1397 1243,276,296 I I 2 8 8 ; III 1 2 , 1 3 8 , 2 1 4

12:18,

II 2 8 8 ; III 1 4 0 , 2 1 3 , 2 9 2

Miqva'ot 1:7,

II 2 9 6 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 2 8 , 2 1 9 , 2 9 2

1:10,

II 2 9 6 , 3 5 3 ; I I I 1 2 8 , 2 1 9 , 2 9 2

3:8, 5:2,

1417 II 2 9 7 , 3 4 4 ; III 2 1 0 , 2 9 2

M o ' e d Qatan 2:9,

II 1 8 3 , 3 5 0 ; I I I 1 0 , 1 3 7 , 2 0 0 ,

227

Pe'ah 3:2,

II 5 7 , 6 0 - 1 , 3 4 6 ; III 2 0 4

4:10, 1229,244,271,276,286,296; III 2 9 , 4 3 , 1 1 4 , 1 9 0 , 2 6 0 Pisha 1:6,

I 4 0 2 ; II 1 4 3 , 3 4 9 ; III 9, 1 3 3 ,

206, 212, 216, 293 2:22, 4:13,

Nazir 3:17,

II 3 4 0 ; III 1 3 1

Nedarim 6:3, II 1 1 4 6:3-4, III 2 2 0 6:4, 11214,350

1231,258,276,280,296 1232,245,276,286,296,310;

III 3 8 , 4 0 , 5 9 , 1 0 9 , 2 1 0 , 2 2 0 , 2 3 1 , 257, 260 7:2, II 1 4 4 - 5 ; I I I 9 , 1 3 0 , 2 1 4 , 2 9 3 7:4, III 2 9 4 7:14, II 1 4 5 , 3 4 9 ; III 2 0 3 10:2-3, II 3 4 6 ; III 1 2 9 , 2 9 3 10:9, II 1 4 7 ; I I I 1 8 , 2 0 4 , 2 9 3

Nega'im 1:6, 1407-8 1:16, I 2 4 2 , 2 6 7 , 2 7 6 , 2 8 1 , 2 9 5 ; III 117, 190, 261 Nezirot 1:1,

Qiddushin 4:1, II 2 3 3 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 1 , 1 2 7 , 2 2 0 293 Rosh Hashanah

II 3 , 2 2 1 , 3 5 0 ; I I I 1 1 , 6 7 , 1 2 2 ,

131, 196, 294 2:10, II 2 2 2 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 1 , 1 2 3 , 2 2 1 , 294 3:1, II 2 2 3 , 3 4 1 , 3 5 0 ; I I I 1 3 9 , 2 2 3 , 294 3:17, 1 1 2 2 4 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 1 , 1 9 6 , 2 9 4 3:19, I I 2 2 5 , 3 5 0 - 1 ; III 1 1 , 1 3 1 , 1 3 6 , 204, 212, 294 4:7, 1 2 6 , 4 4 ; III 33 Niddah 2:2, II 3 0 7 , 3 5 3 ; III 2 1 6 2:12, III 2 9 3 5:5, III 1 2 1 5:5-7, I I 3 0 8 , 3 3 7 , 3 5 3 ; III 2 0 0 , 2 1 7 , 292 5:6, III 2 2 5:7, II342 5:7, 11113,214 6:3-4, III 2 9 3

2:17, 193, 4:5, 4:11,

II 1 8 2 , 3 4 6 ; III 1 9 , 3 0 , 1 3 7 , 270 1377 III 3 5 5

Sanhedrin 2:6, 1356-7,360-1,366,368,372-3, 3 7 5 ; III 2 5 , 1 9 2 , 2 1 7 3:11, 1110 4:9, 1118 6:6, I 9 4 , 1 1 8 , 1 2 2 - 3 , 1 2 5 ; III 4 0 7:1, 1 330, 334 7:11, 1 2 4 0 , 2 7 5 - 7 , 2 9 6 ; III 1 0 9 , 1 9 0 8:3, 1 95,118,122-3 13:3, 1 1 2 3 8 , 3 5 1 ; III 6 3 , 1 3 1 , 1 9 7 Shabbat 1:14, 293 1:16, 1:18,

I I 1 2 7 , 3 4 8 ; III 9 , 1 3 3 , 2 2 1 , II 1 2 7 ; III 2 6 8 II 1 2 7 , 3 4 8 ; III 2 9 2

383

INDICES

1:19,

11 1 2 7 , 3 4 8

1:20,

III 2 9 3

203, 269, 270 4:3,

1 : 2 0 - 2 1 , 1 1 1 2 8 ; III 1 8 , 4 0 1:21, 1111 1:22, 2:13,

I 235, 260, 278, 289, 297;

III

56, 63, 98, 1 1 5 , 190, 263 4:4, I 3 8 1 - 2 , 3 8 4 - 6 ; III 5 3 , 6 7 , 1 1 1 ,

II 1 2 8 - 9 ; I I I 2 7 4 , 2 9 3 I I 1 3 0 - 1 , 1 4 4 - 5 , 3 4 8 ; III

9,

192, 274 4:15, 1417

216, 293 3:18, 7:18,

Terumot

II 1 5 ; I I I 1 2 9 1341

13:2, I 356, 360, 366, 369, 371, 373, 3 7 5 ; III 3 4 , 1 1 1 , 2 1 1 13:10, 14:1,

1187

II 8 7 , 3 4 7 ; I I I

8, 1 3 7 , 2 1 7 ,

I I 1 6 , 1 3 2 , 3 4 5 ; III 7 , 2 2 0 , 2 9 4 II 1 3 3 , 3 4 5 , 3 4 8 ; I I I 2 1 2 , 2 9 3

3:14,

II 8 7 , 3 4 7 ; I I I

8, 1 3 0 , 2 1 1 ,

II 1 4 9 , 3 4 8 ; III 2 9 4

1:5, 1 3 2 0 ; I I 7 8 , 3 4 7 ; III 8 , 1 7 , 1 2 6 , 211, 291 2:6, II 7 9 - 8 0 , 3 4 7 ; III 8 , 1 2 3 , 2 1 8 , 291 2:14, 1418 I 1 9 5 , 2 1 0 ; III 3 4 , 1 0 8 , 1 8 9 III 2 0 5

4:5, I I 7 7 , 8 0 - 1 , 3 4 7 ; III 8 , 1 3 2 , 1 9 4 , 291 291 1 1 7 9 - 8 0 , 3 4 7 ; III 2 9 1 II 7 7 , 8 1 , 3 4 7 ; III 8 , 1 3 2 , 1 9 4 ,

5:3, II 8 3 , 8 9 ; III 1 9 5 5:4, III 2 9 2 6:4, I I 9 0 - 1 , 3 4 7 ; III 8 , 1 8 , 1 2 2 , 1 9 9 , 292 9:10, I 4 0 7 , 4 1 0 , 4 1 2 ; III 7 , 1 1 2 Tevul

Yom

2:3,

11 3 2 3 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 3 , 1 3 2 , 2 9 2

Toharot 8:9b-10, II 2 9 2 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 2 , 1 2 1 , 211, 292 10:1-2, I I 2 9 2 , 3 5 2 ; III 2 0 3 , 2 9 2 11:4, II 8 7 Yadaim 2:20, 4:8,

Sotah

12 12

Yevamot

3:13, III 1 0 9 4:7, II 2 2 7 , 3 5 1 ; I I I 1 1 , 1 2 2 , 2 1 2 13:3, I 238, 253, 262, 265, 269, 278, 2 9 2 , 2 9 6 ; II 1 2 2 ; III 5 1 , 6 1 , 6 6 - 7 , 210, 260 13:5, 1 1 6 2 , 1 6 6 , 1 7 1 ; III 5 1 13:6, 150 13:7, I 2 7 , 5 0 , 5 2 - 6 ; III 4 7 , 6 8 , 1 0 6 , 116, 186, 209 13:10, I 163, 166, 169-70 14:9, I 3 1 1 , 313, 330, 334, 339 15:5, 1394 Sukkah 2:3,

II 8 8 , 3 4 7 ; I I 8 , 4 1 , 1 3 0 , 1 9 9 ,

292

Shevi'it

4:21, 6:19, 291

292 3:16,

Sheqalim

3:10, 4:2,

II 8 6 , 3 4 7 ; III 8 , 1 3 0 , 2 0 8

3:12, 292

16:21, 111 9 , 1 3 3 , 2 2 1 16:21-22, II 1 3 4 , 3 4 8 ; III 2 1 9

3:16,

2:5,

II 1 3 2 , 3 4 8 ; III 9, 1 2 7 , 2 2 1 ,

293 15:9, 16:7,

1418 1118,113,217

2:13, 1159,108 3:2, III 2 9 2

1187

13:12-13,

1:1, 1:4,

1:7, 111131,139 1:7-13, I I 2 0 4 , 3 5 0 ; III 2 0 4 , 293 1:7-14, III 2 0 0 , 2 0 3 1:11-13, II332

1:12, I I 1 9 3 ; III 2 1 4 5:1, II 2 0 6 , 3 3 7 , 3 4 3 , 3 5 0 ; III 1 3 5 , 202-3, 293 6:6, II 3 5 0 8:4, II 2 0 6 ; III 1 3 6 , 2 1 9 8:14, III 2 9 3 13:1, II 2 0 6 , 3 5 0 ; III 2 9 3 Yoma HaKippurim

I 3 9 2 ; II 1 5 6 , 2 0 4 - 5 , 3 4 0 ;

III

208,

1:8,

12

384

INDICES

1:13,

1415

1:21,

1397

1:22,

1 399

Yom

3:10, Zabim

Tov

1:4,

II 3 4 , 1 7 2 , 3 4 6 ; III 1 2 6 , 2 9 3

1:8, II 1 7 3 , 3 4 9 ; III 1 2 2 , 1 3 9 , 2 1 4 , 221 293 1 : 1 0 , ' II 1 7 4 , 3 4 9 ; I I I 1 2 2 , 2 2 1 , 2 9 3 1:11a, 111 1 2 2 , 2 1 9 , 2 9 3 1:12, II 1 7 7 ; III 1 2 2 1:12-14, 293

II

1:15-17, 293

II 1 7 5 , 3 4 9 ; III 1 3 9 , 2 1 5 ,

1 7 5 , 3 4 9 ; III

19, 213,

2:10,

1:1, 1 1 3 1 9 , 3 2 1 , 3 5 3 ; III 2 2 , 2 9 2 1:1-2, 111 1 9 8 , 2 9 2 1:1-8, 11 3 2 1 , 3 5 3 1:2,

11319,353

1:3,

1 1 3 2 0 , 3 5 3 ; III 1 2 1 , 2 9 2

1:4, 1 1 3 2 0 , 3 5 3 ; III 2 0 7 , 2 9 2 1:5, 11 3 2 0 , 3 5 3 1:5-8, 111207,292 1:7,

II 1 8 0 , 3 4 9 ; III 1 3 7 , 2 2 1 , 2 9 3 III 2 9 3

1 1 3 2 1 , 3 5 3 ; III 2 2 , 2 9 2

Zevahim 2:17,

1:21, II 1 7 5 , 3 4 9 ; I I I 1 3 9 , 2 1 7 , 2 9 3 2:3, III 2 2 3 2:4,

II 1 8 0 , 3 5 0 ; III 1 0 , 1 3 0 , 2 2 1

4:9,

1129,90 II 2 4 2 , 3 4 2 , 3 5 1 ; III 1 2 2 , 1 3 1 ,

211, 294 6:13, 1416 9:5,

1 407-8

VI. M E K H I L T A , SIFRA, SIFRfi, M I D R A S H Mekhilta Amalek IV, 67, Beshallah I V , 58-60,

I 394

1 1 4 2 , 1 5 2 ; III 6 1 -

2, 92, 98, 1 1 5 , 1 8 8 K a s p a III 3 1 - 4 1 ,

I 8 6 , 1 1 8 , 1 2 2 - 3 ; III

36, 40, 98, 107, 216 Neziqin 1 5 : 4 9 - 5 5 ,

II 8 , 2 3 6 , 3 4 4 ;

III

20, 40 M e k h i l t a P i s h a III 2 0 9 - 1 6 , I 2 6 5 , III 4 0 , 1 2 9 , 1 8 9 V 1 1 8 - 2 0 , II 9 X V I I 209-216, 11 6 , 3 4 5 Mekhilta deR. S i m e o n b. Y o h a i 1:29-30, 1 202,208 13:1-2, I 212, 231, 245, 258,

279

276,

Sifra Behar 1 : 5 , II 2 6 - 3 0 , 7 4 , 3 4 5 ; III 41, 129, 2 1 7 4:8, 1 2 1 5 , 227, 263, 276, 282, 295; III 2 6 , 3 9 , 1 8 9 , 2 6 0 Sifra Behuqotai 1:1, i 8 9 , 1 2 0 , 1 3 0 - 1 ; III 4 2 , 4 9 , 6 8 ,

Sifre D e u t e r o n o m y 11, III 9 3

34, II 4 1 , 49, 3 4 6 ; III 4 1 , 2 0 4 , 2 0 8 61, I 3 4 3 , 3 6 4 ; III 4 0 , 6 3 , 9 7 , 1 1 0 , 191 65, III 3 4 9 113, I 217, 225, 262-3, 276, III 2 6 , 4 0 , 1 0 9 , 1 8 9 , 2 6 0 115, I 222-3, 296 131, III 4 1 , 1 2 6 , 1 9 3 134, II144 142,

283-4;

III 3 4 9

143, II 3 5 , 1 8 4 , 3 4 6 ; III 4 1 , 1 2 8 , 207

2 8 0 , 2 9 6 ; III 1 8 9 147-8, 1 342,364,374 148, I 3 3 0 ; III 4 0 149, II 1 2 9 , 3 4 8

107, 187

TANNAIM

166, I I 3 6 , 2 4 4 , 3 4 6 ; III 4 1 , 1 3 7 , 2 0 5 190, 12 203, 1187,197,202,204,208; II11; III 9 7 , 1 1 6 , 1 8 8 221, I 9 0 , 1 2 0 , 1 3 1 - 2 ; III 3 6 , 3 9 , 4 4 , 107, 199 234, II 3 1 - 3 , 3 4 4 - 5 ; III 4 1 , 1 3 7 234, III 4 1 , 1 3 7 269, II 3 7 - 9 , 2 3 2 , 3 4 6 ; III 1 7 , 4 1 , 117, 205 294, 1416 351, 1 3 4 3 ; III 6 3 , 9 7 , 1 0 5 , 1 1 0 , 1 9 0 1 357, 1 2 2 1 , 2 7 5 - 6 , 2 9 6 ; III 4 6 - 7 , 1 1 5 , 209, 261-2 Sifra E m o r 2:6, 15:5,

1396 11 2 6 , 3 4 5 ; III 4 1 , 1 2 5 , 2 0 7

385

INDICES Sifra M e s o r a 4 : 3 ,

II 2 2 , 3 4 5

Sifra TazrPa 1 : 5 , II 1 5 , 3 4 5 ; III 7 , 1 2 9 , 2 2 0

Sifre N u m b e r s 7,

1 145,152,157-8

22, I 9 , 2 4 , 4 4 ; III 3 3 , 3 9 , 6 6 , 9 2 , 106, 186 25

II222

42* I 4 0 1 - 2 , 4 0 5 , 4 0 8 , 4 1 2 ; I I I 98, 117, 185

II 1 3 2 - 3 II 3 0 9 I 4 0 1 , 4 0 7 - 8 , 4 1 2 ; III 7 , 1 1 6 ,

185 3:1-2,

III 7

115,

II 3 0 , 3 4 4 - 5 ; III 3 2 , 4 1 , 1 1 3 ,

3:6,

116, 117,

1418 I 393

123*

1 2 1 6 , 2 4 2 - 3 , 2 7 6 , 2 9 6 ; III 4 5 ,

Sifra V a y i q r a

11,

1 3 7 7 , 3 8 2 , 3 8 6 ; III 3 4 , 1 1 1 , 2 0 2 II 2 3 , 5 9 - 6 0 , 3 4 5 ; III 4 1 , 2 0 7 ,

219 3:8, II 1 1 8

1 1 1 1 , 2 3 5 , 3 4 5 ; III 2 0 5

II 2 7 8

18:15,

II 2 8 5

19:3,

II 2 1 7

19:15,

II 2 7 4

19:16,

II 2 7 6

Sifre Zutta Naso

Sifra S a v 1:9, I 4 0 1 , 4 0 5 , 4 0 7 - 8 , 4 1 2 ; III 2 4 , 93, 185 8:6, I I 1 3 , 1 4 9 , 3 4 5 ; III 4 0 , 1 2 3 , 201, 216 Sifra S h e m i n i 7:4, I 3 4 2 , 3 6 4 , 3 6 9 - 7 0 , 3 7 4 ; III 1 5 8:5, 161 9:5, I 2 1 3 , 2 7 6 , 2 8 1 , 2 9 5 ; III 40, 109, 189, 260

6:5,

' A v o d a h Zarah 1:1,

1414

1:9, 2:7, 3:1,

I 3 6 7 , 3 8 3 - 4 ; III 5 3 , 2 7 4 II 1 6 0 I 2 6 9 , 2 7 9 , 2 9 3 , 2 9 7 ; II 1 2 2

Bava Batra 1415 1394 1 360,364

B a v a Mesi'a* I 1 1 2 , 1 2 1 ; III 3 6 , 50, 6 6 , 1 0 7 ,

II 2 1 7

6:17,

II 2 1 7

Midrash Tannaim page 80, 1219,22 175-6, 1 3 7 8 , 3 8 2 , 3 8 6 ; III 2 0 0 , 2 7 5 211, I 222, 226, 276, 284, 297 T o Deut. 2 2 : 1 2 , T o Deut. 3 3 : 3 ,

VII. P A L E S T I N I A N

188

I 2 1 4 , 219, 242, 267, 276, 281 111 3 1 , 4 0 , 1 0 9 , 2 0 5 , 2 6 0 - 1

Sifre Zutta Huqat

Sifra Q e d o s h i m

2:5,

I I 2 2 , 2 5 3 , 3 4 5 ; III 4 1 , 1 3 4 , 1 9 7

13:13,

46, 189, 262

17, 41,

3:7, I 3 7 7 , 3 8 1 - 2 , 3 8 4 , 3 8 6 ; III 3 3 , 93, 1 1 1 , 192 9:16, 295;

137, 193

8:1, 9:1, 10:4,

II 1 7 - 2 2 , 3 4 4 - 5 ; III

207

63,

111,

2:4, 3:7,

1:6, 1:13, 2:6,

III 7 , 1 9 3 , 2 1 5 III 6 3

TALMUD

3:9,

II 2 3 5

Bava Qamma 9:1,

II 2 3 4

Berakhot 1:3, 1141,49 1:4, II 1 5 6 , 1 5 8 ; III 1 9 6 1:6, II 3 4 1:7, II 2 0 4 4:1, I 394 5:1, I 3 9 4 ; II 3 5 7 , 3 6 7 , 3 7 4 - 5 5:5, I 3 9 5 ; II 3 5 4 - 6 2 , 3 6 7 - 7 2 , 3 7 5 5:25-30, II 5 1

N E U S N E R , The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70, III

25

386

INDICES

6:5,

II 4 2 ; I I I 1 2 9

7:2,

I 9 7 , 1 1 3 , 1 1 7 , 1 2 0 , 1 3 4 - 6 ; III

9:11, Hagigah

36, 44, 49, 62, 66, 107, 153, 188 8:1-5,

II232

1144,51

1:1, II 1 0 1:1-3, II 1 8 3

8:3, 111140,215 8:7-8, II 5 1

1:2,

1135,186

1243,253,278, 285,293,297;

1:8, 2:1,

III 1 4 5 I 3 5 9 ; II 1 8 9

III 4 3 , 6 6 , 8 2 , 1 0 9 , 1 1 4 , 1 9 0 , 2 6 0 9:5, I 2 4 4 , 2 5 3 , 2 7 6 , 2 9 7 ; III 1 1 5 ,

2:2,

I 102, 114-5, 120, 127-8, 132,

8:8,

II 4 4

9:3,

214

216, 268, 344 2:3, I 314, 330, 335, 339, 389; 1 8 8 ; III 1 0 , 1 3 1

Besah 1:1,

II 3 3 5 ; I I I 1 2 2

2:3-4, 2:12,

1:1-4, II 1 6 0 1:2, II 1 7 2 1:5,

2:1, II 1 8 0 2:1-2, II 1 6 7 I 4 0 8 , 4 1 0 - 1 2 ; III 6 1 , 1 1 2 I 314, 330, 335, 339, 389;

II

1 6 9 , 1 8 4 ; III 1 9 , 4 1 2:4-5, II 1 6 7 4:1, II 1 8 0 4:7, II 1 6 0

2:1,

II 9 0 II 8 0

Demai 1:3,

1163,65

3:1, 4:3, 5:1, 6:7,

II II II II

63 160 6 6 ; III 8 , 1 2 0 , 2 1 4 , 2 9 2 94

1 245,258, 276,280-1 II 1 1 8

3:5, 4:1,

II 3 2 2 II322

Horayot 3:5,

10:1,

II II II II

1 3 6 ; III 1 2 7 135 136 153 II 1 3 6 II 1 3 7 II 1 3 8 1 1 8 8 - 9 , 2 6 5 , 2 7 9 , 2 9 5 ; III 1 9 0

Gittin 4:5, 8:8, 8:9,

1 2 6 9 , 2 7 9 , 2 9 3 , 2 9 7 ; II 1 2 2

Ketuvot 1415

4:8, 1236,251, 264,278,291,295; II 2 0 1 5:4, 1393 5:6-7, II 2 0 7 5:7, II 2 0 7 - 8 ; III 1 9 6 8:1, 11 5 6 , 2 0 9 8:9, II209 8:11, I 14, 73, 75, 79, 1 1 0 - 1 1 , 1 1 9 , 1 2 1 , 1 2 8 - 3 0 , 3 1 4 , 3 3 0 , 3 3 7 , 3 3 8 ; III 27-8, 1 1 6 9:1, 9:7,

'Eruvin 1:1, 1:2, 3:1, 3:2, 6:3-4, 6:4, 8:6,

II 1 8 5 1 330, 334

1:1, 1:4,

2:9, Bikkurim

2:5,

II 2 2 8 II 2 2 7 II230

II

Hallah

II 1 7 4

1:6-11, II 1 6 0 1:8, II 1 7 5

2:2, 2:4,

1 8 4 , 2 9 5 ; III 4 4 , 5 0 , 6 8 , 1 0 8 , 1 8 8 ,

13:1, 13:2, 13:3-9, 13:5, 15:2,

II209 II226 1394,413 1394 1394 1 3 5 6 , 3 6 5 , 370, 375 II 2 0 1

Kila'im 2:4, II 6 7 4:1, II 6 7 4 : 2 , 3, 6, II 6 8 5:8, II 7 1 - 2 6:1, II 7 0 8:4, II 7 1

387

INDICES

Ma'aserot

9:2,

3:4,

II 1 0 1 - 5

4:2, 4:4,

II 9 3 II 7 1

10:1,

1413 II 2 1 4

Niddah 1:1,

1 326,331

c

Ma aser Sheni
II 1 1 6

2:2, II 1 0 9 2:2-4, II 9 6

2:3,

II 1 1 9

Pe>ah

2:4, 1 199,203 2:10, II 1 1 6

1:1,

3:3,

1:5,7, II 56 2:4, III 1 4 5

II 1 1 0 ; III 1 8

3:3-6, II 1 0 1 - 5 3:6, II 1 1 0 4:5, 4:8,

II 1 0 5 II 1 1 7 ; III 1 9 5

5:2-3, 5:3,

II 1 0 6 - 7 1396

5:4, I 3 6 0 , 3 6 6 , 3 7 2 , 2 7 5 ; III 1 9 2 , 217 5:5, 1 163, 167, 169-70 Megillah 3:6, 4:1,

1 2 9 , 4 4 ; III 6 3 III 1 4 5

Mo'ed Qatan 3:1,

199,104,120,133

Nazir 1:1, 1:5, 2:1-2, 2:2, 3:6-7, 3:7, 4:6, 5:1, 5:1-2, 5:2, 5:3, 5:4, 6:11, 7:1,

111,221 1 3 0 , 4 5 ; III 3 3 II215 II 2 1 9 II 2 1 7 III 1 1 II 2 2 4 II 1 4 7 II 2 1 9 II 224-5 1 9 7 , 1 1 3 , 120, 134-6, 4 1 3 II 2 1 9 II 2 2 3 - 4 II 4 4

II 3 5

3:1, II 5 4 6:1-4, II 56 6:2,

II 2 0 9

7:5,

1159-60

8:7,

1 2 4 4 , 2 7 1 , 2 7 6 , 2 8 6 , 2 9 6 ; III 4 3

Pesahim 1:1,

II 1 4 0

1:6, 1 14, 73, 75, 79, 110, 119, 121, 128, 3 1 2 , 330, 337-8, 402; II143-4; III 2 7 2:4, II 1 5 0 3:6, II 9 3 , 1 4 3 ; III 8 , 1 3 0 , 2 1 7 , 2 9 2 4:6, II 1 4 1 5:4, II 1 6 0 , 1 7 2 5:26, II 7 5 6:1, I 151, 153, 232, 246, 248, 266, 271, 276-7, 279, 2 8 1 , 286, 295-6; III 4 0 , 1 1 7 , 1 9 0 , 2 5 7 , 2 6 1 , 3 4 8 - 9 , 366 8:8, II 1 4 2 9:5, 1393 10:2, 1151,142 10:5, II 1 4 2 ; III 1 8 Qiddushin 1:1, 2:1, 8:1,

11 1 5 6 , 2 0 4 , 2 2 3 II 2 3 3 113

Rosh Hashanah 1:2,

1180,181

Nedarim 1:1, 1 3 0 , 4 5 ; III 3 3 2:4,6, II 2 9 7 3:2,4, II212 4:2, 1394 5:6, I 199, 200, 203, 206, 209-10, 252, 260, 264, 274, 278, 296, 393-4; III 5 2 , 6 0 , 1 0 9 , 1 9 0 , 2 6 2 , 2 6 5

Sanhedrin 1:1, 1 1 0 3 , 1 2 0 ; III 3 8 , 6 8 , 1 0 7 , 1 8 8 1:2, I 3 6 1 , 3 6 6 , 3 7 2 , 3 7 5 , 3 9 6 ; III 217 1:4, 2:2, 4:9,

1 330,334 III 1 9 9 I 109, 118, 124

388

INDICES

5:2,

11217,223

6:3,

I 105, 1 1 1 , 118, 121, 124, 1 3 1 ;

III 50, 1 0 7 , 1 8 8 6:6, 1 1 0 2 , 1 2 0 ; III 4 4 , 5 0 , 1 0 7 6:6a, I 1 1 8 , 127-8 6:6b, 6:6c,

1114,128 1132

8:3,

I 1 5 1 , 1 5 3 , 1 5 7 - 8 ; III 1 8 8 , 2 0 5 II 2 2 7 ; III 1 1 , 1 3 7 , 1 9 6 11 3 , 1 5 6 , 2 0 4 II 2 2 4 II 2 2 6

4:3, II 2 0 7 , 2 2 7 ; III 2 1 6 9:10, 1 68,74,77-8 9:11, I 167, 169-70

I 393

8:6, II 2 2 6 11:2, 1393 11:4,

2:5, 3:3, 3:4, 3:8, 4:1-2,

9:13, 262, 122; 9:16,

II 4 9

I 39, 50-1, 167-8, 1 7 1 , 253, 2 6 4 , 2 6 9 , 2 7 8 , 2 9 2 , 2 9 6 ; II III 2 0 9 1395

Shabbat 1:3,

Sukkah

11127,134

1:4, I 14, 19, 70, 72, 75, 79, 1 1 0 , 1 1 9 , 1 2 8 , 3 1 2 , 3 3 0 , 3 3 7 - 8 ; II 1 1 , 1 2 3 , 1 2 9 ; III 2 7 , 1 8 5 - 6 , 2 6 4 ,

267-8

1:4-9, II 1 2 1 1:5, II 1 2 8 1:7,

III 2 1 2

1:9, II 1 3 4 ; I I I 1 3 3 , 1 9 5 1:11, II 1 4 4 3:1-4, 11125,130 5:4, III 6 0 16:1, 1 360,366,371,375 17:4, II 1 3 2 , 1 7 4 19:1, 1150,153,245,276,286,296; III 2 5 7 19:2, II 1 3 2

1:2,

II 1 5 0

1:8,

II 1 5 0

2:8, I 3 9 2 ; II 2 , 1 5 1 , 1 5 8 , 3 2 3 ; 271 3:5,

II 1 5 3

3:8,

II 1 5 4

5:4,

I 260, 268, 279, 289, 297, 382,

3 8 5 ; III 5 3 , 5 6 , 6 0 , 6 4 , 8 4 , 2 6 3 5:5, 1342 Ta'anit 3:9,

1396

3:10, 1 99,120,133,177 4:2, I 29, 44, 268, 275, 279, 2 9 7 , 3 9 9 ; III 6 3 , 9 9 , 2 6 2 Terumot

Sheqalim 2:3, 4:2, 8:3,

II 1 4 7 128,48,402 II 1 4 8

Shevi'it 1:1, 1:5,

II 7 2 1149,182

2:4, 2:8, 3:3,

II 7 8 1179,90 I 195

4:2, 4:4, 5:2, 5:3, 6:4, 7:7, 9:6, 10:2,

11 4 1 , 7 3 , 7 5 ; III 2 0 4 II 7 3 II 7 6 II 7 6 1394 1394 II 7 3 ; III 3 4 8 1 245,263,276,284

Sotah 1:1, 2:4,

II232 II227

III

1:2,

II 8 1

1:5, 1:8, 3:2, 3:3, 3:4, 4:3, 4:4, 4:7, 5:2, 5:4,

II 8 1 , 8 7 ; I I I 2 1 1 II 8 7 II 8 7 II96 II 2 1 9 II 8 2 II 8 1 II 8 6 II 8 4 II 9 0 ; III 3 4 8

Yevamot 1:2,

II 1 9 0

1:6, 3:1, 3:4, 4:3, 6:5, 6:6, 8:1, 10:6, 13:1,

II 1 5 6 , 1 9 0 , 1 9 4 , 2 0 4 II 1 9 4 , 2 0 4 , 2 0 6 II 1 9 4 II 1 9 6 II 4 3 11 3 , 1 9 8 , 2 0 6 ; III 2 7 1 II 1 3 2 II 2 0 7 II 1 9 8 ; III 1 9

294,

389

INDICES

15:2, II 2 0 1 15:3, 1236,251,264,278,291,295; II 2 0 1 - 2 Yoma 1:1,

1:5, 3:6,

12 I 3 9 8 - 9 ; III 1 9 3

5:2,

1 3 7 , 5 4 - 5 ; III 4 8 , 6 7 , 1 0 6 , 1 8 7

6:3, 6:9,

I 3 8 , 5 2 - 6 ; III 5 4 155

I 3 7 ; III 3 9

VIII.

