Mishnah and Tosefta a Compar
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
of CbicaQo Kiibraries MISHNAH AND TOSEFTA PART I SHABBAT By BOAZ COHEN, Ph.D. Instructor in Talmud at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America NEW YORK Jewish Theological Seminary of America 1935 Copyright, 1935, by BOAZ COHEN, New York, N. Y. f; -- . 21st New York, N. Y. Posy-Shoulson Press, 19 W. St., M4 1156585 To the Sacred Memory of My Father TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE I-III INTRODUCTION: 3-25 Chapter I, Mishnah Chapter II, Baraita 26-36 Chapter III, Tosefta 37-65 ANALYSIS OF MISHNAH AND TOSEFTA SHABBAT: Chapter I 66-73 Chapter II 74-79 Chapter III 80-85 Chapter IV 86 Chapter V 87 Chapter VI 88-91 Chapter VII . 92-95 Chapter VIII 96-97 Chapter IX 98-102 Chapter X 103-107 Chapter XI 108-109 Chapter XII 110-113 Chapter XIII 114-115 Chapter XIV 116-117 Chapter XV 118-119 Chapter XVI 120-122 Chapter XVII 123-125 Chapter XVIII 126-127 Chapter XIX 128-134 Chapter XX 135-137 Chapter XXI 138 Chapter XXII 139-141 Chapter XXIII 142-144 Chapter XXIV 145-146 PREFACE In the following we are presenting a critical analysis of the Mishnah and Tosefta of Shabbat with comments mostly upon such passages, where something new could be offered. Though many theories have been propounded and much valuable material in the way of statistical data has been collected to explain the genesis and nature of the Tosefta, still many points in connection with this compen' dium are in need of clarification. The difficulties that beset a student of the literary questions of the Tosefta are increased by the fact that some of the problems are so intertwined, that a simple but exhaustive tabulation of data in connection with single points drawn from the entire Tosefta, are inadequate for a full comprehension of the problem. Thus the question of sequence of paragraphs in the Tosefta cannot be disposed of by a simple comparison with that of the order of state' ments in the Mishnah. In many instances where a superficial examination of the parallel chapters in the Mishnah and Tosefta, will reveal a deviation in sequence in the Tosefta, an analysis of the Tosefta passages in question will disclose their composite origin, and force one to other conclusions. It is true that it has been frequently assumed that the Tosefta is interwoven with elements of a different character and origin, but there is still lacking a critical analysis of the structure of individual treatises of the Tosefta, with due regard to its relation to the Mishnah. Some of the difficulties in studying the literary problems of the Tosefta, are not peculiar to this book, but apply to the other Tannaitic collections as well, and for this reason we have made some introductory remarks concerning the Mishnah and the Baraita. VII As for the Mishnah, we have given a general view of its development. In the course of our succint survey we have offered a new interpretation of the oft quoted passage, Tosefta Eduyot I.I, and subjected to a new scrutiny, the much debated remark 1'No "i PJVJWD ono which is pivotal for the understanding of the authorship of various Tannaitic collections. An analysis of the structure of the Mishnah of Baba Kamma was given as an illustration of the fact that the treatise is the result of the combination of various sources. The discussion of the baraita was limited to those extra' Mishnaic collections made during Rabbi Judah's lifetime and shortly thereafter, attention being called to the fact that the homage paid to R. Hiyya by the latter Amoraim was not unanimous. The role played by the baraita in standard' ising religious practice was also pointed out. In regard to the Tosefta, we have arrived at the conclusion that it was first compiled by the 01 JTQ . The Tosefta is a compilation gathered from various sources of different dates, but did not exist in collected form before taken in hand by the Bet Rabbi. Its purpose was to be a companion volume to the Mishnah constructed according to the same plan and composed to some extent from the same materials. The numerous discrepancies in sequence between the Mishnah and Tosefta that obtrude themselves upon the reader's notice are due to the differences in origin of the materials of the two parallel compendia. The Tosefta, being one of the disciplines of study, was perhaps known to the Babylonian and Palestinian Amoraim, but they were not thoroughly conversant with it, hence we find questions in the Talmud unanswered, although the Tosefta actually contains explicit information apropos those inquiries. The Tosefta was compiled in Palestine, as the greater number of passages agreeing with the baraitot in the Yerushalmi indicate, but changes and insertions were made in