religions

Article The Methodology Utilized in the Redaction of the Tripartite Structure of Sugyot from Tractate in the Babylonian

Uri Zur

Moreshet Israel, Ariel University, Kiriat HaMada‘a, Ariel 40700, Israel; [email protected]; Tel.: +972-054-339-4717

Received: 3 June 2017; Accepted: 3 July 2017; Published: 13 July 2017

Abstract: This paper deals with the methodology utilized in the redaction of the tripartite structure of sugyot from Tractate Eruvin. The paper begins with a short review of the tripartite structure in various sugyot of the Babylonian Talmud. It presents the various methodologies utilized in the redaction of the tripartite structure of sugyot from Tractate Eruvin. The paper’s significance is in its presentation of the various methods utilized in redaction of the tripartite structure, accompanied by select examples from different texts in Tractate Eruvin. These methodological methods are also evident in other sugyot and they constitute an important research foundation for examining their application in additional sugyot in the different tractates.

Keywords: Eruvin; methodology; redaction; tripartite structure; sugya

1. The Tripartite Structure in Sugyot of the Babylonian Talmud The most common and cherished stylistic-formative design utilized in sugyot in general, including in Tractate Eruvin, is the tripartite structure (Friedman 1978; Zur 1999).1 An entire study focusing on presentation of the tripartite structure in the different texts of Tractate Eruvin as a whole has been devoted to this matter (Zur 2016). The tripartite structure appears in many texts and in varied manners, and its main aspect is the formative-stylistic dimension, manifested in the content (for example, a phrase, give-and-take, etc.) or as an arrangement of three things together, for example three statements by a certain sage in one place in the text, sometimes despite the absence of any content-based connection between the statements (HaLevi 1970; Sirilio 1972; Weiss 1962, pp. 202–4), or three statements by different .2 The tripartite structure is present in various texts as a form- and style-matching unit and as part of the redactors’ considerations in redacting the content of the Talmudic text (Valler 1995; Valler 1999). The study of different texts in Tractate Eruvin indicates that many texts have diverse modes of design, with one of the main variations being the tripartite structure. The tripartite structure is considered a complete formative-stylistic structure, one with a beginning, middle, and end.3 At times, awareness and recognition of this stylistic form can solve many problems or various types of difficulties that arise in the Talmudic text. In other words, if the commentators had been clearly aware of the possibility that the sugya includes a formative-stylistic aspect and that a certain sugya may be shaped in a tripartite structure, then they would not have had difficulty understanding, for example, why three citations are brought in the name of the same amora despite

1 (Jacobs 1983, p. 138): “The use of this number as especially is widespread in the Rabbinic literature.” 2 (Friedman, ibid., pp. 40–41). 3 (M. H. Pope 1962): “Next to the number Seven, the number most frequently used in connection with sacred matters is three. This number naturally suggests the idea of completeness-of beginning, middle, and end.”

Religions 2017, 8, 126; doi:10.3390/rel8070126 www.mdpi.com/journal/religions Religions 2017, 8, 126 2 of 16 Religions 2017, 8, 126 2 of 16 difficulty understanding, for example, why three citations are brought in the name of the same amora despitethe lack the of a lack content of a associationcontent asso betweenciation thebetween third citationthe third and citation the two and previous the two ones, previous for example ones, for in examplesugya 40b–41b, in sugya as 40b–41b, they would as they have would been aware have been of the aware possibility of the ofpossibility style-based of style-based repetition and repetition would andhave would had no have difficulty had no with difficulty it. In fact,with all it. theIn fact, different all the examples different in examples this paper in suggestthis paper a method suggestin a whichmethod the in tripartitewhich the structure tripartite of structure the text constitutes of the text aconstitutes form- and a style-based form- and solutionstyle-based for overcomingsolution for overcomingthe difficulties the causeddifficulties by unnecessary caused by unnecessary repetitions re inpetitions all the variations in all the variations of those examples. of those examples. Notably, Notably,the commentators the commentators who pondered who pondered problems problems or difficulties or difficulties that arose that in certain arose textsin certain usually texts explained usually explainedthese as they these were as they wont, were by wont, using by casuistry using casuis and withtry and no with regard no for regard the formative-stylisticfor the formative-stylistic design designin the tripartitein the tripartite structure structure of the of talmudic the talmudic text. Nevertheless,text. Nevertheless, it must it must be stressed be stressed that that some some of the of thecommentators commentators discerned discerned the the tripartite tripartite structure structure of of the the text text and and even even alluded alluded to toit it atat timestimes in their commentaries, or notice of the tripartite structure was impliedimplied “between“between thethe lines”lines” ofof theirtheir .exegesis. Some of the commentators referred to the tripartite structure indirectly or in an implied manner in various texts ((ZurZur 20162016a,, pp. pp. 71–74, 71–74, 94–99, 94–99, p. p. 140 140 n. n. 30, 30, p. p. 187 187 n. n. 46; 46; HaLivni HaLivni 1982 1982,, p. p. 138,138, n. n. 1*).1*).44 Their interpretations do not explain why the talmudic redactors acted thus, but it is clear that this was done for a certain purpose, and they seem to ha haveve realized that the redaction of the various texts stemmed from the wish to maintain a tripartite structure,structure, althoughalthough theythey dodo notnot saysay soso expressly.expressly. Some modern scholars also dwelt on the tripartite structure of various texts in several tractates of the Babylonian Talmud. There were those who expandedexpanded on the topic while others discussed it concisely, inin passing.passing. The tripartite structure of sugyot in the Babylonian Talmud ((FriedmanFriedman 19971997;; Friedman 20102010)) is the topic topic of of studies studies on on the the tenth tenth chapter chapter of of Tractate Tractate , Yevamot, and and on on the the first first and and second second chapters chapters of Tractateof Tractate Bava Bava Metzi’a Metzi’a (Friedman (Friedman 1997, 1997 p. ,391, p. 391,n. 6; n.Friedman 6; Friedman 1978, 1978 pp. ,40–43, pp. 40–43, 47). Other 47). Otherstudies studies focus onfocus sugyot on sugyot in the first in the three first chapters three chapters of Tractate of Tractate Eruvin (Zur Eruvin 1999, (Zur pp. 1999 40, ,n. pp. 6, 368, 40, n.392–93; 6, 368, Zur 392–93; 2000; Zur 20002013;; Zur 20132015); Zur and 2015 on other) and chapters on other chaptersof the trac oftate the (Zur tractate 2016a, (Zur pp. 2016 23–366),, pp. 23–366), as well as as well in other as in places.other places.5 5 Some of of the the scholars scholars who who studied studied the thesugyot sugyot of Tr ofactate Tractate Eruvin Eruvin paid very paid little very attention little attention (when (whenat all) to at the all) tripartite to the tripartite structure structure of some of of some the ofsugyot, the sugyot, and even and this even only this indirectly, only indirectly, randomly, randomly, and unsystematically.and unsystematically. They They mentioned mentioned various various phenomena phenomena related related to the to trip theartite tripartite structure structure in texts in or texts as aor whole as a whole texts bearing texts bearing the tripartite the tripartite format formatin Tractate in Tractate Eruvin Eruvin(Zur 2016a, (Zur pp. 2016 54–62;, pp. 54–62;Weiss 1970;Weiss Weiss 1929; Weiss1962, p.1962 209;, p. Friedman 209; Friedman 1997). 61997 ).6

2. The Methodology of Redaction of a Tripartite StructureStructure The tripartite structure in sugyot of Tractate EruvinEruvin appears conspicuously and clearly in forty sugyot andand featuresfeatures a rangea range of differentof different stylistic stylisti forms,c forms, and in and these in fortythese sugyot forty thesugyot tripartite the tripartite structure structurecan be proven. can be Some proven. sugyot Some have sugyot a visible have tripartitea visible tripartite structure, structur but thise, could but this not could be proven. not be proven. Below, wewe shall shall select select examples examples of differentof different methodologies methodologies utilized utilized in the redactionin the redaction of the tripartite of the tripartitestructure structure in various in sugyot various of sugyot Tractate of Eruvin. Tractate Eruvin.

(הפרדה וחלוקה ) Distinction and Separation .2.1 The methodology of distinction and separation in the sugyot is manifested in different ways. In one sugya (“Amar(“Amar AbayeAbaye…:... :Amat Amat ”), Sukkah”),7 7thethe sugya’s sugya’s redactors redactors had had before before them them an an array array of difficultiesdifficulties andand repliesreplies as as a a single single sequence sequence (or (or as oneas one unit) unit) in a in certain a certain topic topic (“ (“Abaye stated stated in the in name the name of R. Naḥman: The cubit [applicable to the measurements] of sukkah and that applicable to an of R. Nah. man: The cubit [applicable to the measurements] of sukkah and that applicable to an ‘entrance’ ‘entrance’is one of five is [handbreadths].one of five [handbreadths]. The cubit [applicable The cubit to [applicable the laws] of tokil’ayim the laws]is one of of kil’ayim six [handbreadths]”) is one of six [handbreadths]”) [here and henceforth from the Epstein ed.]. The methodology employed by the redactors was to distinguish between the difficulties and to separate them into three give-and-take

4 For a critique of HaLivni’s method, see (Newman 1983; Cohen 1998). 5 On the number three in various tractates of the Babylonian (and Jerusalemi) Talmud and in the various midrashim, 4 Forsee (aWünsche critique 1911 of HaLivni’s; Melamed 1962method,;N ádor see 1962 (Newman, pp: 301–3, 1983; 313, Cohen 315; Jacobs 1998). 1983 ) 56 OnFor athe critique number of Weiss’ three method in various in general, tractates see (Brooks of the and Babylonian Davis 1983 ;(and Cohen Je 1998rusalemi)). Talmud and in the various 7 midrashim,Eruvin 3b. see (Wünsche 1911; Melamed 1962; Nádor 1962, pp: 301–3, 313, 315; Jacobs 1983) 6 For a critique of Weiss’ method in general, see (Brooks and Davis 1983; Cohen 1998). 7 Eruvin 3b.