BABYLONIAN

'Arakhin

TALMUD

101a,

lib, 23a,

I 4 1 8 ; III 1 1 3 , 1 9 3 II 2 1 9 , 2 4 8 ; III 1 3 2

26b, 27b,

II 2 2 8 II 2 5 0

31b,

1 2 7 3 , 295

II 2 3 4

104a,

I 236, 264, 279, 291, 295

105a,

II 3 2 4

106a,

1395

Bava Qamma 27b-28a,

' A v o d a h Zarah 4a,

1409

7b,

1414

11a,

1341

15b,

1176,80

20a, 274 32a, 36a-b, 37a, 37a-b, 39b,

I 3 6 7 , 3 8 3 - 4 ; III 5 3 , 1 1 1 , 1 9 2 ,

50a, 65b,

93b-94a, II 2 5 1 115b-116a, II 9 2 ; I I I 8 , 2 2 2 Bekhorot 12a,

1 3 5 9 , 3 7 7 ; III 1 5 , 2 0 2 II 1 2 1 I 7 1 , 75, 80 175 1 3 2 7 , 3 3 1 , 3 3 7 - 8 ; III 1 9 1 , 2 6 7

1393

I 3 9 5 ; II 3 5 7 , 3 6 7 , 3 7 0 - 2 , 2 7 4 - 5 II 2 5 1

I 3 9 3 ; III 6 2

30b, II 6 6 , 2 4 7 ; III 1 1 , 1 2 7 , 1 9 7 33a, II 2 4 6 34b, 1195 37b-38a, II266 38a, I 3 6 5 , 3 6 9 - 7 0 , 3 7 4 ; III 1 5 39b-40a,

II 3 0 - 3 3 ; III 1 3 7

Bava Batra 4a,

1 3 9 1 ; III 5 3 , 6 2 , 6 7 , 9 8 , 1 1 1 , 1 9 2

13a,

II228

21a, I 3 9 7 ; III 2 7 , 1 1 6 , 1 9 3 41b, II 2 2 3 ; I I I 2 2 3 60b, 12 111a, 1415 120b, II 2 1 9 133b,

I 7 6 , 3 9 3 ; III 3 5 , 4 3 , 4 8 , 5 9 ,

66, 107, 187 133b-134a, I 198, 203, 206-7, 2 1 0 ; III 3 7 , 1 0 8 , 1 8 9 , 2 6 5 134a, 1 264, 2 7 9 , 2 9 6 139b, 140b, I 394 157a, II 2 3 7 B a v a Mesi'a* 30b,

II 5 6

43a-b, 44a,

II235 II 2 3 5 - 7 ; III 2 0 , 1 1 7

44b-45a, 59b,

II96

I 2 3 9 ; III 2 7 9

75a,

I 272, 277, 295

85a,

1 2 7 2 , 2 7 7 , 2 9 6 ; III 4 4 , 2 5 7 , 2 6 2

Berakhot lOb-lla, II41 11a, II 1 5 1 17b, 19a, 23a, 29a, 188

II 3 6 0 , 3 6 3 , 3 6 5 , 3 7 3 - 4 I 1 0 4 , 1 2 1 , 1 3 4 , 1 7 7 ; III 9 8 I I 5 3 ; III 7 , 1 4 0 , 2 0 5 , 2 9 4 1 1 6 3 , 1 6 7 , 1 7 2 ; III 4 6 , 6 6 , 1 0 8 ,

33a, I 3 9 5 ; II 374-5 34a, 1395

357-8,

368,

370-2,

34b, I 1 6 2 , 3 6 1 , 3 6 7 , 3 7 5 , 3 9 4 ; II 3 5 4 - 6 2 , 3 6 7 , 3 7 0 , 3 7 4 - 5 ; III 5 2 , 6 7 , 87, 1 1 1 , 138, 192, 273, 276 36a, II 7 1 42b, II 4 2 43b, I 3 6 7 ; I I 4 2 , 5 3 ; III 7 , 2 0 2 , 2 7 4 47a, II 6 3 48a, I 1 1 2 , 1 1 4 , 1 2 1 , 1 3 4 - 6 ; III 5 0 51b, II 5 1 51b-53b, II44 53a, I I 5 1 - 2 ; III 7 , 4 2 , 1 2 8 , 1 9 3 , 2 7 4 , 294

390

INDICES

60a,

1 2 5 3 , 2 7 9 , 2 9 3 , 2 9 7 ; III 2 9 , 4 3 ,

260 61b, 63a,

I 3 9 5 ; II 3 6 0 , 3 6 5 , 3 7 4 I 253, 277, 285, 286, 297, 4 1 5

31b,

II 6 3

40a, II182 40a-b, II 4 9 48b,

I I 1 3 7 ; III 1 3 0

48b-49a, Besah 2a,

11126,133

2a-b, II 1 6 0 4a, I I 1 6 0 ; III 2 1 5 6b-7b,

12b,

II175

68b,

1 3 8 3 - 4 , 3 8 6 ; III 2 1 6

93a,

7b, 1135,172 9a-12b, II 1 6 0 II 1 7 3 II174

III 1 4 3 , 1 6 1 , 1 7 1 , 1 7 3 II204

69b, 71a, 72a-b, 86a, II 1 3 8

II 1 6 0

9b, 11a,

II 1 3 6

54b, 66b,

II 1 3 6

II 6 7

Gittin 8a-b,

II 2 3 2

36a,

1262,277,283,296

14a, II175 1 4 a - b , II 1 6 0

36b, 37a,

1263 III 3 4 3

14b, 15b,

40b, II228 41a-b, II228

II 1 7 5 II167

16a, I 1 8 6 , 3 2 4 , 3 3 1 , 4 1 7 ; III 115, 191, 265 17a, II 4 9 , 1 8 2

29,

17b, 11 1 3 9 , 1 6 7 , 1 8 0 ; III 9, 2 0 0 19a, I 1 4 6 , 1 5 3 , 1 5 7 - 8 ; II 1 6 7 - 9 , 1 8 7 ; III 1 3 0 , 2 2 1 19a-b, II 1 7 1 1 9 b - 2 0 a , II 1 8 8 20a-b, I 326, 331, 335-6, 339, 389; II167 20b, II 1 6 9 ; I I I 1 9 , 4 1 21b, II 1 6 7 22a, II 1 6 7 22b, II 1 6 7 - 9 , 1 7 2 ; III 1 0 , 1 3 3 , 2 0 3 25a, I 1 5 0 , 1 5 3 ; III 1 5 - 6 , 1 0 8 , 1 8 8 , 256 31a, II180 27a, II160 'Eruvin 2b, 3b,

II135 II 6 7

6a, II 1 3 6 ; III 9, 1 2 7 , 2 0 0 6b, II156 7a, 11 8 0 , 2 6 6 llb-12a, II 1 3 5 13b, 271 17b, 27b, 30a, 30a-b, 30b,

I I 2 - 3 , 5 1 , 1 5 8 ; III 6 0 , 6 7 , 1 9 6 , II 6 3 I 3 9 3 ; III 6 2 III 1 3 0 II 1 3 9 ; III 9, 1 8 , 2 0 0 II 1 3 6

44b, 1195 55a-b, II 2 3 4 57a, I 2 0 0 , 2 0 3 , 2 0 9 , 3 8 9 ; III 1 0 9 , 189, 263 57b, I 1 4 9 - 5 0 , 1 5 3 ; III 1 8 8 60b, III 1 4 5 74b, 1 2 6 3 , 2 7 7 , 282, 295 79b, II230 81a, III 3 4 8 81a-b, II 2 3 1 90a,

II 3 8 - 9 , 2 3 2 ; III 1 7

Hagigah 2a, 4a, 6a, 7b, 8a,

11 1 8 3 , 1 8 6 , 2 2 8 II 1 0 II 1 8 3 11183,185 II 1 8 3

9b, 1 2 7 1 , 2 7 9 , 2 9 7 , 3 9 3 ; III 6 3 , 1 1 0 , 190, 261 12a, II 1 8 9 ; III 1 9 , 6 3 , 1 2 9 , 1 9 6 13a, 1416 14a, 1395 16b, I 1 0 5 , 1 1 9 , 1 2 5 - 6 , 1 8 4 ; III 4 6 , 108, 189, 216 17a-b, II 1 8 5 22a, II 2 6 8 - 9 , 2 8 1 ; III 2 0 6 22a-b, II 2 8 2 ; II 2 1 22b, II281 25b, II276 Hullin 18a,

II242

391

INDICES

36b, 42b,

I 3 2 7 , 3 3 1 , 3 3 7 - 8 ; III 2 6 7 II266

43b, II204 43a-44a, II 1 5 6 51a, II 3 6 3 52b,

II 2 6 6

55b, 75a,

1418 II324

81a, 86a,

11360, 365 1395

88b,

I I 1 6 8 ; III 1 0 , 1 3 9 , 1 9 6

104b,

5b, I 105, 119, 123-5 7a, 1109 20a, II 1 0 1 - 5 23a, 1396 Megillah

II 2 4 3 ; III 1 1 , 1 3 6 , 1 9 7

104b-105a,

Makkot

II244

107b, 119b,

I 2 0 2 - 3 , 2 0 5 ; 2 1 0 , III 1 8 9 1116,121

135a,

II244

136b,

II 8 6 ; III 2 0 8

163a,

II 8 1

3a, 1 3 5 6 , 3 9 3 ; III 5 3 , 1 1 1 , 1 9 2 7a, 11323,336 10a, 1341 11a, I 3 9 ; III 3 9 , 1 8 7 21a, I 2 7 5 , 3 6 3 , 3 6 5 , 3 6 7 , 3 7 1 ; III 4 6 , 1 1 6 , 192 Menahot 18a,

II 2 9

31a,

II 2 5 5

40a,

II 4 0

40a-b, Keritot

III 7, 1 3 7 , 2 0 8

40a-41b, 45a,

II 3 0 - 2

1416

7b-8a, II 2 5 3 21a, II 3 3 5 ; III 1 2 1

49b,

28b,

63a,

II 2 4 8 ; III 1 1 , 1 1 3 , 1 9 7

81b,

II 2 1 5

I 3 9 8 ; III 6 1

Ketuvot 6a-b, II 3 0 3 7a, II217 17a, II 2 1 1 ; III 1 1 , 2 0 , 1 3 6 , 1 9 6 26b-27a, 1415 27b, 1415 59b, 60a,

II 2 0 7 ; III 1 0 , 1 3 9 , 1 9 6 II208

60a-b, II 2 0 7 , 2 2 7 , 3 0 7 ; III 1 0 , 1 3 7 , 216 61b, II 2 0 7 66b, II 2 7 6 67b, 1 271,277, 286,296 71a-b, II 2 0 7 78a-b, II209 80b, II 2 0 9 81a-b, II 2 0 9 81a, II 1 9 6 , 2 0 1 - 2 82a, 1 1 1 1 82b, 88b,

I 107, 121, 129 1394

104b-105a, 1394 105a, 1413,414 106b, I 402, 409 107a-b, 1394 108a-b, I 394 109a, 1 356,365, 370,375 109a-b, 1394 110a, 1394

1393

103a,

II 2 1 5

104a,

II 335

109b,

1 3 6 , 5 4 - 6 , 8 3 ; III 4 8 , 5 8 , 6 7 ,

92, 106-7, 1 6 1 , 187, 2 1 5 Mo'ed Qatan 3b,

II 7 2

13a,

1195

20a, 27a,

II 1 8 3 ; III 2 0 0 , 2 2 7 1341

Nazir 4b, 1 3 4 , 4 5 ; III 3 3 5b, II222 9a, II216 9a-b, II 2 1 5 9b, II 2 1 5 lOa-b, II215 19b-20a, II217 20a, II 2 2 3 30b, II221 31a-b, II 2 1 9 32a-b, II 2 1 9 34a, II 2 2 5 46b, 52b, 53a,

II 2 2 3 - 4 ; III 1 3 1 , 1 9 6 1 2 0 0 , 2 0 3 ; II 2 7 8 - 8 0 1200

Nedarim 9a,

145

392

INDICES

9b,

I 3 4 , 2 6 1 , 2 7 9 , 2 9 6 , 3 3 1 ; III 2 8 ,

33, 110, 190 9b-10a, 10a, 10b,

140

140 II 2 2 1

64b,

1 2 5 4 , 2 7 9 , 2 9 6 ; III 5 2 , 6 8 , 1 1 0 ,

190 66a, 1 1 4 7 , 1 5 3 ; III 3 4 9 , 3 6 6 66a-b,

I 256, 261, 277, 279, 286,

2 9 6 ; III 2 5 7

19a, 171,75,80 25b-26a, II212

66b, I 3 3 1 ; III 1 9 0 , 3 4 2 70, 1 1 5 3

28a,

II 2 1 2 ; III 1 1 , 1 3 1

33b, 38a,

1394 III 1 4 5

70b, 88a,

66b, 69a,

I 3 9 0 ; III 5 3 , 6 7 , 1 1 6 , 1 9 2 II 2 1 4

71a-b, 74b,

II 2 1 4 II 1 9 4

Niddah 2a-4b,

1 327,331

7b,

II 3 0 9 ; I I I 2 2

lib,

11297,308

15a, 1327,331 16a-b, II 2 9 7 16b, 33b,

II 2 9 9 ; III 2 1 12

34a-b, 11 2 9 9 - 3 0 0 35b, 1 1 2 9 9 , 308-9 36a, II308 47b, II 3 0 1 64b, II 3 0 9 64b-65b, II 3 0 3 65a, II 3 0 9 69b, II 3 0 3 71a-b, II 3 0 3 72a, II 3 0 4 ; I I I 2 2 , 2 1 5 72a-b, II 3 0 3 72b, 11319,321 116, II 3 0 3

2a, 3a,

II 1 4 0 II 1 7

3b, 1 2 6 9 , 2 7 9 , 2 9 7 , 3 2 0 ; III 3 1 , 1 1 5 , 220, 262 15b, II 1 4 3 ; I I I 1 3 0 16a, 171,75,80 20b, II 9 2 ; I I I 8 , 1 3 5 , 2 2 2 , 2 9 2 21a, II 1 4 3 35b, II 6 3 36b-37a, II 1 6 7 37b, II 1 1 8 45b, 1 4 0 7 55a, II 1 4 1 57a,

88a-b,

I 3 9 8 , 4 1 7 ; III 6 1 , 1 1 6 , 2 0 8

II 2 2 8

88b, I 3 6 3 , 3 6 7 , 3 7 4 ; III 3 8 , 1 1 6 , 192, 273 92a, 96a,

11142,145 I 3 9 3 ; III 6 2

103a,

II 4 4

112b, 114a,

1395 II 5 1 , 1 4 2

115a,

I 2 5 8 , 2 7 7 , 2 8 0 , 2 9 6 ; III 2 9 ,

42 116b-117a, II 1 4 2 117a, II 1 4 3 ; I I I 1 3 9 Qiddushin lla-b, II 2 3 3 42a-43a, II 2 3 4 42b, II235-6 43a, I 2 0 1 , 2 0 3 , 2 0 9 ; I I 2 3 3 - 4 ; III 14, 42, 109, 189, 264 49b, 1 4 0 0 54b, II 59 65a-b, II 2 3 1 - 2 66a, I 1 0 8 , 1 2 1 , 1 6 3 , 1 7 5 - 6 ; III 3 6 , 44, 50, 107, 182-3, 188, 250 66b, 111 3 2 4 , 3 2 8 , 3 3 5 75a, 1 263,279, 295 Rosh Hashanah 5a-b,

Pesahim

I 1 4 7 ; III 3 1 , 1 0 8 , 1 8 8 1342

1342

14b, II 1 5 6 , 1 8 1 , 2 0 4 14a-b, II 8 0 16b-17a, II 2 3 9 ; I I I 6 3 , 1 9 7 Sanhedrin 4a, II 2 4 0 9a-b, III 9 8 11a, I 265, 279, 292, 296, 344, 3678 , 3 7 5 ; II 1 2 2 ; I I I 6 1 lib, I 3 7 2 - 3 ; III 2 1 7 14b, I 128-30 17b, 1 4 1 4 19a-b, I 1 1 5 , 1 2 1 ; III 3 7 , 5 1 , 6 8 , 108, 188 19b, III 59

393

INDICES

31a,

II 2 1 7 , 2 2 3 ; III

37b, 46a,

I 1 0 9 , 1 1 9 , 1 2 5 - 6 ; III I 115

46b,

223 92

135a,

II 1 3 2

142b,

II 1 7 5

142b-143a,

II 1 3 3

1121

143a,

II 1 2 6

69b,

II 2 2 7

88a, 88b,

II 5 6 1 327,331,334,339

148b, 157a,

I 254, 277, 284, 285, II 1 2 6

91a, 96b,

134 I 149-50, 153

107b,

295

Shevi'it 34a,

I 8 4 , 1 2 1 ; III 4 4 , 4 6 , 4 9 , 5 9 ,

68

1 109,119,125-6

38b, 40b, 48b,

1394

II 2 2 6

Shabbat Sotah 12a, 13a,

II 1 3 4 II 1 2 7 , 2 4 3

12a,

III

13b, I 3 1 4 , 3 3 8 , 4 1 6 ; I I 1 2 1 - 2 ; III 112, 267

16a, 20a,

II 1 6 8 1417

14b, I 13, 19, 21, 104, 110-11, 119, 1 2 1 , 3 1 2 ; III 2 7 , 1 1 5 , 1 8 5 - 6 , 2 6 4

21a,

1 2 7 2 , 2 7 9 , 2 9 7 , 3 9 3 ; III 5 2 , 6 4 ,

14a-15a, 337

I 69, 75, 79, 8 1 , 317, 330,

15a, I 20, 1 0 4 , 1 4 6 , 1 5 3 , 1 5 5 - 6 , 252, 294, 327, 331, 333, 337-8, 3 4 6 , 3 8 2 ; III 7, 4 6 , 1 2 9 , 1 9 1 , 2 6 7 15b, 16b,

III 1 9 1 II 1 2 7

16b-17a,

II 1 2 7

17a, I 3 1 9 , 3 3 1 , 3 3 7 - 9 ; I I 1 2 8 ; III 17, 3 1 , 68, 1 1 0 , 1 9 1 , 220, 267-8, 341, 344, 366 17b, II 1 2 1 18a-b, II 1 2 1 18b, II 1 2 5 , 1 2 8 - 9 , 1 4 3 - 4 ; III 206

139,

19a, 1197,203,208; II11,128,134; III 1 1 7 , 1 3 5 , 1 9 5 21b, II 1 3 4 ; III 9, 1 3 7 , 1 9 5 25a, II 3 0 25b, II 4 0 30b-31a,

I 3 2 3 , 3 3 1 - 2 , 3 3 8 ; III

67, 1 1 5 , 1 9 1 , 265 31a, III 6 2 31a-b, III 3 5 2 36b-37a, II 1 2 5 , 1 3 0 39b, II 1 6 7 42a, II 1 3 0 77a, II 3 3 5 112b, 1395 115a, 117a, 123a, 124a-b, 127b,

1 367,369, 371,375 II 1 3 5 II 1 7 4 II 1 3 2 , 1 6 0 II 6 3

52,

260

67, 1 1 0 , 190 22b, 12 24a, II 1 9 6 24a-b, II 2 2 6 25a, II 2 0 9 25a-b, II 2 2 6 25b, II 2 2 6 33a, I 3 5 , 5 0 - 1 , 1 6 4 , 1 6 7 , 1 7 1 ; III 48, 67 42a, I 4 1 1 - 1 2 ; III 2 5 44a, II 2 7 5 47a, I 8 2 , 1 1 3 , 1 1 4 , 1 1 9 , 1 2 1 ; III 4 3 4, 46, 59, 68, 1 0 7 , 1 8 7 , 252 47b, I 62, 327, 3 3 1 , 334, 339 48a, I 163, 165, 167, 169-70 48b, I 2 6 2 , 2 7 9 , 2 9 2 , 2 9 6 ; II 1 2 2 Sukkah 3a, II 1 5 1 7b, II 1 5 1 9a, II 1 5 0 15a, II 1 5 0 16a-b, II 1 3 8 18b, II 1 4 3 20a, 1 2 7 0 , 2 7 9 , 2 9 7 ; III 2 6 1 - 2 22b, I I 1 5 3 ; III 1 9 5 28a, I 2 6 0 , 2 6 4 , 2 7 9 , 2 9 6 ; III 4 6 , 115, 276 28a-b, II 1 5 1 28b, 1393 35b, II 6 3 , 1 5 3 38a, II 1 5 4 53a, I 260, 268, 277, 279, 289, 297, 3 8 3 , 3 8 6 ; III 5 6 , 6 0 , 8 1 56a, II 4 4 , 51

394

INDICES

Ta'anit

107a-b,

13a, 13b, 19a,

1 4 0 9 , 4 1 1 ; III 6 1 1412 1104

23a, I 106, 114, 120, 130, 134, 177; III 51 23a-b,

I 8 2 ; III 6 2 , 1 0 8

23b, 24b,

11151,66,188 3 6 2 - 3 , 3 6 5 ; III 5 9

25a, 28a,

11 3 5 8 , 3 6 4 - 7 , 3 7 3 - 5 11 3 6 8 - 9 , 3 7 3

107b, 270 115a, 116b,

6b,

11201,221

121a, 121b,

II 3 5 7 1395

122a,

II221

Yoma

III 1 4 5

15b-16a, 30b,

1 7 2 , 7 5 , 77-8

I I 2 5 1 ; III 1 1 , 4 1 , 1 2 2 , 1 9 7 , 2 0 7

Yevamot 9a,

II19p

11a, 13a-b,

II 1 5 8 II 1 9 0

13b,

11141,204

14b,

II204

15a, I 2 0 0 , 2 0 3 , 2 1 0 ; II 8 0 , 2 0 5 ; III 274 15a-b, II 1 9 0 15b, I 2 1 , 3 9 2 ; II 1 5 6 , 3 3 2 16a, II 1 9 0 , 1 9 4 ; I I I 2 0 8 , 2 6 8 - 9 27a, 11 1 9 0 , 2 0 4 28a, 29a-b, II 1 9 4 37a, 37b, 38b,

1261,264,279,295 1394 II 2 0 9

51b, II194 61b, II 2 2 3 61b-62a, II 1 9 8 62a, II 2 0 6 67a, I 1 5 1 , 1 5 3 ; III 1 5 , 2 1 1 80a, II 3 0 1 83a-b, II 1 9 6 89b, II 2 1 1 ; I I I 1 1 , 1 3 6 , 2 0 0 9 5 a , * II 2 0 7 ; I I I 1 0 , 2 1 3 101b, II 1 9 8 IX. D e u t . R. 1 3 : 5 ,

MIDRASHIM AND 1121

Ex. R. 5 2 : 3 ,

III 3 5 5

G e n . R. 1 : 1 ,

II 1 8 9

12:14, 46:13,

I 37, 39, 164, 167-8, 172, 398;

III 1 8 7 , 3 2 4 9b, 1400

1141

14b,

1 365, 368, 370 11201,221

117a,

9a, Temurah

II198 II 2 0 6 ; III 1 9 , 3 0 , 1 3 9 , 1 9 6 ,

II 1 8 9 II 1 5

19a, 19b,

I 3 9 6 - 7 ; III 53, 1 9 2 12

21b, 35a,

I 4 1 0 - 1 2 ; III 1 1 2 1324

35b, 1 1 4 8 , 1 5 3 , 259, 279, 296, 3989 ; III 52-4, 6 1 , 6 7 , 1 1 0 , 1 1 2 , 1 9 0 , 256, 260 39a, I 4 1 1 - 1 2 ; III 2 5 , 1 1 2 39a-b, 1 3 1 , 5 2 - 6 ; II 4 7 , 1 6 53b, I 3 9 5 ; II 3 6 1 - 3 , 3 7 4 - 5 63b, 1414 69a, 1 3 3 , 4 9 - 5 0 ; III 4 8 , 6 7 , 1 0 6 , 1 8 7 71b, 1 1 4 9 , 1 5 3 ; III 4 4 , 5 1 , 6 6 , 1 0 8 , 188 77b, I 1 9 7 , 2 0 3 , 2 0 5 , 2 1 0 ; III 2 9 , 108, 189, 265 79a, 1 3 6 2 , 3 6 5 , 3 7 0 , 375 79b, 1134,160 80a, II 1 4 9 ; III 9, 1 3 5 , 2 0 0 83b, II363 Zevahim 34b, 36b, 37b, 38b, 65a, 74a, 79a,

OTHER

1414 II 2 4 0 II240 II 2 4 2 1417 1414 I 265, 277, 280-1, 296

COMPILATIONS

65:27, I 7 7 ; III 3 5 , 4 8 , 5 9 , 6 6 , 1 2 1 , 134-6 98:8, 1 2 7 5 , 2 7 9 , 2 9 4 , 297 100:24, 1 2 7 5 , 277, 296 L e v . R. 1:5,

1 2 7 5 , 2 7 9 , 2 9 7 ; III 5 6 , 6 4 , 1 1 5 ,

395

INDICES

191, 263 13:5, 1 4 0 , 4 9 ; III 6 7 34:3, I 2 7 9 - 8 0 , 2 9 7 ; III 5 2 , 6 2 , 6 7 , 82, 1 1 0 , 1 9 1 , 260 35:8, 1 1 2 1 35:10, 1 117, 121,130-1 36:1, II 1 8 9 65:27, 1 75 Pesiqta R a b b a t i ,

I 41, 44

Ruth Rabbah 1 : 1 8 ,

III 3 5 5

Ch. 1 2 , 191, Ch. 1 4 , Ch. 1 5 , Ch. 20, Ch. 22,

I 2 7 4 , 2 7 9 , 2 9 7 ; III 6 7 , 1 1 0 , 265 I 274, 296 I 3 3 1 - 2 , 3 3 8 , 3 6 7 , 3 6 9 ; III 2 6 5 1405,409 II 3 7 2

Ch. 28, Ch. 37, Ch. 40,

1274,277,297 1274,277,296 1 367, 369

Song Rabbah 8:7, Megillat

Q o h . R. 1:15, I 2 7 0 ; III 6 3 2:14, 11 1 5 6 , 2 0 4 3:3-4, III 9 8 3:4-5, I 2 2 8 , 2 9 7 ; III 5 8 , 6 3 , 2 6 3 7:12, 111 6 2 , 9 6 , 9 8 , 1 1 6 , 1 3 5 - 6 10:20, I 3 9 0 ; III 6 2 , 9 8

Pesiqta d e R K a h a n a p. p. p. p.

