Yerushalmi Berakhot the Talmud of the Land of Israel Tractate
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Yerushalmi Berakhot The Talmud of the Land of Israel Tractate Blessings Translation, commentary, analytical outline, categories, synopsis and summary by Rabbi Dr. Tzvee Zahavy © 2010 Contents Preface .......................................................................................... 3 Introduction to Berakhot ............................................................... 8 Yerushalmi Berakhot Chapter One .............................................. 12 Yerushalmi Berakhot Chapter Two .............................................. 72 Yerushalmi Berakhot Chapter Three .......................................... 121 Yerushalmi Berakhot Chapter Four ............................................ 159 Yerushalmi Berakhot Chapter Five ............................................. 201 Yerushalmi Berakhot Chapter Six .............................................. 230 Yerushalmi Berakhot Chapter Seven .......................................... 262 Yerushalmi Berakhot Chapter Eight ........................................... 289 Yerushalmi Berakhot Chapter Nine ............................................ 316 Analytical Outline of Yerushalmi Berakhot ................................ 365 Categories of the Units of the Tractate ................................................ 366 Synopsis of the organization of the tractate's units ............................ 367 Summary of the Tractate's Units ......................................................... 395 2 Preface This book makes available the first English translation in the past one hundred years of Berakhot, the opening tractate of the Talmud of the Land of Israel (Yerushalmi, Palestinian Talmud), composed in the Land of Israel at the beginning of the fifth century C.E. I call this translation preliminary because the state of scholarship on Yerushalmi texts is still at an early stage. The lack of lexicographic, philological, and text-critical tools for these texts necessitates that I qualify and label provisional any effort at systematic work of history, history of religion, or translation based on the texts of Yerushalmi. Fortunately, this translation is somewhat less preliminary than that of other tractates in this series, because modern scholars, such as A. M. Luncz (Talmud Hierosolymitanum [Jerusalem, 1907]) and L. Ginzberg (A Commentary on the Palestinian Talmud, [1941: reprint New York, 1971]), have produced some published critical textual and analytical scholarship on Berakhot. I based my translation on the texts of the standard printed editions and not on either a manuscript or critical edition. Nevertheless, I used and found helpful the critical apparatus of A. M. Luncz in Talmud Hierosolymitanum, (Jerusalem, 1907). I also compared the standard printed text directly with the editio princeps of Daniel Bomberg (Venice, 1523), and with the Leiden manuscript, The Palestinian Talmud Leiden MS. Cod. Scal. 3.: A Facsimile of the Original Manuscript (reprint Jerusalem: Kedem Publishers, 1970). I checked the text further against Palestinian Talmud Codex Vatican 133. (reprint Jerusalem: Makor, 1971), and Yerushalmi Fragments from the Geniza. I., edited by L. Ginzberg (New York, 1909, reprint Jerusalem, 1969). Other works also served as assets in my task. Schwab’s now century-old translation of the tractate first into French and then into English (Le Talmud de Jerusalem (reprint Paris, 1960); The Talmud of Jerusalem, first edition 1886 (reprint New York, 1969), formed an important basis for my efforts despite the errors and imperfections of that early rendition. I also made use of Charles Horowitz’s German translation Der Jerusalemer Talmud in deutscher Ubersetzung Band I Berakhoth (Tubingen, 1975). Among the numerous manuscript variants and traditions discovered in my comparisons of the versions, I have found very few 3 places in the tractate where a divergent reading changes the meaning of a passage. I included these few instances in my translated text, indicating the source of the variant (R=Vatican [Rome], L=Leiden, V=Venice). In piecing together my interpretation, I consulted many secondary works and commentaries, including the following: Sde Yehoshua, commentary and edition of Y. Benvenisti (Constantinople, 1662; reprint Jerusalem, 1972); the commentary of Z. Frankel (reprint 1971); of S. Ginzberg (1941); of S. Goren, HaYerushalmi HaMeforash (Jerusalem, 1961); of Y. Tamar, Ale Tamar (Givataim, 1979), as well as the standard commentaries found in the printed editions of the tractate, such as Pene Moshe and Sefer Haredim. These commentaries were most valuable for explaining the meaning and background of the legal materials in the text, for explicating the larger context of specific laws and discussions, and for providing rich cross references