Religions 2017, 8, 126 3 of 16

[here and henceforth from the Epstein ed.]. The methodology employed by the redactors was to distinguish between the difficulties and to separate them into three give-and-take relationships in order to establish a tripartite structure based on an identical style of negotiation (“1. In respect of what legal [restriction has it been ruled that] the cubit [applicable to the measurements] of an entrance is [only] one of five?...” 2. “In respect of what legal ... the cubit ... of a sukkah is one of five?...” 3. “In respect of what legal . . . ‘the cubit . . . of kil’ayim is one of six’?...”) (Zur 2016, pp. 28–29). Another example is evident in three questions of Rabbah from R. Huna, joined together in one place in the sugya (“Amar Rabbah: Ki havenan bei R. Huna”) in light of the identical name of the sage in the phrase (“Rabbah stated: When we were at R. Huna’s we raised the following question . . . ”). Modern scholars too reached a conclusion concerning the methodology utilized by the redactors: “Statement A pertains to the framework mishna [the mishna that forms the setting of the issue]. Statement B is already to be considered [a transition] to another issue. But Statement C is from an entirely different issue, and it seems to have found its place here only by reason [in light] of the framework [of the phrase]: ‘When we were ... he had no ruling on the subject. I appeared before Rab Judah‘ etc. And from this [we learn] that the three statements were supplied in a single instance.” (Weiss 1962, p. 209). Namely, the redactors received these three questions as one unit, but they distinguished between them methodologically and separated them into three disparate units in order to establish a tripartite structure in light of the identical name of the sage and the recurring phrase mentioned above. Such separation and distinction can be seen in a Tannaitic source as well. The redactors of the sugya (“Tanu Rabbanan: Sheloshah ”)8 distinguished between the parts of the methodologically and separated them into three parts. Next to each of the three parts of the baraita the redactors arranged a short give-and-take in a matching form of one identical difficulty and one short reply that illustrates only one example in each of the three instances of give-and-take, as a tripartite structure based on an adapted give-and-take.9 In another case, the redactors used the method of distinction and separation of three proofs brought together in order to establish a tripartite structure in the sugya (“Amar R. Mesharshiya: Litenaho lehanei klalei”).10 This method is evident in the following exegesis: “It makes more sense to say that he who wished to prove that the halakhic rules [mentioned above (46b)] cannot be accepted based on the three sources in which the ruling followed R. Simeon. And he brought all these difficulties [concerning those three sources in which the ruling followed R. Simeon] at once and in one instance and rejected them all using the one rejection (“Is it not possible that the rules are disregarded only where a ruling to the contrary had been stated, but that where no such ruling is stated the rules remain in force?”). However the redactors of the Talmud [who edited the sugya] arranged for us each proof [each of the three sources mentioned above in which the ruling followed R. Simeon] separately, with the same rejection [that is repeated as a rejection of each of the three sources] by its side, this seems clear to me.”11 This alludes to the method utilized in redacting a tripartite structure in the text. To begin with, the redactors had before them the entire body of text (the three proofs, or to be precise three mishnayot, in which the ruling followed R. Simeon)—and they were said at once, and all rejected at once in one rejection. But methodologically, the redactors distinguished between these three sources and separated them, arranging each of these three proofs as three separate difficulties, as though each difficulty had been presented separately to begin with, and added beside each of the three difficulties the same rejection, as though the rejection had been brought specifically for that difficulty.

8 Eruvin 41b. 9 Zur, ibid., pp. 134–35. 10 Eruvin 46b–47a. 11 Be‘er Sheva (18th CE, Vilna), Eruvin 46b, s.v. “Kashi‘”. Religions 2017, 8, 126 4 of 16

The interpretation of the commentator mention above does not explain why the redactors did this, but it may be said that theyReligions used this 2017 method, 8, 126 in order to establish a tripartite structure. 4 of 16 Religions 2017, 8, 126 4 of 16 הימנעות מעריכת חומר או דברים ) (Refraining from Redaction of Potential2.2. Refraining Material from (or Redaction Things) of Potential Material (or Things .2.2 (פוטנציאלייםהימנעות מעריכת חומר או דברים )) (Refraining from Redaction of Potential Material (or Things .2.2 (פוטנציאליים The methodology of refrainingThe from methodology redacting potential of refraining material from in redacting sugyot is potential manifested material in in sugyot is manifested in The methodology of refraining from redacting potentialvarious material ways. in Whensugyot the is redactorsmanifestedvarious had in ways. before When them otherthe redactors possibilities had ofbefore redacting them difficultiesother possibilities and of redacting difficulties and various ways. When the redactors had before them other possibilitiesreplies that couldof redacting be included difficulties inreplies the sugya,and that sometimes could be and included for various in methodological the sugya, sometimes considerations, and for various methodological replies that could be included in the sugya, sometimesfor exampleand for establishment various methodological of a tripartiteconsiderations, structure, for they example refrained establishment from including of a themtripartite in the structure, text. they refrained from including considerations, for example establishment of a tripartite structure,This they is also refrained the opinion from including voicedthem in by the commentators text. concerning the redactors’ refraining from them in the text. inclusion of possible difficulties and repliesThis is inalso a certain the opinion sugya (“Amarvoiced by Abaye commentator... : Amats Sukkah”),concerning12 the redactors’ refraining from This is also the opinion voiced by commentators concerningas one commentator the redactors’ stated: refraining “Theinclusion from talmudic of possible [redactors] difficulties saw no and need replies to present in a certain all [the sugya difficulties (“Amar Abaye…: Amat Sukkah”),12 as inclusion of possible difficulties and replies in a certain sugyaand (“Amar the replies]” Abaye…:13). Amat The commentator Sukkah”),one 12commentator as did not give stated: the reason “The fortalmudic this, but [redactors] it may be sa positedw no need to have to present all [the difficulties and one commentator stated: “The talmudic [redactors] saw no derivedneed to frompresent the all consideration [the difficulties ofthe establishing replies]”and 13). a tripartiteThe commentator structure. did14 not give the reason for this, but it may be posited to have the replies]”13). The commentator did not give the reason for this,This but methodology it may be isposited evident derivedto in have a give-and-take from the consideration in another sugyaof establishing (“Amar R.a tripartite Hiyya: Shi’urin”) structure.1514 derived from the consideration of establishing a tripartite structure.as well.14 The redactors refrained from includingThis methodology in the give-and-take is evident in (on a give-and-take the topic of “[The in another law relating sugya (“Amar R. Hiyya: Shi’urin”)15 This methodology is evident in a give-and-take in anotherto] standards”sugya (“Amar16 various R. Hiyya: controversies Shi’urin”)as well. or15 The other redactors individual refrained difficulties, from for including different reasons.in the give-and-take (on the topic of “[The law as well. The redactors refrained from including in the give-and-takeSome of(on the the commentators topic of “[Therelating think law so to] too standards” and according16 various to them:controversies “Whenever or other they individual [redactors] difficulties, for different reasons. relating to] standards”16 various controversies or other individualpresented difficulties, [this difficulty] for different in Tractate reasons.Some Sukkah of the [5b] commentators and in Eruvin think [4a] they so too brought and a allccording the words to them: of “Whenever they [redactors] 17 Some of the commentators think so too and accordingR. to H. .”them: “Whenever they [redactors]presented [this difficulty] in Tractate Sukkah [5b] and in Eruvin [4a] they brought all the words of R. presented [this difficulty] in Tractate Sukkah [5b] and in Eruvin [4a]The they words brought of the all commentators the wordsḤanan.” of R. imply 17 an almost technical methodological approach by the Ḥanan.”17 redactors with regard to redaction of anyThe give-and-take words of the that commentators repeats itself imply in other an places almost in thetechnical Talmud. methodological approach by the The words of the commentators imply an almost technicalAccording methodological to them, and approach from a methodologicalredactors by the with regard perspective, to redaction sometimes of any a give-and-take give-and-take on that a certain repeats itself in other places in the redactors with regard to redaction of any give-and-take thattopic repeats that recurs itself in in another other places placeTalmud. in in the the Talmud, According will includeto them, only and the from basic a methodological details of the give-and-take, perspective, sometimes a give-and-take on Talmud. According to them, and from a methodological perspective,for different sometimes reasons, a for give-and-take examplea certain the on give-and-take topic that recurs on the in words another of place R. H. anan, in the brought Talmud, on will its owninclude only the basic details of the a certain topic that recurs in another place in the Talmud, willfrom include the parallel only the in Tractatebasic details Sukkahgive-and-take, of the to Tractate for Eruvin different [4a-b] reasons, without for ex theample rest. the This give-and-take is because the on the words of R. Ḥanan, brought give-and-take, for different reasons, for example the give-and-takegive-and-take on the words (from of Tractate R. Ḥanan, Sukkah) broughton its own in Tractate from the Eruvin parallel was in only Tractate intended Sukkah as part to Tractate of establishing Eruvin [4a-b] without the rest. This is on its own from the parallel in Tractate Sukkah to Tractatethe Eruvin tripartite [4a-b] structure, without andthe therest. redactorsbecause This is the refrained give-and-take from expanding (from Tractate the give-and-take Sukkah) in [inTractate Eruvin] Eruvin by was only intended as part of because the give-and-take (from Tractate Sukkah) in Tractatebringing Eruvin possible was only additions intended that asestablishing appearpart of in parallel the tripartite sugyot. structure,18 and the redactors refrained from expanding the give-and-take [in establishing the tripartite structure, and the redactors refrained fromIn another expanding case, the when give-and-take a certainEruvin] premise [in by bringing or possibility possible in aadditions sugya (“Dekulei that appear alma in kassavrei parallel sugyot. mutar 18 Eruvin] by bringing possible additions that appear in parallel... sugyot.lehishtamesh”)18 created an impasse,In 19anotherthe methodology case, when utilizeda certain by premise the redactors or possibility was to try in anda sugya (“Dekulei alma kassavrei In another case, when a certain premise or possibilitypresent in a sugya another (“Dekulei improved alma and kassavrei emendedmutar… lehishtamesh”) premise.20 For created this reason, an impasse, the text19 includes the methodology at times three utilized by the redactors was to try mutar… lehishtamesh”) created an impasse,19 the methodologypremises utilized one by after the the redactors other. wasand to presenttry another improved and emended premise.20 For this reason, the text includes at times and present another improved and emended premise.20 For thisBut reason, then the again, text although includes it atthree would times premises have been one desirableafter the other. (or possible) to add a fourth premise21 three premises one after the other. that would be better than the three previousBut then ones,again, the although methodology it would of thehave redactors been desirable was to (or refrain possible) to add a fourth premise21 But then again, although it would have been desirablefrom (or possible) adding it to for add different a fourth reasons, premisethat forwould21 example be better due than to the the consideration three previous of establishing ones, the methodology a tripartite of the redactors was to refrain that would be better than the three previous ones, the methodologystructure. of22 the redactors was tofrom refrain adding it for different reasons, for example due to the consideration of establishing a tripartite 22 from adding it for different reasons, for example due to the considerationIn another of example,establishing two a statementstripartitestructure. in the name of R. Jacob and R. Zerik. a and in the name of 22 structure. R. Jacob b. Idi ruling in the name of R. JoInh .anotheranan appeared example, as two partsstatements that comprise in the name a tripartite of R. Jacob structure and R. Zeriḳa and in the name of R. In another example, two statements in the name of R. Jacob and R. Zeriḳa and in the nameJacob of b.R. Idi ruling in the name of R. Joḥanan appeared as two parts that comprise a tripartite structure Jacob b. Idi ruling in the name of R. Joḥanan appeared as two parts that comprise a tripartite structurewithin the sugya (“R. Ya’akov veR. amru: Halachah”). 23 The redactors methodologically 23 within the sugya (“R. Ya’akov veR. Zerika amru: Halachah”).12 Eruvin The 3b. redactors methodologically 13 Geon Ya‘akov (18th CE, Vilna), Eruvin 3b, s.v. “Ve‘ha ika”. 14 Zur, ibid., pp. 27–29. 12 Eruvin 3b. 15 12 Eruvin 3b. Eruvin 4a–b. 13 Geon Ya`akov (18th CE, Vilna), Eruvin 3b, s.v. “Ve`ha ika”. 16 I. Epstein. The Babylonian Talmud. ‘Erubin, II, London 1935, p. 18, n. 9: “The minimum quantities, e.g., of forbidden 13 14 Geon Ya`akov (18th CE, Vilna), Eruvin 3b, s.v. “Ve`ha ika”. foodstuffs the consumption of which constitutes Zur, ibid., the pp. offence”. 27–29. 14 Zur, ibid., pp. 27–29. 17 Tosafot, 80a, s.v. “‘Onshin"; Tosafot,15 Eruvin Sukkah 4a–b. 6b, s.v. “Ella”. 15 Eruvin 4a–b. 18 Berachot 41a–b; Sukkah 5b–6a. 16 I. Epstein. The Babylonian Talmud. `Erubin, II, London 1935, p. 18, n. 9: “The minimum quantities, e.g., of 19 16 I. Epstein. The Babylonian Talmud. `Erubin, II, London 1935, p. 18,Eruvin n. 9: “The 5a. minimum quantities, e.g.,forbidden of foodstuffs the consumption of which constitutes the offence”. 20 Darchei HaTalmud of R. Y. Kanfanton (14th CE, Spain), 14, pp. 68–69; Yad Mal‘achi (18th CE, Italy), 63, p. 10. 17 forbidden foodstuffs the consumption of which constitutes the offence”.21 Eruvin 8b. Tosafot, Yoma 80a, s.v. “`Onshin"; Tosafot, Sukkah 6b, s.v. “Ella”. 17 Tosafot, Yoma 80a, s.v. “`Onshin"; Tosafot, Sukkah 6b, s.v. “Ella”.22 Zur, ibid., pp. 45–48. 18 Berachot 41a–b; Sukkah 5b–6a. 18 Berachot 41a–b; Sukkah 5b–6a. 19 Eruvin 5a. 19 Eruvin 5a. 20 Darchei HaTalmud of R. Y. Kanfanton (14th CE, Spain), 14, pp. 68–69; Yad Mal`achi (18th CE, Italy), 63, p. 20 Darchei HaTalmud of R. Y. Kanfanton (14th CE, Spain), 14, pp. 68–69; Yad Mal`achi (18th CE, Italy), 63,10. p. 10. 21 Eruvin 8b. 21 Eruvin 8b. 22 Zur, ibid., pp. 45–48. 22 Zur, ibid., pp. 45–48. 23 Eruvin 46b. 23 Eruvin 46b.