III 4 8 , 6 7 , 1 0 7 , 1 8 7 , 2 0 8

X. GENERAL A Aaron, I 149, 297 C r o w n , p e r i s h i n g f o r use of, I 2 2 6 A b b a , R., H i l l e l - S h a m m a i debates, I I 2 L e v i r a t e marriage, II 2 0 5 Sukkah, I I 1 5 7 A b b a Hanan, III 6 9 , 8 4 A b b a H i l q i a h : see H o n i t h e C i r c l e r A b b a b. R. Hiyya b. A b b a , R., I 1 1 3 A b b a J o s e p h b. Hanan, I 3 9 8 , 4 0 0 ; III 6 1 F o r m u l a s a n d p a t t e r n s , III 1 1 6 Abba Joseph Holiqofri of Tibeon, II 3 1 1 - 1 2 A b b a b . M a m m e l , R., I 2 4 7 A b b a Saul, H a n d s o n f e s t i v a l offering, I I 1 8 8 - 8 9 H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 8 1 L e v i r a t e marriage, II 2 0 6 Red heifer offering, I 4 0 L e v i r a t e m a r r i a g e , II 2 0 6 Verifications, III 2 0 2 A b b a Saul b. Botnit, I 3 9 8 , III 6 1 A b b a Y o s i b. Hanan, I 4 1 5 , 4 1 7 V e r i f i c a t i o n s , I I I 2 0 8 . See Abba Joseph

Ta'anit

p. 3 3 7 , III 1 0 8 p. 3 4 2 , III 1 0 8 p. 342-43, 1 1 2 1

A v o t deR Natan Ch. 5,

I 2 7 2 ; III 5 2 , 6 4

73 1 : 1 1 , 140 74 1 : 1 , 1 4 0 176, I 168 308 1:17, 1 4 1

INDEX

A b b a h u , R., I 5 7 ; III 1 8 7 Simeon the Just and priesthood, I 37 A b b a y e , I 3 0 1 ; III 3 6 , 1 8 2 D i s c i p l e o f Hillel, I 2 6 4 E g g w h i t e contracts, I 2 0 1 F o o d eaten w i t h o n e hand, I 1 9 8 , 204 F o r m s a n d c h a r a c t e r , III 3 1 1 Gamaliel I, I 3 9 5 , 3 9 7 G r a p e s , uncleanness, I 3 2 7 H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 5 0 , 2 5 5 Menahem went forth, I 184-85 Menstration, uncleanness, I 3 2 7 Nazirite and guilt offering, I 4 0 Prosbul, I 2 6 2 - 6 3 Y a n n a i and the Pharisees, 1 1 0 7 , 1 0 9 Y o h a n a n the High Priest, 1 1 6 3 , 1 6 5 , 175 A b e l , F. M . , I l l 3 6 7 A b i n , R., I 4 1 Abner, I 275 A b o r t i o n , II 1 6 - 2 2 , 3 3 4 , 3 4 4 E i g h t y first d a y , I I 2 5 1 - 5 3 A b r a h a m , III 7 7 A b r a h a m s , Israel, II 2 8 2 ; III 3 6 7 A b t a l i o n , I 5, 2 8 9 , 2 9 6 , 2 9 9 ; III 1 8 8 A g g a d i c t r a d i t i o n s , III 4 4 , 5 1 - 5 2 , 57, 62

396

INDICES

Abtalion B i r d a n d a n i m a l s f o r sacrifice, I 1 5 0 , 152-53, 158-59 Bitter water and adultress, I 1 4 4 - 4 6 , 151-53, 157-59 F o r m s a n d c h a r a c t e r , III 9 1 - 9 2 , 9 6 ,

A g r i p p a , 1 3 6 3 , 3 7 4 , 3 9 7 ; III 6 3 , 1 1 0 , 1 9 1 Passover census, I 2 3 2 , 2 5 4 Agrippas the Elder, I 342 A h a , R . , I 3 7 , 4 1 ; III 3 9 A h a b . R a v a , R., I 1 0 5 - 0 6 A h i k a r , S t o r y of, I I I 7 3 A l b e c k , H., I 6 2 , 7 7 , 2 2 4 , 3 8 0 ; II 5 ; 98-99, 108, 1 1 5 , 303, 306-07, 3 1 1 , III 3 3 3 328, 341, 343, 345, 347, 351-52 i Gamaliel, I 3 5 3 - 5 4 Gamaliel, I 346 Mishnah, I 8 H a n d s , uncleanness, I 3 1 7 H i l l e l as s t u d e n t , I 1 4 8 - 4 9 , 1 5 2 - 5 3 Seder Mo<ed, 1 3 4 6 ; I I 1 2 2 , 1 2 4 , 1 6 1 , 1 8 4 Hillel quoted, I 1 4 6 - 4 7 , 1 5 0 , 1 5 2 - 5 3 , Seder Joharot, I 1 9 5 158-59

H i l l e l - S h a m m a i n a r r a t i v e s , III 2 8 , 3 1 H i l l e l s t u d i e d as p o o r m a n , I 2 5 8 - 5 9 H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 4 0 , 2 5 5 59, 262 Immersion pool, I 143-46, 152-58, 303, 305-06 Insults f r o m high priests, I 1 4 9 - 5 0 , 152-53, 159 J u d a h b. D o r t a i criticizes, I 1 4 7 - 4 8 , 152-53, 158-59, 183 Lay on hands, I 1 1 - 1 2 M i g r a t i o n o f Hillel, I 2 6 6 - 6 7 M o r a l precepts, I 1 7 - 1 8 , 2 0 , 2 2 O r a l t r a d i t i o n s , III 1 6 8 Passover overriding Sabbath, I 2 3 3 35, 245-46, 248-51, 255 Prosbul, I 2 1 9 Sennacherib descended f r o m , I 1 5 0 , 152-53, 158-59 S p l i t t i n g R e d Sea, I 1 4 2 - 4 3 , 1 5 2 - 5 3 , 155, 159 Terumah, e a t i n g , I 1 5 1 - 5 3 , 1 5 8 - 5 9 T e s t i m o n i e s , III 1 5 - 1 6 V e r i f i c a t i o n s , III 2 1 1 Yosi quoting, I 151-53, 158-59 A b u n , R., I 2 9 , 4 0 - 4 1 A c c e s s , g i v i n g r i g h t , II 1 3 6 , 3 4 9 A d a m a n d E v e , B o o k s of, I I I 7 3 A d d a b . A h a v a , R., I 1 1 5 - 1 6 A d l e r , S., I l l 3 6 7 A d m o n , I 3 8 7 ; III 3 4 , 1 9 2 Decisions and Gamaliel, I 3 5 0 - 5 1 , 355-56, 370 F o r m u l a s a n d p a t t e r n s , III 1 1 5 Gamaliel, I 354-56, 373, 3 7 5 , 3 9 4 H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 7 3 , 2 7 5 A d u l t e r y , bitter waters and adultress, I 144-46, 151-53, 157-59 A g e n i t o s the H e g e m o n , I 3 4 3 ; III 8 1 , 191

Seder ZeraUm, I 1 8 9 ; II 4 6 , 5 2 , 70-71, 81, 96, 98, 104, 106, 1 1 8 Alcimus, I 77 Alexander Jannaeus, I 98, 1 2 8 , 137-41, 1 7 5 ; III 3 0 5 , 3 0 7 , 3 1 1 , 3 2 4 , 3 4 6 , 349, 355 A g g a d i c t r a d i t i o n s , III 4 8 , 5 4 , 6 7 H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 4 3 , 2 4 9 , 2 5 4 Alexander the G r e a t , I 2 5 , 3 2 - 3 4 , 4 0 43, 48-50, 57, 59 A l e x a n d r a S a l o m e : see Salome Alexandria, I 36 J u d a h b . T a b b a i in, I 9 9 - 1 0 0 , 1 0 2 , 109, 118-19, 128, 137, 139 A l l e y w a y v a l i d a t e d , II 1 3 5 - 3 6 , 3 4 9 A l l o n , G . , I 5 , 3 9 2 ; III 3 3 2 A l t a r , maimed people rejected, I 4 0 1 , 405, 407, 412 A l u m - c r y s t a l vessels, II 2 5 9 - 6 0 , 3 5 2 Ammi, I 246 A m m o n , III 1 7 0 , 2 7 7 - 7 8 L e v i r a t e m a r r i a g e , II 1 9 4 Second Tithe, II 1 0 7 - 0 8 Amram, I 221 Ananus, I 387 A n i m a l s , m a r k i n g f o r sacrifice, I 1 5 0 , 152-53, 158-59 Antigonus of Sokho, I 57, 60-61, 67, 8 1 , 1 6 4 ; III 4 8 , 5 7 , 6 7 , 1 0 7 , 1 8 7 F o r m s a n d c h a r a c t e r , III 3 0 3 , 3 0 8 , 329, 353 H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 5 0 , 2 9 0 M o r a l precepts, I 1 6 , 1 8 - 2 0 Antiochus Epiphanes, I 1 7 3 - 7 4 A n t i p a t e r , III 3 0 5 , 3 5 2 Antipatris, I 32, 49 Aphrahat Grapeclusters, I 62 Passover overrides Sabbath, I 2 4 2 ' A q a v i a h b. Mahallel, 1 1 4 4 - 4 6 , 4 1 5 - 1 6 ; III 1 8 5

INDICES

Hananiah, Prefect o f the Priests, ' I 401, 406-10, 4 1 2 ' A q a v y a , III 1 3 7
397

Uncleanness, II 5 3 , 1 2 9 ; bulk o f egg, I 192 Verifications, III 2 0 1 - 0 9 , 2 1 2 - 1 4 , 216, 225-27, 229 V i n e y a r d c r o p s , II 7 0 W o m a n remarrying, I 348-50 Zab, Pharisaic e a t i n g w i t h o u t s i d e r , I I 1 2 8 ; Zab-stztc, ambiguity, II 317, 319-21 Aristobulus, I 1 7 7 ; III 3 0 5 A s h i , R., I 1 4 7 Alexander the Great, I 3 3 - 3 4 Massah, f o l d i n g t o g e t h e r , I 2 5 8 M u r d e r s , tax collectors, II 2 1 2 Nasi o f c o u r t , I 1 0 5 - 0 6 Property redemption, I 2 7 3 A s h q e l o n , I 4 1 5 ; III 3 6 , 4 4 , 4 9 , 1 6 7 , 281, 311 Simeon b. Shetah and witches, I 8 9 93,98,100-03,115-16,120-21,128, 131-33, 141, 149 Assi, R., 1 3 9 6 ; III 5 3 A s s u m p t i o n o f Moses, III 7 3 A z a r i a h , P r a y e r of, I I I 7 3

B Baba b. Buta, I 5 ; III 9 8 , 1 8 9 , 1 9 2 Aggadic traditions, III 5 3 , 6 2 , 6 7 Egg w h i t e contracts, I 2 0 0 - 0 1 , 2 0 8 09 Formulas and patterns, III 1 1 1 , 1 1 6 G u i l t offering, III 3 8 History o f traditions, III 2 6 3 , 2 6 7 - 6 8 Lay on hands, I 309-10, 3 1 3 - 1 4 , 3 2 6 Shammai, I 389-91 Sukkah, II 1 5 2 Verifications, III 1 9 9 , 2 2 5 , 2 2 8 Bacher, B . Z . ( W i l h e l m ) , III 3 5 5 , 3 6 7 Backbone a n d skull, II 2 6 6 - 6 7 , 3 5 2 Baeck, L e o , III 3 2 3 Baer, Y i s h a q , III 3 5 3 , 3 6 5 - 6 6 Bailiff, p a y a c c o r d i n g t o h o u r o f r e ­ moval, II 1 1 - 1 3 , 3 4 5 Baking o v e n , arched outlet, II 2 6 7 - 6 9 , 280-84, 329-31, 352 B a r K o k h b a , III 2 8 5 War, I 239-40 Baron, Salo W i t t m a y e r , III 3 5 4 , 3 6 6 Bar Qappara, I 2 5 3 B a r u c h , B o o k s of, I I I 7 3 B a r u k h , H. L . , I l l 3 3 6

398

INDICES

Batanaea, I 3 9 2 Bathing, religious duty 1 2 7 5 - 8 0 , 2 9 7 Bathyra Hillel quoting Shema'iah and A b t a ­ lion, I 1 4 6 - 4 7 P a s s o v e r sacrifices, I 1 5 0 - 5 1 Beams, return stolen beams, II 3 2 4 - 2 7 , 351 B e l a n d t h e D r a g o n , III 7 3 Belkin, Samuel, III 3 4 7 Bena'ah, I 1 4 2 Ben 'Azzai, I 1 9 1 , 3 5 2 Verifications, III 2 0 4 , 2 2 6 Ben Bag Bag, I 3 9 2 - 9 3 B e n D a v i d , A b b a , III 3 5 8 , 3 6 5 Bene Bathyra, I 2 4 2 , 2 8 2 , 2 8 9 ; III 4 4 , 97, 210, 220 Hillel, I 3 9 2 Passover overriding Sabbath, I 2 7 2 , 274 Bene Beraq, I 1 5 0 , 1 5 7 Ben He He, 1 5, 2 9 7 ; III 1 9 0 A g g a d i c traditions, III 6 2 - 3 F o r m s , III 9 9 , 1 1 0 Hillel, I 2 7 0 - 7 1 , 2 7 8 - 7 9 , 2 9 7 , 3 9 2 - 9 3 H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 6 1 B e n S i r a , 1 2 ; III 4 9 F o r m s , III 9 3 Traditions compared, III 7 0 , 7 3 - 4 , 8 4 . See also, S i m e o n t h e J u s t Ben Tema, I 1 4 7 Bentzen, A a g e , III 6 9 - 7 1 , 1 5 5 B e n Z a k k a i : see Y o h a n a n b e n Z a k k a i Ben Zoma, I 1 9 1 , 352 Heavenly echo, I 2 8 Verfications, III 2 0 4 , 2 2 6 Bet HaSho'evah, I 2 3 6 Betrothal, A g e n t as w i t n e s s , I I 2 3 3 , 3 5 0 M o n e y , II 2 3 3 , 3 3 3 , 3 5 1 Between t w o evenings, II 9, 4 2 - 3 , 3 4 4 B e t Y a ' a z o q , III 2 6 B i b i , R . , II 3 , 1 5 8 Bickerman, E. J . , I 2 2 ; III 3 5 8 , 3 6 5 , 367 B i r d s , m a r k i n g f o r sacrifice, 1 1 5 0 , 1 5 2 53, 158-59 Bitter water and adultress, Shema'iah and Abtalion, I 144-46, 1 5 1 , 1 5 3 , 157-59 B l a c k , M a t t h e w , III 2 9 9 , 3 6 0 - 6 4 Blessings, Hillel and Shammai, I I 4 3 - 8 , 5 0 - 5 , 3 4 6

O n e f o r all, II 5 2 - 3 , 3 4 6 Blood, gentile w o m a n , I I 2 9 9 - 3 0 0 , 3 0 7 09, 353 S l a u g h t e r e d a n i m a l s , c o v e r i n g of, I I 167-68, 349 U n c l e a n test r a g s , I I 2 9 7 - 9 9 , 3 5 3 Boethus, I 3 9 8 Boethusians, I 6 0 - 6 1 , 6 7 M u r d e r , false w i t n e s s , I 9 4 Bondi, J . , I l l 367 Bones, Backbone overshadows, I 1 9 4 , 200, 202-03, 209 Q u a r t e r - ^ , II 2 7 7 - 8 0 , 3 2 7 , 3 5 2 Unclean, I 1 6 1 - 6 2 , 1 6 6 - 6 7 B o o k o f Mysteries, III 7 7 B o u s s e t , III 3 2 6 Box, G . H., I l l 3 2 5 - 2 6 , 3 5 8 , 3 6 6 Boyce, M a r y , III 1 5 2 - 5 4 Braude, W . , I 4 1 , 4 3 , 77, 154-55 Bromiley, Geoffrey, W . , I l l 1 6 5 Briill, J . , I l l 3 5 7 Buchanan, G e o r g e Wesley, III 356-57, 360, 365 Buchler, A d o l p h , III 3 3 2 , 3 5 4 - 5 5 , 3 6 5 Buchsel, F., I l l 1 6 5 Buddhist traditions compared, III 1 5 1 52, 162 Bultmann, Rudolf, III 7 8 - 8 8 , 3 2 5 , 3 6 2 - 6 4 B u r r o w s , Millar, III 7 5 B u t t r i c k , G e o r g e A r t h u r , III 3 6 0

C Caligula, Gaius, I 3 5 , 3 9 , 5 7 C a p e r b u s h , II 7 1 , 3 4 7 Carob tree, I 1 7 9 - 8 0 , 1 8 2 Cashdan, E., I 3 6 , 8 3 C a v e , F. H. and C. H., I l l 3 5 5 Cazelles, H e n r i , I I I 3 2 7 Chains of tradition, I 1 1 - 2 3 Decrees, I 1 3 - 1 5 Lay on hands, I 1 1 - 1 3 M o r a l precepts, I 1 5 - 2 2 C h a r l e s , R. H., I l l 7 3 Chest measurement, II 2 5 5 - 5 6 , 2 6 2 , 351 C h i c k e n a n d cheese o n t a b l e , I I 2 4 2 - 4 5 , 351 Children making appearance, II 9 - 1 0 , 35-6, 344, 346 Christensen, A . , I l l 1 5 5

INDICES

Christie, Peter, III 1 6 4 , 3 2 5 , 3 2 8 Circumcision, II 1 4 - 1 6 , 1 3 2 - 3 3 , 3 4 5 C i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e a n d illegal death, I 8 6 - 9 , 9 4 - 5 , 1 0 5 , 1 1 8 - 1 9 , 122-27, 141 Cohen, A . , I 35, 8 4 "Come to m y house", 1 2 3 5 - 3 6 , 2 6 0 - 6 1 , 267-68, 278-79, 289-90, 297 Confessions, I 1 6 0 - 6 7 , 1 6 9 - 7 1 Corpse, entrance t o r o o m , II 2 6 9 - 7 0 , 284-85, 352 C o u c h o f m o u r n e r , II 1 8 2 - 8 3 , 3 5 0 Creation, II 1 8 9 - 9 0 Cross, Frank M o o r e , J r . , I l l 7 5 C r o w n , p e r i s h i n g f o r use of, 1 1 4 9 , 2 2 2 , 226-27, 276-77, 284, 297 C u t t i n g t r e e s d o w n in S e v e n t h Y e a r , I I 75-6, 347 Cyzicenus, I 1 7 3

D D a n i e l , III 7 7 D a n i e l , B o o k of, I I I 7 4 David, Hillel f r o m , I 2 6 8 , 2 7 5 , 2 7 8 - 7 9 , 2 9 4 , 297 H o n o r relinquished, I 83 D a v i d s o n , Israel, I I I 3 4 4 Davis, Moshe, III 3 2 9 Day of Atonement, F o o d eaten w i t h o n e h a n d , 1 1 9 7 - 9 8 , 204 Simeon the J u s t and miracles, I 3 8 , 55-7 D a y / w i n e , II 1 4 5 - 4 6 , 3 4 6 D e a t h , illegal d e a t h a n d c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e ; see C i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i ­ dence Death of husband, testimony of w o m a n , II 1 2 9 , 3 5 0 D e b t s : see P r o z b u l Decrees, chains o f traditions, I 1 3 - 1 5 D e i n a r d , S . N., I l l 3 6 7 Demai a n d s w e e t o i l , I I 6 3 , 6 5 - 6 , 3 4 6 Demai p r o d u c e , I I 1 5 3 - 5 4 , 3 4 9 D e r e n b o u r g , J . , I 3 9 7 ; III 3 2 6 , 3 2 9 , 357, 266 Dibelius, Martin, III 7 8 , 3 2 5 D i g g i n g u p p r o d u c e in S e v e n t h Y e a r , II 7 6 , 3 4 7 D i m i , R., I l l 1 9 0

399

S h e b n a ' a n d Hillel, I 2 7 1 - 7 2 D i s c i p l e s , b e f o r e Hillel, I 2 6 9 - 7 0 , 2 7 8 79, 2 9 7 D i s p u t e f o r sake o f h e a v e n , I 3 0 7 - 0 8 , 327, 330-31, 334-35 D i v o r c e , II 2 3 0 - 3 3 , 3 3 3 , 3 5 1 Egg w h i t e contracts, I 2 0 0 - 0 1 Gamaliel, I 352-55, 360, 3 6 4 - 6 7 G r o u n d s f o r , II 3 7 - 9 , 3 4 6 P r o p e r t y , sanctifies, I I 2 4 8 - 5 0 , 3 5 1 D o c u m e n t s , use o f d i v i n e n a m e , 1 1 6 6 68, 172 D o s a , R., I 2 7 0 D o s a b . H a r k i n a s , I 3 5 1 ; III 1 8 5 Fleece-gift, II 2 4 4 - 4 5 H a n a n i a h Prefect o f H i g h P r i e s t s , I 401, 406-10, 412 H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 6 6 , 2 6 8 Levirate marriage, II 1 9 3 V e r i f i c a t i o n s , III 2 0 8 Dosetai b. R. Yannai Verifications, III 2 1 1 , 2 3 2 V e s s e l s w i t h *am ha* ares, II 2 9 2 Dositheus of Kefar Yatma, I 192-94, 2 0 9 ; III 1 8 9 Clean and unclean mingled, II 1 1 9 History o f traditions, III 2 6 8 Shammai, I 389 Dupont-Sommer, A., I l l 74, 76-7, 253

E E d o m : see I d u m a e a Egg white, contracting, I 2 0 0 - 0 3 , 2 0 8 09 E i g h t y disciples, I 2 5 2 , 2 6 0 , 2 6 4 , 2 7 4 , 278-79, 294, 296 Elbogen, I., I l l 3 6 7 Eldad, Y . , I l l 332 Eleazar, A g g a d i c traditions, III 50, 6 7 Ben He He, I 2 7 1 G e n e a l o g i c a l classes, I 2 6 1 , 2 6 3 Levirate marriage, II 2 0 4 Nazirite and guilt offering, I 4 0 N e w Y e a r o f trees, II 1 8 1 Passover overrides Sabbath, I 2 4 6 , 248 R e d h e i f e r offering, I 2 9 , 4 0 Y o h a n a n the High Priest, I 1 7 4 - 7 5 E l e a z a r b .
400

INDICES

Gamaliel, I 3 5 2 Heavenly echo, I 2 8 Ketuvah e x p o u n d e d , I 2 3 7 S e c o n d T i t h e s , II 1 0 7 S h e a v e s , II 6 0 - 2 Shema\ r e c i t i n g , II 3 4 , 3 9 , 4 8 , 3 4 6 V e r i f i c a t i o n s , III 2 0 3 - 0 4 , 2 0 8 - 0 9 , 225-27, 235 Eleazar b. Hananiah b. Hezeqiah b. Garon, I 416-17 E l e a z a r b . H a r s o m , R., I 1 4 8 , 3 9 7 - 9 9 , 4 1 3 ; III 1 9 0 , 1 9 3 A g g a d i c traditions, III 5 3 - 4 F o r m s , III 1 1 2 H i l l e l a n d studies, I 2 5 9 Simeon the Just, I 39 Y o h a n a n the High Priest, I 1 6 8 E l e a z a r b. H i s m a , I 4 1 8 Eleazar b. J u d a h , I 1 4 2 Verifications, III 2 2 2 Z ^ - s t a t e ambiguity, II 3 1 7 - 1 8 , 3 2 0 Eleazar b. Pedat, R., I 4 1 Eleazar ben Po'irah, I 1 0 8 Yannai the K i n g , I 1 8 3 Y o h a n a n the High Priest, 1 1 7 4 - 7 5 E l e a z a r b . S a d o q , II 7 8 ; III 1 8 1 , 1 8 5 86, 274 C h i c k e n a n d cheese o n t a b l e , I I 2 4 5 Shammai, I 392 Verifications, III 2 0 3 , 2 1 2 , 2 1 9 , 2 2 6 27, 231 E l e a z a r b. R. S i m e o n , R . , D i v o r c e a n d p r o p e r t y , II 2 4 8 - 4 9 P e a t , c o o l o v e n , II 2 6 0 - 6 1 Verifications, III 2 0 0 , 2 2 3 , 2 2 7 E l e a z a r b . R. Y a n n a i , R . , II 3 2 1 E l e a z a r b . R. Y o s i , I 4 1 5 ; III 2 2 2 N a i l s , articles f r o m , I I 2 5 4 W r a p p e r s , garments, II 2 6 5 Eleazar the Scribe, I 4 1 8 Elieho'enai b. Haqqof, I 2 5 E l i e z e r , R., I l l 3 6 , 1 9 1 A g g a d i c traditions, III 4 4 A l l e y w a y validated, II 1 3 5 Asheqelon witches, I 9 0 - 2 , 1 1 5 - 1 6 , 131 B a k i n g o v e n , a r c h e d o u t l e t , II 2 8 1 B l o o d , gentile w o m a n , II 3 0 7 - 0 8 Cleanness, I 6 1 - 2 , 7 0 - 1 , 8 0 D i v o r c e and p r o p e r t y , II 2 4 8 - 5 0 Festival practices, II 1 6 0 F o r m s , III 9 1 Gamaliel, I 3 4 1 , 345, 349-50

! ! j ' |

G r a p e s and raisins, II 8 8 - 9 H e a v e offering, II 8 3 - 5 , 9 0 - 2 Hillel, I 3 9 3 H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 5 1 , 2 7 3 , 275-9 Intercourse, v o w against, II 2 0 7 L e v i r a t e m a r r i a g e , II 1 9 4 - 9 6 , 2 1 1 Marriage before puberty, II 3 0 1 Oral transmission and tradition, III 143-4, 170-71, 178 Passover overrides Sabbath, I 2 4 6 R e d heifer offering, I 4 1 Scroll wrappers, II 2 5 9 Tithes, II 1 4 9 - 5 0 T r a d i t i o n s c o m p a r e d , III 6 8 Tree, w a t e r f r o m shaking, II 3 1 5 Verifications, III 2 0 1 - 3 , 2 0 8 , 2 1 3 - 1 6 , 235 V e s s e l s w i t h 'am ha ares, I I 2 9 2 Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, I 2 9 3 , 2 9 9 , 3 8 9 ; III 1 6 7 , 1 6 9 , 1 7 1 A l l e y w a y validated, II 1 3 5 Couch o f m o u r n e r , II 1 8 3 Decrees, chain o f tradition, 1 1 5 F o r m , c h a r a c t e r , III 3 0 8 , 3 1 1 , 3 1 7 , y

344, 347^8 Gamaliel, I 3 4 5 Heave-offering, II 8 4 Hillel-Shammai debates, II 3 - 4 H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 4 9 , 2 7 3 Marriage before puberty, II 3 0 1 Nazirite v o w s , II 2 2 2 Sabbath practices, II 1 3 4 T i t h e s , II 1 0 7 U n c l e a n h o l y t h i n g s , II 1 3 - 1 4 , 3 4 5 Verifications, III 1 9 9 - 2 0 1 , 2 2 5 - 2 7 Witchcraft hangings, I 9 0 - 1 , 98 Eliezer b. J a c o b o f K e f a r D a r o m , 1 4 1 7 ; III 1 9 4 Simeon b. Gamaliel, I 3 7 9 - 8 0 S i n - o f f e r i n g , II 2 4 1 Verifications, III 2 1 1 V i n e y a r d c r o p s a n d p l a n t i n g s , II 6 7 Eliezer b. S h a m m u ' a , II 7 8 ; III 2 1 1 Elijah, I 9 9 , 1 3 4 , 1 4 7 Honi rebuked, I 1 1 3 - 1 4 T r a d i t i o n s c o m p a r e d , III 7 1 Elisha, I 8 5 E m m a u s , III 2 7 9 Enelow, Hyman G., Ill 350, 366 E n o c h , III 7 7 F o r m s , III 9 3 - 4 E n o c h , B o o k s of, I I I 7 3

INDICES

Epistle o f J e r e m y , III 7 3 E p s t e i n , J . N., I 1 3 , 2 6 , 6 3 , 6 6 , 8 2 ; III 9 5 , 1 9 5 , 3 3 3 , 3 6 4 , 3 6 6 Mevo'ot, I 1 1 4 , 1 1 5 , 1 4 4 , 1 4 7 , 1 6 1 , 187, 189, 194, 204, 230, 261, 275, 307, 309, 311-12, 341, 344-45, 397, 402, 404-05, 4 1 4 , 417 Mishnah, I 1 8 5 , 1 9 4 , 3 0 8 , 3 4 5 , 3 4 8 , 355-56, 379-80, 406 Mo'ed, I I 1 2 2 , 1 2 4 - 2 6 , 1 2 6 , 1 3 0 , 1 3 2 34, 136, 138, 141-42, 145, 148-49, 151, 153, 166, 179, 185-87 Nashim, I I 1 9 6 - 9 7 , 2 1 1 , 2 1 4 , 2 1 8 , 221, 226, 227, 230-31 Ne^iqin, I I 2 3 5 Qpdashim, II 2 4 3 , 2 4 5 - 4 6 , 2 5 3 Tannaitic Midrashim, I I 9 , 1 1 , 1 3 , 2 3 , 33, 35, 36 Zera'im, I I 4 3 , 4 8 , 5 2 , 5 5 , 5 8 , 6 2 - 3 , 72, 75, 82, 86, 88, 92, 93, 99, 108, 110, 113, 1 1 8 Verifications, III 2 0 1 - 0 2 , 2 0 6 , 2 1 4 15, 2 1 8 Epstein-Melamed, 1 1 8 6 , 2 1 2 , 3 4 2 Mekhilta de R. S h i m e ' o n b. Y o h a i , I 142, 155; 119-11 'Eruv C o u r t y a r d d i s p o s a l , II 1 3 7 - 4 0 , 3 4 9 Simeon b. Gamaliel, I 379-80, 3 8 2 84 E s d r a s , B o o k s of, III 7 3 E s t h e r , B o o k of, I I I 7 2 - 3 Evenings, between t w o , II 9, 3 4 4 Ezekiel, III 1 1 2 H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 5 0 E z r a , I 2 9 2 , 2 9 6 - 9 7 , 2 9 9 - 3 0 0 ; III 2 6 2 F o r m s , III 9 4 H o l y s p i r i t , w o r t h y of, I 2 3 8 , 2 5 3 , 262, 265 Torah restored, I 2 2 1 , 270, 278-79, 297 E z r a , B o o k of, III 7 3

i i I ;

False w i t n e s s , I 8 6 - 9 , 9 4 - 5 Fasting-scroll, I 33 Father and husband annul v o w s , II 214-15, 350 F e l d m a n , L . H., I 1 3 8 , 1 7 3 ; III 2 4 2 , 325, 330, 345, 354 Festival o f Tabernacles, I 3 5

Festival practices, II 1 5 8 - 7 9 , 3 3 1 - 3 2 Festive offering o n Sabbath, II 2 5 - 6 , 345 F e u i l l e t , A n d r e , III 3 2 7 Fifth addition t o payment, II 2 5 0 Finkelstein, Louis, I 1 2 , 6 1 , 9 0 , 1 8 7 , 2 1 7 , 3 4 3 ; III 1 6 5 , 1 6 7 , 1 7 7 , 2 4 8 , 274, 325-26, 341, 354, 365-67 Tannaitic Midrashim, II 2 8 - 3 1 , 3 4 - 7 Fischel, H e n r y A . , I l l 3 3 0 , 3 3 2 , 3 3 5 , 352, 365 Fitzmyer, Joseph A . , I l l 75 Fleece, II 3 6 - 7 , 2 4 4 - 4 5 , 3 4 6 F o o d , eaten w i t h o n e h a n d , I 1 9 7 - 9 8 , 202-05, 2 1 0 Fourteenth o f Nisan, II 1 4 1 , 3 4 9 Frankel, Z., I l l 328, 357, 366 F r e e d m a n , H., I 8 4 , 1 9 7 , 2 5 4 , 2 5 6 , 2 5 8 , 317, 323, 363, 369 F r i e d l a n d e r , Israel, I I I 3 5 5 , 3 6 7 Friedman, M., I 24, 90, 1 8 7 , 2 1 6 - 1 7 , 121,343,401-02,418; 1130-2,34-7 F r u i t o f field p r e p a r e d , I I 2 6 - 3 0 , 3 4 5 F u l l e r , R e g i n a l d H., I l l 3 5 9 - 6 0 , 3 6 5

! G Gabriel, I 1 1 5 Gamaliel I, I 6, 2 2 6 , 2 9 4 - 9 5 , 3 0 1 , 3 4 1 7 6 , 3 9 1 ; III 1 8 0 , 1 9 1 - 9 2 A d m o n a n d decisions, I 3 5 0 - 5 1 , 3 5 5 -

\ I I |

| F

401

56, 364-65, 370 A g g a d i c traditions, III 4 6 , 5 2 , 5 8 , 6 3 A t e in Sukkah, I 3 4 6 , 3 6 2 , 3 6 4 - 6 5 , 370 Blessed beautiful gentile, I 3 6 6 - 6 7 Blessing oil, m y r t l e , I 3 6 1 - 6 2 , 3 6 6 - 6 7 B l e s s i n g s , o n e f o r all, I I 5 2 - 5 3 Decrees, chain o f tradition, I 1 4 - 5 D e s t r o y altars, I 3 4 3 , 3 6 4 - 6 5 Divorce and annulment, I 352-55, 360, 364-67 F e s t i v a l p r a c t i c e s , II 1 6 5 , 1 6 7 , 1 6 9 , 172 F o r m s , III 9 1 , 9 3 , 9 5 , 9 7 , 9 9 , 1 0 5 , 115-17, 303-04, 314-15, 355 F o u r k i n d s o f disciples, I 3 6 6 - 6 7 , 3 6 9 Gentile wine, I 359-60, 366-67 H a n a n i a h P r e f e c t o f t h e Priests, I 400-01 Hands, unclean, I 3 1 7 - 1 8 Hanina, healed son, I 3 6 6 - 6 7

Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70, III

26

402

INDICES

Hezeqiah testifying, I 3 4 2 , 3 6 4 - 6 5 , 368-70 Hillel a n d disciples, I 2 5 2 , 2 6 9 Hillel-proselyte named son Gamaliel, I 366-67, 369 H i l l e l - S h a m m a i debates, II 4 ; III 3 2 , 3 5 , 3 8 , 4 0 ; III 2 5 - 7 , 2 9 - 3 0 , 3 2 , 3 4 H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 5 8 , 2 7 2 81, 291, 296-97 H o l y S p i r i t , w o r t h y of, I 2 3 8 - 3 9 Is G o d j e a l o u s o f o t h e r s , I 3 4 2 , 3 6 4 65 Ketuvah, c o l l e c t i n g , I 3 6 6 - 6 7 Leap-year-letters, I 3 5 6 - 5 8 ,

I j I ! I ! !

