Chapter Nine

The External Tractates M.B. Lerner

From the Amoraic period onwards, there is evidence that numerous tractates of tradition literature circulated independently of the recognized literary units, i.e. Mishna, Tosefta, and Tannaic Midrashim. These included the aggadic midrashim, later edited in what we know as the Amoraic collections, and the external or 'minor' tractates which are dealt with here. The fact that these tractates, some of which are certainly not smaller than the everage Tannaic tractate, were not incorporated in the main body of talmudic literature caused them to be referred to as ketanat (i.e. small, minor); 1 taseftat (i.e. supplementary, additional) ,2 or sefarim hitsaniim (i.e. external tractates). 3 Even though they do not seem to have been held in high esteem in Gaonic circles,4 later authorities nevertheless occasionally utilized them for halakhic rulings. 5 From a literary standpoint, it is important to note that most of these tractates are original independent compilations, and that much of their subject matter is not found in any other extant source. On the other hand, there is no denying the fact that the largest of them, A vat de-R. Natan, is a companion text to Masse• khet Avat, following it closely and elaborating upon it. Furthermore, the enigmatic Kalla Rabbati is actually a pseudo-talmudic elaboration of tractates Kalla, Derekh Erets, and Perek Kinyan Tara. There is no consistency in regard to subject matter. A vat de-R. Natan is purely aggadic, while most of the smaller tracts, e.g. Sefer Tara, Mezuza etc., are purely halakhic. Other large tractates, such as Semahat, Safrim and Kalla, are ostensibly halakhic in content, but numerous aggadic teachings and episo• des may also be discerned in them. The tractates comprising derekh erets

1 Harkavy, Responsen, no. 15, pp. 6-7; no. 248, pp. 124-5; Iggeret , 47 (French rec.). 2 , in trod. to Mishne Tara (ed. Lieberman), 9. Individual tractates were thus sometimes referred to as Tosefta, cf. Higger, Semachot, introd., 10; id. 'Ketanot', 92-5. 3 B. T. Ber. 18a, s. v. -,nl:l?; R. Eliezer ben Yoel ha-Levi, Sefer Rabiah (ed. Aptowitzer) 2, 333. R. Asher ben Yehiel, Responsa, ketal III, no. 7. Cf. Higger, Semachot, 11-12; also Harkavy, Responsen, no. 218, p. 103. Note that this appellation is also used to denote mystic (Hekhalot) tracts, see Sefer Rabiah 2, 196; Mahzor Vitry, 655. 4 See sources above, n. 1, also Harkavy, Responsen, no. 380, p. 197. 5 See sources above, n. 3; I. Ratzabi in: Kasher, Tara Shelema 29, 99.

367 THE EXTERNAL TRACfA TES literature are decidedly of ethical content, but here too, one frequently finds an admixture of halakhic and aggadic traditions. The exact dimensions of this literature are also uncertain. No official tabula• tion or complete collection of the various works is extant. A medieval tradition of 'seven minor tractates' apparently included the smallest halakhic tractates but here too, the tractates in this compilation do not seem to have been universally recognized. An alternative tradition of 'nine external tractates' which included Semahot and Kalla, may also be noted. 6 This situation seems to be summed up ironically by the homily on Cant 6:8, ' ... "And damsels without number"- this is the external mishna'. 7 One should therefore not be surprised over the fact that traditional talmudic study has more or less neglected most of these tractates, and that during the course of time, some of them have fallen into oblivion. It is somewhat surprising that no clear-cut criteria for determining the date of these compositions have been offered by ZUNZ and his followers. 8 While A vot de-R. Natan has come to be recognized as an ancient text, bearing very close affinity to the Tannaic period, many of the other tractates have been relegated to the early Gaonic era, i.e. the eight and ninth centuries. 9 A proper approach demands that each ofthese texts be subjected to a searching analysis in order to attempt to define its formative period. Suffice it to say, as a sort of preliminary remark, that many novel conclusions may arise from such an analysis. Owing to the fact that some of these tracts contain halakhic material, they sometimes circulated together with the Talmud. 10 As a matter of fact, three of these tractates, Semahot, Kalla and Sofrim, were printed together with the first edition ofthe Babylonian Talmud, Venice 1523. In the third Venetian printing (1550), three more tractates were added: Derekh Erets Rabba; Derekh Erets Zutta and Avot de-R. Natan. In the subsequent complete Talmud editions, the minor tractates were placed at the end of the fourth Order following Massekhet A vot, since the largest of these tractates, A vot de-R. Natan, relates directly to A vot. The remaining tractates (Kalla Rabbati; Seven Minor Tracts) were added to the Talmud by the publishers of the Romm edition, Wilna 1883. It is most fortunate that all of the minor tractates have been subjected to critical editions, which, in spite of their inadequacies, are vital for scholarly study. SCHECHTER's edition of A vot de-R. Natan (Vienna 1887) was actually the first rabbinic text to be edited on the basis of all existing manuscripts. Special mention should be made of the indefatigable efforts of Michael HIGGER (1898- 1952), who within the course of nine years (1929-1937) published six scholarly

6 R. Jacob Sikily in the Introduction to Yalkut Talmud Tara, see Higger, Semachot, introd. 12. 7 Num. R. 18:21 and parallels, see Higger, Semachot, introd., 9. 8 See Zunz-Albeck, Derashot, 45 and notes. 9 Cf. the remarks of Assaf, Tekufat ha-Geonim, 174. 10 MS. Munich 95 includes the Derekh Erets tractates and Massekhet Kalla. The latter is also part of the talmudic collection Extractiones de Talmud in MS. Paris 16558; see Merchavia, The Church, 293, 418.

368