Religions 2017, 8, 126 5 of 16

Religions 2017, 8, 126 5 of 16 In another example, two statements in the name of R. Jacob and R. Zeriḳa and in the name of R. Jacob b. Idi ruling in the name of R. Joḥanan appeared as two parts that comprise a tripartite structure within the sugyasugya (“R.(“R. Ya’akovYa’akov veR.veR. ZerikaZerika amru:amru: Halachah”).Halachah”).2323 The redactors methodologically avoided discussing each of these halakhic rules se separatelyparately (although they could have done so) and did not pose difficultiesdifficulties between them or withwith regardregard toto themthem2424 inin order to maintain the stylistic consistency of the tripartite stru structure,cture, with the two parts having in common three different halakhic rules encompassed by each of the two statements.25 Thus also also in in the the redaction redaction of of three three stories stories on on a certain a certain topic topic (“A(“A child child whose whose warm warm water water was wasspilled”), spilled”),26 the 26redactorsthe redactors methodological methodologicallyly refrained refrained from stating from fundamental stating fundamental differences differences between them.between them. Therefore, in the absence of fundamental differen differencesces between between these these three three stories, stories, the the first first story, story, or the second andand third,third, cannotcannot bebe seen seen as as redundant. redundant. This This is is because, because, methodologically, methodologically, the the joining joining of ofthese these three three stories stories together together in the in text the istext intended is inte tonded establish to establish a tripartite a tripartite structure structure within a commonwithin a commontopic27 (“A topic child27 (“A whose child warm whose water warm was water spilled”). was spilled”).28 28

(לשון וסגנון ) Language and Style .2.3 The methodology methodology utilized utilized in in matte mattersrs of of language language and and style style took took various various forms; forms; for example, for example, the methodologythe methodology of redacting of redacting a double a double phrase phrase as astwo two identical identical replies replies in in the the sugya sugya (“Eiba’aya (“Eiba’aya leho leHananya aliba devet Hillel”) in the name of R.R. MattenahMattenah inin thethe namename ofof SamuelSamuel2929 isis based on the consideration ofof establishingestablishing aa tripartitetripartite structurestructure with with the the same same reply reply and and the the same same phraseology: phraseology: “ “…... Samuel: It is not necessary to lock it [the door]” 30 inin all all three three replies replies with with regard regard to to a a certain certain question (“The question was raised: According to Hanania’s rulingruling inin thethe namename ofof BethBeth Hillel”)Hillel”) inin thethe text.text. In another case it is possible to discern a lingui linguisticstic addition. A certain source preserves another version that does not include a certain phrase in the sugya (“Gufa, amar R. Hisda: Tzurat ha’petach she’amru”) (for example, in the words of R. Hananel,Hananel, assuming that he preservespreserves a version without the form form “the “the shape shape of of a adoorway”), doorway”),31 31andand it is it possible is possible that, that, to begi to beginn with, with, the theform form “the “theshape shape of a doorway”of a doorway” existed existed neither neither in the in baraita the baraita nor in northe intwo the32 statements two32 statements that appear that appearin the sugya. in the Hence, sugya. thisHence, form this may form have may been have added been to added the printed to the vers printedion at version some at(later) some stage. (later) The stage. methodology The methodology utilized inutilized the redaction in the redactionof this linguistic of this addition linguistic was addition intended was to intendedform a stylistic to form linguistic a stylistic compatibility linguistic bothcompatibility within the both baraita within and thein the baraita two statements, and in the which two statements, to begin with which were tonot begin said together with were rather not separatelysaid together and rather the redactors separately arranged and the them redactors here together arranged33 themin order here to together establish33 ain tripartite order to structure establish baseda tripartite on the structure phrase “the based shape on of the a doorway” phrase “the (Weiss shape 1970; of aHaLivni doorway” 1982, (Weiss p. 26, 1929n. 12).; HaLivni 1982, p. 26,In n. another 12). place, the methodology utilized in the redaction of three difficulties in a sugya (“Eitiveh,In another hatzer place, she’ha’rabim”) the methodology34 stems from utilized “literary in the grounds”. redaction35 of Inthree other difficulties words, the in redactors a sugya (“Eitiveh,arranged the hatzer three she’ha’rabim”) difficulties using34 stems the same from fo “literaryrmative style grounds”. and the35 sameIn other phraseology words, the (“A redactors private 36 domainarranged in the respect three of difficulties the Sabbath using and the that same of a formative public domain style and in respect the same of phraseologyLevitical defilement (“A private… domain in respect of the Sabbath and that of a public domain in respect of Levitical defilement36 ... whose23 Eruvin view 46b. [is this]? If it be suggested [that it is that of] the , it might be objected: If there, 24 Sha`ar Yosef (18th CE, ), 2a. 25 Zur, ibid., p. 177. 26 Eruvin 67b–68a. 23 Eruvin 46b. 27 24 (KraemerSha‘ar Yosef 1984). (18th CE, Jerusalem), Horayot 2a. 2825 Zur, ibid.,ibid., p. pp. 177. 265–67. 2926 Eruvin 67b–68a. 6b. 27 30 In(Kraemer the ’s 1984). method of joining phrases following a recurring manner of speech, see She`erit Yosef (16th 28 Zur, ibid., pp. 265–67. 29 CE,Eruvin Spain) 6b. 26, p. 22; (Weiss 1962, p. 204). 3130 EruvinIn the Tannaim’s 11b. method of joining phrases following a recurring manner of speech, see She‘erit Yosef (16th CE, Spain) 26, p. 32 As22; (evidenceWeiss 1962 of, p. the 204). lack of the form “the shape of a doorway” in the baraita and the two statements of R. 31 Eruvin 11b. 32 isda, we can see that MS Munich 95 and MS Vatican 127 do not include this form in the statement of Resh As evidence of the lack of the form “the shape of a doorway” in the baraita and the two statements of R. H. isda, we can see Lakishthat MS in Munich the name 95 and of MS R. VaticanJannai. 127 do not include this form in the statement of Resh Lakish in the name of R. Jannai. 33 Hidushei Gur Gur Arie Arie (16th (16t CE,h CE, Prague), Prague), Eruvin Eruvin 11b s.v. 11b “Zurat s.v. “Zurat ha‘petach”. ha`petach”. 34 Eruvin 22b. 22b. 35 35 HaLivni, ibid., ibid., p. p. 52. 52. 36 Mishkenot Ya‘akov (19th CE, Poland), Eruvin, 120, p. 109, s.v. “Ve‘od re‘aya”. 36 Mishkenot Ya`akov (19th CE, Poland), Eruvin, 120, p. 109, s.v. “Ve`od re`aya”.