216, 219, 226-29 W o m a n remarrying, I 348-49 Gamaliel III, I 1 9 G a m a l i e l Berabbi, R . , I 3 6 9 G e b i h a b . Pesisa, I 3 4 Gedya, I 268, 392 Gehazi, I 85

360-61,

366-68, 371 L e v i r a t e m a r r i a g e , II 1 9 2 , 2 0 5 Lulav, s h a k i n g , II 1 5 4 - 5 5 Married daughter to S i m e o n b.

Decrees, chain o f tradition, I 1 4 - 5 F o r m s , III 9 1 , 9 4 ; III 3 0 6 , 3 1 5 , 3 5 1 Hands, uncleanness, I 3 1 8 Hillel a n d disciples, I 2 5 2 H i l l e l - S h a m m a i d e b a t e s , II 4 H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 5 8 , 2 6 6 , 274-75, 281, 283 H o l y s p i r i t , w o r t h y of, 1 2 4 0 , 2 6 5 Moral precepts, I 2 1 Passover overrides Sabbath, I 273 Verifications, III 2 0 2 - 0 3 , 2 0 5 , 2 1 0 ,

Ne-

tanel, I 3 5 8 - 5 9 , 3 6 6 - 6 7 M i s t a k e n a s s u m p t i o n , II 2 0 8 - 1 1 M o r a l precepts, I 1 7 - 2 2 O l i v e s , c l e a n n e s s , II 2 8 9 - 9 0 , 2 9 2 O r a l t r a n s m i s s i o n a n d t r a d i t i o n , III

G e h e n n a , I 1 0 0 , 1 0 2 ; II 2 3 8 - 3 9 , 3 5 1 G e i g e r , A b r a h a m , III 3 2 0 , 3 2 6 , 3 3 6 ,

153, 1 6 1 , 163, 170 O t h e r Pharisees, I 3 9 4 - 9 6 Pesah, i n s t r u c t e d k i n g a n d q u e e n , I

W i n e vessels, I 3 5 9 - 6 0 , 3 6 6 - 6 7 W o m a n blessed, I 3 6 6 - 6 7 , 3 8 4 Gentleness and impatience, I 3 2 1 - 2 4 , 327-32

349, 352-53, 366-67 G e n e a l o g i c a l classes, 1 2 6 1 , 2 6 3 , 2 7 8 - 7 9 Gentiles,

362-63, 366-67 P r o s t r a t i n g in T e m p l e , I 3 4 6 , 3 6 4 - 6 5 Pro^bul, I 2 2 3 - 2 4 S c r o l l w r a p p e r s , II 2 5 8 S i m e o n asks r e Pe'ah, I 3 4 3 - 4 4 , 3 6 4 -

G e r h a r d s s o n , B i r g e r , III 1 4 6 - 4 8 , 1 5 9 , 164, 167-69, 175, 177 G e r t h , H a n s H., I l l 3 5 8 Gilat, Yishaq D., I l l 354, 365 G i n s b e r g , M . , 1 3 2 6 ; II 1 6 9 G i n z b e r g , L o u i s , III 3 2 0 , 3 2 6 , 3 3 8 - 3 9 ,

65 Sukkah f o r i n f a n t , I 1 9 3 Targum o f J o b b a n n e d , 1 3 5 5 - 5 6 , 3 6 0 , 366-67, 369, 371 Terumah g i v e n , I 3 4 5 - 4 6 , 3 6 4 - 6 5 T e s t i m o n i e s , III 1 5 - 6 T i t h e s , II 6 3 - 4 , 9 6 , 3 4 4 T o r a h ceased o n d e a t h , I 3 5 1 - 5 2 ,

341, 346, 349, 365-67 G i r d l e , II 2 6 5 - 6 6 , 3 5 2 G l a t z e r , N a h u m N., I l l 3 6 7 G o l d b e r g , A b r a h a m , II 2 6 7 G o l d b e r g e r , Israel, III 3 5 2 , 3 6 5 - 6 6 Goldin, Judah, I 60, 274, 332, 405;

362, 364-65 T o r a h studied sitting d o w n , 1 3 6 6 - 6 7 T r a d i t i o n s c o m p a r e d , III 8 1 , 8 7 V e r i f i c a t i o n s , III 2 0 2 - 0 3 , 2 0 5 - 0 6 , 208, 2 1 1 , 217-18, 235 W i t n e s s e s , o r d i n a n c e s re, I 3 4 7 - 4 8 , 364-65 W o m a n remarries on testimony of one witness, 13 4 3 , 348-50, 3 6 4 - 6 5 , 368, 370 Y o ' e z e r asks G a m a l i e l , I 3 4 4 - 4 5 , 364-65 Gamaliel II, I 6, 1 4 4 , 1 9 4 , 3 0 1 , 3 4 1 , 3 5 6 , 3 6 2 , 3 6 8 ; III 8 1 , 1 8 1

I j I |

j I ' I

III 3 6 7 Gamaliel, I 369 G r a e t z , H e i n r i c h , III 3 2 6 , 3 2 8 , 3 3 7 - 3 8 , 365-67 Grapeclusters, I 62-3, 66-8, 7 1 - 2 , 7 4 - 5 , 77-8, 81 G r a p e s o f F o u r t h Y e a r v i n e y a r d , II 59-60, 1 1 7 - 1 8 , 332-33, 346 G r a p e - g l e a n i n g s , d e f e c t i v e clusters, II 2 3 - 5 , 3 4 5 G r a p e s in g r a v e a r e a , II 2 7 5 - 7 7 , 2 8 7 , 352 G r a p e s , p r e s s i n g , II 2 9 1 , 3 5 2 Grapes, uncleanness, I 3 1 6 , 3 1 8 - 2 1 ,

INDICES

3 2 7 , 3 3 0 - 3 1 ; II 3 2 4 , 3 5 3 G r a v e area, examination f o r Nazir, II 287-88, 352 G r a v e , b o t t l e p l u g g i n g , II 2 8 6 - 8 7 , 3 5 2 Greeks, Simeon the Just, I 39-40, 42-3 G u i l t offering, I 3 8 9 G u n k e l , H., I l l 6 6 , 1 5 5 Gurion, I 238 Holy Spirit, worthiness, I 2 6 2 , 2 6 5 , 2 9 2 ; I I 1 2 2 ; III 51 G u t t m a n n , A l e x a n d e r , III 1 4 4 - 4 6 , 1 4 8 , 325, 347-49, 365-67

H H a b a k k u k Pesher, III 7 5 Haberman, A . M., I l l 75 Haggai, I 3 9 3 ; III 1 8 9 Heavenly echo, I 2 7 H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 6 4 , 2 6 6 , 268 Holy Spirit, worthiness, I 2 6 1 - 6 2 , 265 L e v i r a t e m a r r i a g e , II 1 9 4 Liability o f sender, I 2 0 1 Oral transmission and tradition, III 1 4 5 Hagigah sacrifices, I I 1 8 3 - 8 7 , 3 5 0 Halafta, R., I l l 3 4 Gamaliel, I 3 5 5 , 371 Halevy, Y . I., I l l 3 2 8 , 3 4 4 - 4 6 , 3 5 3 , 3 5 8 , 364-65 Half-slave, half-free, II 2 2 8 - 3 0 , 3 2 9 Halivni, D a v i d Weiss, I 2 5 , 1 0 7 ; II 202, 208, 2 1 6 , 221, 224, 234 Hallah, flour p a s t e a n d d u m p l i n g s , II 118, 348 L i a b i l i t y f o r loaf, I 3 0 3 - 0 7 , 3 1 2 , 3 1 5 , 330-31, 333 Hallel, r e c i t i n g , II 1 4 2 - 4 3 , 3 4 9 Hamnuna, R., I 3 9 6 Hana b. J u d a h R., I 1 1 3 Hanamel the Egyptian, I 2 5 Hanan, III 6 1 Decisions, I 350-51 Gamaliel, I 3 9 4 H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 7 5 Hanan b. A v i s h a l o m , I 3 9 4 , 4 1 3 Hanan the Egyptian, I 4 1 3 - 1 4 Hanan ha-Nehba, I 1 8 2 Hananiah, A c c e s s , g i v i n g r i g h t , II 1 3 6

403

€

Erup, I I 1 3 8 - 3 9 Hananiah b. ' A q a v i a h , R., II 2 0 8 Hananiah b. Hakhinai, I 4 1 4 Hananiah b. Hezekiah b. G a r o n , I 6 8 , 4 1 5 - 1 6 ; III 3 2 , 1 1 2 Hands, uncleanness, I 3 1 4 S a b b a t h , finishing w o r k b e f o r e , II 120, 122-23 Zab, P h a r i s e e e a t i n g w i t h II 1 2 7

outsider,

Hananiah Prefect o f the Priests, I 4 0 0 1 3 ; III 1 3 6 - 3 7 , 1 8 4 - 8 5 A g g a d i c traditions, III 5 8 , 6 2 - 6 3 Divorce, I 408 Fire of w o o d , I 4 1 0 , 4 1 2 F o r m s , III 9 3 , 9 8 - 9 , 1 1 2 , 1 1 6 - 1 7 , 3 1 9 Hide burned, I 403-05, 4 1 2 History o f traditions, II 2 8 0 House o f G o d , w o r t h missing bath, I 410-11 Legal traditions, III 7, 1 3 - 4 , 1 5 - 6 , 24-5 L e p r o s y signs, I 4 0 1 , 4 0 6 , 4 1 2 M a i m e d people rejected f r o m altar, I 401, 405, 407, 4 1 2 N e e d l e i n flesh o f o f f e r i n g , I 4 1 2 Peace e q u a l s c r e a t i o n , I 4 0 1 - 0 2 Pray for government, I 4 0 4 , 4 0 8 Prefect, appointment and station, I 410-12 Priests n e v e r r e f r a i n , I 4 0 1 , 4 1 2 Prostrations, I 4 0 3 , 4 1 2 R e a p i n g 'omer, I 4 0 5 - 0 6 , 4 1 2 S p r i n k l e d priests, I 4 0 6 - 0 7 , 4 1 2 Surplus o f drink offering, 1 4 0 1 - 0 2 , 4 1 2 Terumah unfit f o r h u m a n c o n s u m p ­ tion, I 407, 4 1 2 T r a d i t i o n s c o m p a r e d , III 7 1 V e r i f i c a t i o n s , III 2 0 1 H a n d s , l a y o n sacrifice, I 1 1 - 3 , 5 7 , 6 6 70, 7 4 - 5 , 8 0 - 1 ; II 1 8 5 - 9 Judah b. Tabbai, I 9 3 , 1 1 8 - 1 9 H a n d s , u n c l e a n , II 3 2 3 , 3 5 3 Hillel a n d S h a m m a i , I 3 1 2 , 3 1 4 - 1 8 , 330-31, 337 H a n i n , R . , II 2 2 7 ; I I I 1 9 6 Hanina, R., I 3 4 6 , 3 7 4 Grapes unclean, I 3 2 0 Healed son of Gamaliel, I 3 6 6 - 6 7 Red-heifer-offering, I 4 1 Hanina ben Dosa, III 6 7 , 1 3 7 , 1 9 2 A g g a d i c t r a d i t i o n s , III 4 6 , 5 2 , 5 6 , 59-60

404

INDICES

F o r m s , III 9 0 , 9 6 , 3 1 4 Gamaliel, I 3 6 1 - 6 2 , 3 7 5 , 394-96 Heavenly echo, I 2 8 , 1 6 2 History o f traditions, III 2 7 3 , 2 7 6 P a t t e r n s , III 1 1 1 , 1 1 7 Traditions compared, III 7 1 , 8 2 , 85-87 H a r v e s t p r o d u c e , II 9 9 - 1 0 0 , 1 1 0 , 3 4 8 Hashmona'i, I 3 9 H a s t i n g s , J a m e s , III 3 5 8 H e a v e offering, Clean and unclean mingled, II 1 1 8 20, 348 Clean neutralizes unclean, II 8 3 - 6 , 89-92, 347 Crushed olives, II 8 7 - 8 , 3 4 7 G r a p e s b e c o m e raisins, I I 8 8 - 9 , 3 4 7 Meat, burning, I I 1 4 3 - 4 4 , 349 O l i v e s instead o f oil, II 8 1 - 2 , 8 6 - 7 , 347 O p e n jars, I I 1 1 6 , 3 4 8 P r o p e r measure, II 8 2 - 3 , 3 4 7 Shammai, I 189-90, 202-03, 209 Unclean w i n e , II 9 2 Vetches, II 3 2 7 Y o h a n a n the High Priest, I 1 6 2 - 6 5 Heavenly echo, Simeon the Just, 1 2 7 - 8 , 3 5 , 39, 4 2 - 3 , 50-2 Y o h a n a n the High Priest, 1 1 6 2 , 1 6 4 , 166-68, 171-72 Helene o f A d i a b e n e , II 2 1 6 - 1 7 ; III 2 1 8 , 2 7 0 , 2 8 4 H e r f o r d , R. T r a v e r s , III 3 4 9 , 3 5 3 , 3 6 0 Herod, 1 1 1 5 , 1 5 9 , 3 9 2 , 3 9 7 ; 1 1 1 5 3 , 6 2 , 98, 1 1 1 , 192, 304-5, 3 1 1 , 337, 34546, 351-52 History o f traditions, III 2 4 2 , 2 4 8 , 254 Rain miracle, I 89-90 Shammai, I 390-91 Herzfeld, L., I l l 3 6 8 Hezeqiah Testified b e f o r e G a m a l i e l , I 3 4 2 , 364-65, 368-69, 370, 374 Testimonies, III 1 5 - 6 Hilbis, A . L., I l l 3 3 4 H i l l e l , a n d H o u s e of, I 2 , 4 - 6 , 2 9 4 - 9 7 , 299, 301 A b o r t i o n , II 1 6 - 2 2 , 3 4 4 ; eighty-first day, II 2 5 1 - 5 3 , 3 3 4 Access, giving right, II 1 3 6 , 349 A l l e y w a y validated, II 1 3 5 - 3 6 , 3 4 9

A l u m - c r y s t a l v e s s e l s , II 2 5 9 - 6 0 , 3 5 2 Apophthegms, I 224-26, 274-77, 297 B a c k b o n e a n d s k u l l , II 2 6 6 - 6 7 , 3 5 2 Backbone overshadowing, I 1 9 4 Bailiff, p a y m e n t a c c o r d i n g t o h o u r o f removal, II 1 1 - 3 , 3 4 5 Baking o v e n overarched outlet, II 2 6 7 - 6 9 , 2 8 0 - 8 4 , 3 2 9 - 3 1 , 3 5 2 B a t h i n g as r e l i g i o u s d u t y , I 2 7 5 - 8 0 , 297 Beams, return stolen, II 2 3 4 - 3 7 , 351 Ben He He, I 2 7 0 - 7 1 , 2 7 8 - 7 9 , 2 9 7 Betrothal, II 2 3 3 , 3 3 3 , 3 5 1 B e t w e e n t w o e v e n i n g s , II 9 , 3 4 4 Blessings, o n e f o r all, II 5 2 - 3 , 3 4 6 B l o o d , g e n t i l e w o m a n , II 2 9 9 - 3 0 0 , 307-09, 353 Blood, slaughtered animal, covering of, I I 1 6 7 - 6 8 , 3 4 9 B l o o d , u n c l e a n test r a g s , I I 2 9 7 - 9 9 , 353 Bones, q u a r t e r - ^ , II 2 7 7 - 8 0 , 3 2 7 , 352 C a p e r b u s h , II 7 1 , 3 4 7 Chest measurement, II 2 5 5 - 5 6 , 2 6 2 , 351 Chicken and cheese o n table, II 2 4 2 45, 351 Children making appearance, I 9 - 1 0 , 35-6, 344, 346 Circumstantial evidence, I 8 8 Circumcision, I I 1 4 - 6 , 1 3 2 - 3 , 3 4 5 Cleanness, 1 7 2 - 3 , 7 9 ; 1 1 2 "Come to m y house", I 2 3 5 - 3 6 , 2 6 0 61, 267-68, 278-79, 289-90, 297 Corpse, entrance t o r o o m , II 269-70, 284-85, 352 Couch o f m o u r n e r , II 1 8 2 - 8 3 , 3 5 0 Creation, II 1 8 9 - 9 0 C r o w n , p e r i s h i n g f o r use of, I 2 2 2 , 227, 276-77, 284, 297 C u t t i n g t r e e s in S e v e n t h Y e a r , II 7 5 - 6 , 3 4 7 D a v i d t o Hillel, I 2 6 8 , 2 7 5 , 2 7 8 - 7 9 , 294, 297 D a y / w i n e , II 1 4 5 - 4 6 , 3 4 6 D e b a t e s c o n s i d e r e d , III 1 6 - 2 3 Decrees, chain o f tradition, I 1 3 - 1 5 Demai a n d s w e e t o i l , I I 6 3 , 6 5 - 6 , 3 4 6 Demai p r o d u c e , I I 1 5 3 - 5 4 , 3 4 9 D i g g i n g p r o d u c e in s e v e n t h y e a r , II 7 6 , 3 4 7

INDICES

D i s c i p l e s b e f o r e Hillel, I 2 6 9 - 7 0 , 278-79, 297 Dispute for sake o f heaven, I 3 0 7 - 0 8 , 327, 330-31, 334-35 D i v o r c e , II 2 3 0 - 3 3 , 3 3 3 ; g r o u n d s f o r , II 3 7 - 9 , 3 4 6 ; and p r o p e r t y , II 2 4 8 - 5 0 , 3 5 1 E g g white contracts, I 2 0 1 E i g h t y disciples, I 2 5 2 , 2 6 0 , 2 6 4 , 274, 278-79, 294, 296 Bruv, c o u r t y a r d disposal, II 1 3 7 - 4 0 ,

f

349 Ezra, Torah restored, I 2 7 0 , 278-79, 297 Festival practices, II 1 5 8 - 7 9 , 3 3 1 - 3 2 , 349 F i f t h a d d i t i o n a l t o p a y m e n t , II 2 5 0 Fleece, II 3 6 - 7 , 3 4 6 ; g i f t of, I I 244-45 F o r m s , III 8 9 - 1 0 0 , 3 0 3 , 3 0 6 - 0 7 , 3 1 1 19, 324, 328, 330-32, 334, 337-40,

344.47, 3 5 1 , 353.59 Formulas and patterns, III 1 1 4 - 1 9 ; lacking, III 1 0 6 - 1 4 F o u r t e e n t h o f N i s a n , w o r k , II 1 4 1 , 349 F r u i t o f field, p r e p a r e d , I I 2 6 - 3 0 , 3 4 5 Gamaliel, I 3 4 1 - 4 2 , 344, 346-47, 354, 358, 375-76 G e h e n n a , II 2 3 8 - 9 , 3 5 1 G e n e a l o g i c a l classes, I 2 6 1 , 2 6 3 , 278-79 G e n t l e n e s s of, I 3 2 1 - 2 4 , 3 2 7 - 3 2 G i r d l e , II 2 6 5 - 6 6 , 3 5 2 Grapeclusters, I 68-70 Grape-gleanings, defective clusters, II 2 3 - 5 , 3 4 5 G r a p e s o f F o u r t h Y e a r V i n e y a r d , II 59-60, 1 1 7 - 1 8 , 332-33, 346 G r a p e s , g r a v e - a r e a , II 2 7 5 - 7 7 , 2 8 7 , 352 G r a p e s , p r e s s i n g , II 2 9 1 , 3 5 2 Grapes, uncleanness, I 3 1 6 , 3 1 8 - 2 1 , 3 2 7 , 3 3 0 - 3 1 ; II 3 2 4 , 3 5 3 G r a v e , bottle plugging, II 2 8 6 - 8 7 , 352 G r a v e a r e a , e x a m i n e f o r N a z i r , II 287-88, 352 Hagigah sacrifices, II 1 8 3 - 8 7 , 3 5 0 H a l f - s l a v e , h a l f - f r e e , II 2 2 8 - 3 0 , 3 2 9 , 351 Hallah, flour pase a n d d u m p l i n g s , I I 1 1 8 , 3 4 8 ; l i a b i l i t y f o r loaf, I 3 0 3 -

405

07, 3 1 2 , 3 1 5 , 330-31, 333 Hallel, r e c i t i n g , II 1 4 2 - 3 , 3 4 9 H a n d s o n festival sacrifice, I I 1 8 5 - 8 9 Hands, uncleanness, I 3 1 2 , 3 1 4 - 1 8 , 3 3 0 - 3 1 , 3 3 7 ; II 3 2 3 , 3 5 3 Harvest produce passing t h r o u g h J e ­ r u s a l e m , II 9 9 - 1 0 0 , 1 1 0 , 3 4 8 Heave-offering, I 1 8 9 , 1 9 1 - 9 2 ; b u r n ­ i n g m e a t , II 1 4 3 - 4 4 , 3 4 9 ; clean a n d u n c l e a n m i n g l e d , II 1 1 8 - 2 0 , 3 4 8 ; clean n e u t r a l i z e s u n c l e a n , II 83-6, 8 9 - 9 2 , 3 4 7 ; crushed olives, II 8 7 - 8 , 3 4 7 ; g r a p e s b e c o m e r a i ­ sins, I I 8 8 - 9 , 3 4 7 ; o l i v e s i n s t e a d o f o i l , I I 8 1 - 2 , 8 6 - 7 , 3 4 7 ; o p e n jars, I I 1 1 6 , 3 4 8 ; p r o p e r measure, II 823, 3 4 7 ; unclean w i n e , II 9 2 ; o f vetches, I I 3 2 7 ; v o w t o r o b b e r , tax c o l l e c t o r , II 2 1 2 - 1 4 , 3 5 0 H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 3 9 - 3 0 1 Holes, joining place f o r r o d , II 2 7 3 75, 285-86, 352 H o l y S p i r i t , w o r t h y of, I 2 3 7 - 4 0 , 252-53, 261-62, 264-65, 268-69, 278-79, 292-93, 296 Horse and slave f o r p o o r man, I 2 2 9 , 244, 2 7 1 , 276-77, 286, 296 H u s b a n d , death b e f o r e w a t e r o r d e a l , II 2 2 6 , 3 5 1 Immersion, hot and cold, I I 2 9 6 , 3 5 3 Immersion pool, I 143-46, 1 5 4 - 5 7 ; drawn water, I 303-07, 3 1 2 , 3 1 5 , 330-31, 333 Impatience of Shammai, I 3 2 1 - 2 4 , 327-32 Insects, e a t i n g , I 2 1 3 - 1 4 , 2 7 6 - 7 7 , 281-82, 295 Intercourse, v o w against, II 2 0 7 , 227-28, 334, 350 I n t e r e s t in k i n d f o r b i d d e n , I 2 2 4 , 240, 253-54, 272, 276-77, 284-85, 295 Itch w i t h i n i t c h , I 2 1 4 , 2 4 2 , 2 7 6 - 7 7 , 295 J o n a t h a n b 'Uzziel a n d S h a m m a i , I 198-99, 207-09 Ketuvah, A l e x a n d r i a n e x p o u n d e d , I 236-37, 251, 264, 278-79, 291-92, 295 Lay on hands, I 1 1 - 1 3 , 3 0 9 - 1 4 , 3 1 6 , 325-26, 330-31, 335-37 L e a v e n , II 3 4 - 5 , 3 4 6 L e g a l t r a d i t i o n s a n a l y z e d , III 5 - 4 3

406

INDICES

L e v i r a t e marriage, II 1 9 0 - 2 0 0 , 2 0 2 07, 333-34, 350 Liability o f sender, I 2 0 1 L i v e d 1 2 0 years, I 2 2 0 - 2 1 , 275-77, 284, 297 Lulav, s h a k i n g , II 1 5 4 - 5 5 M a n crushed in Temple court, 1 2 5 4 , 278-79, 296 Marriage, before puberty, II 3 0 0 - 0 3 , 3 0 9 , 3 5 3 ; c o n t r a c t , I 2 3 6 - 3 8 ; estate of w o m a n awaiting, I I 2 0 8 - 1 2 , 3 5 0 Massah, f o l d i n g t o g e t h e r , I 2 1 2 - 1 3 , 231, 245-46, 257-58, 264, 276-77, 280-81, 296 Meals, II 3 2 5 Menahem, I 184-85 Menstration, II 3 0 1 - 0 7 , 3 1 0 , 3 5 3 ; retroactive uncleanness, I 3 0 3 - 0 8 , 315, 326-27, 330-31, 333 Metalware unclean, I 1 0 4 , 1 1 0 , 1 2 9 M i g r a t i o n o f Hillel, I 2 6 6 - 6 7 , 2 7 8 - 7 9 M o r a l precepts, 1 1 7 - 2 2 , 2 2 7 - 2 9 , 2 4 4 ,

P r o d u c e o f p r e p a r e d field in S e v e n t h Y e a r , II 7 2 - 5 , 3 4 7 P r o s e l y t e , d a y b e f o r e P a s s o v e r , II 1 4 1 - 4 2 , 1 4 5 , 3 4 9 ; named son f o r Gamaliel, I 366-67, 369 Property redemption, I 2 1 4 - 1 6 , 227. 263, 273, 276-77, 282-83, 295 Prozbul, I 2 1 7 - 2 0 , 2 2 2 - 2 4 , 2 4 4 - 4 5 , 262-63, 276-77, 283-84, 296 Qpdashim, II 2 3 9 - 5 3 Re'iyyah'ofeting, II 1 8 3 - 8 7 , 3 5 0 Report, not fearing, I 2 4 3 , 2 5 3 , 2 7 8 79, 293-94, 297 R o o f split, I I 2 7 1 - 7 3 , 2 8 5 , 3 5 2 S a b b a t h , I I 3 2 5 ; f e s t i v e o f f e r i n g , II 2 5 - 6 , 3 4 5 ; finishing w o r k b e f o r e , II 1 0 - 1 1 , 1 2 0 - 2 5 , 1 3 4 , 3 4 8 ; prac­ tises, I I 1 2 4 - 3 4 , 1 4 4 - 4 5 , 3 4 8 ; r u l e s and Shammai, I 186-87, 324-25, 330-31 S a l e o f p r o d u c e f o r p r o d u c e in S e v e n t h Y e a r , II 8 1 , 3 4 7

253, 276-77, 285-86, 297 M u s t a r d s t r a i n e r , II 2 6 2 , 3 5 2 N a i l s , articles m a d e f r o m , I I 2 5 4 , 3 5 1 Narrative analyzed, III 2 3 - 3 9 Nazirites, II 2 1 5 - 2 6 , 3 3 4 , 3 5 0 N e w Year/Sabbath-blessing, II 4 9 ,

Scattered things, gathering, II 1 8 0 81, 350 Scroll-wrappers, II 2 5 8 - 5 9 , 3 5 2 Self-abasement, exaltation, I 2 7 5 , 278-79, 297 S e l l i n g , field in S e v e n t h Y e a r , II 8 0 ,

