Lishana 'Aḥarina

Lishana ’Aḥarina

One of the unusual and significant features of tractate Temurah is the appear- ance of material introduced by the phrase lishana ’aḥarina, “alternative textual reading,”1 (literally “a different language;” plural, lishanei ’aḥarinei).2 The text that follows this phrase typically offers an alternative version of part of the Talmudic discussion that appeared preceding it. At first glance, this phenomenon does not seem particularly unique as there are other phrases, such as ’ika de-’amrei, that also introduce an alternative version to immediately preceding material.3 Like material introduced by the phrase lishana ’aḥarina, an alternative version introduced by the phrase ’ika de-’amrei can differ in wording and/or content from the version it parallels.4 In this regard, the phenomenon of lishana ’aḥarina is no different from other such markers. Yet, there is a significant difference between ’ika de-’amrei and lishana ’aḥarina. Material introduced by phrases such as ’ika de-’amrei typically employ the same grammatical and linguistic features as found in the rest of the Talmud. This suggests that material introduced by the phrase ’ika de-’amrei emerged from the same context as the version it mirrors. Within tractate Temurah, however, material introduced by the phrase lishana ’aḥarina not only offers different wording or content, but at times appears to represent a grammatical and linguistic usage that is distinct from that of the base text.5 This perplexing difference suggests that lishanei ’aḥarinei, at least within tractate Temurah, are somehow substantively different from other introductory formulae for parallel versions of Talmudic discussion.6

1 Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods (Ramat-Gan, Israel; Baltimore: Bar Ilan University Press; Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), 627. 2 Uziel Fuchs suggests that this phrase originally derives from oral study and learning (Uziel Fuchs, “Meqomam shel ha-Ge’onim be-Masoret ha-Nusaḥ” (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 2003), 124n6). 3 Indeed, the related (but different) phrase lishana ’aḥarina ’amrei lah has been equated by some with ’ika de-’amrei (Eliezer Shimshon Rosenthal, “Li-Leshonoteha shel Massekhet Temurah,” Tarbiẕ 58, no. 3–4 [1989]: 323). 4 For an example of a lishana ’aḥarina tradition introducing alternative content (as opposed to simply different wording) see BT Temurah 9b and the gloss preserved in the com- mentary attributed to Rabbenu Gershom. 5 Rosenthal, “Li-Leshonoteha shel Massekhet Temurah,” 327–28. 6 While there are some lishanei ’aḥarinei found in the rest of the Talmud, according to E. S. Rosenthal they are fundamentally different from those found in tractate Temurah, as the former do not represent a complete distinct version of the tractate (Rosenthal, 321).

Tractate Temurah’s lishanei ’aḥarinei are not the only place in the Talmud where we encounter this anomaly of unusual grammatical and linguistic features. Five full tractates of the Babylonian Talmud also stand out as recogniz- ably unusual in this regard: Nedarim, Nazir, Me’ilah, Kereitot, and Tamid.7 There have been a number of explanations proffered as to why the language of these tractates diverges from that of the rest of the Talmud. Some have suggested that they reflect a more Palestinian dialect of Jewish Aramaic, implying that the extant versions of these tractates were compiled within Palestinian academies. Others have contended that the differences actually reflect varia- tion within Babylonian Jewish Aramaic, specifically between the Aramaic used in the academies of Sura and Pumbedita. Alternatively, some scholars have suggested a chronological difference to account for the unusual nature of these tractates. Yet, among those who adopt this position, there is disagreement as to whether these tractates should be considered earlier or later than the rest of the BT.8 Overall, while most scholars agree that these tractates are indeed unusual, there is a lack of consensus over how to account for this difference. The fact that the lishanei ’aḥarinei material in tractate Temurah aligns with these unusual tractates while the base text resembles that of the rest of the Talmud is quite perplexing. How are we to understand this unparalleled phenomenon of material that matches most of the Talmud juxtaposed with alternative versions that reflect the anomalous language of the unusual tractates? As we shall see, scholars of rabbinic literature have offered a variety of solutions.

7 See Hermann Leberecht Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, trans. Markus Bockmuehl (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 194–97; Yohanan Breuer, “The Aramaic of the Talmudic Period,” in The Literature of the Sages. Second Part: Midrash and Targum, Liturgy, Poetry, Mysticism, Contracts, Inscriptions, Ancient Science and the Languages of Rabbinic Literature, ed. Shmuel Safrai (Assen; [Philadelphia]: Royal Van Gorcum; Fortress Press, 2006), 615. For a list of some of the unusual terminology in these tractates see Zev Rabinovitz, Sha‘arei Torat Bavel, ed. E. Z. Melamed (Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1961), 300–301; Jacob Nahum Epstein, Diqduq ’Aramit Bavlit, ed. E. Z. Melamed (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1960), 14–16; Elitzur A. Bar- Asher Siegal, Introduction to the Grammar of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, vol. 3, Lehrbücher Orientalischer Sprachen, Section 3: Aramaic (München: Ugarit Verlag, 2016), 23–26. 8 See, for example, David Weiss Halivni’s suggestion that the Aramaic of the unusual tractates may perhaps be attributed to the Stammaim (David Weiss Halivni, The Formation of the Babylonian Talmud, trans. Jeffrey L Rubenstein (Oxford [England]; New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 194–95).