Religions 2017, 8, 126 6 of 16 where the use [of the road] is easy, the Rabbis ruled that the public cannot come and impair the validity of the partition how much more would that be the case here where the use [of the paths] is not easy. Consequently [it must be, must it not, the view of] R. Judah?”) in order to establish an identical formative-stylistic tripartite structure with the same phraseology based on these three difficulties. Moreover, the cohesiveness of three proofs (according to R. Shesheth) in the sugya (“VeR. Shesheth amar echad zeh”)37 is also methodologically manifested by the redactors in a formative-stylistic manner as a tripartite structure in the opening words: “Said R. Shesheth, do I drive this?” One of the commentators noticed this phenomenon and alluded to it in his words, in the formative-stylistic impasse he noted in this regard: “It should be noted, that he [the redactor] should have said [and added] ‘and Rav said’ [with the conjunctive vav] in the other “Do I drive this?” [three] phrases as well”. 38 This indicates that the two proofs in the text (the second and third or at least the third), accompanied by the phrase “Do I drive this?” of R. Shesheth, should have been preceded by the words “R. Shesheth again said” with a conjunctive vav as an addition to the first proof. Accordingly, this commentator sees these three proofs as one cohesive grouping that aims to denote three proofs supporting the opinion of R. Shesheth. Therefore, he undoubtedly noticed the methodology of these three proofs and he sees them as a tripartite structure (even if he did not state so explicitly) based on the three proofs supporting the opinion of R. Shesheth, as evident in the phrase: “R. Shesheth, do I drive this?” (Hyman 1964; Epstein 1957; Weiss 1962, p. 20439) In another place, it is possible to discern that the methodology utilized in grouping three stories in a sugya (“Amahatah devei Rav ki havo mishta’aya”)40 was aimed at establishing a tripartite structure based on the common phraseology of the three stories: “when indulging in enigmatic speech”. This phrase was added by the redactors (Valler and Ratzabi 2007; Valler 2003) deliberately41 and it is important and meaningful,42 because it creates a common link between the three stories that open with the same phrase “When indulging in enigmatic speech”,43 and portrays them together as a tripartite structure. Another example of the linguistic methodology is the common phrase “why were the words of compared to ... ”44 that appears in three different homilies with the aim of establishing a tripartite structure in the sugya (“Amar R. Hiyya b. Aba . . . mai dechativ notzer te’enah”). Notably, although other homilies with the same phrase of “why were the words of Torah compared to ... ”(Epstein 1957; Weiss 1962, p. 204)45 could have been added to the homilies in the same text, they were not added because methodologically they were not compatible with another phrase in the same three homilies: “So it is the words of the Torah; the more one studies them the more relish he finds in them” (with a difference phrase but with the same meaning as in the second homily). Therefore, since from a linguistic perspective the content of the potential homilies was not compatible with the homilies in the text, they were not added to the text because the methodology utilized by the redactors was to establish a tripartite structure based on a common phrase in three homilies. On another topic, the methodology utilized in order to place a certain statement in a sugya (“Amar R. Eliezer mai dechativ ve’anakim legargerotecha”)46 was used by the redactors as

37 Eruvin 32a. 38 Pnei Shlomo (16th CE, Hungary), Eruvin 32a, s.v “Amar R. Shesheth”. 39 HaLevi (14th CE?, Alghero), Halichot Olam, 2:2, 108, p. 31; Sirilio (15th CE?, Spain), Kelalei Shmuel, 343, p. 127. 40 Eruvin 53b. 41 For another instance of three stories arranged deliberately, see (Jacobs 1961): “It is abundantly clear that these three stories, whatever their origin, have been placed together in this way in order to preserve the pattern of working up to a climax”. 42 In contrast to Valler, Ratzabi, ibid. 43 See above, n. 30. 44 Eruvin 54a–b. 45 HaLevi (14th CE?, Alghero), Halichot Olam, 2:2, 108, p. 31; Sirilio (15th CE?, Spain), Kelalei Shmuel, 343, p. 127. 46 Eruvin 54a. Religions 2017, 8, 126 7 of 16 an opportunity to add two other subsequent statements, with the aim of establishing a tripartite structure in the text. This interpretation necessarily derives from its unclear textual location (as the first in a series of homilies). This is because the first statement comes from a group of homilies on the topic of generating signs of traditions; however the content of the first statement is different and deals with another topic—promoting the study of Torah. This topic of the first statement differs from the content of the preceding homilies on generating signs of traditions.47 But the methodology utilized in arranging this statement as a first statement within the textual group, stems from the redactors’ decision to nevertheless position it as the first statement48 (both due to its content as dealing indirectly with Torah—promoting the study of Torah, and mainly) in order to attach to it two other statements, although the content of these two statements (concerning the type of people in which Torah will not be found) differs from the content of the first statement. Namely, despite the different content of the homilies, between the first statement and the second and third statements, all three statements have an identical basis, having in common the phrase: “‘It is not in heaven’” (Dt. 30:12),49 intended to establish a tripartite structure stemming from these three statements, which have in common their linguistic form. In another matter, the opinion of a certain sage (“Rab ruled, requires no transfer of possession”) was presented as one side of the first controversy (between Rab and Samuel) in a sugya (“Eitmar shitufei mevo’ot”),50 although ostensibly it should not have been presented, as Rab’s opinion contradicts the words of the mishna (Hauptman 2000).51 But the redactors nonetheless presented his opinion, not only because of the rule “Rab is a Tanna and is privileged to differ”52 (namely, that Rab has the status of “Tanna” and can or may object to the mishna), but rather also methodologically, from a formative-stylistic aspect, in order to maintain a linguistic balance between the various opinions presented (“Rab ruled, requires no transfer of possession and Samuel ruled: It does require transfer of possession”) in the controversies between Rab and Samuel, both in the first part (“Shittuf of alleys”) and in the second part (“‘Erub of Sabbath limits”) of the tripartite structure. Thus, in another sugya as well (“Ba’ei R. Hamma: Shtei amot”),53 there are three enquiries that are not only redundant in the text,54 but also create difficulties.55 However, from a methodological perspective they were nonetheless arranged in the text, as the three of them together create a tripartite structure due to the common phrase56 “Is it permitted to move an object two cubits along a roof and two cubits along a ... ?—What an enquiry”, in these three enquiries, as well as the particular content hierarchy that links them. Finally, the joining of three baraitot in a sugya (“Veraminaho delet ha’nigreret”)57 is carried out on the methodological grounds of forming a tripartite structure based on the phrase “whenever they are fastened and suspended” common to them all. In fact, the phrase “whenever they are fastened and suspended”58 was added to the first baraita for reasons of stylistic uniformity. Thus, in the second baraita as well it is possible to say that the phrase “[when they] have a hinge” was added (Zur 2016,

47 Sheeltot de Rab Ahai Gaon (8th CE, Babylon), S. K. Mirsky ed., vol. I, Jerusalem 1960, p.128. 48 Sheeltot de Rab Ahai Gaon, ibid. 49 See above. n. 30. 50 Eruvin 80a. 51 Eruvin 7:6; , Eruvin 80a, s.v. “R. Hiya ka‘ei”; Cf. Tosafot, ibid., s.v. “Ma‘asse”. 52 Eruvin 50b. 53 Eruvin 90a. 54 Geon Ya‘akov (18th CE, Vilna), Eruvin 90a, s. v. “Vehanach”. 55 Geon Ya‘akov, ibid., s.v. ”Ba‘ei rami”. 56 See above, n. 30. 57 Eruvin 101a. 58 (Lieberman 1962) S. Lieberman, Ki-Fshut.a, III, New York 1962, p. 458; Cf. (HaLivni 1982, p. 261). Religions 2017, 8, 126 8 of 16 Religions 2017, 8, 126 8 of 16 pp.pp. 361–62 361–62 n. 90, n. 93)90, or93) replaced or replaced with with59 the59 the phrase phrase “whenever “whenever they they are fastenedare fastened and and suspended” suspended” for for the samethe same reason reason of stylistic of stylistic uniformity uniformity in order in order to establish to establish a three-baraita a three-baraita tripartite tripartite structure structure based onbased the oneon the phrase one phrase “whenever “whenever they are they fastened are fasten anded suspended” and suspended” in the three in the baraitot. three baraitot.60 60