348 N e w Y e a r trees and Sabbath, I I 1 8 1 82, 350 N u m b e r I s r a e l i t e f o r firstling, I I 246-48, 351 N u r s i n g m o t h e r r e m a r r y i n g , II 3 0 7 , 353 O l i v e s , cleanness, II 1 5 5 - 5 7 ; presses in J e r u s a l e m w a l l , I I 1 1 0 - 1 3 , 2 5 0 , 3 4 8 ; sale t o associate, I I 6 4 - 5 , 3 4 6 ; u n c l e a n n e s s , salted, I I 2 8 9 - 9 0 , 2 9 2 , 324, 352-53 O t h e r Pharisees, I 3 9 2 - 9 4 Passover overrides Sabbath, I 2 3 1 -

347 P l o u g h i n g h e i f e r in S e v e n t h Y e a r , I I 7 6 - 7 , 3 4 7 ; p r o d u c e in S e v e n t h Y e a r , II 7 7 - 8 , 3 4 7 Shammai considered, 2 0 8 - 1 1 , 3 0 3 - 4 0 S h a m m a i debates, II 1 - 5 Sheaves, II 5 5 - 8 , 6 0 - 3 , 3 3 2 , 3 4 6 Shebna' and Hillel, I 2 7 1 - 7 2 , 2 7 8 - 7 9 ,

35, 240-42, 245-51, 254-57, 272-77, 286-89, 295-96 Pe*ah f r o m g r a i n - s o w n p l o t s , I 5 4 - 5 , 346 P e a t , c o o l o v e n , II 2 6 0 - 1 , 3 5 2 Pentecost, slaughter w h e n Friday, II 185-86, 350 P l o u g h i n g , in S e v e n t h Y e a r , I 1 9 5 9 6 ; t r e e - p l a n t e d field b e f o r e S e v e n t h Y e a r , II 7 2 , 3 4 7 Pool, cleaning, II 2 9 2 - 9 3 , 2 9 6 , 3 5 3

297 Sheet, insusceptible, II 2 5 6 - 5 7 , 3 5 1 Shema\ r e c i t i n g , I I 3 4 , 3 9 , 4 1 - 2 , 4 8 - 9 , 346 Shema'iah and Abtalion quoted, I 142-47, 150, 152-53, 158-59 S h o o t o v e r stone, II 7 1 - 2 , 3 4 7 S h o v e l w i t h o u t b l a d e , II 2 6 1 , 3 5 2 Simeon and Shammai, I 3 3 0 - 3 1 Simeon b. Gamaliel, I 2 8 4 , 286-87 377, 379, 382 Sin-offering, II 1 4 7 - 4 8 , 3 4 9 ; sprink­ les, I I 2 3 9 - 4 2 , 2 8 8 , 3 5 1 S i p h o n in t e n t , I I 2 5 3 - 5 4 , 3 5 1 Sisit, s t r a n d s of, I I 3 0 - 3 , 3 3 4 , 3 4 4 Slaughter w i t h handsickle, II 2 4 2 , 245, 351

INDICES

S t e a l i n g , l i a b i l i t y f o r , II 7 - 8 , 3 4 4 S t o o l fixed t o b a k i n g - t r o u g h , I I 2 5 7 58, 264-65, 328, 352 Students stimulated, I 2 1 6 - 1 7 , 2 4 2 43, 276-77, 283, 296 S t u d i e s as p o o r m a n , I 2 5 8 - 5 9 , 2 7 8 79, 2 9 6 ; w i t h Shema'iah and A b ­ talion, I 1 4 8 - 4 9 , 152-53 Sukkah, II 1 5 0 - 5 3 , 1 5 7 - 5 8 , 3 4 9 ; f o r infant, I 1 9 3 - 9 4 T a n n a i t i c M i d r a s h i m , II 6 - 4 0 Tavshilin, II 1 7 9 - 8 0 , 3 4 9 Tefillin, e x a m i n a t i o n , I 1 8 8 ; II 6 - 7 , 3 4 5 ; of grandfather, 1 2 6 5 - 6 6 , 2 7 8 79 Tevul-yom, c o n n e c t i v e , II 3 2 2 - 2 3 , 3 5 3 T i t h e s , c h a n g i n g sela, I 1 9 0 ; II 3 2 7 ; Demai, s e p a r a t e tithes, I I 1 1 6 - 1 7 , 3 4 8 ; f e n u g r e e k , c h a n g i n g sela, II 9 5 - 9 , 1 0 8 - 1 0 , 3 4 8 ; f o o d f o r tithes, II 6 3 - 4 , 3 4 4 ; liability for, 1 2 2 9 - 3 0 , 2 4 2 , 2 7 6 - 7 7 , 2 9 5 . S a b b a t h f r u i t , II 3 3 4 ; Second Tithes, II 1 0 1 - 0 8 , 1 1 3 - 1 6 , 1 4 8 - 4 9 , 3 4 8 ; Second Tithes unclean, II 1 0 0 - 0 1 , 3 4 8 ; sheaves, I I 5 5 - 8 , 6 0 - 3 , 3 4 6 ; sifting b y h a n d , I I 9 4 - 5 , 3 4 7 ; t i t h i n g p o d s , II 7 9 8 0 , 3 4 7 ; t i t h i n g S a b b a t h f r u i t , II 93, 347 Toharot, II 2 5 3 - 3 2 4 T o m b - v a u l t , f o r e c o u r t , II 2 7 5 , 3 5 2 T r a d i t i o n s c o m p a r e d , III 6 8 - 8 9 Tree, w a t e r f r o m shaking, II 3 1 0 - 1 6 , 353 Trespass and b u r n t offering, I 2 6 1 , 2 7 8 - 7 9 , 2 9 6 ; II 2 3 5 - 3 7 T r o u g h , m i x i n g m o r t a r , II 2 5 6 , 2 6 3 , 351 T r o w e l shaft, I I 2 5 9 , 2 6 6 , 3 5 2 T u b e , i n s u s c e p t i b l e , II 2 5 4 - 5 5 , 2 6 1 64, 351

1

407

V o w o f g i r l , a n n u l m e n t , II 2 1 4 - 1 5 , 350 V o w s t o t a x c o l l e c t o r , II 3 2 5 - 2 6 W a t e r , l e a k s i n t o t r o u g h , II 3 1 3 - 1 4 , 316, 353 W a t e r i n g p l a n t s in S e v e n t h Y e a r , II 78-9, 347 W e a s e l , II 7 1 , 3 4 7 W h e a t p e r se'ah, I 2 7 3 - 7 4 , 2 7 8 - 7 9 , 297 W i n e v a u l t search, I I 1 4 0 - 4 1 , 3 4 9 W o m a n testifies t o d e a t h o f h u s b a n d , II 2 0 0 - 0 2 , 3 2 8 - 2 9 , 3 5 0 Wrappers, garments and purple w o o l , II 2 5 8 , 2 6 5 , 3 5 2 Z ^ - s t a t e a m b i g u i t y , II 3 1 6 - 1 9 , 3 5 3 Hilqiah b. Tobiah, R., I 2 0 0 Hisda, R., A n i m a l s a n d b i r d s f o r sacrifice, I 1 5 0 Ashqelon witches, I 1 1 5 - 1 6 Hiyya, I 2 9 7 , 299 Hillel f r o m D a v i d , I 2 7 5 H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 6 2 M o r a l sayings, I 2 8 5 Torah restored, I 2 2 1 , 270, 2 7 8 - 7 9 , 297 H i y y a b . A b b a , R., I l l 1 9 2

A g g a d i c traditions, III 53 Hillel, I 3 9 3 H o e n i g , S i d n e y B . , I 1 8 5 ; III 3 5 3 , 365-67 H o l e s j o i n i n g place f o r r o d , II 2 7 3 - 7 5 , 285-86, 352 Holscher, G . , I l l 3 6 8 H o l y S p i r i t , w o r t h y of, I 2 3 7 - 4 0 , 2 5 2 53, 261-62, 264-65, 268-69, 278-79, 292-93, 296 H o n i the Circler, 1 3 9 6 , 3 9 5 - 9 6 ; III 3 6 , 4 9 , 5 1 , 6 2 ; III 1 8 0 , 1 8 7 - 8 8 , 3 1 1 - 1 2 , 314, 355 Carob-tree, I 179-80, 1 8 2 j F o r m s , III 9 0 , 9 8 , 1 0 8 , 6 0 7 ! H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 5 4

Uncleanness, I 2 1 2 - 1 4 , 2 7 6 - 7 7 , 2 8 1 8 2 , 2 9 5 ; II 4 3 - 8 , 5 0 - 5 5 , 3 3 5 , 3 4 6 Unclean-bloods, II 2 2 - 3 , 3 4 5 Rain miracle, I 9 1 - 2 , 1 7 6 - 7 8 , 1 8 0 - 8 2 ; U n c l e a n h o l y t h i n g s , II 1 3 - 4 , 3 4 5 III 6 8 V a t unclean, II 8 7 , 3 4 7 Rebuked, I 9 1 - 2 , 99, 103-04, 1 1 3 , Verifications, III 1 9 9 - 2 3 8 j 120-21, 133-34, 167-77 Vessels, immersion on rain-stream, i T r a d i t i o n s , A g g a d i c , III 5 1 , 6 6 ; II 2 9 4 - 9 7 , 3 5 3 ; under w a t e r s p o u t , c o m p a r e d , III 7 1 , 7 7 , 8 6 - 7 I I 2 9 3 - 9 4 , 3 5 3 ; w i t h 'am ha' ares, I I H o n i t h e L i t t l e , III 1 9 3 291-92, 353 H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 7 0 V i n e y a r d c r o p s a n d p l a n t i n g , II 6 6 L e g a l t r a d i t i o n s , III 1 9 , 3 0 71, 346-47 N e w Y e a r a n d S a b b a t h , II 1 8 2

408

INDICES

H o r o v i t z , H. S., I 1 4 5 , 2 1 7 T o h a r o t , II 2 7 4 , 2 7 6 Horse and slave for p o o r man, I 2 2 9 , 244, 271, 276-77, 286, 296 Hoshaiah, II 1 5 0 H u n a , R., Hands, unclean, I 3 1 5 - 1 6 Passover overrides Sabbath, I 2 4 6 Ritual bath, I 1 4 6 H u n a b . H i y y a , R., I 2 0 0 Huna the Elder, I 2 4 5 H u s b a n d dies b e f o r e w a t e r o r d e a l , I I 226, 351 Hyman, Aaron M., Ill 328, 359, 366 Hyrcanus, J o h n , I 33, 59, 1 3 9 , 1 5 9 , 1 7 7 ; III 1 6 3 , 1 8 0 , 3 0 5 , 3 0 9 - 1 1 , 324, 329, 346, 349, 355, 357 H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 4 1 , 2 4 3 , 254-55 Slave murdered, I 1 1 5 See also Y o h a n a n t h e H i g h Priest

I Idumaea, I 1 7 3 I g r a t b . M a h a l a t , I 3 9 5 , III 8 6 Ilai, R . , II 6 0 Ufa, I 3 1 5 Immersion, H o t a n d c o l d , II 2 9 6 , 3 5 3 Pool, drawn water, I 303-07, 3 1 2 , 3 1 5 , 3 3 0 - 3 1 , 3 3 3 ; Shema'iah and Abtalion, I 143-46, 152-58 Impatience of Shammai, 1 3 2 1 - 2 4 , 3 2 7 - 3 2 Insects, e a t i n g of, I 2 1 3 - 1 4 , 2 7 6 - 7 7 , 281-82, 295 Intercourse, v o w against, II 2 0 7 , 2 2 7 28, 334, 350 I n t e r e s t in k i n d f o r b i d d e n , I 2 2 4 , 2 4 0 , 253-54, 272, 276-77, 284-85, 295 Isaac, I 1 4 2 H e a v e offering, II 8 7 Isaac b . A b d i m i , R., I 3 1 6 I s a i a h , III 9 4 M a r t y r d o m , III 73 I s h m a e l , R., I 2 1 1 , 4 1 7 ; III 1 8 5 A l l e y w a y v a l i d a t e d , II 1 3 5 Circumstantial evidence, I 88, 1 2 7 F o r m s , III 9 0 H a n a n i a h P r e f e c t o f t h e Priests, I 402-03, 405, 407, 412-13 Hands unclean, I 3 1 6

H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 8 0 H o l y S p i r i t , w o r t h y of, I 2 3 9 Legal traditions, III 1 4 , 2 4 M e k h i l t a of, I 1 5 5 ; II 6 - 8 School and Tannaitic Midrashim, I 8 Second Tithe, II 1 0 7 Shema\ r e c i t i n g , I I 3 4 , 3 9 , 4 8 , 3 4 6 S t e a l i n g , l i a b i l i t y f o r , II 7 - 8 , 3 4 4 Tefillin, i n s p e c t i o n , II 6 - 7 , 3 4 5 Verifications, III 2 0 2 , 2 0 4 , 2 0 7 - 0 9 , 225-26, 235 Z ^ - s t a t e ambiguity, I I 3 1 7 , 3 1 9 , 3 2 1 Ishmael b. Phiabi, R., I 1 6 4 , 1 6 8 , 3 9 7 9 8 , 4 0 0 ; III 5 3 - 4 , 1 9 3 F o r m s , III 1 1 2 Gamaliel, I 3 5 1 - 5 2 Hillel a n d s t u d i e s , I 2 5 9 Red heifer offering, I 2 5 Simeon the Just and priesthood, 1 3 9 I s h m a e l b . R. Y o h a n a n b . B e r o q a h , III 223 Nazirite v o w s , II 2 2 3 Tevul-yom, c o n n e c t i v e , II 3 2 3 I s h m a e l b . R. Y o s i , R . , I 6 9 - 7 0 ; III 2 2 2 H e a v e offering, II 9 2 Itch w i t h i n itch, 1 2 1 4 , 2 4 2 , 2 7 6 - 7 7 , 2 9 5

J J a c o b b. A h a , R., I 2 9 , 2 4 5 J a c o b b . I d i , R., I 2 9 3 , 2 9 7 Holy Spirit, worthiness, I 2 6 8 J a c o b , W a l t e r , III 3 4 8 Jastrow, M., 1 1 0 0 , 1 1 1 ,184, 2 1 4 , 359; II 1 1 , 2 6 0 J e r e m i a h , R., I l l 1 9 2 A g g a d i c t r a d i t i o n s , III 5 3 Cleanness, I 7 2 - 3 , 7 9 Decrees, I 1 3 F o r m s , III 9 3 - 4 Hillel, I 3 9 3 Metalware unclean, I 1 1 0 , 1 2 8 S h a m m a i a n d J o n a t h a n b . 'Uzziel, 1200 Y a n n a i and Nazirites, I 9 6 - 7 , 1 1 6 - 1 7 Jeremias, J o a c h i m , III 3 5 5 J e r e m y , E p i s t l e of, III 7 3 J e s u s , III 1 8 3 , 1 8 7 A g g a d i c t r a d i t i o n s , III 4 4 - 6 , 4 9 , 6 8 E s t r a n g e m e n t o f disciples, I 1 0 2 F o r m s , III 9 0 , 9 4 , 3 1 0 , 3 2 6 - 2 8 , 3 3 4 , 344, 350, 359

INDICES

H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 4 4 - 4 7 , 252, 262, 288 J o s h u a b. Perahiah drives away, I 82-6 Oral traditions and transmission, III 1 5 3 - 5 4 , 1 6 7 T r a d i t i o n s c o m p a r e d , III 7 8 - 8 9 Jesus b. Gamaliel, I 3 9 7 J o b , III 2 1 1 , 3 1 4 H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 7 3 Targum b a n n e d , I 3 5 5 - 5 6 , 3 6 0 , 3 6 6 67, 369, 371 J o b , B o o k of, I I I 7 4 J o n a t h a n , R., II 2 0 6 L e v i r a t e marriage, II 1 9 4 Y o h a n a n the H i g h Priest, I 1 7 4 - 7 5 J o n a t h a n b . B a t h y r a , III 3 2 Verifications, III 2 0 8 , 2 2 6 J o n a t h a n b. J o s e p h , R., I n t e r c o u r s e , v o w against, I I 2 0 7 Nursing mother remarrying, II 307 Verifications, III 2 1 6 , 2 2 2 J o n a t h a n b. Saul A g g a d i c t r a d i t i o n s , III 4 4 Pesah o v e r r i d e s S a b b a t h , I 2 7 2 - 7 3 Jonathan b. Uzziel, I 5, 2 9 6 , 2 9 9 ; III 3 7 , 1 8 9 , 1 9 2 A g g a d i c traditions, III 5 1 , 53 Disciple o f Hillel, I 2 5 2 , 2 6 0 , 2 7 4 F o r m s , III 3 1 2 , 3 3 8 ; lacking, c

III 1 0 8 , 1 1 1 Gamaliel, I 356 Hillel, I 3 9 3 H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 7 6 , 3 6 5 Shammai, 1 198-200, 202-03, 206-07, 210 J o n a t h a n b. Y o s i , R., II 2 2 7 J o h n the A p o s t l e , III 1 5 4 , 2 4 4 - 4 6 J o h n the Baptist, III 2 4 6 J o s e p h , R . , I 4 2 , 4 1 4 ; III 1 9 7 E g g white contracts, I 2 0 1 In E g y p t , I 1 4 8 Grapeclusters, I 72 Hillel and studies, I 2 5 9 Honi rebuked, I 103-04 L a y on hands, I 3 2 6 One-hundred t w e n t y years, I 2 2 1 Slave murdered, I 1 1 5 J o s e p h b. K a b i b. S i m o n , I 3 9 7 Josephus, I 2, 4 - 5 , 58-9, 1 3 7 - 4 1 , 1 8 5 , 3 8 7 - 8 8 , 3 9 2 , 3 9 7 , 4 0 0 ; III 7 2 , 7 7 , 106, 153, 163-65, 175-79, 180, 183,

409

304-08, 310, 323-25, 328-30, 33536, 345-46, 357 A g g a d i c t r a d i t i o n s , III 5 5 Antiquities, I 4-5, 58-9, 1 1 5 , 138-39, 159, 173-75, 177 H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 3 9 - 4 4 , 249-51, 253-56, 278-79, 299 J o s h u a , R., I l l 1 8 2 A g g a d i c traditions, III 4 4 - 6 , 4 9 Baking o v e n , arched outlet, II 2 6 9 , 280-84, 330-31 B l o o d , test r a g s , I I 2 9 9 Bones, q u a r t e r - ^ , II 2 7 8 - 8 0 D i v o r c e and p r o p e r t y , II 2 4 8 - 5 0 F o r m s , III 9 1 Gamaliel, I 341-42, 3 5 2 H e a v e o f f e r i n g , II 1 4 4 Hillel, I 3 9 3 Hillel-Shammai debates, III 2 1 , 2 3 H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 4 9 , 2 6 5 , 273-79 Levirate marriage, II 1 9 3 , 2 0 3 , 2 0 5 Lulav, s h a k i n g , II 1 5 4 - 5 5 M o r a l precepts, I 1 6 , 1 9 1 2 0 years, I 2 2 1 Oral traditions, III 1 6 7 , 1 6 9 - 7 1 , 1 7 8 S c r o l l w r a p p e r s , II 2 5 9 Sheaves, II 6 0 - 6 2 Simeon b. Gamaliel, I 3 7 8 Simeon b. Shetah, I 1 2 0 - 2 1 Tithes, II 9 6 T r a d i t i o n s c o m p a r e d , III 6 8 , 8 1 , 8 8 Tree, w a t e r f r o m shaking, II 3 1 1 - 1 2 , 315-16 V e r i f i c a t i o n s , III 2 0 0 - 0 1 , 2 0 4 , 2 0 6 , 208, 213, 225, 235 V e s s e l s w i t h 'am ha* ares, I I 2 9 2 W o m a n remarrying, I 349-50 J o s h u a b. Bathyra, I 3 9 2 J o s h u a b. G a m a l a , I 3 8 7 , 3 9 6 - 9 7 ; III 1 9 2 - 9 3 A g g a d i c traditions, III 53 F o r m s , III 9 5 , 1 1 2 , 1 1 6 H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 5 4 School attendance, I 1 1 1 T e a c h e r s , a p p o i n t m e n t s , III 2 7 J o s h u a b. Hananiah, I 3 5 8 , 4 1 5 , 4 1 8 1 9 ; III 1 9 3 F o r m s , III 1 1 3 H i l l e l - S h a m m a i d e b a t e s , II 3 - 4 Holy Spirit, worthiness, I 239 N a z i r i t e v o w s , II 2 2 2 O r a l t r a d i t i o n s , III 1 6 9 , 1 7 1

410

INDICES

Sheaves, II 6 1 S i m e o n b. Gamaliel, I 3 7 8 Traditions compared, III 7 1 Verifications, III 2 0 0 - 0 1 , 2 2 6 - 2 7 J o s h u a b. L e v i , R., I 1 4 6 , 2 9 3 , 2 9 7 H o l y Spirit, worthiness, I 2 6 8 Honi rebuked, I 1 0 4 J o s h u a b. Nun, I 2 6 0 , 2 6 4 J o s h u a b. Perahiah, 1 2 1 1 ; 1 1 1 1 8 3 , 1 8 7 A g g a d i c traditions, III 4 3 , 5 7 - 8 Alexandrian wheat unclean, I 8 2 - 6 Decrees, I 1 4 F o r m s , III 9 1 - 2 , 3 0 3 , 2 0 6 - 0 7 , 3 1 2 , 328, 333, 339, 341, 356 History of traditions, III 2 4 8 - 4 9 , 252-53, 290 H o n o r relinquished, I 8 3 - 5 Jesus driven away, I 82-6 J u d a h and Alexandria, I 1 0 2 Lay on hands, I 1 1 , 1 3 L e g a l t r a d i t i o n s , III 6 Magical bowls, I 8 2 M o r a l precepts, I 1 6 - 7 , 2 0 , 2 2 O r a l transmission and tradition, III 1 6 7 Students stimulated, I 2 1 7 Y a n n a i the K i n g , I 1 0 9 , 1 1 4 Y o h a n a n the High Priest, I 1 6 4 J o s h u a b. Q o r h a h , I 2 6 4 J o s h u a b . T a b b a i , III 1 0 7 J o s i a h , R., I 1 9 7 J o u s s e , Marcel, III 1 5 7 - 5 8 , 1 6 3 J u b i l e e s , B o o k of, III 7 3 , 7 7 J u d a h , R., I 1 9 4 , 2 9 5 , 4 1 8 ; I I I 1 8 5 B l o o d , gentile w o m a n , II 3 0 7 - 0 8 B o n e s , q u a r t e r - ^ , II 2 7 7 - 7 9 Cleanness, I 7 1 Cohabitation, II 2 0 6 - 0 7 Corpse, entrance to r o o m , II 2 8 5 Festival practices, II 1 6 0 , 1 7 4 - 7 5 , 177-79 F o r m s , III 3 0 6 , 3 1 0 - 1 1 , 3 2 9 , 3 5 2 Gamaliel, I 3 6 0 G r a p e s , f o u r t h - y e a r , II 1 3 3 H a n d s u n c l e a n , II 3 2 3 H e a v e - o f f e r i n g , II 1 0 8 - 0 9 History o f traditions, III 2 4 9 , 2 7 3 , 284, 287 Intercourse, v o w against, II 2 0 7 , 2 2 8 Lay on hands, I 1 2 , 9 3 L e g a l t r a d i t i o n s , III 1 4 , 3 4 L e v i r a t e marriage, II 2 0 2 Menstration, II 3 1 0

M i s t a k e n a s s u m p t i o n , II 2 0 8 , 2 1 0 Nasi o f c o u r t , I 1 2 7 Nazirite and guilt offering, I 3 0 N a z i r v o w s , II 2 1 5 - 1 7 , 2 2 5 N e w Y e a r S a b b a t h b l e s s i n g s , II 5 1 - 2 N u r s i n g m o t h e r r e m a r r y i n g , II 3 0 7 O r a l t r a n s m i s s i o n a n d t r a d i t i o n , III 143, 161 P r o d u c e in s e v e n t h y e a r , I I 7 3 Sabbath practices, II 1 3 0 - 3 1 , 1 4 4 Scattered things, gathering, II 1 8 0 81 Simeon b. Gamaliel, I 3 7 9 - 8 0 , 3 8 3 , 385 S t o o l , b a k i n g t r o u g h , II 2 6 4 Sukkah, I I 1 5 0 T a n n a i t i c M i d r a s h i m , II 1 3 , 2 6 - 3 0 Temple of Onias, I 36 Tevul-yom, c o n n e c t i v e , I I 3 2 2 - 2 3 , 3 5 3 Tithes, liability f o r , I 2 2 9 - 3 0 , 2 4 2 ; second tithes, II 1 1 3 , 1 4 9 Tree, w a t e r f r o m shaking, II 3 1 5 Trespass and b u r n t offering, I 2 6 1 T u b e i n s u s c e p t i b l e , II 2 6 1 , 2 6 4 V a t u n c l e a n , II 8 7 Verifications, III 2 0 0 , 2 0 9 - 1 0 , 2 1 5 , 226, 232-33 V e s s e l s , i m m e r s i o n in r a i n - s t r e a m , II 2 9 6 - 9 7 J u d a h b. Baba, I 2 9 6 , 2 9 9 Dispute for sake o f heaven, I 3 1 1 Grapeclusters, I 66-8, 72, 7 8 H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 6 0 , 284-55 Holy Spirit, worthiness, I 2 3 9 , 2 6 5 Sabbath, finishing w o r k before, II 1 2 3 Verifications, III 2 0 9 - 1 0 , 2 3 1 , 2 3 3 W o m a n remarrying, I 348 J u d a h b. Bathyra, R., I 1 8 6 , 4 1 5 - 1 6 Cleanness, III 3 0 F o r m s , III 1 1 3 Hillel, I 3 9 2 - 9 3 H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 6 7 - 6 8 O r a l traditions, III 1 6 9 Passover overrides Sabbath, I 2 4 2 Verifications, III 2 1 0 V e s s e l s , i m m e r s i o n in r a i n - s t r e a m , II 2 9 5 J u d a h b . D o r t a i , I I 2 6 ; III 1 8 8 F o r m , III 3 1 2 H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 5 6 S a b b a t h a n d Hagigah, III 3 1

INDICES

S h e m a ' i a h a n d A b t a l i o n criticized, I 1 4 7 - 4 8 , 152-53^ 1 5 8 - 5 9 , 1 8 3 J u d a h b. Dosetai, R., I 1 0 9 Judah b. Gedidiah, Y a n n a i and Pharisees, I 1 0 8 , 1 8 3 Y o h a n a n the High Priest, I 1 7 4 - 7 5 J u d a h b . Ilai, R . , I 1 3 Circumstantial evidence, I 1 2 7 Corpse, entrance t o r o o m , II 2 8 5 Decrees, I 1 4 D i v o r c e and property, II 2 4 9 Festival practices, II 1 7 9 F o r m s , III 3 0 7 , 3 1 7 , 3 4 5 Gamaliel, I 3 5 8 Grapeclusters, I 7 2 H e a v e - o f f e r i n g , II 1 0 9 H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 5 4 , 2 7 3 I n t e r e s t in k i n d , I 2 2 4 Laying o n hands, I 9 3 Levirate marriage, II 2 1 1 Menstration, II 3 1 0 M o r a l precepts, I 2 1 M u r d e r , false w i t n e s s , I 8 7 , 8 9 Nasi o f c o u r t , I 1 0 2 Nazirite v o w s , II 2 1 6 - 1 7 , 2 2 1 N e w Y e a r / S a b b a t h blessing, II 5 1 - 2 O r a l transmission and tradition, III 144, 171, 173 Rain miracle, I 9 0 Sabbath practices, II 1 3 1 Simeon b. Shetah-traditions, I 1 3 7 -

I

I j j I

41 Stool, baking t r o u g h , II 2 6 4 Sukkah, II 1 5 1 Tannaitic Midrashim, II 1 3 - 5 , 2 9 Temple o f Onias, I 3 6 Tithes, II 1 0 4 , 1 1 4 - 1 5 Verifications, III 2 0 2 , 2 0 4 , 2 0 8 , 2 1 3 , 215, 226, 231 ! Vineyard crops, II 6 8 | J u d a h b. Nahmani, R., I l l 1 4 5 - 4 6 , 1 4 8 | J u d a h b . Nesi'a, R . , I 7 1 | J u d a h b . R . Pazzi, R . , I I 2 ! J u d a h b. Simeon, I 2 6 6 | J u d a h b. Tabbai, R., I 2 1 1 , III 3 6 , 5 7 , j 183, 187-88 j Alexandria, I 99-100, 1 0 2 ,1 0 9 , 1 1 8 19, 128, 137, 1 3 9 | Circumstantial evidence, I 8 6 - 9 , 9 4 5, 1 0 5 , 1 1 8 - 1 9 , 1 2 2 - 2 7 Cleanness, I 7 0 , 7 2 - 3 , 7 9 Decrees, I 1 4 F o r m s , III 9 1 , 9 4 , 9 7 , 3 0 3 , 3 0 6 - 0 7 ,