Babylonia. In the three introductory chapters, the writer has em' bodied some of the observations he has made in the course of a critical study of twelve treatises of the Mishna and Tosefta, which he intends to publish elsewhere. VIII In conclusion, it is a great pleasure to be able to express my gratitude to Professor Louis Ginsberg whom I owe more than I can say. He first excited my interest in the literary problems of the Tannaitic compositions, and was most lavish in giving of his unrivalled erudition. He enriched my work with many keen observations and penetrating criticisms which are mostly found at the end of the book. I am be- holden also to Professor Alexander Marx, who has given me the benefit of his good judgment and thorough compre- hension of the problems of literary criticism. He has graciously called my attention to a number of points which I otherwise would have overlooked. IX MISHNAH AND TOSEFTA A Comparative Study CHAPTER I MISHNAH Ever since the time of Krochmal the literary problems of Tannaitic literature have been investigated in a critical and scientific manner by many scholars. Great progress has been made towards the understanding of the formation, development and purpose of the various Tannaitic compendia, nevertheless some matters still remain obscure, and perhaps will always remain so. It is extremely difficult for a modern student who is mainly accustomed to acquire knowledge from written sources to comprehend adequately the problem of learn- ing confronting the ancients who chiefly derived their information 1 orally. The earlier Tannaitic digests of law, such as the Mishnah of R. Akiba, or that of his disciples have not come down to us in their original form. The Tosefta, though it contains elements that antedate the Mishnah, was redacted somewhat later. In order to determine what is the structure, arrangement, and relation of these compilations to one another, it would be necessary to have a clear notion of the composition of these various precis of halakah. At present, it is well-nigh impossible to reconstruct the Mishnah of R. Akiba or that of his disciples, on the basis of their extant sayings, because we do not know their original context. We have few and faint clues to guide us towards a sure understanding of the form and content of the pre-Mishnaic summaries of Jewish tradition. Precise and certain principles are lacking by which one can determine the extent to which the present Mishnah has been compiled, and to what degree It has been edited by R. Judah ha-Nasi. Perhaps it may not be amiss to summarize briefly the present state of knowledge concerning the genesis, evolution, and design of the Mishnah. Alongside of the Pentateuch, which was the ultimate authority for Jewish life and ritual, there grew up during the Second 1. On the question whether the Mishnah was written, cf. Strack, Einleitung in den Talmud, 5th ed., p. 9-16; Weiss, Dor, III, 2, n. 1. On the preference of oral to written teaching, cf. J. Q. R., Ill, 296, note 2. 4 MlSHNAH AND TOSEFTA SHABBAT 2 Commonwealth a body of law, later known as the oral tradition. It consisted partly of interpretations of Scripture known as Midrash, made by the Q'JPt, the elders, and the dnmD who functioned as judges; of laws originally written, but for some reason not incor- porated in the Pentateuch, cf. Neh. 8:14-15; of customs that germinate spontaneously in every community where there is social intercourse, and finally of legislative enactments (nupn), which come 3 into being to remedy prevailing abuses or to meet new conditions. It need not be supposed that during the epoch of the Soferim the immense accretion of Jewish law and ritual was all trans- mitted orally .* We know that the Sadducees had a written code called 5 KJ1VT3 1BD. Incidentally, it may be remarked that the Sadducees only objected to the oral law of the Pharisees and not to all the 6 unwritten tradition, as Josephus would have us believe, as may be Inferred from the fact that they observed customs not implied in Scripture. 7 Temple manuals were undoubtedly in circulation for the use of priests to guide them thru the intricacies of ceremony; handbooks 8 of procedure and transcripts of court decisions for the benefit of the judges were also set down in writing. Due to economic, social, political and religious causes, diver- gencies in practice and doctrine had become a significant feature in Jewish life before the beginning of the common era, and these differences are amply reflected in the disagreements between the 9 schools of Hillel and Shammai. Consequently a formulation of 1 2. The expression MB ?W^ iTltfl, (Weiss, Dor, I n. ; Lerner, Hoffmann Festschrift, p. 317-8)' as well as the phrase 3FO3 iOt? min (Ginzberg, Ginze Schechte-, I, 21 n.