(זהות בשמות החכמים ) The Identity of the Sages’ Names.2.4 ThisThis methodology, methodology, based based on the on identity the identity of the sages’of the names, sages’ isnames, also utilized is also in utilized redaction in ofredaction sugyot. of sugyot.For example, when the names of the sages in two homilies are identical, for instance in a sugya (“Amar lehFor R.example, Hisda leMari when the breh names deR. Huna”)of the sages61 in in which two homilies the homilies are identical, appeared for in theinstance second in anda sugya third(“Amar part in leh the R. name Hisda of “R.leMariH. isda breh stated, deR. Mari Huna”) b. Mar61 in made which the the following homilies exposition” appeared in and the further second to and the wordsthird part of the in the sage name in the of first “R. partḤisda of stated, the text Mari (“R. b.H. Marisda made stated”), the then following the redactors exposition” joined and them further togetherto the in words the text of methodologicallythe sage in the first in part order of tothe establish text (“R. aḤ tripartiteisda stated”), structure. then the redactors joined them togetherSome of in the the commentators text methodologically already discernedin order to this establish phenomenon, a tripartite and structure. stressed: “Where Mari b. Mar is mentionedSome of the here commentators in the entire matter already [in discerned the text], andthisfor phenomenon, this reasonthey and broughtstressed: [the “Where redactors Mari b. broughtMar is both mentioned homilies here in his in the name] entire in matter this sugya—because [in the text], and R. forH. isda this saidreason them they in brought the name [the of redactors Mari [b. Mar]”brought... both“As ifhomilies we do notin his say na so,me] what in this is the sugya—because role of these homilies R. Ḥisda within said thethem text, in i.e.,the whyname were of Mari they[b. brought Mar]”… in “As the text”.if we62 do not say so, what is the role of these homilies within the text, i.e., why were theyOther brought commentators in the text”. voiced62 similar suggestions: “The words of ‘R. H. isda stated, Mari b. Mar made theOther following commentators exposition’ voiced [were similar brought suggestions: in the text] “The due towords the identity of ‘R. Ḥ [ofisda the stated, names] Mari to theb. Mar namemade of Mari the sonfollowing of R. Huna exposition’ [mentioned] [were previouslybrought in above,the text] [for due this to reason] the identity his homily [of the was names] brought to the nextname to [or of joined Mari to]son that of R. of Huna the previous [mentioned] speaker.” previously63 above, [for this reason] his homily was brought next“As to if [or we joined do not to] say that so, of these the statementsprevious speaker.” [of the second63 and third part] do not belong here [in the text],“As rather if we only do ifnot as say we so, wrote these [these statements statements] [of th weree second brought and third incidentally part] do by not reason belong of here the [in 64 [previous]the text], statement rather only above if ofas ‘Said we wrote R. H. isda [these to Mari statements] son of R. were Huna brought the son ofincide R. Jeremiahntally by b. reason Abba’”. of the [previous]From a methodological statement above perspective, of ‘Said R. the Ḥisda redactors to Mari sought son of toR. establishHuna thea son tripartite of R. Jeremiah structure b.based Abba’”.64 on the identityFrom a of methodological the sages’ names: perspective, “R. H. isda” the and redactors “R. H. isda sought stated, to establ Mari b.ish Mar a tripartite made the structure following based exposition”.on the identity For this of reasonthe sages’ they names: did not “R. bring Ḥisda” another, and “R. fourth Ḥisda homily stated, (assuming Mari b. Mar that made they the knew following of suchexposition”. a homily resembling For this reason the other they homilies did not that bring they another, knew andfourth brought homily here (assuming in the text) that in they the name knew of 65 of “R.such H. isda a homily stated, resembling Mari b. Mar the made other thehomilies following that exposition”they knew and (Zur brought 2016, p. here 73, in n. the 31). text) in the name ofIn “R. another Ḥisda example, stated, Mari the redactorsb. Mar made added the a following third statement exposition” to the (Zur sugya 2016a, (“Amar p. 73, R. Nahmann. 31).65 amar Samuel:In Yatza another le’da’at”) example,66 based the redactors on methodological added a third considerations statement to inthe light sugya of (“Amar the identity R. Nahman between amar the sages’Samuel: names Yatza in le’da’at”) the two66 previous based on statements. methodological The commentators considerations agree in light with of this the interpretation,identity between as the evidentsages’ from names their in words: the two “They previous copied statements. [redacted The in the commentators text] the controversy agree with of R.this Na interpretation,h. man in the as nameevident of Samuel from and their R. words: Huna for“They several copied reasons. [redacted One [thein the first] text] is becausethe controversy [the name of of]R. R.Na Naḥmanh. man in the in thename name of ofSamuel Samuel and [had R. Huna already for been several mentioned] reasons. previously”.One [the first]67 is because [the name of] R. Naḥman inThe the commentatorsname of Samuel clearly [had alre indicateady been that mentioned] one of the reasonspreviously”. for joining67 the third statement to the two previousThe commentators statements clearly is that indicate the name that of one that of sagethe reasons had been for mentionedjoining the previously,third statement in the to the secondtwo statement previous statements (and maybe is they that eventhe name mean of the that first sage statement), had been similar mentioned to the previously, third statement in the that second mentionedstatement the (and name maybe of the samethey sageeven “R. mean Nah . manthe first further statement), stated in similar the name toof the Samuel”. third statement that mentionedIn other words, the name methodologically, of the same sage if “R. the Na nameḥman of further a certain stated sage in the was name mentioned of Samuel”. in the text previously,In andother there words, is another methodologically, statement (or if statements) the name inof the a certain name of sage that sage—thewas mentioned redactors in the will text previously, and there is another statement (or statements) in the name of that sage—the redactors will explore whether and how to join these statements together, for example in our case, joining the 59 Zur, ibid., p. 363, n. 104. 60 See above, n. 30. 61 Eruvin59 Zur, 21a–b. ibid., p. 363, n. 104. 62 R.60 Rabbinovicz See above, (19th n. 30. CE, Lithuania), Dikdukei sofrim, Jerusalem 1960, p. 72, n. 70. 63 Mitzur61 Eruvin Ha‘devash 21a–b. (20th CE, Russia), Eruvin 21a. 64 Minchat Zikaron (19th CE, Poland), Eruvin 21a, s.v. “Amar R. Hisda”. 62 R. Rabbinovicz (19th CE, Lithuania), Dikdukei sofrim, Jerusalem 1960, p. 72, n. 70. 65 38a. 63 66 Eruvin Mitzur 41b-42a. Ha`devash (20th CE, Russia), Eruvin 21a. 67 Y.64 ZMinchat Dinner (19th Zikaron CE,Poland), (19th CE,Hagahot Poland), ‘ak massechet Eruvin Eruvin21a, s.v. Betza “Amar ve‘Sukkah, R. Hisda”. Bavli ve‘Yerushalmi , Frankfurt a. M. 1895, p. 40, s.v.65 “Ve‘amar Sanhedrin R. Nahman”.38a. 66 Eruvin 41b-42a. 67 Y. Z Dinner (19th CE, Poland), Hagahot `ak massechet Eruvin Betza ve`Sukkah, Bavli ve`Yerushalmi, Frankfurt a. M. 1895, p. 40, s.v. “Ve`amar R. Nahman”.

Religions 2017, 8, 126 9 of 16 explore whether and how to join these statements together, for example in our case, joining the third statement to the first two stemmed from the redactors’ decision to establish a tripartite structure based on the same name of the sage.68 In another place, the identical name of the sage in the tripartite structure is manifested in the phrase used to present a question. A certain question (which is in fact the first of the three questions of Rabbah from R. Huna) was brought in the sugya (“Amar Rabbah ki havenan bei R. Huna”)69 due to its content-based association with the topic of the mishna. However the second question brought in the name of Rabbah from R. Huna, and the third question in the name of Rabbah from R. Huna as well, are redundant, because there is no content-based reason or any other evident reason for joining them to the text. The methodology utilized by the redactors in joining the two questions (the second and third) to the first question in one place was aimed at establishing a tripartite structure characterized by the identical name of the sage and the phrase used to present the question “Rabbah stated: When we were at R. Huna’s we raised the following question”. This methodology, as a customary technique utilized in redactions, was also noted by the various commentators, for example: “[The redactors of] the [the Talmud] are accustomed [to utilize a methodology of] arranging together sayings [such as questions] by a single sage although they have no connection to each other”,70 and also: “The arrangement [redaction] in which the [redactor of] the Gemara [Talmud] arranges [redacts] sayings [different matters, for instance questions] [said] by one amora, although they have no connection to each other ... and also the [methodological] technique utilized in the entire Gemara [the Talmud])”.71 This methodology is also evident in words of the scholars: “The phrase ‘And said R. so-and-so‘ in the Babylonian Talmud, i.e., that the person learning linked here, as he was wont, several different things only as a result of the name of the speaker” (Epstein 1957) (spacing in the original). Namely, the phrase “And said R. so-and-so” in the Babylonian Talmud, as presented in the sugya, takes this form because the person who learned it added other similar expressions in one location, despite their different contents, as a methodological technique, due to the identical name of the person who said them. This methodology is also evident in the following words: “Three statements ... bearing a stamp of a separate uniform literary unit by reason of the name.”72 In other words, three statements were brought in the sugya as a methodological technique only because they have a literary uniformity characterized by the identity of the speaking sage’s name. This methodology is also utilized with regard to the redaction of explanations brought in the name of the same sage. Two explanations brought in the name of a certain sage “Rabbah said”, including his words cited a third time with the term “gufa” (meaning, turning to the main text stated above), were joined together in the sugya (“Amar Rabbah mai ta’ama deRav”)73 as a methodology utilized by the redactors to establish a tripartite structure based on the identical name of the sage “Rabbah said”. The commentators noticed this phenomenon as well and alluded to it in their commentaries as follows: “I have seen again in the commentary of the R.N. [R. Nissim Gerondi, 14th CE, Spain] ... who explains this expression [‘gufa’] and said ‘for what we term [bring or cite in the sugya using the term ‘gufa’ and even when the words brought do not say anything new [under the term ‘gufa’], [they were nonetheless brought] because seeing as [the redactors] needed to bring these [two] statements by ‘Raba’ [brought previously], they brought this [third statement in the name of ‘Raba’] once again as well”.74