411

310, 312, 328, 337, 343, 346, 355 History o f traditions, III 2 4 0 , 2 4 8 49, 252-53, 256,2 8 4 , 2 9 0 Lay on hands, I 1 1 - 3 , 9 3 , 1 1 8 - 1 9 Marriage contract, I 9 4 M e t a l w a r e unclean, I 1 1 0 , 1 1 8 - 1 9 , 128-30 M o r a l precepts, I 1 6 , 2 0 , 2 2 Nasi o f c o u r t , I 9 9 - 1 0 0 , 1 0 2 , 1 0 5 , 118-19, 127-28 Rain miracle, I 9 0 Simeon b. Shetah compared, I 1 3 7 Traditions compared, III 8 3 , 8 8 Verifications, III 2 1 5 - 1 6 , 2 3 1 Y a n n a i a n d Pharisees, I 1 0 9 J u d a h b. R. Y o h a n a n ben Zakkai, R., 1327 J u d a h the Patriarch, I 7 0 , 8 1 , 1 5 7 , 2 1 1 , 2 9 9 , 4 1 8 ; III 1 8 3 , 1 8 6 , 1 9 3 - 9 4 , 1 9 8 C h i c k e n a n d cheese o n t a b l e , I I 2 4 5 Circumstantial evidence, I 8 7 C r o w n , p e r i s h i n g f o r u s e of, I 2 2 6 Demai a n d s w e e t o i l , I I 6 5 Disciples before Hillel, I 2 6 9 D i s p u t e s f o r sake o f h e a v e n , 1 3 0 8 - 0 9 Divorce, II 2 3 0 F e s t i v a l practices, I I 1 7 6 - 7 9 Forms, III 90, 307, 3 1 9 Gamaliel, I 352, 3 6 9 G e n e a l o g i c a l classes, I 2 6 1 Grapes of Fourth-Year-vineyard, II 6 0 Hallah, l i a b i l i t y fir loaf, I 3 1 2 Hands, unclean, I 3 1 8 Heave-offering, II 9 2 ; fenugreek, II 1 0 9 Hillel f r o m D a v i d , I 2 6 8 History o f traditions, III 2 5 7 - 5 9 , 262-63, 272, 282, 286 Holy Spirit, worthiness, I 2 6 5 Intercourse, v o w against, II 2 0 8 L a y o n hands, I 1 3 L e v i r a t e m a r r i a g e , II 1 9 2 M o r a l precepts, I 2 1 N a z i r i t e v o w s , II 2 2 4 , 2 2 6 N e w Y e a r / S a b b a t h blessings, II 5 1 - 2 O l i v e presses, J e r u s a l e m w a l l , I I 1 1 2 O r a l t r a n s m i s s i o n a n d t r a d i t i o n , III 145-46, 150, 173 Passover overrides Sabbath, I 2 4 2 , 272-73 Pearl r e t u r n e d , I 1 1 2 Prosbul, I 2 2 3 , 2 6 2 - 6 3

412

INDICES

P r o p e r t y , r e d e m p t i o n of, I 2 2 7 Proselyte, day before Passover, II 1 4 5 Rain miracle, I 9 2 Red-heifer-ofFering, I 2 6 R e d Sea, splitting, I 1 4 2 R o o f split, I I 2 8 5 Sabbath practices, II 1 3 0 - 3 1 S c a t t e r e d t h i n g s , g a t h e r i n g , II 1 8 0 Sheaves, II 6 2 Shema\ r e c i t i n g , II 4 9 Sin-offering, sprinkles, II 2 4 2 Stool, baking t r o u g h , II 2 6 4 T a n n a i t i c M i d r a s h i m , II 9 , 2 1 - 2 , 2 6 , 38 Tefillin o f g r a n d f a t h e r , I 2 6 5 - 6 6 T i t h e s , 1 2 3 0 ; II 1 1 4 - 1 5 T r o u g h , mixing mortar, II 2 6 3 T u b e insusceptible, II 2 6 2 Verifications, III 2 1 0 , 2 1 9 - 2 3 V i n e y a r d c r o p s , II 7 2 Zz^-state, a m b i g u i t y , I I 3 2 1 J u d a h b . Y e h e z q e l , R a v . See Rav Judah J u d i t h , B o o k of, III 7 3 Jung, Leo, I 3 1 , 197-98, 259 Juster, Jean, III 3 6 8 Justin Martyr, I 86

Kuteans, I 3 2 , 4 0

L Lacocque, A n d r e , III 3 6 8 Lamech, III 7 7 Landau, W . , I l l 3 6 8 Lauterbach, J . Z . , 1 8 6 - 7 , 1 4 2 , 1 8 8 , 2 6 5 , 3 9 4 ; III 1 7 1 , 3 2 3 , 3 4 9 - 5 0 , 3 6 6 | Mekhilta deR. Ishmael, II 6 , 8-9 Lay o n hands, I 1 1 - 1 3 , 5 7 , 1 4 1 Hillel a n d S h a m m a i , I 3 0 9 - 1 4 , 3 1 6 , 325-26, 330-31, 335-37 Judah b. Tabbai, I 9 3 , 1 1 8 - 1 9 Simeon b. Shetah, I 9 3 , 1 1 8 - 1 9 Leap-year, Gamaliel and letters, I 3 5 6 -

| j ; | | K ' ! K a h a n a , R., I 6 9 \ Hands, unclean, I 3 1 6 K a m i n k a , A r m a n d , III 3 5 0 - 5 1 , 3 6 5 - 6 7 i ! Kampf, J . , I l l 3 6 8 ! Karlin, A . , I l l 351, 366 j Katz, B. Z . , I l l 3 6 8 I Katzenelson, J . L., I l l 3 6 8 j Ketuvah, I 2 3 6 - 3 7 , 2 5 1 , 2 6 4 , 2 7 8 - 7 9 ,

58, 360-61, 366-68, 371 Leaven, II 3 4 - 5 , 3 4 6 Leazar, R., I 2 9 3 Demai a n d t i t h e s , I I 1 1 7 Holy Spirit, worthiness, I 2 6 9 Levirate marriage, II 2 0 6 Second Tithe, II 1 1 3 - 1 5 S h e a v e s , II 6 0 - 2 Leazar b. 'Azariah, I 2 5 1 Leazar b. R. S a d o q , R., Olives, unclean, II 1 5 5 - 5 7 Proselyte day before Passover, I I 1 4 5 Leazar b. R. Y o s a , R., I 1 0 0 Lehman, J . , I l l 3 6 8 LeMoyne, J . , I l l 327, 364 L e p r o s y signs, I 4 0 1 , 4 0 6 , 4 1 2 Letter o f Aristeas, III 7 3 Levi, R., 1 4 1 0 ; III 2 6 2 Hillel f r o m D a v i d , I 2 6 8 , 2 7 4 1 2 0 years, I 2 2 0 L e v i , Israel, I I I 3 2 7 - 2 8 , 3 3 5 , 3 6 8 Levirate marriage, II 1 9 0 - 2 0 0 , 202-07,

291-92, 295,366-67 K h a r k e m i t , III 2 8 , 9 6 , 1 0 8 , 1 8 8 I Bitter water and adultery, I 1 4 5 - 4 6 , I 151, 157-58 i Kittel, G., I l l 1 6 5 : K l a u s n e r , Yosef, III 3 5 8 , 3 6 6 Klein, B. D . , II 2 7 8 Klijn, A . F. J . , I l l 3 6 8 K o h a l i t , I 1 0 7 ; III 5 0 Kohath, I 120 K o h l e r , K a u f m a n , III 3 5 9 K o n o v i t z , Israel, II 5 K r a u s , Hans-Joachim, III 1 5 5 K r o c h m a l , Nachman, III 3 2 8 , 3 5 2 , 3 6 8 i

209-12, 333-34, 350 L e v y , Isidore, III 3 6 8 Licht, Ya'aqov, III 7 5 Lichtenstein, I 2 8 , 3 3 - 4 , 1 1 8 , 1 6 8 , 1 7 7 Lieberman, Saul, I 1 2 , 2 6 , 4 4 , 9 3 - 4 , 160, 195-96, 228-32, 235, 237-38, 241, 308-10, 356, 371, 3 8 1 , 399, 4 0 7 , 4 1 8 ; II 5 , 2 9 - 3 0 ; III 1 7 2 - 7 3 , 178, 245,247-48, 250, 253, 333 Mo ed I I 1 2 7 - 3 0 , 1 3 2 - 3 4 , 1 4 3 - 4 7 , 1 4 9 , 156,172-76,179-80,182-83,186-88 Nashim, II 2 0 4 - 0 6 , 2 0 8 , 2 1 4 , 2 2 1 , 222-25 Neziqin, II 2 3 4 , 2 3 9

I | !

f

t

413

INDICES

ZeraUm, I I 4 9 , 5 1 , 5 3 , 6 6 , 7 1 - 2 , 7 8 - 8 1 , 83, 86-8, 9 0 - 1 , 94-6, 109-12, 1 1 4 , 116-18 L i e z e r , R . , II 1 4 4 , 1 4 9 Liezer B. J a c o b , R., II 1 8 2 L i e z e r b . R. S i m e o n , R . , II 1 8 3 L o e w e , H., I 2 ; I I I 3 5 4 , 3 6 6 Lord, Albert B., I l l 1 4 9 L u k e , III 1 5 4 , 2 4 6 Lulav, s h a k i n g , I I 1 5 4 - 5 5

M Malachi, I 3 9 3 Heavenly echo, I 2 7 H o l y Spirit, worthiness, I 2 6 1 - 6 2 , 265 Mana, R., I 2 8 M a n a s s e s , P r a y e r of, III 7 3 M a n crushed in T e m p l e c o u r t , I 2 5 4 , 278-79, 296 Mandelbaum, B., I 4 0 - 1 , 1 6 8 Mani, R., I 3 4 M a n s o o r , M e n a h e m , III 7 5 M a n y u m i b. Hilqiah, R., I 2 0 0 Mantel, H u g o , III 3 5 2 - 5 3 , 3 6 6 Marcus, Ralph, I 5 8 , 1 3 8 , 1 7 7 ; III 1 6 3 , 325-26, 366, 368 Maremar, I 2 6 4 Margot, J . , I l l 327 M a r k , III 2 4 6 Marriage, Before puberty, II 300-03, 3 0 9 , 3 5 3 Contract, 1 6 9 , 7 3 ; II 2 3 7 - 3 8 ; egg w h i t e c o n t r a c t s , I 2 0 0 - 0 1 ; decrees, I 1 3 - 4 ; Hillel, I 2 3 6 - 3 7 ; J u d a h b. Tabbai, I 9 4 Levirate marriage, II 1 9 0 - 2 0 0 , 2 0 2 07, 209-12 Remarriage on testimony o f one wit­ ness, I 3 4 3 , 3 4 8 - 5 0 , 3 6 4 - 6 5 , 3 6 8 , 370 Simeon b. Shetah and contract, I 9 3 4, 1 0 4 , 1 0 6 , 120-21, 1 4 1 M a r s h , J o h n , III 7 8 , 8 0 , 8 3 Martha b. Boethus, I 3 9 6 - 9 7 ; III 5 3 , 192 Mar Zutra, I 200, 2 1 0 Massah, f o l d i n g t o g e t h e r , 1 2 1 2 - 1 3 , 2 3 1 , 245-46, 257-58, 264, 276-77, 28081, 296 M a t t h e w , III 2 4 6

Mattithias, I 39 M e a l s , II 3 2 5 Measha, R., I 3 4 4 , 4 1 5 Meeks, W . A . , I 86 M e i r , R., I 5 6 , 4 1 8 ; III 3 4 , 1 8 5 , 1 9 2 , 194-95 Backbone and skull, II 2 6 6 - 6 7 Baking o v e n , arched outlet, II 3 3 1 Blessings and uncleanness, II 4 6 , 5 2 B l o o d , g e n t i l e w o m a n , II 3 0 7 - 0 8 Circumstantial evidence, I 1 2 7 Cleanness, I 7 1 Decrees and chain o f tradition, I 1 4 F e s t i v a l practices, I I 1 7 5 F o r m s , III 3 0 6 - 0 7 , 3 2 9 , 3 3 2 , 3 4 5 , 352 Gamaliel, I 358 Hallah, flour paste a n d d u m p l i n g s , II 1 1 8 Hananiah Prefect o f the Priests, I 402, 406 Hands unclean, I 3 1 7 Heave-offering, II 1 0 8 - 0 9 History o f traditions, III 2 7 3 , 2 8 4 , 287 Holy Spirit, worthiness, 1 2 6 5 Immersion pool, I 3 0 7 Intercourse, v o w against, II 2 0 7 , 227-28 Ketuvah e x p o u n d e d , I 2 3 7 , 2 5 1 , 2 6 4 Lay on hands, I 1 2 - 3 , 93 Marriage before puberty, II 3 0 9 M o r a l precepts, I 2 1 , 2 2 8 M u r d e r , false w i t n e s s , I 8 7 , 8 9 , 9 5 Nasi o f c o u r t , I 1 0 2 , 1 0 5 , 1 2 7 N e w Y e a r / S a b b a t h blessings, I I 5 2 Oral transmission and tradition, III 1 6 1 P r o p e r t y , r e d e m p t i o n of, I 2 2 7 Red-heifer-offering, I 2 5 - 6 Sabbath practices, II 1 3 0 - 3 1 Simeon b. Gamaliel, 1 3 7 9 - 8 0 , 383-85 Simeon b. Shetah traditions, I 1 3 7 Stool, baking t r o u g h , II 2 6 4 Sukkab, I I 1 5 0 - 5 1 Temple o f Onias, I 3 6 Tithes, II 9 6 , 9 8 , 1 1 3 - 1 5 Trespass and b u rn t offering, I 2 6 1 T r o u g h , mixing m o r t a r , II 2 6 3 T u b e , insusceptible, II 2 6 2 , 2 6 4 Unclean h o l y things, II 1 3 - 4 , 3 4 5 V e r i f i c a t i o n s , III 2 0 2 , 2 1 0 - 1 1 , 2 1 3 , 215-18, 226, 231-33

N E U S N E R , The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 7 0 , III

27

414

INDICES

Vessels u n d e r w a t e r s p o u t , II 2 9 3 94 V i n e y a r d crops, II 6 7 , 7 1 W a t e r in t r o u g h , I I 3 1 6 Zab, Pharisaic e a t i n g w i t h o u t s i d e r , II 2 1 7 M e n a h e m , 1 2 0 ; III 1 8 9 F o r m s , III 1 0 8 , 3 0 3 , 3 0 6 - 0 7 , 3 1 2 , 3 3 7 Hands unclean, I 3 1 7 Lay on hands, I 1 1 - 3 Went forth, I 184-85 Menahem b. Judah, I 1 8 5 M e n a h e m the Essene, I 1 8 5 M e n a s s e h , R., I 1 9 7 - 9 8 Mendelsohn, S., I l l 3 3 8 , 3 6 6 - 6 7 M e n s t r a t i o n , II 3 0 1 - 0 7 , 3 1 0 , 3 5 3 ; r e ­ troactive uncleanness, I 3 0 3 - 0 8 , 315, 326-27, 330-31, 333 Mesharsheya, R., I 3 3 M e t a l w a r e unclean, I 1 0 4 , 1 1 0 , 1 1 8 - 2 1 , 128-30 Michel, A . , I l l 3 2 7 , 3 6 4 M i e l z i n e r , M o s e s , III 3 2 5 M i g r a t i o n o f Hillel, I 2 6 6 - 6 7 , 2 7 8 - 7 9 M i l i k , J . T., I l l 7 5 Miriam, I 100, 102, 1 3 2 Mistaken assumption, 1 2 0 8 - 1 2 , 3 5 0 M o a b , III 1 7 0 , 2 7 7 - 7 8 Levirate marriage, II 1 9 4 Tithes, II 1 0 7 - 0 8 Modi'im, I 1 0 8 M o n t e t , E d u a r d , III 3 2 9 , 3 6 4 - 6 5 M o o r e , G e o r g e F o o t , III 3 2 3 - 2 4 , 3 2 9 , 335, 349, 364 Moses, I 59 M o r a l precepts, I 1 5 , 1 9 - 2 0 Mount Gerizim, I 32-3 M o w i n c k e l , III 1 5 6 M u f f s , Y o c h a n a n , III 3 0 2 M u r d e r , circumstantial evidence, I 8 6 9, 9 4 - 9 5 ; collection v o w s , II 2 1 2 14, 350 M u s t a r d strainer, II 2 6 2 , 3 5 2 M y s t e r i e s , B o o k of, III 7 7

N N a b o n i d u s , P r a y e r of, I I I 7 7 Naftal, A b r a h a m M o s h e , III 3 5 8 , 3 6 5 N a h m a n , R., A n i m a l s a n d b i r d s f o r sacrifice, I 1 5 0 Grapes, uncleanness, I 3 2 0

Holy Spirit, worthiness, I 2 6 2 I n t e r e s t in k i n d , I 2 7 2 N a h m a n b . Isaac, R . , I 4 1 4 Cleanness, I 7 1 Y a n n a i and Pharisees, I 1 0 8 N a h u m o f G i m z u , II 2 2 ; III 9 8 N a h u m t h e M e d e , I 4 1 3 - 1 4 ; III 1 1 2 , 193 Gamaliel, I 3 5 7 Hillel-Shammai narratives, III 3 2 - 3 Legal traditions, III 1 4 Nazirite v o w s , II 2 2 4 Nahum the Scribe, I 3 4 4 , 4 1 5 F o r m s , III 9 5 N a i l s , articles m a d e f r o m , I I 2 5 4 , 3 5 1 N a q d i m o n b . G o r i o n , III 2 7 6 Nasi o f c o u r t J u d a h b. Tabbai, I 9 9 - 1 0 0 , 1 0 2 , 1 0 5 , 118-19, 127-28 S i m e o n b. Shetah, I 9 9 , 1 0 2 , 1 1 0 , 118-19, 127-28, 141 N a t h a n , R . , I 8 ; I I 2 0 6 ; III 1 8 5 B e t r o t h a l , a g e n t as w i t n e s s , I I 2 3 3 - 3 4 Demai a n d s w e e t o i l , I I 6 5 Hananiah Prefect o f the Priests, I 4 0 1 Nazirite v o w s , II 2 1 5 - 1 6 Verifications, III 2 1 9 - 2 0 , 2 3 2 - 3 3 V o w s o f g i r l a n n u l l e d , II 2 1 4 Nathan b. Y o s i , R., II 2 6 1 Nathan the Babylonian, I 2 7 4 Nau, F., I l l 1 5 4 - 5 5 Nazirites, I 1 4 9 G u i l t offering, I 2 4 - 6 , 2 9 - 3 0 , 3 4 , 4 0 , 42-6 Simeon b. Shetah and Y a n n a i the K i n g , I 96-9', 1 1 2 , 1 1 4 , 1 1 6 - 1 7 , 120-21, 134-37 S u b s t i t u t e l a n g u a g e , II 2 1 5 , 3 5 0 V o w s , II 2 1 5 - 2 6 , 3 3 4 , 3 5 0 Nebuzaradan, I 1 5 0 N e h e m i a h , III 2 8 9 Horse and slave for p o o r man, I 2 7 1 Nehemiah of Bet Deli Gamaliel, I 3 5 4 , 3 6 8 Verifications, III 2 0 5 , 2 1 0 W o m a n remarrying, I 348-50 Nero, I 397 N e w b u r g h , C h a r l e s , III 3 3 6 N e w Y e a r / S a b b a t h blessings, II 4 9 , 3 4 8 N e w Y e a r , T r e e s a n d S a b b a t h , II 1 8 1 82, 350 N i c o d e m u s , III 2 4 6 N i c o l a u s , III 3 5 1 - 5 2

INDICES

415

Nielsen, Eduard, III 1 5 6 - 5 7 j Plots s o w n w i t h grain, II 5 4 - 5 , 3 4 6 N i p p u r , magical b o w l s , I 8 2 ; III 3 1 0 Simeon b. Gamaliel, I 3 7 8 , 3 8 2 Nisibis, I 2 4 2 , 3 9 3 Pearl g i v e n Temple, I 7 3 - 6 ; r e t u r n e d , Nittai the A r b e l i t e , III 5 7 , 2 4 8 , 2 5 2 I 1 1 1 , 120-21 Circumstantial evidence, I 8 8 | Peat, c o o l o v e n , II 2 6 0 - 6 1 , 3 5 2 Decrees, I 1 4 Pentecost, slaughter w h e n Friday, II F o r m s , III 3 0 3 , 3 0 6 - 0 7 , 3 1 0 185-86, 350 Lay on hands, I 1 1 P e t e r , III 8 7 - 8 Magical bowls, I 82 P h i l o , I 4 ; III 1 7 5 - 7 6 , 1 7 8 - 7 9 , 3 2 5 , M o r a l precepts, I 1 6 , 2 0 , 2 2 354, 356 N u m b e r I s r a e l i t e f o r firstling, I I 2 4 6 Pilgrim, festive offering o n Sabbath, II 48, 351 25-6, 345 Nursing mother remarrving, II 3 0 7 , Pinhas b. Y a ' i r , I 3 5 2 , 3 9 5 353 P i r o t , L o u i s , III 3 2 7 N y b e r g , H., I l l 1 5 6 P i s h o n , I I 2 0 0 ; III 3 0 , 1 3 9 , 1 9 6 , 2 7 0 !

O O d e b e r g , H u g o , III 3 6 8 Oesterly, W . O . E., I 2 ; III 3 5 4 O l i v e presses, J e r u s a l e m w a l l , I I 1 1 0 13, 250, 348 O l i v e s , cleanness, I I 1 5 5 - 5 7 , 2 8 9 - 9 0 , . 2 9 2 , 3 2 4 , 3 5 2 - 5 3 ; sale t o associates, II 6 4 - 5 , 3 4 6
P Papa, R., I 4 1 3 - 1 4 Alexander the Great, I 33 Cleanness, I 7 1 P r o p e r t y , r e d e m p t i o n of, I 2 6 3 , 2 7 3 Parry, M i l m a n , III 1 0 4 - 0 5 , 1 4 9 - 5 1 , 1 5 8 , 162 Paschal l a m b sacrifice, I 2 4 1 Passover overrides Sabbath, I 2 3 1 - 3 5 , 240-42, 245-51, 254-57, 272-77, 286-89, 295-96 Patyra, I 2 4 0 P a u l , t h e A p o s t l e , I 4 ; III 1 5 4 Pautrel, R., I l l 1 5 7 , 1 5 9 Pe'ah, Gamaliel and Simeon, I 3 4 3 - 4 4 , 364-65

Pliny, I 4 Ploughing, Seventh Year, I 195-96, 202-03, 2 1 0 Tree planted before Seventh Y e a r , II 7 2 , 3 4 7 Pollion, 1 5 , 1 5 9 ; III 2 4 2 Pool, cleaning, II 2 9 2 - 9 3 , 2 9 6 , 3 5 3 Poppaea, I 397 Porton, Gary G., Ill 283 Porusch, I, I I 1 6 Prayer o f Azariah, III 73 Prayer o f Manasses, III 7 3 Prayer o f Nabonidus, III 7 7 P r o d u c e in S e v e n t h Y e a r , I I 7 2 - 5 , 3 4 7 Property, litigation, I 1 0 3 , 1 2 0 - 2 1 ; r e ­ demption, 1 2 1 4 - 1 6 , 227, 2 6 3 , 273, 276-77, 282-83, 295 Proselyte, day before Passover, I I 1 4 1 42, 1 4 5 , 349 Prostrations, I 403, 4 1 2 P r o v e r b s , traditions compared, III 7 0 , 74, 84 Prosbul, I 2 2 - 2 4 , 2 1 7 - 2 0 , 2 4 4 - 4 5 , 2 6 2 63, 276-77, 283-84, 296

Q Qatros, I 3 9 8 Q e s g e l e g e s , III 4 7 Qohelet, III 7 4 Qorah, I 307

R Raba b. Zimuna, I 3 9 5 Rabbah b. A b b u h a , I 3 2 0

416

INDICES

Rabbah b. b. Hana, I 1 6 4 , 1 6 8 A n i m a l s a n d b i r d s f o r sacrifice, 1 1 5 0 Simeon the Just and the priesthood, I 37, 39 R a b b a h b . R. S h e l a , I 3 1 Rabbinovicz, R., I 84-5 Rabbinowitz, A . Z., I l l 355 Rabbinowitz, J . , I 1 1 4 , 1 8 2 Rabin, Batya and Chaim, III 7 5 Rabin, Chaim, III 7 5 - 6 , 3 6 8 ; and Y . Y a d i n , III 7 5 Rabina, I 2 6 4 R a h u l a , W a l p o l a , III 1 5 1 Rain miracle, I 8 9 - 9 2 A b b a Hilqiah, I 1 8 0 - 8 2 Habbakuk, I 1 7 8 Hanan haNehba, I 1 8 2 Honi the Circler, I 1 7 6 - 7 8 Simeon b. Shetah, I 8 9 - 9 0 , 1 0 6 , 1 1 3 , 116-17, 120-21, 130-31, 140 R a m i b. Hana, I 3 6 8 R a p a p o r t , S. Y . , I 6 2 R a v , I 1 4 7 , 3 0 1 , 4 1 6 ; III 1 9 3 , 2 1 0 F o r m s , III 1 1 2 Gamaliel, I 3 9 5 G e n e a l o g i c a l classes, I 2 6 3 Hillel a n d disciples, I 2 6 9 H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 5 4 Joshua b. Gamaliel, I 3 9 6 R a v a , III 1 8 2 Disciples o f Hillel, I 2 6 4 Honi the Circler and Carob tree, I 180, 182 Horse and slave for p o o r man, I 2 7 1 Menahem went forth, I 184-85 Menstration, I 327 Miracles, I 3 1 M o r a l sayings, I 2 5 3 Propertv redemption, I 2 6 3 , 273 Prozbull I 2 6 3 Report, not fearing, I 2 5 3 Y a n n a i and Nazirites, I 1 1 3 Y o h a n a n the H i g h Priest and Y a n n a i the K i n g , I 1 6 3 R a v J u d a h , I 3 0 1 , 4 1 6 ; III 1 9 3 F o r m s , III 1 1 2 Gamaliel, I 3 9 5 G e n e a l o g i c a l classes, I 2 6 3 Grapeclusters, I 62, 7 1 , 77-8 Hands unclean, I 3 1 5 H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 5 4 I n t e r e s t in k i n d , I 2 7 2 J o s h u a b. Gamaliel, I 3 9 6

Marriage contract, I 1 0 6 - 0 7 , 1 2 9 Passover overrides Sabbath, I 2 5 6 School attendance, I 1 1 1 Shammai, I 1 9 8 Y o h a n a n t h e H i g h Priest a n d T e m p l e rites, I 1 6 5 - 6 6 , 1 7 1 Rebecca, I 2 2 0 Red-heifer-offering, 1 1 6 1 , 1 6 6 - 6 7 , 1 7 2 73 Simeon the Just, I 2 5 - 6 , 2 8 - 9 , 4 0 - 3 , 47-9, 57 Red Sea, splitting, I 1 4 2 - 4 3 , 1 5 2 - 5 3 , 155, 159 Reicke, Bo., I l l 3 6 8 Rfiyyah o f f e r i n g , I I 1 8 3 - 8 7 , 3 5 0 Report, not fearing, 1 2 4 3 , 2 5 3 , 2 7 8 - 7 9 , 293-94, 297 Resh Laqish H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 6 1 - 2 Slave murdered, I 1 1 5 Torah restored, I 2 7 0 Ritual bath, I 1 4 3 - 4 6 , 1 5 2 - 5 8 R i v k i n , E l l i s , I 2 - 5 ; III 3 2 7 , 3 5 8 R o s e n t h a l , E . I. J . , I 2 R o b e r t , A n d r e , III 3 2 7 R o o f split, II 2 7 1 - 7 3 , 2 8 5 , 3 5 2 Rossler, Dietrich, III 3 6 8 R o w l e y , H . H., I l l 1 5 6 R u t h , B o o k of, I I I 7 2

S Sabbath, II 3 2 5 Festive offering, II 2 5 - 6 , 3 4 5 Finishing w o r k before, II 1 0 - 1 , 3 4 8 Hillel a n d S h a m m a i , 1 3 2 4 - 2 5 , 3 3 0 - 3 1 Practices, II 1 2 5 - 3 4 , 1 4 4 - 4 5 , 3 4 8 Sabbath fruit, tithing, II 9 3 , 3 4 7 Shammai and remembrance, I 1 8 5 87, 196-97, 202-05, 208-09 Sacrifice, Birds and animals, I 1 5 0 , 1 5 2 - 5 3 , 158-59 Hillel cites S h e m a ' i a h a n d A b t a l i o n , I 146-47, 150, 152-53, 158-59 Sadducees, I 6 0 - 1 , 6 7 Circumstantial evidence, 1 1 2 5 - 2 6 Grapeclusters, I 67 Opposition t o Pharisees, I 3 V a n q u i s h e d S i m e o n b. Shetah, I 1 1 4 , 117-19, 120-21 Y o h a n a n the H i g h Priest, I 1 6 3 - 6 4 ,

INDICES

S a d o q , R., I 6 0 - 1 166-68, 173-76 C r o w n , p e r i s h i n g f o r use of, I 2 2 7 Gamaliel, I 3 4 1 , 346, 370 H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 6 2 Shammai, I 392 S a l o m e , I 1 0 6 , 1 1 7 ; III 4 9 , 2 4 1 , 2 5 4 , 305, 310, 337, 346 Rain miracle, I 89-90 Sadducees vanquished, I 1 1 7 - 1 9 Simeon b. Shetah, I 1 3 1 , 1 3 7 - 4 1 Y a n n a i and Nazirites, I 1 1 7 S a m a i a s , I 5 , 1 5 9 ; III 2 4 2 Slave murdered, I 1 1 5 Samuel, I 5 7 ; III 1 8 7 , 1 9 6 G e n e a l o g i c a l classes, I 2 6 1 , 2 6 3 Grapeclusters, I 62, 7 1 - 2 , 77-8 Hands unclean, I 3 1 5 Holv Spirit, worthiness, I 238-39, 262 I n t e r e s t in k i n d , I 2 7 2 1 2 0 years, I 2 2 1 Property litigation, I 1 0 3 Prosbul, I 2 6 3 Shammai, I 1 9 8 Simeon the J u s t and G r e e k threats, I 39-40 T r a d i t i o n s c o m p a r e d , III 7 1 S a m u e l b . N a h m a n , III 1 4 5 Samuel the Small, I 2 9 2 - 9 3 , 2 9 6 , 2 9 9 3 0 1 ; III 2 8 4 A g g a d i c t r a d i t i o n s , III 5 1 Holy Spirit, worthiness, I 2 3 8 - 4 0 , 265, 269 Miracles, I 3 1 S a b b a t h , finishing w o r k b e f o r e , II 1 2 3 Traditions c o m p a r e d , III 6 9 Sanders, James A . , I l l 75 Sandmel. Samuel, III 3 3 1 Saul, I 83 Scattered things, gathering, II 1 8 0 - 8 1 , 350 S c h r e c k e n b e r g , H e i n z , III 3 2 4 - 2 5 S c h r e n k , G o t t l o b , III 3 6 8 Schiirer, E., I l l 1 6 4 , 3 2 5 , 3 2 7 - 2 9 , 3 3 5 , 364-65 S c h w a r t z , A d o l f , III 3 3 3 , 3 4 2 S c h w a r t z , F r e d e r i c k C , III 3 4 8 Scroll w r a p p e r s , II 2 5 8 - 5 9 , 3 5 2 Self-abasement, exaltation, I 2 7 5 , 2 7 8 79, 297 S e l l i n g , field in S e v e n t h Y e a r , II 8 0 ,