to other parallel or related units in Yerushalmi or elsewhere in rabbinic literature. Throughout the translation I have used Moses Margolies’s commentary Pene Moshe more frequently than any other secondary source to help explain the meaning of technical, elliptical, or complex discussions. An unattributed explanation in my translation usually rests on the insights of Pene Moshe. Where I rely on the viewpoint of another commentator, who disagrees with or goes beyond Pene Moshe in his interpretation, I so specify in the translation. I have added my own brief commentary to my translation of Yerushalmi Berakhot. At the end of each section of Talmud, before turning to the next Mishnah selection, I review and summarize the redactional flow of the material just covered and specify the relationship of the preceding Talmudic units of discourse to the concerns of the relevant Mishnah passage. I hope this effort helps bring into focus more sharply the redactional agendum of the editors of the tractate. Though I strove to convey the original form and meaning of the text through the translation, and though I based the translation on the major classical commentaries, the framers of the Talmud never conceived nor intended that their books be perused casually in translation. I emphasize strongly that, to fully appreciate the linguistic forms and to comprehend the many nuances of meaning of this complex and elusive text, one must study it in its original along with the numerous creative and comprehensive standard commentaries. 4 A complete bibliography of manuscripts, editions, commentaries, and scholarly works may be found in Baruch Bokser’s “Annotated Bibliographical Guide to the Study of the Palestinian Talmud,” in Principat (ANRW II. 19.2), edited by Wolfgang Hesse (Berlin and New York, 1979). Recent scholarship establishes the basic underpinnings of the present translation. My own most relevant work includes: The Mishnaic Law of Blessings and Prayers: Tractate Berakhot. Brown Judaic Studies 88. Atlanta, 1987. Studies in Early Jewish Prayer. Studies in Judaism. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, forthcoming. Especially see the chapters, “The Editorial Structure of the Talmud of the Land of Israel Tractate Berakhot,” and “The Synagogue in Mishnah, Tosefta and Yerushalmi.” "A New Approach to Early Jewish Prayer.” In History of Judaism: The Next Ten Years. Edited by B. Bokser. Brown Judaic Studies 21. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980. "Sources for the Seasonal Ritual in the Third through Fifth Centuries.” In Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies. Jerusalem, 1986. "Kavvanah for Prayer in the Mishnah and the Talmud.” Chapter 3 of New Perspectives on Ancient Judaism. Edited by J. Neusner. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1987. "Tosefta Tractate Berakhot.” In The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew. First Division. Zera’im. Edited by J. Neusner. New York, 1986. The theory of the present translation follows that of the series as a whole. I strive to adhere closely to the text so that the reader has a sense of the structure and balance of the original. Yet at the same time I try to convey the flow of the legal arguments and debates, the dramatic unfolding of events in stories, and the sensitivities to words and language in the exegetical texts. My aim is to facilitate a smooth conversation between readers and the text so that, without consulting the original Hebrew and Aramaic version, they can appreciate the substantive meaning and recognize some major aspects of the style of the Talmudic text. 5 With this goal in mind, this English translation is molded in many ways by the complex literary style of the document itself. Some characteristics of the Talmud in particular required that I employ distinctive techniques in my translation to allow me to be literal in my rendering of the text, to avoid having to paraphrase throughout, and yet to maintain a high level of intelligibility for the English reader. Several distinctive aspects of my translation contribute to making it more of a colloquy. The text is stylized, as I have indicated above, and sometimes terse to an extreme in its style of expression. Accordingly, I interpolate a fair amount of explanatory language into my translation to make it more comprehensible. This additional explication helps me unpack the laconic linguistic style of the document. By adding explanation within the translation I also expand upon the progression of ideas, clarify the arguments of the Talmud, define unfamiliar materials, and generally elucidate the meaning of the text. When adding my own language within the translation, to make it clear where the words of the Talmud end and where my explanations begin, I set off my additional interpolations with brackets, rather than allowing them to stand