68 See above, n. 45. 69 Eruvin 40a–41b. 70 HaLevi (14th CE?, Alghero), Halichot Olam, 2:2, 108, p. 31. 71 Sirilio (15th CE?, Spain), Kelalei Shmuel, 343, p. 127. 72 (Weiss 1962, p. 204). 73 Eruvin 50a. 74 HaLevi (14th CE?, Alghero), Halichot Olam, 2:1, p. 19. Religions 2017, 8, 126 10 of 16

This was said about a sugya in Tractate ,75 where one of “Raba’s” statements was brought with the term “gufa” as part of a formative-stylistic structure of seven statements in the name of Raba.76 The methodical rule mentioned by the commentators above led to the following methodical rule cited subsequently: “And from this you shall learn—in any place that you shall find [the term] ‘gufa’, if it does not bring something new [with regard to the issue brought under the term ‘gufa’] then the [redactors’] intention is to group together all the laws [/or statements] said by [that sage who is] the speaker of the statement.”77 According to this commentator, it is possible to apply his interpretation to the sugya in Tractate Eruvin as well, and to say that the words of the sage [“Rabbah said”] brought for the third time in the sugya in Tractate Eruvin through the term “gufa”, although they constitute no innovation (Albeck 1969; Zur 2016, p. 213, n. 10) (because they are in fact a verbal repetition of the words of “Rabbah said” mentioned previously in the second explanation), were nonetheless brought a third time—because these words (the third explanation) were preceded by two “Rabbah said” explanations. The redactors brought the words of “Rabbah said” again, a third time, through the term “gufa”, as a way of establishing a tripartite structure based on the identical name of “Rabbah said”. In another place in a certain sugya (“De amar Samuel lo shanu”),78 the expression “Samuel stated” (or “Samuel further stated”) appears three times in three statements in the name of the Amora Samuel (in a different order in the second and third statement).79 The linguistic lengthiness of the words of “Samuel stated” (or “Samuel further stated”) and the difficulties with regard to the three statements in the name of” Samuel stated”, derive from the redactors’ decision to nonetheless establish a tripartite structure with the phrase “This was learnt only in respect of a ... but ... acquire possession”80 in the three statements in light of the identical name of “Samuel stated”.81 The methodology utilized in the redaction of a tripartite structure in light of the identical sage’s name is also used for a group of sages, as in the following example. A first statement brought in the name of “Elders of Pumbeditha” in a sugya (“Amar hanei tartei milei”)82 led methodologically to the joining of two additional statements in the name of “Elders of Pumbeditha”83 with the same phrase “The following ruling also was given by the elders of Pumbeditha”,84 although the two last statements have no actual association with the first statement and no connection to matters of eruvin, all this as a methodology utilized by the redactors to establish a tripartite structure based on the identical names of the group of sages “Elders of Pumbeditha”. In fact, if the redactors had seen this specific text as a general place for gathering all the statements said in the name of “Elders of Pumbeditha”, they would have had to mention other instances as well.85 But they did not do so because their methodology was aimed at redacting only three statements in a tripartite structure in light of the identical name of “Elders of Pumbeditha”.

75 Hullin 46b-47a. 76 Sirilio (15th CE?, Spain), Kelalei Shmuel, 77, p. 33. 77 Sirilio, ibid. 78 Eruvin 81b. 79 (Zur 2016, p. 325, n. 11) 80 See above, n. 30. 81 See above, n. 45. 82 Eruvin 79b-80a. 83 See above, n. 45. 84 See above, n. 30. 85 Pesachim117b; Yad Eliahu (19th CE, Poland), Eruvin 79b. Religions 2017, 8, 126 10 of 16

This was said about a sugya in Tractate Hullin,75 where one of “Raba’s” statements was brought with the term “gufa” as part of a formative-stylistic structure of seven statements in the name of Raba.76 The methodical rule mentioned by the commentators above led to the following methodical rule cited subsequently: “And from this you shall learn—in any place that you shall find [the term] ‘gufa’, if it does not bring something new [with regard to the issue brought under the term ‘gufa’] then the [redactors’] intention is to group together all the laws [/or statements] said by [that sage who is] the speaker of the statement.”77 According to this commentator, it is possible to apply his interpretation to the sugya in Tractate Eruvin as well, and to say that the words of the sage [“Rabbah said”] brought for the third time in the sugya in Tractate Eruvin through the term “gufa”, although they constitute no innovation (Albeck 1969; Zur 2016a, p. 213, n. 10) (because they are in fact a verbal repetition of the words of “Rabbah said” mentioned previously in the second explanation), were nonetheless brought a third time— because these words (the third explanation) were preceded by two “Rabbah said” explanations. The redactors brought the words of “Rabbah said” again, a third time, through the term “gufa”, as a way of establishing a tripartite structure based on the identical name of “Rabbah said”. In another place in a certain sugya (“De amar Samuel lo shanu”),78 the expression “Samuel stated” (or “Samuel further stated”) appears three times in three statements in the name of the Amora Samuel (in a different order in the second and third statement).79 The linguistic lengthiness of the words of “Samuel stated” (or “Samuel further stated”) and the difficulties with regard to the three statements in the name of ”Samuel stated”, derive from the redactors’ decision to nonetheless establish a tripartite structure with the phrase “This was learnt only in respect of a … but … acquire possession”80 in the three statements in light of the identical name of “Samuel stated”.81 The methodology utilized in the redaction of a tripartite structure in light of the identical sage’s name is also used for a group of sages, as in the following example. A first statement brought in the name of “Elders of Pumbeditha” in a sugya (“Amar Rava hanei tartei milei”)82 led methodologically to the joining of two additional statements in the name of “Elders of Pumbeditha”83 with the same phrase “The following ruling also was given by the elders of Pumbeditha”,84 although the two last statements have no actual association with the first statement and no connection to matters of eruvin, all this as a methodology utilized by the redactors to establish a tripartite structure based on the identical names of the group of sages “Elders of Pumbeditha”. In fact, if the redactors had seen this specific text as a general place for gathering all the statements said in the name of “Elders of Pumbeditha”, they would have had to mention other instances as well.85 But they did not do so because their methodology was aimed at redacting only Religions 2017, 8, 126 11 of 16 three statements in a tripartite structure in light of the identical name of “Elders of Pumbeditha”.

(מאטריה שאינה מוכרחת) Inessential Material .2.5.2.4 The methodologymethodology of includingof including inessential inessential material material in the sugyot,in the resulting sugyot, from resulting the consideration from the ofconsideration establishing of a tripartiteestablishing structure, a tripartite can atstructure, times constitute can at times a general constitute explanation a general for explanation its existence for in someits existence sugyot. in some sugyot. In this type of methodology it is possible to discern a certain sugya (“Ve’amai, hu bemakom echad”) 86 that encompasses two explanations. The first and second explanations were not accepted 75 Hullin 46b-47a. as responses to the opening question “But why? Is not this a case where he87 is in one place and his 76 Sirilio (15th CE?, Spain), Kelalei Shmuel, 77, p. 33. ‘erub is in another?” due to the difficulties they entailed and, assumedly, they were inessential for the 77 Sirilio, ibid. text78 Eruvin and the 81b. redactors had no reason to bring them (or leave them) in the text. But they remained nonetheless79 (Zur 2016a, and p. 325, joined n. 11) the third explanation that was accepted as a response to the opening question. 80 SeeAll above, this, n. because 30. the methodology utilized by the redactors in adding the two explanations that were81 See not above, accepted n. 45. as responses, to the third explanation that was accepted, was to establish a tripartite structure82 Eruvin based79b-80a. on these three explanations since “the approach of the —[the Babylonian Talmud]83 See above, is different n. 45. [than that of the Yerushalmi Talmud].”88 84 SeeSimilarly, above, n. in30. another place, one of the examples (the third example) given on the issue of 85 Pesachim117b; Yad Eliahu (19th CE, Poland), Eruvin 79b. “a holding” (related to the matter of “an object that may be handled on the Sabbath the tenant imposes restrictions”) in a sugya (“Hechei damei tefissat yard”)89 is a general example that in fact also encompasses the two preceding individual examples of “a holding”. Therefore, the two first examples are inessential in the text and the two individual examples preceding the third general example were not necessary,90 as the redactors could have made do with the one general, third example, as it alone is cited in a parallel sugya in another place: “What is one to understand by a holding? [An] object that may not be handled on the Sabbath the tenant imposes no restrictions”.91 But from a methodological perspective, the two previous individual examples nevertheless remained in the text, although not essential, because the redactors did not make do with the one general example as they wished to establish a tripartite structure based on three examples of “a holding”. Similarly, three controversies between Rab and Samuel on various topics were brought in a sugya (“Gagin hashavin leR. Meir”),92 although they are not essential for the text due to the general difficulties involved in each. In the first controversy, there are doubts and uncertainty regarding Rab and Samuel’s halakhic rulings on the topic under discussion.93 The second controversy is unnecessary or fictitious (because Samuel concedes that the halakha is in agreement with that of Rab94 and he retracts his words,95 and thus there is in fact no controversy between Rab and Samuel). Concerning the third controversy, its place does not suit the topic discussed in the text96 (and according to the words of “R. Ah. a son of Raba” in the sugya, here too Samuel said that the halakha follows Rab and therefore there is in fact no third controversy between Rab and Samuel). Nonetheless, although these three controversies are not essential, they were brought in the text methodologically in order to establish a tripartite structure based on Rab and Samuel’s consistent halakhic approach: “Rab ruled: “It is permissible to move objects about throughout its area and Samuel ruled: Objects may be moved only within four cubits”.