417

3 4 7 ; p l o u g h i n g heifer in S e v e n t h Y e a r , II 7 6 - 7 , 3 4 7 ; p r o d u c e in S e v e n t h Y e a r , II 7 7 - 8 , 8 1 , 3 4 7 S e n n a c h e r i b , III 1 8 8 Shema'iah and Abtalion descended from, I 150, 152-53, 158-59 Sexual abstentation, II 1 9 8 , 3 5 0 S h a m m a i a n d H o u s e of, 1 2 , 4 - 5 , 2 9 4 - 9 5 A b o r t i o n , II 1 6 - 2 2 , 3 4 4 ; 8 1 s t d a y , II 2 5 1 - 5 3 , 3 3 4 A c c e s s , g i v i n g r i g h t , II 1 3 6 , 3 4 9 A l l e y w a y v a l i d a t e d , II 1 3 5 - 3 6 , 3 4 9 A l u m - c r y s t a l v e s s e l s , II 2 5 9 - 6 0 , 3 5 2 B a c k b o n e and skull, II 2 6 6 - 6 7 , 3 5 2 Backbone overshadows, I 1 9 4 , 200, 202-03, 209 Bailiff, p a y m e n t a c c o r d i n g t o h o u r o f r e m o v a l , II 1 1 - 3 , 3 4 5 Baking o v e n , arched outlet, II 2 6 7 69, 280-84, 329-31, 352 Beams, return stolen beams, II 2 3 4 37, 351 Betrothal, II 2 3 3 , 3 5 1 ; m o n e y f o r , II 3 3 3 B e t w e e n t w o evenings, II 9, 3 4 4 B l e s s i n g s o n e f o r all, II 5 2 - 3 , 3 4 6 B l o o d , gentile w o m a n , II 2 9 9 - 3 0 0 , 3 0 7 - 0 9 , 3 5 3 ; slaughtered animal, c o v e r i n g of, I I 1 6 7 - 6 8 , 3 4 9 ; u n ­ c l e a n , test r a g s , I I 2 9 7 - 9 9 , 3 5 3 Bones, q u a r t e r - ^ , II 2 7 7 - 8 0 , 3 2 7 , 352 Caperbush, II 7 1 , 3 4 7 C h e s t m e a s u r e m e n t s , II 2 5 5 - 5 6 , 2 6 2 , 351 Chicken and cheese o n table, II 2 4 2 45, 351 Children making appearance, II 3 5 6, 3 4 6 Circumcision, II 1 4 - 6 , 3 4 5 , 1 3 2 - 3 3 , 345 Cleanness, I 7 2 - 3 , 7 9 ; II 1 C o r p s e , entrance t o r o o m , II 2 6 9 - 7 0 , 284-85, 352 C o u c h o f m o u r n e r s , II 1 8 2 - 8 3 , 3 5 0 Creation, II 1 8 9 - 9 0 C r o w n , p e r i s h i n g f o r use of, I 2 2 6 C u t t i n g d o w n t r e e s in s e v e n t h y e a r , II 7 5 - 6 , 3 4 7 D a y / w i n e , II 1 4 5 - 4 6 , 3 4 6 D e b a t e s c o n s i d e r e d , III 1 6 - 2 3 Decrees, I 1 3 - 5 Demai a n d s w e e t o i l , I I 6 3 , 6 5 - 6 , 3 4 6 ;

418

INDICES

p r o d u c e , II 1 5 3 - 5 4 , 3 4 9 D i g g i n g u p p r o d u c e in S e v e n t h Y e a r , II 7 6 , 3 4 7 D i s c i p l e o f Hillel, I 2 6 4 , 2 7 0 , 2 7 4 Dispute f o r sake o f heaven, 1 3 0 7 - 0 8 , 330-31, 334-35 D i v o r c e , II 2 3 0 - 3 3 , 3 3 3 ; g r o u n d s f o r , II 3 7 - 9 , 3 4 6 ; a n d p r o p e r t y , II 2 4 8 - 5 0 , 3 5 1 E g g white contracts, I 2 0 0 - 0 3 'Eruv, c o u r t y a r d d i s p o s a l , II 1 3 7 - 4 0 , 349 Festival practices, II 1 5 8 - 7 9 , 3 3 1 - 3 2 , 349 Fifth additional t o p a y m e n t , II 2 5 0 Fleece, I I 3 6 - 7 , 3 4 6 ; g i f t of, I I 2 4 4 - 4 5 F o o d eaten w i t h o n e h a n d , 1 1 9 7 - 9 8 , 202-05, 2 1 0 F o r m s , III 8 9 - 1 0 0 ; III 1 0 6 - 1 9 , 3 0 3 07, 3 1 2 - 1 9 , 3 2 4 , 3 2 8 , 3 3 2 , 3 3 4 , 33740, 343-45, 347, 3 5 1 , 353, 356-58 Fourteenth o f Nisan, w o r k , II 1 4 1 , 349 F r u i t o f field p r e p a r e d , II 2 6 - 3 0 , 3 4 5 Gamaliel, I 341-42, 344-46, 376 G e h e n n a , II 2 3 8 - 3 9 , 3 5 1 G e n t l e n e s s o f Hillel, I 3 2 1 - 2 4 , 3 2 7 - 3 2 G i r d l e , II 2 6 5 - 6 6 , 3 5 2 Grapeclusters, I 68-70 G r a p e s , o f F o u r t h Y e a r V i n e y a r d , II 59-60, 1 1 7 - 1 8 , 3 3 2 - 3 3 , 3 4 6 ; glean­ ings, defective clusters, II 2 3 - 5 , 3 4 5 ; g r a v e a r e a , II 2 7 5 - 7 7 , 2 8 7 , 3 5 2 ; p r e s s i n g , II 2 9 1 , 3 5 2 ; u n ­ cleanness, I 3 1 6 , 3 1 8 - 2 1 , 3 2 7 , 3 3 0 31; 11324,353 G r a v e , bottle plugging, II 2 8 6 - 8 7 , 352 G r a v e area, examine f o r Nazir, II 287-88, 352 Hagigah sacrifices, I I 1 8 3 - 8 7 , 3 5 0 Half-slave, half-free, II 2 2 8 - 3 0 , 3 2 9 , 351 Hallah,. flour paste a n d d u m p l i n g s , I I ' 1 1 8 , 3 4 8 ; l i a b i l i t y f o r loaf, I 3 0 3 07, 312, 3 1 5 , 330-31, 333 Hallel, r e c i t i n g , II 1 4 2 - 4 3 , 3 4 9 H a n d s o n f e s t i v a l sacrifice, I I 1 8 5 - 8 9 ; unclean, 1 3 1 2 , 3 1 4 - 1 8 , 3 3 0 - 3 1 , 3 3 7 ; II 3 2 3 , 3 5 3 Harvest produce through Jerusalem, II 9 9 - 1 0 0 , 1 1 0 , 3 4 8 Heave-offering, I 189-90, 202-03,

2 0 9 ; burning meat, I I 1 4 3 - 4 4 , 3 4 9 ; clean n e u t r a l i z e s u n c l e a n , I I 8 3 - 8 6 , 8 9 - 9 2 , 3 4 7 ; clean a n d unclean m i n g l e d , II 1 1 8 - 2 0 , 3 4 8 ; c r u s h e d olives, II 8 7 - 8 8 , 3 4 7 ; grapes be­ c o m e raisins, I I 8 8 - 9 , 3 4 7 ; o l i v e s instead o f oil, II 8 1 - 2 , 8 6 - 7 , 3 4 7 ; o p e n jars, I I 1 1 6 , 3 4 8 ; p r o p e r measure, II 8 2 - 3 , 3 4 7 ; unclean w i n e , II 9 2 ; o f vetches, II 3 2 7 ; v o w t o robbers, tax collectors, II 2 1 2 - 1 4 , 3 5 0 Hillel debates, I I 1 - 5 H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 3 9 - 3 0 1 Holes, joining place f o r r o d , II 2 7 3 75, 285-86, 352 Holy Spirit, worthiness, I 2 3 8 - 4 0 Husband, death before w a t e r ordeal, II 2 2 6 , 3 5 1 I m m e r s i o n , h o t a n d c o l d , II 2 9 6 , 3 5 3 ; pool drawn water, I 303-07, 312, 315, 330-31, 333 Impatience, I 3 2 1 - 2 4 , 3 2 7 - 3 2 I n t e r c o u r s e , v o w a g a i n s t , II 2 0 7 , 227-28, 334, 350 J o n a t h a n b 'Uzziel, I 1 9 8 - 2 0 0 , 2 0 2 03, 206-07, 2 1 0 Ketuvah e x p o u n d e d , I 2 5 1 Lay on hands, I 1 1 - 3 , 3 0 9 - 1 4 , 3 1 6 , 325-26, 330-31, 335-37 L e a v e n , II 3 4 - 5 , 3 4 6 Legal traditions, III 5-43 L e v i r a t e marriage, II 1 9 0 - 2 0 0 , 2 0 2 07, 333-34, 350 Liability o f sender, I 2 0 1 - 0 4 Lulav, s h a k i n g , I I 1 5 4 - 5 5 Marriage, before puberty, II 3 0 0 - 0 3 , 3 0 9 , 3 5 3 ; c o n t r a c t , I I 2 3 7 - 3 8 ; estate of w o m a n awaiting, I I 2 0 8 - 1 2 , 3 5 0 Meals, II 3 2 5 Menstration, II 3 0 1 - 0 7 , 3 1 0 , 3 5 3 ; retroactive uncleanness, I 3 0 3 - 0 8 , 315, 326-27, 330-31, 333 Metalware unclean, I 1 0 4 , 1 1 0 , 1 2 9 M o r a l precepts, I 1 7 - 2 2 M u s t a r d strainer, II 2 6 2 , 3 5 2 N a i l s , articles m a d e f r o m , I I 2 5 4 N a r r a t i v e s a n a l y z e d , III 2 3 - 3 9 Nazirites, II 2 1 5 - 2 6 , 3 3 4 , 3 5 0 N e w Y e a r / S a b b a t h b l e s s i n g , II 4 9 , 348 N e w Y e a r , trees and Sabbath, I I 1 8 1 82, 350

INDICES

N u m b e r Israelite f o r firstling, I I 2 4 6 48, 351 Nursing m o t h e r remarrying, II 3 0 7 , 353 O l i v e s , c l e a n n e s s , I I 1 5 5 - 5 7 ; presses at J e r u s a l e m w a l l , II 1 1 0 - 1 3 , 2 5 0 , 3 4 8 ; sale t o associate, I I 5 4 - 5 5 , 3 4 6 ; unclean, II 2 8 9 - 9 0 , 2 9 2 , 3 2 4 , 352-53 O t h e r Pharisees, I 3 8 9 - 9 2 Pe*ah, p l o t s s o w n w i t h g r a i n , I I 5 4 - 5 , 346 Peat, cool o v e n , II 2 6 0 - 6 1 , 3 5 2 Pentecost, slaughter w h e n Friday, II 185-86, 350 Phylacteries o f grandfather, I 1 8 8 89, 202-03 Ploughing, in Seventh Y e a r , I 1 9 5 9 6 , 2 0 2 - 0 3 , 2 1 0 ; t r e e p l a n t e d field before Seventh Year, II 7 2 , 3 4 7 Pool, cleaning, II 2 9 2 - 9 3 , 2 9 6 , 3 5 3 P r o d u c e o f p r e p a r e d field i n s e v e n t h year, II 7 2 - 5 , 3 4 7 Proselyte, day before Passover, I 141.42, 145, 349 Re*iyyah-ofetmg, I 183-87, 350 R o o f split, I I 2 7 1 - 7 3 , 2 8 5 , 3 5 2 S a b b a t h , II 3 2 5 ; f e s t i v e o f f e r i n g , I I 2 5 - 6 , 3 4 5 ; finishing w o r k b e f o r e , II 1 0 - 1 , 1 2 0 - 2 5 , 1 3 4 , 3 4 8 ; a n d Hillel, I 3 2 4 - 2 5 , 3 3 0 - 3 1 ; practices, II 1 2 4 - 3 4 , 1 4 4 - 4 5 , 3 4 8 ; r e m e m ­ brance, I 185-87, 196-97, 202-05, 208-09 Sale o f p r o d u c e f o r p r o d u c e , II 8 1 , 347 Scattered things, gathering, II 1 8 0 81, 350 S c r o l l w r a p p e r s , II 2 5 8 - 5 9 , 3 5 2 S e l l i n g field i n S e v e n t h Y e a r , I I 8 0 , 3 4 7 ; p l o u g h i n g heifer in S e v e n t h Y e a r , I I 7 6 - 7 , 3 4 7 ; p r o d u c e in S e v e n t h Y e a r , II 7 7 - 8 , 3 4 7 Sheaves, II 5 5 - 8 , 6 0 - 3 , 3 3 2 , 3 4 6 S h e e t , i n s u s c e p t i b l e , II 2 5 6 - 5 7 , 3 5 1 Sterna*, r e c i t i n g , I I 3 4 , 3 9 , 4 1 - 2 , 4 8 - 9 , 346 S h o o t o v e r stone, II 7 1 - 2 , 3 4 7 S h o v e l w i t h o u t blade, II 2 6 1 , 3 5 2 S i m e o n a n d Hillel, I 3 3 0 - 3 1 Simeon b. Gamaliel, I 3 7 7 , 3 8 0 , 3 8 7 S i n - o f f e r i n g , II 1 4 7 - 4 8 , 3 4 9 ; s p r i n k ­ les, I I 2 3 9 - 4 2 , 2 8 8 , 3 5 1

419

S i p h o n in t e n t , I I 2 5 3 - 5 4 , 3 5 1 Sisit, s t r a n d s of, I I 3 0 - 3 , 3 3 4 , 3 4 4 Slaughter w i t h hand-sickle, I I 2 4 2 - 4 5 , 351 Slave murdered, I 1 1 5 S t e a l i n g , liability f o r , I I 7 - 8 , 3 4 4 S t o o l , fixed t o b a k i n g t r o u g h , I I 2 5 7 58, 264-65, 328, 352 Stool, unclean, I 1 9 4 - 9 5 , 2 0 2 - 0 3 Sukkah, II 1 5 0 - 5 3 , 1 5 7 - 5 8 , 3 4 9 Sukkah f o r i n f a n t , 1 1 9 3 - 9 4 , 2 0 0 , 2 0 2 03, 2 1 0 Tannaitic M i d r a s h i m , II 6 - 4 0 Tavshilin, II 1 7 9 - 8 0 , 3 4 9 Tefillin, i n s p e c t i o n , I I 6 - 7 , 3 4 5 ; o f grand father, I 2 6 5 - 6 6 Tevul-yom, c o n n e c t i v e , II 3 2 2 - 2 3 , 3 5 3 Tithe's, c h a n g i n g sela, I 1 9 0 - 9 1 , 1 9 6 , 2 0 2 - 0 3 , 2 0 9 , 3 2 7 ; demai, s e p a r a t e tithes, II 1 1 6 - 1 7 , 3 4 8 ; fenugreek, II 9 5 - 9 9 , 1 0 8 - 1 0 , 3 4 8 ; f o o d for t i t h e s , II 6 3 - 4 , 3 4 4 ; l i a b i l i t y f o r , I 2 9 9 - 3 0 0 ; Sabbath fruit, II 9 3 , 3 3 4 , 3 4 7 ; Second Tithes, II 1 0 0 - 0 8 , 1 4 8 - 4 9 , 3 4 5 , 3 4 8 ; sheaves, II 5 5 - 8 , 6 0 - 3 , 3 4 6 ; sifting b y h a n d , I I 9 4 - 5 , 3 4 7 ; tithing pods, II 7 9 - 8 0 , 3 4 7 Three sayings, I 2 0 2 - 0 3 T o m b v a u l t , II 2 7 5 , 3 5 2 Traditions compared, III 6 8 - 8 9 Tree, w a t e r f r o m shaking, II 3 1 0 - 1 6 , 353 T r e s p a s s , II 2 3 5 - 3 7 T r o u g h , mixing mortar, II 2 5 6 , 2 6 3 , 351 T r o w e l shaft, I I 2 5 9 , 2 6 6 , 3 5 2 T u b e , i n s u s c e p t i b l e , II 2 5 4 - 5 5 , 2 6 1 64, 351-52 Unclean bloods, II 22-23, 3 4 5 Uncleanness, and egg, 1 1 9 1 - 9 3 , 2 0 2 03 U n c l e a n h o l y t h i n g s , II 1 3 - 4 , 3 4 5 U n c l e a n n e s s , II 4 3 - 8 , 5 0 - 5 , 3 3 5 , 3 4 6 V a t unclean, II 8 7 , 3 4 7 Verifications, III 1 9 9 - 2 3 8 V e s s e l s , i m m e r s i o n in r a i n - s t r e a m , II 2 9 4 - 9 7 , 3 5 3 ; u n d e r w a t e r s p o u t , I I 2 9 3 - 9 4 , 3 5 3 ; w i t h 'am ha*ares, I I 291-92, 353 V i n e y a r d crops, II 6 6 - 7 1 , 3 4 6 - 4 7 V o w o f girl, annulment, II 2 1 4 - 1 5 , 350 V o w s t o t a x c o l l e c t o r , II 3 2 5 - 2 6

420

INDICES

W a t e r leaks i n t o t r o u g h , II 3 1 3 - 1 4 , 316, 353 W a t e r i n g p l a n t s in S e v e n t h Y e a r , I I 78-9, 347 W e a s e l , II 7 1 , 3 4 7 W i n e - v a u l t s e a r c h , II 1 4 0 - 4 1 , 3 4 9 W o m a n testifies t o d e a t h o f h u s b a n d , II 2 0 0 - 0 2 , 3 2 8 - 2 9 , 3 5 0 Wrappers, garments and purple w o o l , II 2 5 8 , 2 6 5 , 3 5 2 Z ^ - s t a t e , ambiguity, II 3 1 6 - 2 1 , 3 5 3 Shavu a, Kalba, I 275 Sheaves, II 5 5 - 8 , 3 3 2 , 3 4 6 Shebna', III 6 7 , 1 1 0 , 1 9 0 A g g a d i c traditions, III 5 2 , 5 5 , 6 4 , 6 7 ; (

a n d Hillel, I 2 7 1 - 7 2 , 2 7 8 - 7 9 , 2 9 7 , 393 Sheet, insusceptible, II 2 5 6 - 5 7 , 3 5 1 S h e l o m s u , Q u e e n ; see S a l o m e Shema\ r e c i t i n g , II 3 4 , 3 9 , 4 1 - 2 , 4 8 - 9 , 346 S h e m a ' i a h , I 2 8 9 , 2 9 6 , 2 9 9 ; III 1 8 8 A g g a d i c t r a d i t i o n s , III 4 4 , 5 1 - 2 , 5 7 , 6 2 B i r d s a n d a n i m a l s f o r sacrifice, 1 1 5 0 , 152-53, 158-59 Bitter water and adultress, I 1 4 4 - 4 6 , 151-53, 157-59 F o r m s , III 9 1 - 2 , 9 8 - 9 , 3 0 3 , 3 0 6 - 0 7 , 311, 328, 341, 343, 347, 351 H i l l e l as s t u d e n t , I 1 4 8 - 4 9 , 1 5 2 - 5 3 Hillel quoted, I 1 4 6 - 4 7 , 1 5 0 , 1 5 2 - 5 3 , 158-59 H i l l e l - S h a m m a i n a r r a t i v e s , III 2 8 , 3 1 H i l l e l s t u d i e d as p o o r m a n , I 2 5 8 - 5 9 History o f traditions, III 2 4 0 , 2 5 5 59, 290

! | ! i i i !

Terumah, e a t i n g , I 1 5 1 - 5 3 , 1 5 8 - 5 9 Testimonies, III 1 5 - 6 Verifications, III 2 1 1 Yosi quoting, I 1 5 1 - 5 3 , 158-59 Shephatiah b. A b i t a l , I 2 7 5 Shime'i, I 3 6 , 1 8 2 Shime'on b. Y o h a i R., I 1 4 2 , 1 5 5 Shimi b. A s h i , I 2 6 3 , 2 7 3 S h o o t o v e r s t o n e , II 7 1 - 2 , 3 4 7 S h o v e l w i t h o u t b l a d e , II 2 6 1 , 3 5 2 S i b y l l i n e O r a c l e s , III 7 3 Silberman, L o u H., I l l 7 5 Simeon, I 69 B l o o d , g e n t i l e w o m a n , II 3 0 8 Cleanness, I 7 1 Demai a n d s w e e t o i l , II 6 6 Festival practices, II 1 7 3 G a m a l i e l , r e pe'ah, I 3 4 3 - 4 4 , 3 6 4 - 6 5 G i r d l e , II 2 6 5 Hands, unclean, I 3 1 7 - 1 8 ; II 3 2 3 H e a v e offering, II 1 4 4 Hillel a n d S h a m m a i , I 3 3 0 - 3 1 ; d e ­ b a t e s , III 2 2 - 3 Holy Spirit, worthiness, I 2 3 9 L e v i r a t e m a r r i a g e , II 2 0 4 , 2 0 6 Nazirite and guilt offering, I 3 0 , 4 0 N e w Y e a r o f t r e e s , II 1 8 1 O l i v e s , u n c l e a n , II 2 8 9 - 9 0 , 2 9 2 Property, redemption, I 2 2 7 S a b b a t h p r a c t i c e s , II 1 4 4 Sin offering, II 1 4 8 Tefillin o f g r a n d f a t h e r , I 2 6 6 T u b e , insusceptible, II 2 5 4

Simeon II, I 3 1 8 Simeon b. 'Azzai, I 4 1 4 S i m e o n b. Eleazar, R., Alum-crystal vessels, II 2 6 0 Circumcision rites, II 1 4 - 6 , 3 4 5 C o u c h o f m o u r n e r , II 1 8 3 D i v o r c e , II 2 3 2 - 3 3 , 2 4 9 F e s t i v a l p r a c t i c e s , II 1 6 8 - 6 9 ! S c a t t e r e d t h i n g s , g a t h e r i n g , II 1 8 0 | 81

Immersion pool, I 143-46, 152-58 Insults f r o m high priests, I 1 4 9 - 5 0 , 152-53, 159 J u d a h b . D o r t a i criticizes, I 1 4 7 - 4 8 , 152-53, 158-59, 183 L a y on hands, I 1 1 - 3 M i g r a t i o n o f Hillel, I 2 6 6 - 6 7 M o r a l precepts, I 1 7 , 2 0 , 2 2 ! Second Tithes, II 1 0 7 O r a l t r a d i t i o n s , III 1 6 8 j Verifications, III 2 2 0 - 2 2 Passover overrides Sabbath, I 2 3 3 Simeon b. Gamaliel, I 6, 6 9 , 2 9 4 , 3 5 8 , 3 7 7 - 8 8 , 3 9 6 ; III 3 3 , 6 7 , 1 8 0 , 1 8 2 35, 245-46, 248-51, 255 83, 191-92, 194-95 Prosbul, I 2 1 9 A g g a d i c traditions, III 4 6 , 5 3 - 5 , Sennacherib descended f r o m , I 1 5 0 , 58-9, 63 152-53, 158-59 B e a m s , stolen b e a m s r e t u r n e d , II 2 3 4 Slave murdered, I 1 1 5 Blessed pretty gentile w o m a n , I 3 8 4 S p l i t t i n g R e d Sea, I 1 4 2 - 4 3 , 1 5 2 - 5 3 , "Come to my house", I 2 3 6 155, 159

INDICES

C r o w n , p e r i s h i n g f o r use of, I 2 2 6 Decrees, I 1 4 - 5 'Eruv, c o u r t y a r d disposal, I I 1 3 7 - 3 8 Festival practices, II 1 6 4 , 1 7 3 F o o d eaten w i t h o n e h a n d , I 1 9 8 , 204

Demai a n d s w e e t o i l , I I 6 6 G i r d l e , II 2 6 5 Harvest produce through Jerusalem, II 1 0 0 , 1 1 0 O l i v e presses, I I 1 1 1 - 1 2 Sin offering, II 2 8 8 V e r i f i c a t i o n s , III 2 1 1 , 2 1 4 Simeon b. Laqish, R., I l l 1 4 5 Simeon b. Leazar, F e s t i v a l practices, I I 1 7 2 - 7 3 , 1 7 5 - 7 7 Nazirite v o w s , II 2 2 2 Re'iyyah a n d Hagigah-oGering, II 1 8 6 S a b b a t h p racti ces, I I 1 3 2 - 3 3 Tavshilin, I I 1 7 9 - 8 0 T i t h e s , c h a n g i n g sela, I 1 9 6 ; S e c o n d

F o r m s , III 9 1 , 9 3 , 9 7 , 9 9 , 1 1 1 , 1 1 7 , 301, 303, 306, 314-15, 328, 341, 343, 355 Fourteenth o f Nisan, w o r k , II 1 4 1 G r a p e s , F o u r t h Y e a r v i n e y a r d , II 117-18 H i l l e l - S h a m m a i debates, I I 4 ; n a r ­ ratives, III 2 5 , 3 3 - 5 History o f traditions, III 2 5 8 , 2 6 6 , 269, 272-81, 283, 291 Holy Spirit, worthiness, I 2 3 9 H o w h e g a v e Pe'ah, I 3 7 8 , 3 8 2 I n t e r c o u r s e , v o w against, I I 2 2 8 I n t e r e s t in k i n d , I 2 2 4 Juggled, I 381-86 Letters, I 3 7 8 - 7 9 , 3 8 2 L e v i r a t e marriage, II 2 0 3 L o w e r e d price o f doves, I 3 7 7 , 3 8 0 82, 384 M a r r i a g e , II 3 0 9 M o r a l precepts, I 1 7 - 8 , 2 0 - 2 N o n - b e l i e v e r in 'eruv, 1 3 7 9 - 8 0 , 3 8 2 - 8 4 O r a l t r a n s m i s s i o n a n d t r a d i t i o n , III 153, 169, 178 Passover overrides Sabbath, I 2 7 3 Pool, cleaning, II 2 9 3 , 2 9 6 S a b b a t h , finishing w o r k b e f o r e , II 1 2 1 , 1 2 4 ; prac t i c e s , I I 1 3 0 , 1 3 3 S i l e n c e is g o o d , I 3 8 2 S o n gave pearl, I 73-6 Tefillin o f g r a n d f a t h e r , I 2 6 5 - 6 6 T i t h e s , sifting b y h a n d , I I 9 4 - 5 T i t h i n g p o d s , II 7 9 V e r i f i c a t i o n s , III 2 0 3 , 2 1 0 , 2 1 5 - 1 6 , 218-19, 221, 225, 228, 231-33 V i n e y a r d crops, II 7 2 Simeon b. Gamaliel II, I 2 9 4 Holy Spirit, worthiness, I 240 Passover overrides Sabbath, I 2 7 3 Simeon b. Gode'a F o r m s , III 1 1 1 Gamaliel, I 359-60, 374 T e s t i m o n i e s , III 1 5 - 6 V e r i f i c a t i o n s , III 2 0 2 S i m e o n b . Halafta, III 3 5 5 S i m e o n b . J u d a h , R., B l o o d , g e n t i l e w o m a n , II 3 0 8

421

T i t h e s u n c l e a n , I I 1 1 3 - 1 5 ; sifting, II 9 4 - 5 Simeon b. Netanel, III 3 0 , 1 9 2 F o r m s , III 1 1 1 Gamaliel, I 374-75 Married daughter o f Gamaliel, I 358-59, 366-67 Simeon b. Shetah, I 5, 59, 2 9 8 ; III 6 8 , 183, 187-88 A g g a d i c t r a d i t i o n s , III 4 4 - 5 , 4 9 - 5 0 , 57, 62, 66 Ashqelon witches, I 89-93, 1 0 0 - 0 3 ,

| j

115-16,120-21, 128,131-33, 141 Circumstantial evidence, 1 8 6 - 9 , 9 4 - 5 , 105, 109, 1 1 1 , 118-19, 122-27 Cleanness, I 6 9 , 7 2 - 3 , 79 Decrees, I 1 3 - 4 F o r m s , III 9 1 , 9 4 - 5 , 9 7 - 8 , 1 0 7 - 0 8 , 116, 303-07, 310-11, 324, 329, 337, 339, 3 4 1 , 343, 346, 349, 355 H a n d s o n sacrifice, I 1 1 - 3 , 7 0 , 9 3 , 118-19 Hands unclean, I 3 1 5 Hillel-Shammai narratives, III 2 6 , 2 8 , 36, 38 H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , II 2 4 0 , 2 4 3 , 248-49, 252-56, 262, 281, 284, 290 Honi the Circler rebuked, 1 9 1 - 2 , 1 0 3 -

| j ! ! | j |

04, 1 1 3 , 120-21, 133-34, 176-77 Jesus driven away, I 83, 85 J o s h u a called b a c k f r o m E g y p t , I 120-21 M a n c r u s h e d in T e m p l e , I 2 5 4 Marriage contract, I 93-4, 1 0 4 , 1 0 6 , 120-21, 141 M e t a l w a r e unclean, I 1 0 4 , 1 1 0 , 1 1 8 21, 128-30 Miracles, I 3 1