86 Eruvin 34b–35a. 87 Epstein, The Babylonian Talmud, ‘Erubin, p. 236. n. 8: “The man for whom the ‘erub was prepared”. 88 A. Goldberg, The Mishna treatise Eruvin, Jerusalem 1986, p. 75. 89 Eruvin 85b–86a. 90 Shem Mi‘shimeon (19th CE?, Belarus), Eruvin 86a; Be‘er Itzchak , 21, p.43. 91 Alfassi Zuta (16th CE, Italy), Eruvin 86a. 92 Eruvin 90a–b. 93 (Zur 2016, pp. 345–47) 94 Eruvin 90b; Alfassi Zuta, Eruvin, p. 102. 95 Tosafot, Eruvin 43a, s.v. “Ki pligei”; Hidushei HaRashba (13th CE, Spain), Eruvin, p. 561. 96 R. Hananel b. Samuel (13th CE, Eygpt), Eruvin, p. 550 Religions 2017, 8, 126 11 of 16

In this type of methodology it is possible to discern a certain sugya (“Ve’amai, hu bemakom echad”)86 that encompasses two explanations. The first and second explanations were not accepted as responses to the opening question “But why? Is not this a case where he87 is in one place and his ‘erub is in another?” due to the difficulties they entailed and, assumedly, they were inessential for the text and the redactors had no reason to bring them (or leave them) in the text. But they remained nonetheless and joined the third explanation that was accepted as a response to the opening question. All this, because the methodology utilized by the redactors in adding the two explanations that were not accepted as responses, to the third explanation that was accepted, was to establish a tripartite structure based on these three explanations since “the approach of the Talmuds—[the Babylonian Talmud] is different [than that of the Yerushalmi Talmud].”88 Similarly, in another place, one of the examples (the third example) given on the issue of “a holding” (related to the matter of “an object that may be handled on the Sabbath the tenant imposes restrictions”) in a sugya (“Hechei damei tefissat yard”) 89 is a general example that in fact also encompasses the two preceding individual examples of “a holding”. Therefore, the two first examples are inessential in the text and the two individual examples preceding the third general example were not necessary,90 as the redactors could have made do with the one general, third example, as it alone is cited in a parallel sugya in another place: “What is one to understand by a holding? [An] object that may not be handled on the Sabbath the tenant imposes no restrictions”.91 But from a methodological perspective, the two previous individual examples nevertheless remained in the text, although not essential, because the redactors did not make do with the one general example as they wished to establish a tripartite structure based on three examples of “a holding”. Similarly, three controversies between Rab and Samuel on various topics were brought in a sugya (“Gagin hashavin leR. Meir”),92 although they are not essential for the text due to the general difficulties involved in each. In the first controversy, there are doubts and uncertainty regarding Rab and Samuel’s halakhic rulings on the topic under discussion.93 The second controversy is unnecessary or fictitious (because Samuel concedes that the halakha is in agreement with that of Rab94 and he retracts his words,95 and thus there is in fact no controversy between Rab and Samuel). Concerning the third controversy, its place does not suit the topic discussed in the text96 (and according to the words of “R. Aḥa son of Raba” in the sugya, here too Samuel said that the halakha follows Rab and therefore there is in fact no third controversy between Rab and Samuel). Nonetheless, although these three controversies are not essential, they were brought in the text methodologically in order to establish a tripartite structure based on Rab and Samuel’s consistent halakhic approach: “Rab ruled: “It is permissible to move objects about throughout its area and Religions 2017, 8, 126 12 of 16 Samuel ruled: Objects may be moved only within four cubits”.

(עריכה ייחודית) Unique Redaction .2.6.2.5 This methodology is interesting and pertains to the special phenomena that emerge in the sugyot in which itit is evident.evident. It is possible to to discern discern a a unique unique redaction redaction in in a acertain certain sugya sugya (“Amar (“Amar Rabbah Rabbah ki kihavenan havenan bei bei R. R.Huna”) Huna”)97 where97 where three three questions questions in the in name the name of Rabbah of Rabbah from from R. Huna R. Huna (“Rabbah (“Rabbah stated: stated: When When we were we were at R. Huna’s we raised the following question”) conclude with a double ending on the same issue at the end of each of the three instances of give-and-take. The double ending in the first question 86 Eruvin 34b–35a. is: “R. H. isda replied: [The mention of] one ‘memorial’ suffices for both. So also ruled Rabbah: 87 Epstein, The Babylonian Talmud, `Erubin, p. 236. n. 8: “The man for whom the `erub was prepared”. [The mention of] one ‘memorial’ is sufficient for both”.98 88 A. Goldberg, The Mishna treatise Eruvin, Jerusalem 1986, p. 75. The double ending in the second question is: “And the law is that the benediction on the season 89 Eruvin 85b–86a. is90 toShem be recited Mi`shimeon both (19th on the CE?, New Belarus), Year festivalEruvin 86a; and Be`er the DayItzchak of Atonement., 21, p.43. And the law, furthermore, 99 is91 thatAlfassi the Zuta benediction (16th CE, on Italy), the Eruvin season 86a. may be said even in the street”. 92 EruvinThe double90a–b. ending in the third question is: “In view of Mar Zut.ra’s exposition in the name of R.93 Huna(Zur 2016a, that thepp. halachah345–47) is that one fasting [on Sabbath eve] must complete the fast ... Mar Zut.ra made94 Eruvin the following90b; Alfassi exposition Zuta, Eruvin, in the p. 102. name of R. Huna: The halachah is [that those] fasting [on a Sabbath eve]95 Tosafot, must completeEruvin 43a, the s.v. fast”. “Ki pligei”;100 Hidushei HaRashba (13th CE, Spain), Eruvin, p. 561. 96 R.The Hananel methodology b. Samuel (13th utilized CE, byEygpt), the redactors Eruvin, p. in550 designing the double ending is unique and stems 97 Eruvin 40a–41b. from considerations of formative-stylistic uniformity aimed at establishing a tripartite structure based on these three questions. In another place, the redactors of the sugya (“R. Ya’akov veR. Zerika amru: Halachah”)101 presented three statements that each encompass three halakhic rules (aside from the third statement, in which the third rule is missing, and although its lack was presented as a difficulty in the sugya it may have originally existed) in a tripartite structure and in a “three of three” form.102 From a methodological perspective, the redactors established a tripartite structure with the unique “three of three” form, meaning that each of the three statements includes three halakhic rules (with the exception of one rule in the third statement, as stated). In another sugya (“Amar Rabbah ... : Kotel she’bein shtei hatzerot”)103 the redaction of three statements in the name of “R. Nah. man citing Rabbah b. Abbuha” (or “R. Nah. man further stated in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha”) in one place in the text constituted a unique methodology manifested in the establishment of a second tripartite structure immediately following the first tripartite structure in the same place. The consecutive first and second tripartite structures are intended to maintain the content sequence of the first tripartite structure. This although the first tripartite structure includes a certain statement in the name of an Amora from a later period (Abaye) than the sage’s name (“R. Nah. man further stated in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha”) that appears in the second tripartite structure that preceded Abaye chronologically.104 The unique methodology utilized by the redactors in this case was the priority given to establishing a second tripartite structure in the name of “R. Nah. man further stated in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha” and maintaining a continuity and consistency in the identity of the more ancient sage’s name within the second tripartite structure, over maintaining the chronological order, manifested in bringing the statement of Abaye before that of the older sage (“R. Nah. man further stated in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha”)—even if this created chronological disorder.

97 Eruvin 40a–41b. 98 Ibid. 40b. 99 Ibid. 100 Ibid. 41b. 101 Eruvin 46b. 102 (Friedman 1978, pp. 42–43); (Zur 2015) 103 Eruvin 77a-b. 104 (Zur 2013) Religions 2017, 8, 126 13 of 16

In other words, the redactors gave preference to the redaction of a second tripartite structure based on the name of a sage from an earlier period, although his words are arranged in the text after the statement of a later sage, over maintaining the chronological order—of arranging statements in the name of Amoraim by their chronological period (as stated, bringing the words of the later Abaye before the words of “R. Nah. man further stated in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha” who preceded Abaye in time). As a consequence, the second tripartite structure (“Ve’amar R. Nahman: Sulam sheshlivotav porchot”)105 comes in addition and after the first tripartite structure that appears previously106 in the same text, with the unique methodology utilized by the redactors being the establishment of a double tripartite structure or one with a “three after three” form. In another matter that deals with a comparison between a give-and-take in a sugya (“Amar R. Yochanan: Halon ‘Agol”)from Tractate Eruvin107 and a similar give-and-take from Tractate Sukkah,108 it appears that three difficulties in the give-and-take in Tractate Eruvin are a later addition brought from Tractate Sukkah (Aminoah 1988). The unique methodology utilized in transferring these three difficulties from Tractate Sukkah to Tractate Eruvin is aimed at identifying a tripartite structure in the give-and-take that notes 109 those “manners of calculation”. This is in regard to the statement of R. Joh. anan in Eruvin by later redactors who transferred those “manners of calculation” from the give-and-take concerning “Sukkah [round shape] like a furnace” from Tractate Sukkah to Tractate Eruvin and “in a talmudic style of give-and-take”,110 in order to establish a tripartite structure based on these three difficulties. Another sugya (“Rabina sar sakina bebavel”)111 portrays the special methodological phenomenon of chaining between three stories (Zur 2016). The chaining is manifested in different features that link one story to the other or the similarity between these features in the first and second story (for example, the name of Rabina and checking the knife) and in the second and third story (random arrival in a certain place—“once visited”, checking the knife, and use of the phrase “Raba said: A young scholar may examine his own knife”) through repetition (Rivlin 1978) of some of these features or the existence of the same features in the three stories. This unique chaining methodology unites the three stories as having a formative-stylistic connection and together they form a tripartite structure. A final example that can be noted is the redaction of three rulings (“halachah” or “custom” or “the public act”)112 that are parallel (Aminoah 1986) (or have a level of validity graded from the most strict—“halachah” to the most lenient—“the public act”),113 brought in the sugya (“Amar R. Yehudah amar Samuel: Halachah keR. Eliezer b. Ya’akov”) as a unique methodology utilized for the establishment of a tripartite structure aimed at indicating that in each case (whether “halachah” or “custom” or “the public act”) the ruling must follow the opinion of the sage mentioned through all these three terms, in the sugya discussed here where the ruling followed R. Eliezer b. Jacob who contradicts R. Meir. The unique methodology utilized by the redactors was the use of a technique that in this case was intended to prevent the possibility that the halakhic ruling would follow the other sage—R. Meir, as could have happened if the redactors had not used this unique methodology—because R. Meir is a sage ranked higher than the sage with whom the redactors sided halakhically—R. Eliezer b. Jacob,

105 Eruvin 77b–78a. 106 Eruvin 77a–b. 107 Eruvin 76a–b. 108 Sukkah 7b–8b. 109 Ibid., p. 176. 110 Ibid. 111 Eruvin 63a. 112 Eruvin 62b. 113 Rashi, Eruvin 62b, s.v. “Halachah”. Religions 2017, 8, 126 14 of 16 and the redactors used this unique methodology to prevent the possibility that halakha would follow the more senior sage—R. Meir (Zur 2007). Notably, in this sugya, the combination of the three terms (“halachah” or “custom” or “the public act”) indeed influenced the adjudicators (Poskim) to rule following the opinion of R. Eliezer b. Jacob. But in two other sugyot114 this technique was not effective for different reasons.115

3. Conclusions Tractate Eruvin includes forty sugyot that utilize a proven tripartite structure, while other sugyot in the tractate have a visible tripartite structure that cannot be proven. In other words, the tripartite structure in the latter sugyot is externally evident, for instance in the following example from Eruvin 14a-b: 1. “R. Hiyya taught: The sea that Solomon made... but consider: How much is the ritual bath”; 2. “The sea that Solomon made . . . but consider: By how much does a square exceed that of a circle”; 3. ”Rami b. Ezekiel learned that the sea that Solomon made ... now how much is a bath”. The words used in the sugya emphasize the recurring similarities, but methodically this format finds no support in different versions, in the commentaries or in scholarly research. Research on the tripartite structure in Tractate Eruvin is not unique, and this tractate was chosen without specific concern for the occurrence of the tripartite structure specifically there as opposed to other tractates— it was simply selected as a choice of what to analyze. No similar research has been systematically carried out in entire tractates, with the exception of Tractate Eruvin, and only selected chapters have been subjected to such inquiries. In this respect, research of the tripartite structure could focus on other tractates as well. This would make it possible to examine the prevalence of the tripartite structure in other tractates in comparison to Tractate Eruvin and to check whether the phenomenon of the tripartite structure in Tractate Eruvin has different features than in other tractates. In this paper, we presented six methodological routes to redact the tripartite structure in sugyot from Tractate Eruvin in the Babylonian Talmud. The first part deals with the methodology of distinction and separation, and it includes various examples of this method with regard to difficulties and replies, statements or problems, proofs and tannaitic sources. The second part deals with the methodology of avoiding redaction of potential material that could have been included in the sugyot but for which the redactors refrained from including it for various reasons. This method is demonstrated by refraining from including in the sugya difficulties and replies, controversies, various additions, premises or possibilities, discussions of halakhic rules, and noting significant differences. The third part deals with the methodology of language and style. In this method, we offered various examples pertaining to linguistic issues, such as linguistic glosses, identical form and language, formative-stylistic design of the language, identical or shared phrases, and linguistic balance. The fourth part deals with the methodology of sages’ identical names. In this method, we presented various examples that refer to the identical name of the sage and one example that refers to the identical name of a group of sages. The fifth part deals with inessential material in the sugyot. We demonstrated this method by presenting examples that are not essential as well as possibilities and controversies that are not essential. The sixth part deals with the methodology of the unique redaction in sugyot. This method is demonstrated by a double ending, the “three of three” style, a double or “three after three” tripartite structure, transferring the same “manners of calculation” from a sugya in Tractate Sukkah to a sugya in Tractate Eruvin, the chaining of components that link three stories, and the redaction of three

114 Eruvin 72a; Ta‘anith 26b. 115 Zur, ibid. Religions 2017, 8, 126 15 of 16 parallel rulings or rulings that have a graded significance, in order to ensure that the ruling follows a certain sage. Notably, other methodological techniques are also used in the redaction of sugyot in Tractate Eruvin, as well as various examples that illustrate these techniques. There are also varied phenomena in the sugyot of Tractate Eruvin that should be explored and studied.

References

Albeck, Chanoch. 1969. Introduction to the Talmud, Babli and Yerushalmi. Tel Aviv: Devîr, p. 656. Aminoah, Noah. 1986. The Redaction of the Tractate Betza Rosh-HaShana and Ta‘anith in the Babylonian Talmud. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, p. 309. Aminoah, Noah. 1988. The Redaction of the Tractate Sukkah and -Katan in the Babylonian Talmud. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, pp. 175–76. Brooks, Roger, and Joseph M. Davis. 1983. Abraham Weiss as Exegete and Text Critic, The Case of b. Berakot 35a. Semeia 27: 105–16. Cohen, Aryeh. 1998. Rereading Talmud: Gender, Law and the Poetics of Sugyot. Atlanta: Scholars Press, Brown Judaic Studies, pp. 25–33. Epstein, Jacob Nachum. 1957. Introduction to Tannaitic Literature. Tel Aviv: Magnes, Devir, p. 302. Friedman, Shamma. 1978. A Critical Study of Yevamot X with a Methodological Introduction. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America. Friedman, Shamma. 1997. Some structural patterns of Talmudic sugiot. Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies 3: 389–402. Friedman, Shamma. 2010. Talmudic Studies, Investigation the Sugya, Variant Readings and Aggada. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, p. 10. HaLevi, Yeshu‘a. 1970. Halichot Olam, 3rd ed. Jerusalem: Shilo Press, p. 31. HaLivni, David. 1982. Sources and Traditions: A Source Critical Commentary on the Talmud Tractates Erubin and Pesah. im. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America. Hauptman, J. 2000. be‘massechet Eruvin—Mi‘telut hevratit le‘atzmaut hukit. Mada‘ei Ha‘yahadut 40: 152. Hyman, Aaron. 1964. Toledot Tannaim ve‘Amoraim. Jerusalem: Kirya Ne‘emanah, vol. III, p. 1232. Jacobs, Louis. 1961. Studies in Talmudic Logic and Methodology. London: Vallentine Mitchell, p. 67. Jacobs, L. 1983. The Numbered Sequence as a Literary Device in the Talmudic Babylonian. In Hebrew Annual Review. Edited by Ahroni. Colombus Reuben: Division of and Literature, vol. VII, pp. 138–42. Kraemer, David Charles. 1984. Stylistic Characteristic of Amoraic Literature. Ph.D. Dissertation, The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, New York, NY, USA; p. 308. Lieberman, S. 1962. Tosefta Ki-Fshu.ta. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America New York, vol. III. Melamed, Ezra Zion. 1962. Nossach mispar u-mishkal be-massechet Avot. Sinai 50: 157–61. Nádor, G. 1962. Some Numerical Categories in Ancient Rabbinical Literature: The Numbers Ten, Seven and Four. Acta Orientalia (Budapest). 14: 301–15. Newman, L. 1983. The Work of David Weiss Halivni, A Source-Critical Commentary to b. Yebamot 87b. Semeia 27: 93–101. M. H. Pope. 1962. Number, Numbering, Numbers. In The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by George Arthur Buttrick. New York: Abingdon Press, vol. 3, p. 564. Rivlin, Asher Aliezer. 1978. Munachon Le‘sifrut. Tel Aviv: Ha‘kibbutz Ha‘Artzi, p. 64. Sirilio, S. 1972. Kelalei Shmuel, Simcha Bunem David Soefer edition. Jerusalem: Divrei Sofrim, p. 127. Valler, S. 1995. The Number Fourteen as a Literary Device in the Babylonian Talmud. Journal for the Study of 26: 169–84. [CrossRef] Valler, S. 1999. Women and Womanhood in the Talmud. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Valler, S. 2003. Women‘s talk-men‘s talk Babylonian Talmud Erubin 53a-54a. Revue des Études Juives 162: 421–45. [CrossRef] Valler, S., and S. Ratzabi. 2007. Sichot Hullin ba‘Talmud ha‘Bavli. Tel Aviv: ‘Am ‘Oved, p. 125. Weiss, A. 1929. Le‘korot Hithavut Ha‘bavli. Jerusalem: Makor, p. 56, n. 5. Religions 2017, 8, 126 16 of 16

Weiss, A. 1962. Studies in the Literature of the Amoraim. New York: Shulzinger Bros. Linotyping &Publishing Co, pp. 202–4. Wünsche, A. 1911. Die Zahlensprüche in Talmud und Midrasch. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 65: 66–100. Zur, Uri. 1999. Orr Israel, Sugyot in Tractate Eruvin. Lod: The Habermann Institute for Literary Research. Zur, Uri. 2000. ‘Al ha‘mivneh ha‘meshulash be‘sugyot ha‘bavli. Te‘udah 16–17: 255–73. Zur, Uri. 2007. Hatzeruf ‘Halacha‘, Minhag‘, ‘Nahagu Ha‘am‘ kederech le‘kvi‘at Halach. Sha‘anan 12: 83–110. Zur, Uri. 2013. Mivneh meshulash kaful be‘sugya achat be‘bavli ‘eruvin (77a–78a). Sha‘anan 19: 77–88. Zur, Uri. 2015. ‘Eitzuv kelalei halachah be‘mivneh meshulash ba‘Talmud ha‘bavli. Netu‘eim 19: 122–30. Zur, Uri. 2016. The Tripartite Structure of the Sugyot: Studies in Tractate Eruvin of the Babylonaian Talmud. New York: Ariel University Press, Ariel, Israel & David Publishing Company. Zur, Uri. 2016. Chaining as a Structuring Means of the Sugya in the Bavli. Revue des Études Juives 175: 415–23.

© 2017 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).