422

INDICES

M o r a l precepts, I 1 6 , 2 0 Nasi o f c o u r t , I 9 9 , 1 0 2 , 1 1 0 , 1 1 8 - 1 9 , 127-28, 141 Nazirites a n d Y a n n a i t h e K i n g , I 9 6 9, 1 1 2 - 1 4 , 1 1 6 - 1 7 , 1 2 0 - 2 1 , 134-37 O r a l t r a n s m i s s i o n a n d t r a d i t i o n , III 153, 167, 175 Passover overrides Sabbath, I 2 1 2 , 242 Pearl returned, I 1 1 1 , 1 2 0 - 2 1 Pharisees a n d Y a n n a i t h e K i n g , I 107-09, 120-21 Property, litigation, I 1 0 3 , 1 2 0 - 2 1 ; redemption, I 2 1 5 - 1 6 Rains, I 89-90, 92, 1 0 6 , 1 1 3 , 1 1 6 - 1 7 , 120-21, 130-31, 140 Sadducees vanquished, 1 1 1 4 , 1 1 7 - 1 9 , 120-21 School attendance, 1 1 1 0 , 1 2 0 - 2 1 , 1 4 1 Shammai considered, I 2 1 1 Shema'iah and Abtalion, I 1 4 9 , 1 5 8 59 Slave murdered, 1 1 1 4 , 1 2 0 - 2 1 T r a d i t i o n s c o m p a r e d , III 7 2 , 8 2 , 8 6 , 88-9 V e r i f i c a t i o n s , III 1 9 9 , 2 1 5 - 1 6 , 2 2 5 , 228 Witchcraft hangings, I 8 9 - 9 3 , 9 8 , 100-03, 115-16, 120-21, 128, 1 3 1 33, 141 W o m a n remarrying, I 349 S i m e o n b . Y o h a i , R., I l l 1 8 6 B e t w e e n t w o evenings, II 9, 3 4 4 C h i l d r e n m a k i n g a p p e a r a n c e , II 9 - 1 0 , 344 H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 7 2 I n t e r e s t in k i n d , I 2 4 4 L e v i r a t e m a r r i a g e , II 1 9 3 M o r a l sayings, I 2 4 4 P r o p e r t y litigation, I 1 0 3 S a b b a t h , finishing w o r k b e f o r e , I I 10-1, 348 V e r i f i c a t i o n s , III 2 1 3 - 1 5 , 2 3 1 - 3 2 S i m e o n b. Z o m a , I 4 1 4 S i m e o n of Mispah, R., I 3 4 3 , 4 1 5 ; III 3 2 , 1 9 1 S i m e o n o f S h e z u r , R., I l l 2 1 2 C h e s t m e a s u r e m e n t s , II 2 5 5 , 2 6 2 T i t h i n g p o d s , II 7 9 Simeon the Just, I 2, 5, 9, 2 4 - 5 9 , 4 0 0 ; III 1 8 0 , 1 8 3 , 1 8 6 - 8 7 A g g a d i c t r a d i t i o n s , III 4 6 , 4 8 - 5 1 , 5 6 8, 66

Alexander the Great, 1 2 5 , 3 2 - 4 , 4 0 - 3 , 48-50, 57, 59 F o r m s , III 9 2 , 9 8 , 1 0 6 , 3 0 1 , 3 0 3 , 3 0 7 08, 335, 353, 358 Forty years priesthood, I 3 7 - 9 , 42-3 G r e e k threats, I 3 9 - 4 0 , 4 2 - 3 Hillel-Shammai narratives, III 3 3 , 3 9 H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 4 0 , 2 5 0 51, 256, 283, 285, 290 Honi the Circler, 1 8 2 H o n o r relinquished, I 83 J o s h u a b. Gamaliel, I 3 9 7 Miracles, I 3 0 - 2 , 3 8 , 4 2 - 3 , 52-6 M o r a l precepts, I 1 6 , 1 8 - 2 0 Nazirite and guilt-offering, I 2 4 - 6 , 29-30, 34, 40, 42-6 O n i a s , T e m p l e of, I 3 5 - 7 , 4 2 - 3 , 5 6 Oral transmission and tradition, III 1 6 1 Red-heifer-offering, I 2 5 - 6 , 2 8 - 9 , 4 0 - 3 , 4 7 - 9 , 5 7 ; III 6 8 T r a d i t i o n s , 1 2 4 - 4 4 ; c o m p a r e d , III 7 1 Verifications, III 2 0 9 , 2 1 5 , 2 3 1 W o r l d on three things, I 2 9 , 4 1 - 4 Y a n n a i and Nazirites, I 9 7 Y o h a n a n the H i g h Priest, 1 1 6 0 , 1 6 4 , 168, 172-73 Y o s i b. Yo*ezer and Y o s i b. Y o h a ­ nan, I 62-3 Simeon the Righteous, I 239 Simeon the Temanite, I 1 4 2 , 4 1 4 Simlai, R., I 7 1 Simon b. Bathyra, I 3 9 2 Simonia, I 378 Simon, Maurice, I 3 9 1 , 393 Simon of Kitron, I 142 S i n - o f f e r i n g , II 1 4 7 - 4 8 , 3 4 9 ; s p r i n k l e s , II 2 3 9 - 4 2 , 2 8 8 , 3 5 1 S i n o r , Denis, III 3 3 0 S i p h o n in t e n t , I I 2 5 3 - 5 4 , 3 5 1 Sisera, I 1 5 0 Sisit, s t r a n d s of, I I 3 0 - 3 , 3 3 4 , 3 4 4 Sisit H a k e s e t , I 2 7 5 Slaughter w i t h handsickle, II 2 4 2 , 2 4 5 , 351 Slave murdered, I 1 1 4 , 120-21 S l o t k i , I. W . , I 1 9 8 , 2 6 0 , 2 7 0 , 2 8 0 ; II 2, 1 5 8 , 2 9 9 , 3 0 4 S m i t h , M o r t o n , 1 1 8 ; III 1 4 7 , 1 6 7 , 2 8 9 , 321, 329-31, 335, 364 S o l o m o n , I 2 2 1 ; III 7 3 - 4 S o n n e , Isaiah, I I I 3 4 1 Stealing, II 7-8, 3 4 4

423

INDICES

S t o o l , fixed t o b a k i n g t r o u g h , I I 2 5 7 - 5 8 , 264-65, 328, 352 Stourdze, M., I l l 327-28, 335, 3 6 4 S t u h l m u e l l e r , C a r r o l l , III 1 5 5 Sukkah, II 1 5 0 - 5 3 , 1 5 7 - 5 8 , 3 4 9 ; eaten in b y Y o h a n a n ben Zakkai, I 3 4 6 , 3 6 2 , 364-65, 3 7 0 ; Shammai and infant, I 1 9 3 - 9 4 , 2 0 0 , 2 0 2 - 0 3 , 2 1 0 S u s a n n a , B o o k of, III 7 3 Synoptic Gospels, I 2 F o r m s , III 9 0 , 9 4 , 9 9 T r a d i t i o n s c o m p a r e d , III 7 8 , 8 0 , 8 2 , 84, 87-9 S z o l d , H., I l l 3 3 7

T Tabi, I 3 4 1 Tacitus, I 4 Tanhuma, I 9 T a r f o n , R., Baking o v e n , arched outlet, II 3 3 1 F o r m s , III 9 1 Hallel, r e c i t i n g , II 1 4 2 - 4 3 Heave offering, I 1 8 9 H i l l e l - S h a m m a i debates, I I 3 - 4 , 3 0 H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 6 6 , 2 7 1 , 277, 279 L e v i r a t e m a r r i a g e , II 2 0 4 - 0 5 N a z i r i t e v o w s , II 2 1 9 - 2 0 , 2 2 5 - 2 6 O r a l t r a d i t i o n s , III 1 7 1 , 1 7 8 P r o d u c e o f p r e p a r e d field, S e v e n t h Y e a r , II 7 5 Shema* r e c i t i n g , I I 4 1 , 4 9 T i t h e s , II 9 5 - 6 , 1 0 7 ; c h a n g i n g

sela,

I 1 9 0 ; II 3 2 8 V e r i f i c a t i o n s , III 2 0 4 - 0 5 , 2 0 8 , 2 2 5 27, 229, 235 Targum o f J o b , I 3 5 5 - 5 6 , 3 6 0 , 3 6 6 - 6 7 , 369, 371 T a y l o r , S o p h i a , III 1 6 4 , 3 2 5 , 3 2 8 T c h e r n o w i t z , C h a i m , III 3 5 3 , 3 6 5 Tefillin, e x a m i n a t i o n , 1 1 8 8 - 8 9 , 2 0 2 - 0 3 ; II 6-7, 3 4 5 ; o f grandfather, I 2 6 5 66, 278-79 T e l A r z a , III 3 2 , 2 7 3 Terumah, I 3 4 5 - 4 6 , 3 6 4 - 6 5 , 1 5 1 - 5 3 , 158-59 T e s t a m e n t s o f T w e l v e P a t r i a r c h s , III 73 Tevul-yom, c o n n e c t i v e , I I 3 2 2 - 2 3 , 3 5 3 T h a c k e r y , H., I l l 2 4 9

Thaddeus of Rome, I 103-04 Theudas, III 3 5 4 Tiberius, I 3 9 7 T i t h i n g , A q i b a , I I 8 0 - 1 , 3 4 7 ; changing sela, I I 9 5 - 9 , 3 2 7 , 3 4 8 ; demai, sepa­ rate tithes, II 1 1 6 - 1 7 , 3 4 8 ; fenu­ greek, II 9 5 - 9 , 1 0 8 - 1 0 , 3 4 8 ; f o o d f o r t h o s e w h o t i t h e , II 6 3 - 4 , 3 4 4 ; liability f o r tithes, I 2 2 9 - 3 0 , 2 4 2 , 2 7 6 - 7 7 , 2 9 5 ; Sabbath fruit, II 9 3 , 3 3 4 , 3 4 7 ; Second Tithes, I I 1 0 1 - 0 8 , 113-16, 148-49, 345, 3 4 8 ; Sham­ mai, I 1 9 0 - 9 1 , 1 9 6 , 1 9 9 , 2 0 2 - 0 3 , 2 0 9 ; sheaves, II 5 5 - 8 , 6 0 - 3 , 3 4 6 ; sifting b y h a n d , II 9 4 - 5 , 3 4 7 ; t i t h i n g p o d s , II 7 9 - 8 0 , 3 4 7 T o b i t , III 7 3 - 4 T o m b - v a u l t , II 2 7 5 , 3 5 2 c

\ ! j j I ; !

Trespass, II 2 3 5 - 3 7 ; and b u r n t offering, I 261, 278-79, 296 T r o u g h , mixing m o r t a r , II 2 5 6 , 2 6 3 , 351 T r o w e l shaft, II 2 5 9 , 2 6 6 , 3 5 2 T u b e , insusceptible, II 2 5 4 - 5 5 , 2 6 1 - 6 4 , 351-52

U
V v a n den Ploeg, J . , I l l 7 5 V a n s i n a , J a n , III 1 5 9 - 6 1 , 1 6 3

424

INDICES

V a t unclean, II 8 7 , 3 4 7 V e r m e s , Geza, III 7 4 Vessels, I m m e r s i o n in r a i n - s t r e a m , I I 2 9 4 - 9 7 , 353 U n d e r waterspout, II 2 9 3 - 9 4 , 3 5 3 W i t h 'am ha'ares, II 2 9 1 - 9 2 , 3 5 3 V i n e y a r d c r o p s , II 6 6 - 7 1 , 3 4 6 - 4 7

W W a c h o l d e r , Ben Zion, III 2 5 3 , 3 5 1 - 5 5 , 365-67 W a t e r leaks i n t o t r o u g h , I I 3 1 3 - 1 4 , 3 1 6 , 3 5 3 ; s h a k i n g f r o m t r e e , II 3 1 0 - 1 3 , 353 W a t e r i n g p l a n t s in S e v e n t h Y e a r , II 78-9, 3 4 7 W e a s e l , II 7 1 , 3 4 7 Weavers, I 143-46, 152-58 W e b e r , M a x , III 3 5 8 , 3 6 6 W e i s s , I. H., I 6 1 , 8 9 , 2 1 3 - 1 5 , 3 4 2 , 3 7 7 7 8 , 4 0 1 ; III 3 2 8 , 3 3 8 , 3 5 7 , 3 6 6 Tannaitic M i d r a s h i m , II 1 1 , 1 3 , 1 5 , 17, 22-3, 25-6 Wellhausen, J . , I l l 320, 326, 365 W e r n b e r g - M o l l e r , P., I l l 7 5 W h e a t p e r stab, I 2 7 3 - 7 4 , 2 7 8 - 7 9 , 2 9 7 Williams, Raymond B., I l l 1 5 1 - 5 2 W i n e v a u l t s e a r c h , II 1 4 0 - 4 1 , 3 4 9 W i s d o m of S o l o m o n , III 7 3 - 4 Witchcraft, 1 8 9 - 9 3 , 9 8 , 1 0 0 - 0 3 , 1 1 5 - 1 6 , 120-21, 128, 131-33, 141 Witnesses Gamaliel, ordinance regarding, I 347-48 Remarriage of w o m a n , testimony, I 343, 348-50, 364-65, 368, 370 Wolfson, Harry A., Ill 321 W o m a n testifies t o d e a t h o f h u s b a n d , II 3 2 8 - 2 9 W o o l f , B e r t r a m Lee, III 7 8 Wrappers, garments and purple w o o l , II 2 5 8 , 2 6 5 , 3 5 2 W r i g h t , G . E r n e s t , III 3 5 9 W r i g h t , H. M . , I l l 1 5 9

Y • Yaddua, I 58 Y a d i n , Y i g a e l , III 7 5 ; a n d C . R a b i n , III 7 5

Yannai, I 73, 83, 159, 183, 3 6 1 , 396; III 9 8 , 1 5 3 , 1 8 3 , 1 8 8 , 3 1 0 - 1 1 A g g a d i c t r a d i t i o n s , III 4 4 , 4 8 - 5 0 , 53-5, 62 B r e a k s w i t h P h a r i s e e s , II 6 6 , 6 8 Hillel f r o m D a v i d , I 2 6 8 Hillel a n d S h a m m a i n a r r a t i v e s , III 36-7 H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 4 0 , 2 5 3 , 255 Nazirites a n d S i m e o n b . S h e t a h , I 96-9,112-14,116-17,120-21,134-37 Pearl returned, I 1 1 2 Pharisees a n d S i m e o n b . S h e t a h , I 107-09,120-21 Sadducees vanquished, I 1 1 7 - 1 9 Simeon b. Shetah, I 9 6 - 9 , 1 0 7 - 0 9 , 112-14, 116-17, 120-21, 131, 13437, 138-40 Slave murdered, I 1 1 4 - 1 5 , 120-21 T r a d i t i o n s , III 7 2 , 7 7 , 8 2 , 8 8 Y o h a n a n the H i g h Priest, I 1 6 3 , 1 7 5 Y a q i m o f S e r u r o t , I 1 8 3 ; III 3 5 , 1 8 7 A g g a d i c t r a d i t i o n s , III 4 8 F o r m s , III 1 0 7 , 3 0 9 , 3 5 3 Death, I 74-7 H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 5 2 Y a v n e h , II 3 - 4 H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 4 1 , 2 4 8 , 251-52, 258-62, 266, 268, 271, 27376, 280-82, 297 Miracles, I 3 1 School and train of traditions, 1 1 5 Simeon the Just, I 2 7 Verifications, III 1 9 9 - 2 0 9 , 2 2 3 - 3 1 Yo'ezer, I 344-45, 364-65 Y o ' e z e r o f the Birah, I 3 9 1 ; III 3 2 , 3 4 , 191 F o r m s , III 9 3 Gamaliel, I 3 4 4 History o f traditions, II 2 6 9 Y o h a n a n , R . , I 1 6 6 ; II 3 ; I I I 3 9 A g g a d i c t r a d i t i o n s , III 4 6 , 5 5 , 6 0 C a r o b tree and H o n i the Circler, I 179-80, 182 H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 5 1 Massah, f o l d i n g t o g e t h e r , I 2 5 7 Oral transmission and tradition, III 145, 170-71 S h a m m a i a n d J o n a t h a n b . 'Uzziel, I 200 Simeon the J u s t and priesthood, I 3 7 , 39

425

INDICES

Students o f Hillel, I 2 6 0 T r a d i t i o n s c o m p a r e d , III 7 0 Verifications, III 2 0 9 , 2 3 7 Y o h a n a n b. Bathyra, I 3 9 2 Y o h a n a n b. G u d g a d a , I 4 1 5 , 4 1 7 - 1 9 ; III 1 9 3 I F o r m s , III 1 1 2 - 1 3 , 1 1 7 I U n c l e a n n e s s , III 2 8 ! Verifications, III 2 1 7 ! Y o h a n a n b . H a H o r a n i , R . , I 3 0 2 ; III j 30, 80 F o r m s , III 9 2 History o f traditions, III 2 6 9 - 7 0 Sukkah, II 1 5 1 - 5 3 , 1 5 7 V e r i f i c a t i o n s , III 2 0 3 Y o h a n a n b. Nappaha, I 2 9 7 , 2 9 9 ; III 1 8 8 Temple rites, I 1 6 7 Witches, I 102-03 Y o h a n a n b . Nazif, I 3 5 5 - 5 6 , 3 6 9 , 3 7 1 Y o h a n a n b. N u r i , I 4 1 8 L e v i r a t e m a r r i a g e , II 2 0 3 , 2 0 5 N a i l s , articles m a d e f r o m , I I 2 5 4 Tevul-yom, c o n n e c t i v e , II 3 2 3 V e r i f i c a t i o n s , III 2 0 8 V i n e y a r d c r o p s , II 7 0 - 2 Y o h a n a n ben Zakkai, I 6, 2 9 4 , 2 9 6 , 2 9 9 - 3 0 1 ; III 1 8 9 , 1 9 2 A d m o n and decisions, I 3 5 0 - 5 1 A g g a d i c t r a d i t i o n s , III 5 1 - 2 Bones unclean, I 1 6 1 - 6 2 Chain of tradition, I 1 4 - 5 "Come to m y house", I 2 3 5 C r o w n , p e r i s h i n g f o r use of, I 2 2 6 D i v o r c e and property, II 2 5 0 F o r m s , III 9 1 , 9 5 - 6 , 1 1 1 , 3 0 6 - 0 7 , 310, 315, 318-19 Fourteenth o f Nisan, w o r k , II 1 4 1 Gamaliel, I 342-43, 346, 349, 358-59, 362, 274-75, 395-96 G r a p e s unclean, I 3 2 0 Hananiah Prefect o f the Priests, I 4 0 5 H i l l e l , I 3 9 2 ; a n d e i g h t y disciples, 1 2 5 2 , 260, 264, 2 6 9 , 2 7 4 ; Shammai debates, I I 3 - 4 ; S h a m m a i n a r r a ­ t i v e s , III 2 5 , 2 9 , 3 1 History o f traditions, III 2 4 0 , 2 5 0 , 259, 262, 272-81, 285 L i v e d 1 2 0 years, I 2 2 0 - 2 1 Marriage contract, I 9 4 Miracles, I 3 1 M o r a l precepts, I 1 9 - 2 2 , 2 4 5 Oral transmission and tradition,

III

161, 163, 169, 172, 178 Passover overrides Sabbath, I 2 4 2 Property redemption, I 2 1 5 - 1 6 Prosbul, I 2 1 9 - 2 0 , 2 2 3 - 2 4 Rain miracle, I 9 2 S e c o n d t i t h e s , II 1 0 7 - 0 8 S h a m m a i a n d J o n a t h a n b . 'Uzziel, I 198-99, 207-08 Shema'iah and Abtalion, I 1 4 4 - 4 5 Simeon b. Gamaliel, 1 3 7 8 - 7 9 , 3 8 6 - 8 7 Students stimulated, I 2 1 6 - 1 7 , 2 4 2 - 4 3 Sukkah, eats in w i t h G a m a l i e l , I 3 4 6 , 362, 364-65, 370 Temples, I 1 6 2 - 6 3 T r a d i t i o n s c o m p a r e d , III 6 8 , 8 1 , 8 6 V e r i f i c a t i o n s , III 1 9 9 , 2 0 9 , 2 2 0 , 2 2 4 25, 228 Yannai and Sadducees, I 1 1 9 Y o h a n a n the H i g h Priest, I 1 6 3 - 6 4 , 173 Y o h a n a n the High Priest, 1 1 6 - 7 6 , 3 6 0 , 3 9 7 ; III 2 7 , 1 8 0 , 1 8 7 - 8 8 A g g a d i c t r a d i t i o n s , III 4 6 , 4 8 , 5 1 , 66-7 Bones unclean, I 1 6 1 - 6 2 , 1 6 6 - 6 7 Cleanness, I 6 4 Confessions abolished, I 1 6 0 - 6 7 , 169-71 D i v i n e n a m e in d o c u m e n t s , I 1 6 6 68, 172 F o r m s , III 9 1 , 1 0 6 , 1 0 8 , 1 1 6 , 3 0 5 , 308-09 Grapecluster, I 63 History o f traditions, III 2 4 0 , 2 5 5 56, 283, 285 Holy Spirit, worthiness, I 2 3 9 Red-heifer-offering, I 2 5 , 4 8 , 1 6 1 , 166-67, 172-73 S a d d u c e e after e i g h t y y e a r s , I 1 6 3 64, 166-68, 173-76 Simeon the Just and priesthood, I 3 9 T r a d i t i o n s c o m p a r e d , III 7 0 V e r i f i c a t i o n s , III 2 0 9 , 2 1 5 , 2 3 1 Y o h a n a n t h e S a n d l a r , R., I 3 0 7 Y o h a n a n the Scribe, I 3 5 6 , 3 6 8 , 3 9 6 Yonah, R . , I 1 4 Cleanness, I 7 2 - 3 , 7 9 Metalware unclean, I 1 1 0 , 1 2 9 Y o s a , R., Gamaliel, I 371 Heave-offering, II 8 7 - 8 Y o s a b . K i f a r , R., I I 7 8 III 2 1 1 , 2 3 1 Y o s a h , R., 1 3 5 5 - 5 6 ; III 3 4

426

INDICES

F e s t i v a l pra ct i ce s , I I 1 7 4 , 1 7 7 - 7 9 H e a v e - o f f e r i n g , II 1 4 3 - 4 4 O l i v e presses, J e r u s a l e m w a l l , I I 111-12 S a b b a t h pra ct i c e s , I I 1 3 3 Y o s a h b. R. J u d a h , R., I 3 5 6 Y o s e f b . Y o h a n a n , R., I 7 7 History o f traditions, III 2 5 1 Y o s e f b . Y o ' e z e r , III 3 5 , 3 8 , 1 8 7 A g g a d i c t r a d i t i o n s , III 4 3 , 5 9 Y o s i , R., I 4 1 5 - 1 6 ; III 6 8 , 1 8 5 , 1 9 4 - 9 5 A d u l t e r y , II 2 2 7 A g g a d i c traditions, III 4 5 , 6 6 Chest measurement, II 2 5 5 C h i c k e n a n d cheese o n t a b l e , I I 2 4 3 , 245 Cleanness, I 7 1 - 3 , 7 9 Decrees, I 1 4 D i s p u t e s f o r sake o f h e a v e n , I 3 0 8 , 311 D i v o r c e a n d p r o p e r t y , II 2 4 9 F o r m s , III 1 1 6 Gamaliel, I 354, 369, 371 Hallah, flour paste a n d d u m p l i n g s , I I 1 1 8 ; l i a b i l i t y f o r loaf, I 3 0 3 H a n a n i a h Prefect o f t h e Priests, I 402, 406 H a n d s u n c l e a n , I 3 1 2 ; II 3 2 3 H e a v e - o f f e r i n g , II 1 0 9 H e i f e r , b u r n i n g , III 2 4 - 5 Honi rebuked, I 4 0 4 Ketuvah e x p o u n d e d , I 2 6 4 Laying of hands, I 93 M e t a l w a r e unclean, I 1 1 0 , 1 2 9 Nazirite v o w s , II 2 2 5 - 2 6 O l i v e presses, J e r u s a l e m w a l l , I I 111-12, 250 O l i v e s u n c l e a n , II 2 8 9 O r a l t r a d i t i o n s , III 1 7 0 Proselyte day before Passover, I I 1 4 2 R o o f split, I I 2 7 1 - 7 3 , 2 8 5 S a b b a t h practices, I I 1 4 4 S e c o n d t i t h e s , II 1 0 0 - 0 2 Shema'iah and Abtalion quoted, I 151-53, 158-59 Sin-offering, II 2 8 8 S t o o l , b a k i n g t r o u g h , II 2 6 4 T e s t i m o n i e s , III 1 6 V e r i f i c a t i o n s , III 2 0 1 , 2 0 3 , 2 1 0 , 2 1 3 14, 218, 231-32, 237 V e s s e l s , i m m e r s i o n in r a i n - s t r e a m , II 2 9 6 ; u n d e r w a t e r s p o u t , II 2 9 3 94

l

W a t e r leaks i n t o t r o u g h , I I 3 1 6 ; shaking tree, II 3 1 1 , 3 1 4 - 1 6 Weasel, II 7 1 , 3 4 7 Y o s i b . R. B u n , R . , I 1 9 9 - 2 0 0 , 2 0 6 - 1 0 ; III 1 8 9 Passover overrides Sabbath, 1 2 4 6 - 4 7 Y o s i b . Halafta, 1 2 1 , 7 0 , 1 4 4 , 1 5 4 , 4 0 7 ; III 1 8 5 - 8 6 History o f traditions, III 2 5 2 , 2 7 3 , 284 I n t e r e s t in k i n d , I 2 2 4 Verifications, III 2 1 0 - 1 4 Weasel, II 7 1 Y o s i b. Hanina, R., I 1 0 0 Ashqelon and witches, I 2 0 2 Oral transmission and tradition, III 1 4 5 Y o s i b. R. J u d a h , R., I l l 1 9 7 , 2 2 2 Gamaliel, I 369 T r o u g h , mixing mortar, II 2 6 3 Y o s i b . Y o ' e z e r , 1 1 8 3 ; III 5 7 Alexandrian wheat unclean, I 8 2 Cleanness, I 6 1 , 6 3 - 6 , 6 8 - 7 5 , 7 9 - 8 1 Death of nephew, I 74-7 Decrees, I 1 3 - 4 F o r m s , III 9 1 - 2 , 9 4 , 1 1 6 , 3 0 3 , 3 0 6 - 0 9 , 312, 316-17, 332, 338, 340, 353 Grapeclusters, I 62-4, 66-8, 7 1 - 2 , 7 4 5, 7 7 - 8 Hands unclean, I 3 1 5 - 1 7 H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 4 0 , 2 4 8 , 251-52, 256, 264, 2 8 1 , 2 8 4 , 290 Lay on hands, I 1 1 , 1 3 Metalware unclean, I 1 0 4 , 1 1 0 , 1 2 8 M o r a l precepts, I 1 6 , 1 8 - 2 2 Testimonies, III 1 5 - 6 Traditions, I 6 1 - 7 7 , 81 Uncleanness, III 2 8 Verifications, III 2 0 1 , 2 2 5 , 2 2 7 - 2 8 Y o h a n a n the H i g h Priest, I 1 6 1 , 1 7 3 Y o s i b. Y o h a n a n , III 5 7 Circumstantial evidence, I 8 8 Decrees, I 1 3 - 4 F o r m s , III 9 2 , 9 4 , 3 0 3 , 3 0 6 - 1 0 , 3 1 2 , 316-17, 332, 338, 340 Grapeclusters, I 62-4, 6 6 - 8 , 7 1 , 74-5, 77-8 Hands unclean, I 3 1 5 - 1 7 H i s t o r y o f t r a d i t i o n s , III 2 4 0 , 2 4 8 , 251, 256, 264, 284, 290 Lay on hands, I 1 1 Metalware unclean, I 1 0 4 , 1 1 0 , 1 2 8 M o r a l precepts, I 1 6 , 1 8 - 2 2

INDICES

427

i Ze'ira b. A b u n a , R., ! Cleanness, I 7 2 - 3 , 7 9 Decrees, I 1 3 i M e t a l w a r e unclean, I 1 1 0 , 1 2 8 Zeitlin, S o l o m o n , III 3 2 8 , 3 3 2 , 3 4 2 - 4 6 , Z 353, 365-67 Zab, P h a r i s a i c e a t i n g w i t h o u t s i d e r , Zekhariah b. A v q i l a s , II 1 3 3 II 1 2 7 - 3 0 , 3 4 8 Zekhariah b. HaQassav R., I 4 1 4 - 1 5 ; Zab-stzte, ambiguity, II 3 1 6 - 1 9 , 3 5 3 III 1 1 2 Z a k k a i , R., I 1 5 1 ; III 1 5 - 6 T e s t i m o n i e s , III 1 6 Zamaris, I 392 Verifications, III 2 0 0 , 2 1 2 Zechariah, I 393 Zekhariah b. Qevutal, I 4 1 4 - 1 5 Zera, R., H o l y Spirit, worthiness, 1 2 6 1 - 6 2 , 2 6 5 Zei'ri, R., Gamaliel, I 395 Grapes unclean, I 3 2 0 G r a p e s unclean, I 3 2 7 Passover overrides Sabbath, I 2 4 6 , Z e r u b b a b e l , III 3 4 6 248 Zimmels, H. J . , I l l 3 3 3 Traditions, I 6 1 - 7 7 , 81 Y u d a n , R., I 3 6 1 , III 1 4 5